Lung Cancer
Conditions
Keywords
lung cancer, followup, physical follow up, telephonic followup
Brief summary
Does the routine clinical practice of follow up after primary treatment in lung cancer patients has any utility.
Detailed description
Patients of cancer, after their primary treatment are subsequently called for follow up visits to assess the disease status. This has two important implications from the point of view of resource management. One, patients often have to travel long distances to report to the hospital and have to take care of other logistics such as their accommodation, local travel and food. Further often the patient travels with 1-2 attendants which adds to the logistic burden. Also, these patients of follow up also contribute to the load on existing hospital services. Many authors have speculated that follow-up visits generate anxiety about possible disease recurrence. On the other hand, many others have suggested that although there may be a transient increase in anxiety, patients are ultimately reassured by this practice. Hence, there is no firm evidence for the practice and the need for follow up in oncology care.
Interventions
None listed
Sponsors
Tata Memorial Hospital
Study design
Observational model
COHORT
Time perspective
PROSPECTIVE
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 90 Years
Healthy volunteers
No
Inclusion criteria
1. All patients of lung cancer treated with a radical aim (e.g surgery, Chemoradiation, surgery followed by adjuvant treatment or any other combination) 2. Patients should have completed radical /adjuvant treatment, if any 3. Patients of both SCLC and NSCLC 4. Patients with at least two telephone numbers (landline/mobile/both) 5. Patients willing to participate
Exclusion criteria
1. All patients for palliative intention 2. Patients with less than two contact telephone numbers -
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Concurrence Between the Telephonic Interview and the Physician Assessment | 2 years | The Prevalence and bias adjusted Kappa (PABAK) score for concurrence between telephonic and physician assessment of disease status of each patient at each follow up visit was analysed. |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Analysis | 2 years | On average, each patient spent INR 5117.10 on travel and INR 3079.06 on lodging per follow up visit. |
Countries
India
Participant flow
Participants by arm
| Arm | Count |
|---|---|
| Total Cohort Single-arm Prospective cohort | 200 |
| Total | 200 |
Withdrawals & dropouts
| Period | Reason | FG000 |
|---|---|---|
| Overall Study | Death | 136 |
| Overall Study | Lost to Follow-up | 3 |
Baseline characteristics
| Characteristic | Total Cohort |
|---|---|
| Age, Continuous | 56 years |
| Histology Adenocarcinoma | 80 participants |
| Histology Other NSCLC | 23 participants |
| Histology Small Cell Carcinoma | 30 participants |
| Histology Squamous Carcinoma | 67 participants |
| Region of Enrollment India | 200 participants |
| Sex: Female, Male Female | 33 Participants |
| Sex: Female, Male Male | 167 Participants |
| Stage Stage I | 20 participants |
| Stage Stage II | 25 participants |
| Stage Stage III | 152 participants |
| Stage Stage IV | 3 participants |
Adverse events
| Event type | EG000 affected / at risk |
|---|---|
| deaths Total, all-cause mortality | — / — |
| other Total, other adverse events | 0 / 200 |
| serious Total, serious adverse events | 0 / 200 |
Outcome results
Primary
Concurrence Between the Telephonic Interview and the Physician Assessment
The Prevalence and bias adjusted Kappa (PABAK) score for concurrence between telephonic and physician assessment of disease status of each patient at each follow up visit was analysed.
Time frame: 2 years
| Arm | Measure | Value (NUMBER) |
|---|---|---|
| Total Cohort | Concurrence Between the Telephonic Interview and the Physician Assessment | 0.64 probability |
Secondary
Cost Analysis
On average, each patient spent INR 5117.10 on travel and INR 3079.06 on lodging per follow up visit.
Time frame: 2 years
Population: Patients of lung cancer treated with curative intent and on follow up with our institution
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total Cohort | Cost Analysis | Average cost of travel | 5117.10 Indian Rupees | Standard Deviation 10370.91 |
| Total Cohort | Cost Analysis | Average cost of lodging | 3079.06 Indian Rupees | Standard Deviation 6929.57 |