Economic evaluations of follow-up strategies for cancer survivors: a systematic review and quality appraisal of the literature

References

• Lewis RA, Neal RD, Williams NH, et al. Follow-up of cancer in primary care versus secondary care: systematic review. Br J Gen Pract 2009;e234-47
   Google Scholar
• Dickinson R, Hall S, Sinclair JE, et al. Using technology to deliver cancer follow-up: a systematic review. BMC Cancer 2014;311(14):1-16
   Google Scholar
• Jeffery M, Hickey BE, Hider PN. Follow-up strategies for patients treated for non-metastatic colorectal cancer (Review). Cochrane Libr 2007;1:1-37
   Google Scholar
• Pita-Fernandez S, Alhayek-Ai M, Gonzalez-Martin C, et al. Intensive follow-up strategies improve outcomes in nonmetastatic colorectal cancer patients after curative surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Oncol 2014;00:1-12
   Google Scholar
• Digonnet A, Hamoir M, Andry G, et al. Post-therapeutic surveillance strategies in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2013;270:1569-80
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nama V, Nordin A, Bryant A. Patient-reported outcome measures for follow-up after gynecological cancer treatment (Review). Cochrane Libr 2013;11:1-15
   Google Scholar
• Robertson C, Arcot Ragupathy SK, Boachie C, et al. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different surveillance mammography regimens after the treatment for primary breast cancer: systematic reviews, registry database analyses and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 2011;34(15):1-6
   Google Scholar
• Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev 2015;4(1):1-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, et al. Consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards (CHEERS) explanation and elaboration: a report of the ISPOR health economic evaluation publication guidelines good reporting practices task force. Value Health 2013;16:231-50
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gordon LG, Rowell D. Health system costs of skin cancer and cost-effectiveness of skin cancer prevention and screening: a systematic review. Eur J Cancer Prev 2015;24:141-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maru S, Byrnes J, Carrington MJ, et al. Systematic review of trial-based analyses reporting the economic impact of heart failure management programs compared with usual care. Eur J Cardio Nur 2014;1-9
   Google Scholar
• Mihalopoulos C, Chatterton ML. Economic evaluation of interventions designed to prevent mental disorders: a systematic review. Early Inter Psychiat 2014;1-8
   Google Scholar
• Palfreyman SJ, Stone PW. A systematic review of economic evaluations assessing interventions aimed at preventing or treating pressure ulcers. Inter J Nurs Stud 2015;l52:769-88
   Google Scholar
• Almog B, Gamzu R, Bornstein J, et al. Clinical and economic benefit of HPV-load testing in follow-up and management of women postcone biopsy for CIN2-3. Br J Cancer 2003;89:109-12
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Armstrong KA, Semple JL, Coyte PC. Replacing ambulatory surgical follow-up visits with mobile app home monitoring: modeling cost-effective scenarios. J Med Internet Res 2014;16(9):1-34
   Google Scholar
• Assoumou SA, Mayer KH, Panther L, et al. Cost-effectiveness of surveillance strategies after treatment for high-grade anal dysplasia in high risk patients. Sex Transm Dis 2013;40(4):298-303
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Augestad KM, Norum J, Dehof S, et al. Cost-effectiveness and quality of life in surgeon versus general practitioner-organized colon cancer surveillance: a randomized controlled trial. BMJ Open 2013;3:1-15
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Auguste P, Barton P, Meads C, et al. Evaluating PET-CT in routine surveillance and follow-up after treatment for cervical cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis. BJOG 2014;121:464-76
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baena-Canada JM, Ramirez-Daffos P, Cortés-Carmona C, et al. Follow-up of long-term survivors for breast cancer in primary care versus specialist attention. Fam Pract 2013;30:525-32
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beaver K, Hollingworth W, McDonald R, et al. Economic evaluation of a randomized clinical trial of hospital versus telephone follow-up after treatment for breast cancer. British Journal of Surgery 2009;96:1406-15
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bessen T, Karnon J. A patient-level calibration framework for evaluating surveillance strategies: a case study of mammographic follow-up after early breast cancer. Value Health 2014;17:669-78
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borie F, Combescure C, Daures JP, et al. Cost-effectiveness of two follow-up strategies for curative resection of colorectal cancer: comparative study using a Markov model. Word J. Surg 2004;28:563-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coupé VMH, Berkhof J, Verheijen RHM, et al. Cost-effectiveness of human papillomavirus testing after treatment for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. BJOG 2007;114:416-24
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coyle BD, Grunfeld E, Coyle K, et al. Cost-effectiveness of a survivorship care plan for breast cancer survivors. J Oncol Prac 2013;10(2):e86-92
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Das P, Ng AK, Earle CC, et al. Computed tomography screening for lung cancer in Hodgkin’s lymphoma survivors: decision analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis. Ann Oncol 2006;17:785-93
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Bekker-Grob EW, van der Aa MNM, Zwarthoff EC, et al. Non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer surveillance for which cystoscopy is partly replaced by microsatellite analysis of urine: a cost-effective alternative? BJU International 2008;104:41-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Forni F, Ferrandina G, Deodato F, et al. Squamous cell carcinoma antigen in follow-up of cervical cancer treated with radiotherapy: evaluation of cost-effectiveness. Int J Radiation Oncol Biol Phys 2007;69(4):1145-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gilbert S, Reid KR, Lam MY, et al. Who should follow-up lung cancer patients after operation? Ann Thorac Surg 2000;69:1696-700
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guadagnolo BA, Punglia RS, Kuntz KM, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of computerized tomography in the routine follow-up of patients after primary treatment for Hodgkin’s disease. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:4116-22
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hassan C, Pickhardt PJ, Zullo A, et al. Cost-effectiveness of early colonoscopy surveillance after cancer resection. Dig Liver Dis 2009;41:881-5
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Helgesen F, Andersson SO, Gustafsson O, et al. Follow-up of prostate cancer patients by on-demand contacts with specialist nurse. Scand J Urol Nephrol 2000;34:55-61
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hengge UR, Wallerand A, Stutzki A, et al. Cost-effectiveness of reduced follow-up of in malignant melanoma. JDDG 2007;5:898-907
   Google Scholar
• Kamat AM, Karam JA, Grossman HB, et al. Prospective trial to identify optimal bladder cancer surveillance protocol: reducing costs while maximizing sensitivity. BJU International 2011;108:1119-24
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kent MS, Korn P, Port JL, et al. Cost-effectiveness of chest computed tomography after lung cancer resection: a decision analysis model. Ann Thorac Surg 2005;80:1215-23
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kimman ML, Dirksen CD, Voogd AC, et al. Economic evaluation of four follow-up strategies after curative treatment for breast cancer: results of an RCT. Eur J Cancer 2011;47:1175-85
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koinberg I, Engholm GB, Genell A, et al. A health economic evaluation of follow-up after breast cancer surgery: results of an RCT study. Acta Oncol (Madr) 2009;48:99-104
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kokko R, Hakama M, Holli K. Follow-up cost of breast cancer patients with localized disease after primary treatment: a randomized trial. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2005;93:255-60
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Legood R, Smith M, Lew JB, et al. Cost-effectiveness of human papillomavirus test of cure after treatment for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in England: economic analysis from NHS Sentinel Sites Study. BMJ 2012;345:1-10
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lu W, Greuter MJW, Schaapveld M, et al. Safety and cost-effectiveness of shortening hospital follow-up after breast cancer treatment. Br J Cancer 2012;99:1227-33
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Macafee DAL, Whynes DK, Scholefield JH. Risk-stratified intensive follow up for treated colorectal cancer - realistic and cost saving? Colorectal Dis 2007;10:222-30
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Melnikow J, Kulasingam S, Slee C, et al. Surveillance after treatment for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Obstet Gynecol 2010;116(5):1158-70
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Monteil J, Vergnenègre A, Bertin F, et al. Randomized follow-up study of resected NSCLC patients: conventional versus F-DG coincidence imaging. Anticancer Res 2010;30:3811-16
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore S, Corner J, Haviland J, et al. Nurse led follow up and conventional medical follow-up in management of patients with lung cancer: randomized trial. BMJ 2002;325:1-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ok BG, Ji YS, Ko YH, et al. Usefulness of urine cytology as a routine work-up in the detection of recurrence in patients with prior non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer: practicality and cost-effectiveness. Korean J Urol 2014;55:650-5
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Oltra A, Santaballa A, Munarriz B, et al. Cost-benefit analysis of a follow-up program in patients with breast cancer: a randomized prospective study. Breast J 2007;13(6):571-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Polinder S, Verschuur EML, Siersema PD, et al. Cost comparison study of two different follow-up protocols after surgery for esophageal cancer. Eur J Cancer 2009;45:2110-15
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Secco GB, Fardelli R, Gianquinto D, et al. Efficacy and cost of risk-adapted follow-up in patients after colorectal cancer surgery: a prospective, randomized and controlled trial. EJSO 2002;28:418-23
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strand E, Nygren I, Bergkvist L, et al. Nurse or surgeon follow-up after rectal cancer: a randomized trial. Colorectal Dis 2011;13:999-1003
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tergas AI, Havrilesky LJ, Fader AN, et al. Cost analysis of colposcopy for abnormal cytology in post-treatment surveillance for cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2013;130:421-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tzeng C-W D, Abbott DE, Cantor SB, et al. Frequency and intensity of postoperative surveillance after curative treatment of pancreatic cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Ann Surg Oncol 2013;20:2197-203
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Loon J, Grutters JPC, Wanders R, et al. FDG-PET-CT in the follow-up of non-small cell lung cancer patients after radical radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy: an economic evaluation. European J Cancer 2010;46:110-19
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verschuur EML, Steyerberg EW, Tilanus HW, et al. Nurse-led follow-up of patients after esophageal or gastric cardia cancer surgery: a randomized trial. Br J Cancer 2009;100:70-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edelman MJ, Meyers FJ, Siegel D. The utility of follow-up testing after curative cancer therapy. A critical review and economic analysis. J Gen Intern Med 1997;12(5):318-31
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hex N, Bartlett C. Cost-effectiveness of follow-up services for childhood cancer survivors outside the cancer setting. Curr Opin Support Palliat Care 2013;7:314-17
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Yang M, Patel DS, Tufail W, et al. The quality of economic studies of cancer pharmacogenomics: a quantitative appraisal of the evidence. Expert Rev. Pharmacoecon. Outcomes Res 2013;13(5):597-611
   Google Scholar
• Drummond MF, Jefferson TO. Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ. BMJ 1996;313:275-83
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar