Inviting an author to review:
Find an author and click ‘Invite to review selected article’ near their name.
Search for authorsSearch for similar articles
4
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Oncological surgery follow-up and quality of life: meta-analysis

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Previous trials found that more intensive postoperative surveillance schedules did not improve survival. Oncological follow-up also provides an opportunity to address psychological issues (for example anxiety, depression, and fear of recurrence). This systematic review assessed the impact of a less intensive surveillance strategy on health-related quality of life (HRQoL), emotional well-being, and patient satisfaction.

          Methods

          A systematic search was conducted in PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane database, PsycINFO, and Google Scholar to identify studies comparing different follow-up strategies after oncological surgery and their effect on HRQoL and patient satisfaction, published before 4 May 2022. A meta-analysis was conducted on the most relevant European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale subscales.

          Results

          Thirty-five studies were identified, focusing on melanoma (4), colorectal (10), breast (7), prostate (4), upper gastrointestinal (4), gynaecological (3), lung (2), and head and neck (1) cancers. Twenty-two studies were considered to have a low risk of bias, of which 14 showed no significant difference in HRQoL between follow-up approaches. Five studies with a low risk of bias showed improved HRQoL or emotional well-being with a less intensive follow-up approach and three with an intensive approach. Meta-analysis of HRQoL outcomes revealed no negative effects for patients receiving less intensive follow-up.

          Conclusion

          Low-intensity follow-up does not diminish HRQoL, emotional well-being, or patient satisfaction.

          Abstract

          The results of this review suggest that a lower-intensity follow-up approach is non-inferior and, in some instances, even results in slightly better health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and lower anxiety rates. Additionally, previous studies and a recently published systematic review failed to show any (cancer-specific) survival benefit of intensive postoperative surveillance compared with a less intensive approach. Overall, these findings enable a reduction in follow-up intensity for patients with cancer without impact on the main purposes of follow-up: cancer-specific survival and HRQoL. It can be concluded that a patient-tailored follow-up approach is feasible.

          Related collections

          Most cited references67

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials

          Flaws in the design, conduct, analysis, and reporting of randomised trials can cause the effect of an intervention to be underestimated or overestimated. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias aims to make the process clearer and more accurate
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions

            Non-randomised studies of the effects of interventions are critical to many areas of healthcare evaluation, but their results may be biased. It is therefore important to understand and appraise their strengths and weaknesses. We developed ROBINS-I (“Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions”), a new tool for evaluating risk of bias in estimates of the comparative effectiveness (harm or benefit) of interventions from studies that did not use randomisation to allocate units (individuals or clusters of individuals) to comparison groups. The tool will be particularly useful to those undertaking systematic reviews that include non-randomised studies.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The hospital anxiety and depression scale.

              A self-assessment scale has been developed and found to be a reliable instrument for detecting states of depression and anxiety in the setting of an hospital medical outpatient clinic. The anxiety and depressive subscales are also valid measures of severity of the emotional disorder. It is suggested that the introduction of the scales into general hospital practice would facilitate the large task of detection and management of emotional disorder in patients under investigation and treatment in medical and surgical departments.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Br J Surg
                Br J Surg
                bjs
                The British Journal of Surgery
                Oxford University Press (US )
                0007-1323
                1365-2168
                June 2023
                14 February 2023
                14 February 2023
                : 110
                : 6
                : 655-665
                Affiliations
                Department of Surgical Oncology and Gastrointestinal Surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute , Rotterdam, the Netherlands
                Department of Surgical Oncology and Gastrointestinal Surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute , Rotterdam, the Netherlands
                Department of Surgical Oncology and Gastrointestinal Surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute , Rotterdam, the Netherlands
                Department of Surgical Oncology and Gastrointestinal Surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute , Rotterdam, the Netherlands
                Department of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute , Amsterdam, the Netherlands
                Department of Surgical Oncology and Gastrointestinal Surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute , Rotterdam, the Netherlands
                Author notes
                Correspondence to: Dirk J. Grünhagen, Department of Surgical Oncology and Gastrointestinal Surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Doctor Molewaterplein 40, 3015 GD Rotterdam, the Netherlands (e-mail: d.grunhagen@ 123456erasmusmc.nl )
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8150-6040
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8293-6002
                Article
                znad022
                10.1093/bjs/znad022
                10364539
                36781387
                9f0d9602-0dc1-4280-8ffb-649af1f1a083
                © The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of BJS Society Ltd.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com

                History
                : 29 September 2022
                : 23 November 2022
                : 10 January 2023
                Page count
                Pages: 11
                Categories
                Systematic Review
                AcademicSubjects/MED00910
                Bjs/2
                Bjs/1
                Bjs/4

                Surgery
                Surgery

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content240

                Cited by5

                Most referenced authors1,435