Follow-Up in Bone Sarcoma Care: A Cross-Sectional European Study.
Journal
Sarcoma
ISSN: 1357-714X
Titre abrégé: Sarcoma
Pays: Egypt
ID NLM: 9709257
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
28
02
2020
revised:
17
05
2020
accepted:
15
06
2020
entrez:
18
7
2020
pubmed:
18
7
2020
medline:
18
7
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Follow-up of high-grade bone sarcoma patients with repeated radiological imaging aims at early detection of recurrent disease or distant metastasis. Repeated radiological imaging does expose (mostly young) patients to ionising radiation. At this point, it is not known whether frequent follow-up increases overall survival. Additionally, frequent follow-up subjects patients and families to psychological stress. This study aims to assess follow-up procedures in terms of frequency and type of imaging modalities in bone tumour centres across Europe for comparison and improvement of knowledge as a first step towards a more uniform approach towards bone sarcoma follow-up. Data were obtained through analysis of several follow-up protocols and a digital questionnaire returned by EMSOS members of bone tumour centres all across Europe. All participating bone tumour centres attained a minimum follow-up period of ten years. National guidelines revealed variations in follow-up intervals and use of repeated imaging with ionising radiation. A local and a chest X-ray were obtained at 47.6% of the responding clinics at every follow-up patient visit. Variations were seen among European bone sarcoma centres with regards to follow-up intervals and use of repeated imaging. The majority of these expert centres follow existing international guidelines and find them sufficient as basis for a follow-up surveillance programme despite lack of evidence. Future research should aim towards evidence-based follow-up with focus on the effects of follow-up strategies on health outcomes, cost-effectiveness, and individualised follow-up algorithms.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Follow-up of high-grade bone sarcoma patients with repeated radiological imaging aims at early detection of recurrent disease or distant metastasis. Repeated radiological imaging does expose (mostly young) patients to ionising radiation. At this point, it is not known whether frequent follow-up increases overall survival. Additionally, frequent follow-up subjects patients and families to psychological stress. This study aims to assess follow-up procedures in terms of frequency and type of imaging modalities in bone tumour centres across Europe for comparison and improvement of knowledge as a first step towards a more uniform approach towards bone sarcoma follow-up.
METHODS
METHODS
Data were obtained through analysis of several follow-up protocols and a digital questionnaire returned by EMSOS members of bone tumour centres all across Europe.
RESULTS
RESULTS
All participating bone tumour centres attained a minimum follow-up period of ten years. National guidelines revealed variations in follow-up intervals and use of repeated imaging with ionising radiation. A local and a chest X-ray were obtained at 47.6% of the responding clinics at every follow-up patient visit.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Variations were seen among European bone sarcoma centres with regards to follow-up intervals and use of repeated imaging. The majority of these expert centres follow existing international guidelines and find them sufficient as basis for a follow-up surveillance programme despite lack of evidence. Future research should aim towards evidence-based follow-up with focus on the effects of follow-up strategies on health outcomes, cost-effectiveness, and individualised follow-up algorithms.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32675939
doi: 10.1155/2020/2040347
pmc: PMC7350160
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
2040347Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 Louren M. Goedhart et al.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
Références
Sarcoma. 2015;2015:623746
pubmed: 26633939
Oncologist. 2008 Mar;13(3):320-9
pubmed: 18378543
Ann Oncol. 2018 Oct 1;29(Suppl 4):iv79-iv95
pubmed: 30285218
Bone Joint Res. 2017 Apr;6(4):224-230
pubmed: 28438971
Br J Cancer. 2017 Jan 3;116(1):109-116
pubmed: 27824812
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2008 Dec;34(6):1235-9
pubmed: 18757207
Int J Clin Oncol. 2019 Jul;24(7):863-870
pubmed: 30806840
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2005 Nov;31(9):1020-4
pubmed: 16171968
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017 Mar;475(3):830-838
pubmed: 27339121
Cancer Epidemiol. 2015 Aug;39(4):593-9
pubmed: 26002013
Cancer Epidemiol. 2015 Apr;39(2):189-95
pubmed: 25595632
Cancer. 2017 Jul 1;123(13):2551-2560
pubmed: 28222219
Surg Oncol. 2018 Dec;27(4):603-610
pubmed: 30449479
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2002 Jan;84(1):93-9
pubmed: 11837841
Eur J Cancer. 2017 Sep;83:313-323
pubmed: 28797949
J Surg Oncol. 2018 May;117(6):1223-1231
pubmed: 29409122
J Surg Oncol. 2012 Dec;106(8):929-37
pubmed: 22649023
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2010 May;37(5):1205-8
pubmed: 20022760
Lancet. 2012 Aug 4;380(9840):499-505
pubmed: 22681860
Cancer Epidemiol. 2019 Jun;60:31-38
pubmed: 30903831
Bone Joint J. 2018 Feb;100-B(2):262-268
pubmed: 29437071
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2009 Mar;137(3):610-4
pubmed: 19258076
Clin Sarcoma Res. 2016 May 04;6:7
pubmed: 27148438
BMJ. 2013 May 21;346:f2360
pubmed: 23694687