Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32641023›Full record

ArticleBMC cancer2020

Design of the PROstate cancer follow-up care in Secondary and Primary hEalth Care study (PROSPEC): a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of primary care-based follow-up of localized prostate cancer survivors.

Barbara M Wollersheim, Kristel M van Asselt, Henk G van der Poel, Henk C P M van Weert, Michael Hauptmann, Valesca P Retèl, Neil K Aaronson, Lonneke V van de Poll-Franse, Annelies H Boekhout

Open access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

Article in BMC cancer, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 31% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Quality of early prostate cancer follow-up care from the patients' perspective.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2022
    Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
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

9 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Barbara M WollersheimDivision of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066, Amsterdam, CX, The Netherlands.
Kristel M van AsseltDepartment of General Practice, Amsterdam UMC location AMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Henk G van der PoelDepartment of Urology, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Henk C P M van WeertDepartment of General Practice, Amsterdam UMC location AMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Michael HauptmannDivision of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066, Amsterdam, CX, The Netherlands.
Valesca P RetèlDivision of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066, Amsterdam, CX, The Netherlands.
Neil K AaronsonDivision of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066, Amsterdam, CX, The Netherlands.
Lonneke V van de Poll-FranseDivision of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066, Amsterdam, CX, The Netherlands.
Annelies H BoekhoutDivision of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066, Amsterdam, CX, The Netherlands. a.boekhout@nki.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3637-0655
The Netherlands Cancer Institute · NLAmsterdam University Medical Centers · NLTilburg University · NL

Funding

KWF Kankerbestrijding 2015-7932
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn its 2006 report, From cancer patient to cancer survivor: lost in transition, the U.S. Institute of Medicine raised the need for a more coordinated and comprehensive care model for cancer survivors. Given the ever increasing number of cancer survivors, in general, and prostate cancer survivors, in particular, there is a need for a more sustainable model of follow-up care. Currently, patients who have completed primary treatment for localized prostate cancer are often included in a specialist-based follow-up care program. General practitioners already play a key role in providing continuous and comprehensive health care. Studies in breast and colorectal cancer suggest that general practitioners could also consider to provide survivorship care in prostate cancer. However, empirical data are needed to determine whether follow-up care of localized prostate cancer survivors by the general practitioner is a feasible alternative.

methodsThis multicenter, randomized, non-inferiority study will compare specialist-based (usual care) versus general practitioner-based (intervention) follow-up care of prostate cancer survivors who have completed primary treatment (prostatectomy or radiotherapy) for localized prostate cancer. Patients are being recruited from hospitals in the Netherlands, and randomly (1:1) allocated to specialist-based (N = 195) or general practitioner-based (N = 195) follow-up care. This trial will evaluate the effectiveness of primary care-based follow-up, in comparison to usual care, in terms of adherence to the prostate cancer surveillance guideline for the timing and frequency of prostate-specific antigen assessments, the time from a biochemical recurrence to retreatment decision-making, the management of treatment-related side effects, health-related quality of life, prostate cancer-related anxiety, continuity of care, and cost-effectiveness. The outcome measures will be assessed at randomization (≤6 months after treatment), and 12, 18, and 24 months after treatment. DISCUSSION: This multicenter, prospective, randomized study will provide empirical evidence regarding the (cost-) effectiveness of specialist-based follow-up care compared to general practitioner-based follow-up care for localized prostate cancer survivors.

trial registrationNetherlands Trial Registry, Trial NL7068 (NTR7266). Prospectively registered on 11 June 2018.

Indexed as

AftercareAgedAnxietyCancer SurvivorsContinuity of Patient CareCost-Benefit AnalysisEquivalence Trials as TopicFeasibility StudiesGeneral PractitionersGuideline AdherenceHumansKallikreinsMaleMulticenter Studies as TopicNetherlandsPractice Guidelines as TopicKallikreinsKLK3 protein, humanProstate-Specific AntigenFollow-upGeneral practitionerPrimary careProstate cancerRandomized controlled trialSecondary careSpecialistSurvivorship

Identifiers

PMID32641023
PMCPMC7346492
OpenAlexW3041538120

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.