Cochrane Systematic Review 21 November 2019 https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012425.pub2
- Fifty three trials (n=20,832) which presented follow‐up strategies following completion of primary cancer treatment involving non‐specialist are providers, different intensity of procedures, or addition of survivorship care packages were identified.
- Non‐specialist‐led follow‐up, such as follow‐up provided by a general practitioner (GP) or nurse, makes little or no difference to health‐related quality of life, anxiety or depression, when compared to specialist‐led follow‐up. Effects on overall survival and detection of a cancer returning after treatment (recurrence) are uncertain.
- Less intensive follow‐up, such as follow‐up with fewer examinations or tests, may make little or no difference to overall survival but probably delays detection of recurrence when compared to more intensive follow‐up. However, other types of studies are needed before we can be certain about the effects of early detection of recurrence on survival. We also cannot be sure about its effect on health‐related quality of life, anxiety and depression.
- There was little evidence for the final type of follow‐up, which integrated additional components relevant for detection of recurrence, such as patient symptom education or monitoring, or survivorship care plans.
