Detection of recurrence in early stage endometrial cancer – the role of symptoms and routine follow-up

References

• Lajer H, Jensen MB, Kilsmark J, et al. The value of gynecologic cancer follow-up: evidence-based ignorance? Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2010;20:1307–1320.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fung-Kee-Fung M, Dodge J, Elit L, et al. Follow-up after primary therapy for endometrial cancer: a systematic review. Gynecol Oncol. 2006;101:520–529.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ueda Y, Enomoto T, Egawa-Takata T, et al. Endometrial carcinoma: better prognosis for asymptomatic recurrences than for symptomatic cases found by routine follow-up. Int J Clin Oncol. 2010;15:406–412.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carrara L, Gadducci A, Landoni F, et al. Could different follow-up modalities play a role in the diagnosis of asymptomatic endometrial cancer relapses?: an Italian multicentric retrospective analysis. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2012;22:1013–1019.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Balasubramaniam K, Ravn P, Larsen PV, et al. Specific and unspecific gynecological alarm symptoms–prevalence estimates in different age groups: a population-based study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2015;94:191–197.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whitaker KL, Macleod U, Winstanley K, et al. Help seeking for cancer ‘alarm’ symptoms: a qualitative interview study of primary care patients in the UK. Br J Gen Pract J R Coll Gen Pract. 2015; 65:e96–e105.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jeppesen MM, Jensen PT, Hansen DG, etet al. The nature of early-stage endometrial cancer recurrence: a national cohort study. Nat Early-Stage Endometrial Cancer Recurrence. 2016;69:51–60.
   Google Scholar
• Juhl CS, Hansen ES, Høgdall CK, et al. Valid and complete data on endometrial cancer in the Danish Gynaecological Cancer Database. Dan Med J. 2014;61:A4864.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Erichsen R, Lash TL, Hamilton-Dutoit SJ, et al. Existing data sources for clinical epidemiology: the Danish National Pathology Registry and Data Bank. Clin Epidemiol. 2010;2:51–56.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lynge E, Sandegaard JL, Rebolj M. The Danish National Patient Register. Scand J Public Health. 2011;39:30–33.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thygesen LC, Daasnes C, Thaulow I, et al. Introduction to Danish (nationwide) registers on health and social issues: structure, access, legislation, and archiving. Scand J Public Health. 2011;39:12–16.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thygesen SK, Christiansen CF, Christensen S, et al. The predictive value of ICD-10 diagnostic coding used to assess Charlson comorbidity index conditions in the population-based Danish National Registry of Patients. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011;11:83.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, et al. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40:373–383.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Danish guidelines for the management of endometrial cancer (translated) [Internet]. Denmark: Danish Gynecological Cancer Group; 2009 Dec 8 [cited 2016 Sep 27]. Available from: http://dgcg.dk/images/retningslinier/Corpuscancer/Endometriecancer_2010-jan.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Agboola OO, Grunfeld E, Coyle D, et al. Costs and benefits of routine follow-up after curative treatment for endometrial cancer. CMAJ Can Med Assoc J. 1997;157:879–886.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berchuck A, Anspach C, Evans AC, et al. Postsurgical surveillance of patients with FIGO stage I/II endometrial adenocarcinoma. Gynecol Oncol. 1995;59:20–24.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gadducci A, Cosio S, Fanucchi A, et al. An intensive follow-up does not change survival of patients with clinical stage I endometrial cancer. Anticancer Res. 2000;20:1977–1984.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gordon AF, Owen P, Chien PF, et al. A critical evaluation of follow-up of women treated for endometrial adenocarcinoma. J Obstet Gynaecol/ J Inst Obstet Gynaecol. 1997;17:386–389.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sartori E, Pasinetti B, Carrara L, et al. Pattern of failure and value of follow-up procedures in endometrial and cervical cancer patients. Gynecol Oncol. 2007;107:S241–S247.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith CJ, Heeren M, Nicklin JL, et al. Efficacy of routine follow-up in patients with recurrent uterine cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2007;107:124–129.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shumsky AG, Stuart GCE, Brasher PM, et al. An evaluation of routine follow-up of patients treated for endometrial carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol. 1994;55:229–233.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duffy SW, Nagtegaal ID, Wallis M, et al. Correcting for lead time and length bias in estimating the effect of screen detection on cancer survival. Am J Epidemiol. 2008;168:98–104.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pagano E, Sobrero S, Cavallero C, et al. Economic considerations on the follow-up practice in gynecologic cancers: few lights and many shadows from a literature review. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2015;25:1144–1150.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Balasubramaniam K, Ravn P, dePont Christensen R, et al. Gynecological cancer alarm symptoms: is contact with specialist care associated with lifestyle and socioeconomic status? A population-based study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2016;95:976–983.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robinson KM, Christensen KB, Ottesen B, et al. Socio-demographic factors, comorbidity and diagnostic delay among women diagnosed with cervical, endometrial or ovarian cancer. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2011;20:653–661.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dalton SO, Steding-Jessen M, Gislum M, et al. Social inequality and incidence of and survival from cancer in a population-based study in Denmark, 1994-2003: background, aims, material and methods. Eur J Cancer. 2008;44:1938–1949.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woods LM, Rachet B, Coleman MP. Origins of socio-economic inequalities in cancer survival: a review. Ann Oncol. 2006;17:5–19.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Booth CM, Li G, Zhang-Salomons J, et al. The impact of socioeconomic status on stage of cancer at diagnosis and survival: a population-based study in Ontario, Canada. Cancer. 2010;116:4160–4167.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Danish Health and Medicines Authority. Follow-up for gynecologic cancer (translated). Denmark; 2015 Oct 26.
   Google Scholar