Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29293375›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of radiology2018

Long-term follow-up after childhood cancer in France supported by the SFCE-force and weakness-current state, results of a questionnaire and perspectives.

Charlotte Demoor-Goldschmidt, Marie-Dominique Tabone, Valérie Bernier, Florent de Vathaire, Claire Berger

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of radiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Charlotte Demoor-Goldschmidt1 Cancer and Radiation team, Centre for Research in Epidemiology and Population Health (CESP), INSERM U1018, University Paris-Sud, UVSQ, University Paris-Saclay , Villejuif , France.
Marie-Dominique Tabone3 Department of Pediatric Onco-hematology, Hôpital Armand Trousseau , Paris , France.
Valérie Bernier4 Department of Radiation Oncology, Institut de Cancérologie de Lorraine , Nancy , France.
Florent de Vathaire1 Cancer and Radiation team, Centre for Research in Epidemiology and Population Health (CESP), INSERM U1018, University Paris-Sud, UVSQ, University Paris-Saclay , Villejuif , France.
Claire Berger5 Department of hemato-oncology pediatric, Chu nord st Etienne , Saint-Etienne , France.
Centre de recherche en Epidémiologie et Santé des Populations · FRCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Saint-Étienne · FRInstitut de Cancérologie de Lorraine · FRSorbonne Université · FRUniversité de Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe survival rate of children treated for cancer is currently about 80% at 5 years and we estimate that about 50,000 adults in France have survived childhood cancer. In 2011, there was a call for projects relating to long-term follow-up (LTFU), which led to several studies being conducted. Five years later, we sent a questionnaire to present LTFU in France and describe its strengths and weaknesses and to establish appropriate steps that should be taken.

methodsA questionnaire was sent by email to all the members of the French Society of Childhood Cancers in spring 2016. The study involved 44 centres/hospitals with a Paediatric Oncology Department.

results54 answers were analysed, provided by 31/44 (70%) centres working together with the French Society of Childhood Cancers. Screening is the main objective of LTFU care (90%). The main difficulties that arose were: lack of sufficient time to devote to this activity (57%), difficulties contacting adult childhood cancer survivors (aCCSs) (26%), aCCSs who ultimately did not show up to the consultation (19%), cost (15%), and lack of organization (13%). Seven LTFU programmes were identified: two regional organizations (Rhône Alpes and Grand Ouest), four centre-size organizations, and one national study (involving 15 Haematology Centres) relating to Child and Adolescent Leukaemia.

conclusionLTFU is a major concern for French centres specialized in paediatric oncology. Organization is not well defined and difficulties still arise (Who are the best care providers? What frequency of care is most appropriate? etc.). Advances in knowledge: LTFU focused on health problems (physical, psychological, social, economic issues) that affect CCSs is needed to ensure that these patients regain the most optimal physical and emotional health possible. Practitioners suggest different ways to improve LTFU, such as national co-operation with Epidemiology Registers to promote homogenous LTFU care.

Indexed as

SurvivorsAdolescentAdultChildFemaleFollow-Up StudiesFranceHumansMaleNeoplasmsSurveys and QuestionnairesSurvival Rate

Identifiers

PMID29293375
PMCPMC5966008
OpenAlexW2782349494

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.