Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Does the routine clinical practice of follow up after primary treatment in lung cancer patients has any utility.
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.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| 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. | 2 years |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Analysis | On average, each patient spent INR 5117.10 on travel and INR 3079.06 on lodging per follow up visit. | 2 years |
Not provided
Inclusion Criteria:
Exclusion Criteria:
Not provided
Not provided
All curative lung cancer patients after there intial primary treatment who have already been given scheduled appointment shall be called telephonically every 3 months. A set of questions shall be asked to the patient in his /her vernacular during the telephonic interview.After the telephonic interview, the patients shall then report to the cancer care specialist at the Hospital for the due follow up visit.
Not provided
| Name | Affiliation | Role |
|---|---|---|
| JP AGARWAL, MD | Tata Memorial Hospital | Principal Investigator |
| Facility | Status | City | State | ZIP | Country | Contacts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tata Memorial Hospital | Mumbai | MS | 400012 | India |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| FG000 | Total Cohort | Single-arm Prospective cohort |
| Title | Milestones | Reasons Not Completed | |||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Study |
|
|
Not provided
Not provided
| ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| BG000 | Total Cohort | Single-arm Prospective cohort |
| Units | Counts |
|---|---|
| Participants |
|
| Title | Description | Population Description | Parameter Type | Dispersion Type | Unit of Measure | Calculate Percentage | Denominator Units Selected | Denominators | Classes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, Continuous | Median |
| Type | Title | Description | Population Description | Reporting Status | Anticipated Posting Date | Parameter Type | Dispersion Type | Unit of Measure | Calculate Percentage | Time Frame | Units Analyzed | Denominator Units Selected | Arm/Group Information | Denominators | Classes | Analyses | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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. | Posted | Number | 95% Confidence Interval | probability | 2 years |
|
|
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| ID | Title | Description | Deaths (Affected) | Deaths (At Risk) | Serious Events (Affected) | Serious Events (At Risk) | Other Events (Affected) | Other Events (At Risk) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EG000 | Total Cohort | Single-arm Prospective cohort |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Title | Organization | Phone | Extension | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dr. J.P. Agarwal | Dept. of Radiation Oncology, Tata Memorial Hospital | +91 22 24177000 | 7164 | agarwaljp@tmc.gov.in |
Not provided
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D008175 | Lung Neoplasms |
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D012142 | Respiratory Tract Neoplasms |
| D013899 | Thoracic Neoplasms |
| D009371 | Neoplasms by Site |
| D009369 | Neoplasms |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| years |
|
| Sex: Female, Male | Count of Participants | Participants |
|
| Region of Enrollment | Number | participants |
|
| Stage | AJCC 7th edition Stage Group | Number | participants |
|
| Histology | Number | participants |
|
|
| Secondary | Cost Analysis | On average, each patient spent INR 5117.10 on travel and INR 3079.06 on lodging per follow up visit. | Patients of lung cancer treated with curative intent and on follow up with our institution | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | Indian Rupees | 2 years |
|
|
|
| 0 |
| 200 |
| 0 |
| 200 |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| D008171 |
| Lung Diseases |
| D012140 | Respiratory Tract Diseases |