Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Current Oncology Reports
Published in: Current Oncology Reports 7/2019

01-07-2019 | Gynecologic Cancer | Gynecologic Cancers (NS Reed, Section Editor)

How Do We Follow Up Patients With Endometrial Cancer?

Authors: Mette Moustgaard Jeppesen, Ole Mogensen, Dorte G. Hansen, Stinne H. Bergholdt, Pernille T. Jensen

Published in: Current Oncology Reports | Issue 7/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose of Review

In this review, we present the existing evidence regarding follow-up care after endometrial cancer, including content of follow-up and type of provider. We furthermore discuss the future perspectives for follow-up care and research in the field.

Recent Findings

Recently published randomized controlled trials show that nurse-led telephone follow-up and patient-initiated follow-up are feasible alternatives to routine hospital-based follow-up.

Summary

No randomized or prospective study has evaluated the effect of routine follow-up on survival. Hence, current knowledge is derived from retrospective studies with the inherent risk of bias. The most important method for recurrence detection is a review of symptoms. There is no evidence to support a survival benefit from the use of routine physical examinations, additional tests, or imaging. One in three of the women attending hospital-based follow-up experience unmet needs, and alternative models for follow-up focused on survivorship care and empowerment should be tested.
Literature
1.
Jemal A, Siegel R, Xu J, Ward E. Cancer statistics, 2010. CA Cancer J Clin. 2010;60:277–300.CrossRef
2.
Shisler R, Sinnott JA, Wang V, Hebert C, Salani R, Felix AS. Life after endometrial cancer: a systematic review of patient-reported outcomes. Gynecol Oncol. 2018;148:403–13.CrossRef
3.
Grunfeld E, Earle CC. The interface between primary and oncology specialty care: treatment through survivorship. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2010;2010:25–30.CrossRef
4.
Leeson SC, Beaver K, Ezendam NPM, Mačuks R, Martin-Hirsch PL, Miles T, et al. The future for follow-up of gynaecological cancer in Europe. Summary of available data and overview of ongoing trials. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2017;210:376–80.CrossRef
5.
Lajer H, Jensen MB, Kilsmark J, Albæk J, Svane D, Mirza MR, et al. The value of gynecologic cancer follow-up: evidence-based ignorance? Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2010;20:1307–20.PubMed
6.
Fung-Kee-Fung M, Dodge J, Elit L, Lukka H, Chambers A, Oliver T, et al. Follow-up after primary therapy for endometrial cancer: a systematic review. Gynecol Oncol. 2006;101:520–9.CrossRef
7.
Agboola OO, Grunfeld E, Coyle D, Perry GA. Costs and benefits of routine follow-up after curative treatment for endometrial cancer. Can Med Assoc J. 1997;157:879–86.
8.
Sartori E, Pasinetti B, Carrara L, Gambino A, Odicino F, Pecorelli S. Pattern of failure and value of follow-up procedures in endometrial and cervical cancer patients. Gynecol Oncol. 2007;107:S241–7.CrossRef
9.
Zola P, Macchi C, Cibula D, Colombo N, Kimmig R, Maggino T, et al. Follow-up in gynecological malignancies: a state of art. Int J Gynecol Cancer Off J Int Gynecol Cancer Soc. 2015;25:1151–64.CrossRef
10.
Vistad I, Moy BW, Salvesen HB, Liavaag AH. Follow-up routines in gynecological cancer - time for a change? Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2011;90:707–18.CrossRef
11.
Sartori E, Pasinetti B, Chiudinelli F, Gadducci A, Landoni F, Maggino T, et al. Surveillance procedures for patients treated for endometrial cancer: a review of the literature. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2010;20:985–92.CrossRef
12.
Jones JM, Ferguson S, Edwards E, Walton T, McCurdy N, Howell D. Experiences of care delivery: endometrial cancer survivors at end of treatment. Gynecol Oncol. 2012;124:458–64.CrossRef
13.
Ueda Y, Enomoto T, Egawa-Takata T, Miyatake T, Yoshino K, Fujita M, et al. Endometrial carcinoma: better prognosis for asymptomatic recurrences than for symptomatic cases found by routine follow-up. Int J Clin Oncol. 2010;15:406–12.CrossRef
14.
Berchuck A, Anspach C, Evans AC, Soper JT, Rodriguez GC, Dodge R, et al. Postsurgical surveillance of patients with FIGO stage I/II endometrial adenocarcinoma. Gynecol Oncol. 1995;59:20–4.CrossRef
15.
Bristow RE, Purinton SC, Santillan A, Diaz-Montes TP, Gardner GJ, Giuntoli RL. Cost-effectiveness of routine vaginal cytology for endometrial cancer surveillance. Gynecol Oncol. 2006;103:709–13.CrossRef
16.
Carrara L, Gadducci A, Landoni F, Maggino T, Scambia G, Galletto L, 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;22:1013–9.CrossRef
17.
Cooper AL, Dornfeld-Finke JM, Banks HW, Davey DD, Modesitt SC. Is cytologic screening an effective surveillance method for detection of vaginal recurrence of uterine cancer? Obstet Gynecol. 2006;107:71–6.CrossRef
18.
Gordon AF, Owen P, Chien PF, Duncan ID. A critical evaluation of follow-up of women treated for endometrial adenocarcinoma. J Obstet Gynaecol. 1997;17:386–9.CrossRef
19.
Morice P, Levy-Piedbois C, Ajaj S, Pautier P, Haie-Meder C, Lhomme C, et al. Value and cost evaluation of routine follow-up for patients with clinical stage I/II endometrial cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2001;37:985–90.CrossRef
20.
Ng TY, Ngan HY, Cheng DK, Wong LC. Vaginal vault cytology in the routine follow-up of patients treated for endometrial carcinoma: is it useful? Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 1997;37:104–6.CrossRef
21.
Olaitan A, Murdoch J, Anderson R, James J, Graham J, Barley V. A critical evaluation of current protocols for the follow-up of women treated for gynecological malignancies: a pilot study. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2001;11:349–53.CrossRef
22.
Podczaski E, Kaminski P, Gurski K, MacNeill C, Stryker JA, Singapuri K, et al. Detection and patterns of treatment failure in 300 consecutive cases of “early” endometrial cancer after primary surgery. Gynecol Oncol. 1992;47:323–7.CrossRef
23.
Reddoch JM, Burke TW, Morris M, Tornos C, Levenback C, Gershenson DM. Surveillance for recurrent endometrial carcinoma: development of a follow-up scheme. Gynecol Oncol. 1995;59:221–5.CrossRef
24.
Salvesen HB, Akslen LA, Iversen T, Iversen OE. Recurrence of endometrial carcinoma and the value of routine follow up. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1997;104:1302–7.CrossRef
25.
Shumsky AG, Stuart GCE, Brasher PM, Nation JG, Robertson DI, Sangkarat S. An evaluation of routine follow-up of patients treated for endometrial carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol. 1994;55:229–33.CrossRef
26.
Smith CJ, Heeren M, Nicklin JL, Perrin LC, Land R, Crandon AJ, et al. Efficacy of routine follow-up in patients with recurrent uterine cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2007;107:124–9.CrossRef
27.
Owen P, Duncan ID. Is there any value in the long term follow up of women treated for endometrial cancer? Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1996;103:710–3.CrossRef
28.
Gadducci A, Cosio S, Fanucchi A, Cristofani R, Genazzani AR. An intensive follow-up does not change survival of patients with clinical stage I endometrial cancer. Anticancer Res. 2000;20:1977–84.PubMed
29.
Allsop JR, Preston J, Crocker S. Is there any value in the long-term follow up of women treated for endometrial cancer? Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1997;104:122.CrossRef
30.
Macdonald J, Kidd G. An audit of endometrial carcinoma: the value of routine follow up. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2009;10:548–50.CrossRef
31.
Yoshiba T, Takei Y, Machida S, Taneichi A, Sato N, Takahashi S, et al. Prognosis of endometrial cancer patients with and without symptoms at recurrence. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2016;42:1814–21.CrossRef
32.
Aung L, Howells REJ, Lim KCK, Hudson E, Jones PW. Why routine clinical follow-up for patients with early stage endometrial cancer is not always necessary: a study on women in South Wales. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2014;24:556–63.CrossRef
33.
Kiran G, Kesterson JP, Ozerkan K, Kanis M, Groman A, Lele S. Evaluation of the outcome benefit conferred by intensive surveillance strategies in women with early-stage endometrial cancer. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2013;34:522–6.PubMed
34.
Nordin AJ, National Group of Gynaecology NSSG Leads. Mode of detection of recurrent gynecological malignancy: does routine follow-up delay diagnosis and treatment? Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2006;16:1746–8.CrossRef
35.
Hunn J, Tenney ME, Tergas AI, Bishop EA, Moore K, Watkin W, et al. Patterns and utility of routine surveillance in high grade endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2015;137:485–9.CrossRef
36.
Salani R, Nagel CI, Drennen E, Bristow RE. Recurrence patterns and surveillance for patients with early stage endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2011;123:205–7.CrossRef
37.
Zakhour M, Li AJ, Walsh CS, Cass I, Karlan BY, Rimel BJ. Post treatment surveillance of type II endometrial cancer patients. Gynecol Oncol. 2013;131:609–12.CrossRef
38.
•• Jeppesen MM, Mogensen O, Hansen DG, Iachina M, Korsholm M, Jensen PT. Detection of recurrence in early stage endometrial cancer - the role of symptoms and routine follow-up. Acta Oncol. 2017;56(2):262–9. This study includes the largest historical cohort to date focused on recurrence detection in early-stage endometrial cancer. Important data on symptoms of recurrence and the effect of survival are presented, including a description of potential bias.
39.
Tjalma WAA, van Dam PA, Makar AP, Cruickshank DJ. The clinical value and the cost-effectiveness of follow-up in endometrial cancer patients. Int J Gynecol Cancer Off J Int Gynecol Cancer Soc. 2004;14:931–7.CrossRef
40.
Lawrence G, Wallis M, Allgood P, Nagtegaal ID, Warwick J, Cafferty FH, et al. Population estimates of survival in women with screen-detected and symptomatic breast cancer taking account of lead time and length bias. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2009;116:179–85.CrossRef
41.
Duffy SW, Nagtegaal ID, Wallis M, Cafferty FH, Houssami N, Warwick J, 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.CrossRef
42.
Salani R, Khanna N, Frimer M, Bristow RE, Chen L-M. An update on post-treatment surveillance and diagnosis of recurrence in women with gynecologic malignancies: Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO) recommendations. Gynecol Oncol. 2017;146:3–10.CrossRef
43.
Park J-Y, Kim EN, Kim D-Y, Kim J-H, Kim Y-M, Kim Y-T, et al. Clinical impact of positron emission tomography or positron emission tomography/computed tomography in the posttherapy surveillance of endometrial carcinoma: evaluation of 88 patients. Int J Gynecol Cancer Off J Int Gynecol Cancer Soc. 2008;18:1332–8.CrossRef
44.
Grunfeld E, Mant D, Yudkin P, Adewuyi-Dalton R, Cole D, Stewart J, et al. Routine follow up of breast cancer in primary care: randomised trial. BMJ. 1996;313:665–9.CrossRef
45.
Grunfeld E, Fitzpatrick R, Mant D, Yudkin P, Adewuyi-Dalton R, Stewart J, et al. Comparison of breast cancer patient satisfaction with follow-up in primary care versus specialist care: results from a randomized controlled trial. Br J Gen Pract. 1999;49:705–10.PubMedPubMedCentral
46.
Grunfeld E, Levine MN, Julian JA, Coyle D, Szechtman B, Mirsky D, et al. Randomized trial of long-term follow-up for early-stage breast cancer: a comparison of family physician versus specialist care. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:848–55.CrossRef
47.
Wattchow DA, Weller DP, Esterman A, Pilotto LS, McGorm K, Hammett Z, et al. General practice vs surgical-based follow-up for patients with colon cancer: randomised controlled trial. Br J Cancer. 2006;94:1116–21.CrossRef
48.
Augestad KM, Norum J, Dehof S, Aspevik R, Ringberg U, Nestvold T, et al. Cost-effectiveness and quality of life in surgeon versus general practitioner-organised colon cancer surveillance: a randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open. 2013;3:e002391.CrossRef
49.
Beaver K, Tysver-Robinson D, Campbell M, Twomey M, Williamson S, Hindley A, et al. Comparing hospital and telephone follow-up after treatment for breast cancer: randomised equivalence trial. BMJ. 2009;338:a3147.CrossRef
50.
Beaver K, Campbell M, Williamson S, Procter D, Sheridan J, Heath J, et al. An exploratory randomized controlled trial comparing telephone and hospital follow-up after treatment for colorectal cancer. Color Dis. 2012;14:1201–9.CrossRef
51.
Kimman ML, Dirksen CD, Voogd AC, Falger P, Gijsen BCM, Thuring M, et al. Nurse-led telephone follow-up and an educational group programme after breast cancer treatment: results of a 2 × 2 randomised controlled trial. Eur J Cancer. 2011;47:1027–36.CrossRef
52.
Strand E, Nygren I, Bergkvist L, Smedh K. Nurse or surgeon follow-up after rectal cancer: a randomized trial. Color Dis. 2011;13:999–1003.CrossRef
53.
•• Beaver K, Williamson S, Sutton C, Hollingworth W, Gardner A, Allton B, et al. Comparing hospital and telephone follow-up for patients treated for stage-I endometrial cancer (ENDCAT trial): a randomised, multicentre, non-inferiority trial. BJOG. 2017;124:150–60. This is the first randomized trial on nurse-led telephone follow-up in early-stage endometrial cancer. No difference was reported in psychological morbidity, quality of life, or satisfaction compared with traditional follow-up. CrossRef
54.
• Morrison V, Spencer LH, Totton N, Pye K, Yeo ST, Butterworth C, et al. Trial of Optimal Personalised Care After Treatment-Gynaecological Cancer (TOPCAT-G): a randomized feasibility trial. Int J Gynecol Cancer Off J Int Gynecol Cancer Soc. 2018;28:401–11. A protocol for a randomized trial on nurse-led telephone follow-up in gynecologic cancer is presented, and the study is reported to be feasible for a full-size intervention study with expected positive effects of the intervention on quality of life, well-being, and cost-benefit. CrossRef
55.
•• Jeppesen MM, Jensen PT, Hansen DG, Christensen RD, Mogensen O. Patient-initiated follow up affects fear of recurrence and healthcare use: a randomised trial in early-stage endometrial cancer. BJOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol. 2018;125(13):1705–14. First randomized trial to examine patient-initiated follow-up in a population of early-stage endometrial cancer. Patient-initiated follow-up was feasible and reduced the use of health care, but fear of recurrence persisted longer compared with traditional follow-up. CrossRef
56.
Schougaard LMV, Larsen LP, Jessen A, Sidenius P, Dorflinger L, de Thurah A, et al. AmbuFlex: tele-patient-reported outcomes (telePRO) as the basis for follow-up in chronic and malignant diseases. Qual Life Res Int J Qual Life Asp Treat Care Rehab. 2016;25:525–34.
57.
Oshima S, Kisa K, Terashita T, Habara M, Kawabata H, Maezawa M. A qualitative study of Japanese patients’ perspectives on post-treatment care for gynecological cancer. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2011;12:2255–61.PubMed
58.
Beesley V, Eakin E, Steginga S, Aitken J, Dunn J, Battistutta D. Unmet needs of gynaecological cancer survivors: implications for developing community support services. Psychooncology. 2008;17:392–400.CrossRef
59.
Savard J, Ivers H. The evolution of fear of cancer recurrence during the cancer care trajectory and its relationship with cancer characteristics. J Psychosom Res. 2013;74:354–60.CrossRef
60.
Lebel S, Tomei C, Feldstain A, Beattie S, McCallum M. Does fear of cancer recurrence predict cancer survivors’ health care use? Support Care Cancer. 2013;21:901–6.CrossRef
61.
Ozga M, Aghajanian C, Myers-Virtue S, McDonnell G, Jhanwar S, Hichenberg S, et al. A systematic review of ovarian cancer and fear of recurrence. Palliat Support Care. 2015;13:1771–80.CrossRef
62.
van de Wal M, van de Poll-Franse L, Prins J, Gielissen M. Does fear of cancer recurrence differ between cancer types? A study from the population-based PROFILES registry. Psychooncology. 2016;25:772–8.CrossRef
63.
Bradley EJ, Pitts MK, Redman CWE, Calvert E. The experience of long-term hospital follow-up for women who have suffered early stage gynecological cancer: a qualitative interview study. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 1999;9:491–6.CrossRef
64.
Greimel E, Lahousen M, Dorfer M, Lambauer M, Lang U. Patients’ view of routine follow-up after gynecological cancer treatment. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2011;159:180–3.CrossRef
65.
Hodgkinson K, Butow P, Fuchs A, Hunt GE, Stenlake A, Hobbs KM, et al. Long-term survival from gynecologic cancer: psychosocial outcomes, supportive care needs and positive outcomes. Gynecol Oncol. 2007;104:381–9.CrossRef
66.
67.
68.
Jørgensen CR, Thomsen TG, Ross L, Dietz SM, Therkildsen S, Groenvold M, et al. What facilitates “patient empowerment” in cancer patients during follow-up: a qualitative systematic review of the literature. Qual Health Res. 2018;28:292–304.CrossRef
69.
Holm LV, Hansen DG, Larsen PV, Johansen C, Vedsted P, Bergholdt SH, et al. Social inequality in cancer rehabilitation: a population-based cohort study. Acta Oncol Stockh Swed. 2013;52:410–22.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
How Do We Follow Up Patients With Endometrial Cancer?
Authors
Mette Moustgaard Jeppesen
Ole Mogensen
Dorte G. Hansen
Stinne H. Bergholdt
Pernille T. Jensen
Publication date
01-07-2019
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Current Oncology Reports / Issue 7/2019
Print ISSN: 1523-3790
Electronic ISSN: 1534-6269
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11912-019-0805-3

Other articles of this Issue 7/2019

Current Oncology Reports 7/2019 Go to the issue

Lymphomas (MR Smith, Section Editor)

Systemic Histiocytosis (Langerhans Cell Histiocytosis, Erdheim–Chester Disease, Destombes–Rosai–Dorfman Disease): from Oncogenic Mutations to Inflammatory Disorders

Correction

Correction to: Systemic Therapy of Central Nervous System Metastases of Breast Cancer

Breast Cancer (B Overmoyer, Section Editor)

Issues with Fertility in Young Women with Breast Cancer

Geriatric Oncology (AR MacKenzie, Section Editor)

Immunotherapy in Older Adults with Cancer

Lymphomas (MR Smith, Section Editor)

Is It Time to Revisit the Role of Allogeneic Transplantation in Lymphoma?

Geriatric Oncology (AR MacKenzie, Section Editor)

Management of Newly Diagnosed Elderly Multiple Myeloma Patients
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Image Credits