Advances in Clinical and Experimental Medicine

Title abbreviation: Adv Clin Exp Med
JCR Impact Factor (IF) – 1.736
5-Year Impact Factor – 2.135
Index Copernicus  – 166.39
MEiN – 70 pts

ISSN 1899–5276 (print)
ISSN 2451-2680 (online)
Periodicity – monthly

Download original text (EN)

Advances in Clinical and Experimental Medicine

Ahead of print

doi: 10.17219/acem/149915

Publication type: original article

Language: English

License: Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported (CC BY 3.0)

Download citation:

  • BIBTEX (JabRef, Mendeley)
  • RIS (Papers, Reference Manager, RefWorks, Zotero)

Cite as:


Xu M, Zhu L, Yang J. Nurse-led cancer palliative care compared to oncologist-led cancer palliative care: A retrospective analysis of Chinese patients suffering from cancer and receiving chemotherapy [published online ahead of print on June 6, 2022]. Adv Clin Exp Med. 2022. doi:10.17219/acem/149915

Nurse-led cancer palliative care compared to oncologist-led cancer palliative care: A retrospective analysis of Chinese patients suffering from cancer and receiving chemotherapy

Mengtian Xu1,B,E,F, Li Zhu1,C,E,F, Jingjuan Yang1,A,D,E,F

1 Department of Infectious Diseases, First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou, China

Abstract

Background. Cancer palliative care is recommended by guidelines for patients with early stage of cancer. Unlike the Western countries, in mainland China, cancer patients receive specialist-led cancer palliative care. Nurse-led cancer palliative care (NUC) is not well established yet.

Objectives. To compare the clinical outcome measures, quality of life and symptom distress in patients suffering from cancer who received NUC with the same results in patient who received consulting oncologist-led cancer palliative care (ONC).

Materials and methods. The study was a chart review of a database of patients suffering from cancer. Data regarding clinical outcome measures, quality of life and symptom distress of patients suffering from cancer who were receiving chemotherapy and NUC (NUC cohort, n = 185) or ONC (ONC cohort, n = 170) were collected and analyzed. One oncologist or 1 nurse was involved in treating 1 patient during the patient’s hospital visit. Each visit took 30 min. The Chinese version of the Symptom Distress Scale was used for the evaluation of the degree of symptom distress. The simplified Chinese version of the European Organization for Research and Treatment Quality of Life Questionnaire (the EORTC QLQ-C30) v. 3.0 was used for evaluation of the quality of life.

Results. Female patients preferred NUC (p < 0.0001). The pain intensity (4.13 ±1.71 compared to 3.35 ±1.01, p < 0.0001), dyspnea (3.89 ±1.48 compared to 2.82 ±0.97, p < 0.0001), constipation (3.56 ±1.78 compared to 3.06 ±1.89, p = 0.0107), and degree of symptom distress (38.09 ±7.26 compared to 35.05 ±7.92, p = 0.0002) were reported higher among patients from the ONC cohort than among those from the NUC cohort. Patients from the NUC cohort reported a better quality of life than those from the ONC cohort (70.41 ±13.62 compared to 45.63 ±7.94, p < 0.0001).

Conclusions. The NUC results in better clinical outcome measures and higher quality of life than ONC for patients receiving chemotherapy.

Key words: cancer, cancer palliative care, nurse, oncologist, quality of life

 

Background

Cancer is a widespread disease responsible for mortality and death.1 At the time of diagnosis, most patients are in an advanced stage of cancer (IIIb or IV) and very few are in an early stage.2 Patients diagnosed at an advanced stage have a poor prognosis, lower survival rate and a higher symptom burden than those diagnosed at an early stage.1, 3 Chemotherapy has adverse effects on the health of patients.1 Advances in technology and radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy make the conditions of patients during the treatment period complex.4, 5 Nurses are members of the oncology multidisciplinary team and contribute to the well-being of patients before and after the cancer treatment.6

Outcomes after chemotherapies are required to be predicted before further chemotherapy treatment cycles for the success of the previous intervention(s) and to avoid emergency condition(s). Guidelines recommend cancer palliative care for patients with an early stage of the disease.7 The clinics operated with nurse-led cancer palliative care (NUC) model have better clinical outcomes than those operated with clinician-led cancer palliative care (ONC).8 Unlike the Western countries, in mainland China, cancer patients receive ONC. Therefore, the NUC is not well established yet. Pilot studies performed in the 947 Hospital of PLA, Kashgar Shule, China, the Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, and Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Hong Kong,1, 5 meta-analyses9, 10 and randomized trials on adult patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia11 reported that NUC results in better clinical outcomes than non-nurse-led cancer palliative care in patients with cancer. However, ONC is the preferred supportive adjuvant care modality among cancer patients.12 There are only a few studies available to compare the effectiveness of NUC and ONC or non-nurse-led cancer palliative care in Chinese cancer patients.

Objectives

The objectives of this non-randomized, non-treatment and retrospective study were to compare the clinical outcome measures (pain, dyspnea and constipation), quality of life, symptom distress, and survival of Chinese patients suffering from cancer and receiving chemotherapy who received NUC to those of patients who received ONC.

Materials and methods

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study was a chart review of a database of patients suffering from cancer. Therefore, informed consent from patients, registration into the Chinese trial registry or approval from the human ethics committee of the First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou, China, were not required. The study adheres to the law of China and the 2008 Declaration of Helsinki.

Study population

From March 27, 2018, to April 18, 2020, a total of 355 patients suffering from cancer have been receiving chemotherapy at the Department of Oncology of the First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University (Suzhou, China) and the referring hospitals, and were under NUC or ONC. Patients with missing data were excluded. Data regarding cancer and chemotherapy-related symptoms and quality of life of 355 patients were collected from the institutional records. The flow diagram of the retrospective analysis is presented in Figure 1.

Cohorts

A total of 185 patients were subjected to NUC regarding physical check-ups, education, treatment adherence control, and counseling at the time of hospital visits because consulting oncologists were unavailable. These patients were included in the NUC cohort. A total of 170 patients were subjected to ONC regarding the same features at the time of hospital visits because their cases were difficult to manage due to history or comorbidities (e.g., respiratory or gastrointestinal disease) that were observed by a physician. These patients were included in the ONC cohort. One oncologist or 1 nurse was involved in treating one patient during the patient’s hospital visit. Each visit took 30 min.

Clinical outcome measures

Physical measures

Pain was evaluated on a scale of 0–10, on which 0 indicates no pain and 10 indicates the worst possible pain. Dyspnea was evaluated on a scale of 0–10, where 0 indicates no dyspnea and 10 indicates the worst possible dyspnea. Constipation was evaluated on a scale of 0–10, where 0 indicates no constipation and 10 indicates the worst possible constipation.

Quality of life

The quality of life of patients was assessed by a trained instructor (3 years of experience) of First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, using the simplified Chinese version of the European Organization for Research and Treatment Quality of Life Questionnaire (the EORTC QLQ-C30) v. 3.0. It includes 32 items divided into 4 domains (physical, psychological, social, and adverse effects) and 9 facets. Each item is evaluated based on a 5-point Likert scale. The score ranges from 32 to 160. The higher the score, the better the quality of life.13

Symptom distress

The Chinese version of the Symptom Distress Scale was used for the evaluation of the degree of symptom distress of patients. A total of 24 common symptoms were included in the evaluation of the degree of symptom distress. Each item is scored based on a 5-point Likert scale. The score ranges from 0 to 120. The higher the score, the higher the degree of symptom distress.14

Progression free-survival

During treatment or follow-up, if patients were not subjected to extra chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy besides routine chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy (at the oncologist’s discretion), it was considered progression-free survival. Patients visit the hospitals frequently during the course of treatment and clinical outcome measures were evaluated during such visits.

Statistical analyses

InStat v. 3.01 software (GraphPad Software, San Diego, USA) was used to perform statistical analyses. All eligible patients were included in the analysis. Continuous data are demonstrated as mean ± standard deviation (SD) and constant data are demonstrated as frequency (percentages). The Fisher’s exact test was used for constant data. Distribution of continuous data was checked visually whether they were distributed normally or not normally through frequency distribution. The continuous data were distributed normally. The homogeneity of variance of continuous data was checked using the Brown–Forsythe test (Table 1). If the population variance was not equal, unpaired t-test with Welch’s correction was used for continuous data, and if the population variance was equal, unpaired t-test was used for continuous data. All results were considered significant if the p-value was lower than 0.05.

Results

Demographical and clinical conditions

Female patients preferred NUC (p < 0.0001). There is a distinct and significant difference in the types of cancer between the groups – for example, most prostate cancer patients received ONC (p < 0.0001). The other demographical and clinical conditions of patients before the start of chemotherapy presented no statistically significant differences between both cohorts (p > 0.05, Table 2).

Outcome measures

The pain intensity in patients who received ONC was higher than in those who had received NUC (4.13 ±1.71 (minimum: 2, maximum: 8) compared to 3.35 ±1.01 (minimum: 2, maximum: 8), p < 0.0001, degrees of freedom (df): 353, t-value: 5.271; t-test). Dyspnea was reported higher among patients who received ONC than in those who received NUC (3.89 ±1.48 (minimum: 1, maximum: 8) compared to 2.82 ±0.97 (minimum: 1, maximum: 8), p < 0.0001, df: 353, t-value: 8.189; t-test). Constipation was reported higher among patients who received ONC than in those who received NUC (3.56 ±1.78 (minimum: 1, maximum: 9) compared to 3.06 ±1.89 (minimum: 1, maximum: 8), p = 0.0107, df: 352, Welch’s approximate t-value: 2.568; t-test with Welch’s correction). Patients who received NUC had better quality of life than those who received ONC (70.41 ±13.62 (minimum: 32, maximum: 90) compared to 45.63 ±7.94 (minimum: 33, maximum: 70), p < 0.0001, df: 300, Welch’s approximate t-value: 21.145; t-test with Welch’s correction). Patients who received ONC had a higher degree of symptom distress than those who received NUC (38.09 ±7.26 (minimum: 17, maximum: 50) compared to 35.05 ±7.92 (minimum: 15, maximum: 50), p = 0.0002, df: 352, Welch’s approximate t-value: 3.806; t-test with Welch correction).

Survival

Eighteen months after the start of treatment, 11 (6%) patients from the NUC cohort and 10 (6%) patients from the ONC cohort have died (p = 0.999). A total of 174 (94%) patients from the NUC cohort and 160 (94%) patients from the ONC cohort survived 18 months from the start of treatment, irrespective of disease conditions. There was no statistically significant difference in overall survival 18 months from the start of treatment (p = 0.999). After this period, 65 (35%) patients from the NUC cohort and 45 (26%) patients from the ONC cohort achieved progression-free survival. There was no statistically significant difference in progression-free survival 18 months after the start of treatment (p = 0.086). During the treatment and follow-up period, 1 (1%) patient from the NUC cohort and 2 (1%) patients from the ONC cohort developed distal metastasis (p = 0.609).

Discussion

The current study found that pain intensity, dyspnea, constipation, and symptom distress were lower, and the quality of life was higher among patients who received NUC than those who received ONC. The results of clinical outcome measures in the current study were consistent with those of a pilot study,1 a randomized, parallel study,8 a meta-analysis,9 and some randomized trials11, 15, 16, 17 but were not consistent with those of other randomized trials.18, 19 Heterogeneity of patient cohorts and short follow-up of the current study were responsible for results contradictory with those of randomized trials.18, 19 The NUC results in better clinical outcome measures and quality of life than ONC.

Eighteen months after the start of treatment, there were statistically significant differences in the occurrence of death, progression-free survival, overall survival, and occurrence of metastases between both cohorts. The survival rates of the current study were consistent with those of randomized trials.18, 19 The cancer palliative care given by nurses or oncologists has no effects on chemotherapy outcomes. However, it can affect the quality of life, symptoms and mental strength of the patients.

Results of the different published studies are reported in Table 3.

All patients were offered either NUC or ONC. However, female patients preferred NUC. Female patients mostly suffered from breast, thyroid and/or cervical cancer. The NUC provides great effects in some areas of oncology, for example, in breast cancer treatment. Yet, there is usually a great imbalance of sexes in NUC and ONC cohorts that strongly influences the quality of life results.

Limitations

There are several limitations of the study that have to be reported. It is a retrospective study which lacks randomized trial and had a short (18-month) follow-up. There was a heterogeneity of patients among cohorts, which may create a bias in the analysis. There was also an imbalance in the types of cancer between groups – a lot of breast cancer patients in the NUC cohort and a lot of prostate cancer patients in the ONC cohort; these differences are statistically significant. Men and women patients suffered from different types of cancer and this imbalance influenced the study results.

Conclusions

The NUC results in better clinical outcome measures and higher quality of life than ONC in Chinese patients suffering from cancer, but this issue needs to be further examined using more sophisticated analytical methods. However, NUC did not change death, progression-free survival, overall survival, and metastasis rates. Female patients, especially those with breast cancer, preferred NUC. The present study provides evidence of the competence of nurses, and more studies like this will lead to the improvement of nurses’ autonomy and professionalism.

Tables


Table 1. The Brown–Forsythe test for the homogeneity of variance of continuous data

Parameter

p-value

Demographical conditions

Age [years]

0.4521

Body mass index [kg/m2]

0.6232

Outcome measures

Pain

0.1336

Dyspnea

0.5543

Constipation

0.0108

EORTC QLQ-C30

0.0005

Symptom distress

0.0003

EORTC QLQ-C30 – the simplified Chinese version of the European Organization for Research and Treatment Quality of Life Questionnaire. A value of p < 0.05 was considered as showing not equal population variance.
Table 2. Demographical and clinical conditions of patients before the start of chemotherapy

Variables

Cohorts

Comparisons

NUC

ONC

Type of cancer palliative care

nurse-led

oncologist-led

p-value

df

t-value

Number of patients

185

170

Gender

male

77 (42)

129 (76)

<0.0001 (Fisher’s exact test)

N/A

N/A

female

108 (58)*

41 (24)

Age [years]

minimum

32

33

0.3392 (t-test)

353

0.9571

maximum

67

67

mean ±SD

39.51 ±7.14

40.45 ±11.09

Body mass index [kg/m2]

24.12 ±2.02

23.89 ±1.88

0.2687 (t-test)

353

1.108

ECOG Performance Status

1

139 (75)

129 (76)

0.902 (Fisher’s exact test)

N/A

N/A

2

46 (25)

41 (24)

Morbidities

diabetes

21 (11)

21 (12)

0.869 (Fisher’s exact test)

N/A

N/A

hypertension

11 (6)

10 (6)

0.999 (Fisher’s exact test)

N/A

N/A

atherosclerosis

10 (5)

17 (10)

0.113 (Fisher’s exact test)

N/A

N/A

dyslipidemia

10 (5)

12 (7)

0.661 (Fisher’s exact test)

N/A

N/A

Type of cancer

breast cancer

58 (31)*

5 (3)

<0.0001 (Fisher’s exact test)

N/A

N/A

prostate cancer

4 (2)

61 (36)

<0.0001 (Fisher’s exact test)

N/A

N/A

colorectal cancer

15 (8)

21 (12)

0.292 (Fisher’s exact test)

N/A

N/A

thyroid cancer

29 (16)*

3 (2)

<0.0001 (Fisher’s exact test)

N/A

N/A

oral cancer

47 (25)

51 (30)

0.344 (Fisher’s exact test)

N/A

N/A

lung cancer

3 (2)

5 (3)

0.487 (Fisher’s exact test)

N/A

N/A

liver cancer

9 (5)

13 (8)

0.379 (Fisher’s exact test)

N/A

N/A

cervical cancer

14 (8)*

2 (1)

0.004 (Fisher’s exact test)

N/A

N/A

brain cancer

1 (1)

2 (1)

0.610 (Fisher’s exact test)

N/A

N/A

skin cancer

5 (3)

7 (4)

0.562 (Fisher’s exact test)

N/A

N/A

Continuous data are demonstrated as mean ± standard deviation (SD) and constant data are demonstrated as frequency (percentages). Unpaired t-test was used for continuous data and Fisher’s exact test was used for constant data. All results were considered significant if the p-value was less than 0.05. * significantly higher value than that of the ONC cohort. NUC – nurse-led cancer palliative care; ONC – oncologist-led cancer palliative care; df – degrees of freedom; N/A – not applicable; ECOG – Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group.
Table 3. Results of similar studies after follow-up care

Variable

Author, year

Zhang et al., 20201

Cheng et al., 20189

Lin et al., 201611

Kim et al., 201815

Beaver et al., 201716

Malmström et al., 201617

Kimman et al., 201118

Verschuur et al., 200919

Country

China

China

China

South Korea

UK

Sweden

the Netherlands

the Netherlands

Number of patients involved

nurse-led cancer palliative care

110

554

36

30

129

26

149

54

consultant-led cancer palliative care

110

556

37

30

130

23

150

55

Pain (VAS)

nurse-led cancer palliative care

NV

NV

31%

20.6 ±19.4

21.5 ±29.8

25.6 ±26.8

NV

12%

consultant-led cancer palliative care

NV

NV

19%

33.3 ±26.6

20.1 ±30.1

16.7 ±15.9

NV

14%

p-value

>0.05

0.624

0.172

0.039*

0.56

0.303

N/A

0.24

Dyspnea

nurse-led cancer palliative care

NV

NV

5.0 ±3.2

20.0 ±22.5

17.5 ±28.5

35.9 ±29.7

NV

NV

consultant-led cancer palliative care

NV

NV

5.6 ±2.9

25.6 ±28.6

13.2 ±23.7

18.8 ±16.9

NV

NV

p-value

>0.05

0.509

0.404

0.403

0.5

0.041*

N/A

N/A

Constipation

nurse-led cancer palliative care

NV

NV

8.1 ±2.0

25.6 ±32.4

10.4 ±20.9

25.5 ±28.8

NV

NV

consultant-led cancer palliative care

NV

NV

11.1 ±3.9

33.3 ±35.0

15.9 ±25.2

18.8 ±28.1

NV

NV

p-value

>0.05

0.001*

0.001*

0.380

0.035*

0.288

N/A

N/A

Quality of life (EORTC QLQ-C30)

nurse-led cancer palliative care

NV

NV

79.6 ±21.0

64.4 ±15.6

71.6 ±19.8

47.8 ±14.4

78.9 ±15.8

74

consultant-led cancer palliative care

NV

NV

63.2 ±18.1

51.4 ±22.4

73.2 ±21.5

40.2 ±15.4

77.2 ±16.6

69

p-value

<0.05*

>0.05

0.009*

0.011*

0.31

<0.001*

0.42

0.13

Symptom distress (Symptom Distress Scale)

nurse-led cancer palliative care

NV

NV

NV

NV

NV

65.4 ±27.8

NV

NV

consultant-led cancer palliative care

NV

NV

NV

NV

NV

64.9 ±21.8

NV

NV

p-value

N/A

0.255

N/A

N/A

N/A

0.698

N/A

0.4

Metastasis

nurse-led cancer palliative care

NV

NV

NV

NV

4%

25%

2%

20%

consultant-led cancer palliative care

NV

NV

NV

NV

4%

22%

2%

29%

p-value

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

0.098

0.691

0.997

0.5

Death

nurse-led cancer palliative care

NV

NV

NV

NV

1%

NV

NV

13%

consultant-led cancer palliative care

NV

NV

NV

NV

1%

NV

NV

13%

p-value

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

0.096

N/A

N/A

0.998

NV – not available; N/A – not applicable; * significant difference. Dyspnea and constipation were evaluated on a scale of 0–10, where 0 indicates no event and 10 indicates the worst possible condition.

Figures


Fig. 1. Flow diagram of retrospective analysis

References (19)

  1. Zhang C, Guo H, Shen M, Chen G. Comparison of clinical effectiveness of nurse led care among Chinese patients with cancer: A prospective study evaluating effective patient care compared to consultant oncologist. J Infect Public Health. 2020;13(2):159–163. doi:10.1016/j.jiph.2019.07.010
  2. Ali A, Goffin JR, Arnold A, Ellis PM. Survival of patients with non-small-cell lung cancer after a diagnosis of brain metastases. Curr Oncol. 2013;20(4):300–306. doi:10.3747/co.20.1481
  3. Tofthagen C, Visovsky C, Dominic S, McMillan S. Neuropathic symptoms, physical and emotional well-being, and quality of life at the end of life. Support Care Cancer. 2019;27(9):3357–3364. doi:10.1007/s00520-018-4627-x
  4. Tho PC, Ang E. The effectiveness of patient navigation programs for adult cancer patients undergoing treatment: A systematic review. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2016;14(2):295–321. doi:10.11124/jbisrir-2016-2324
  5. Lai X, Wong FKY, Leung CWY, et al. Development and assessment of the feasibility of a nurse-led care program for cancer patients in a chemotherapy day center: Results of the pilot study. Cancer Nurs. 2015;38(5):E1–E12. doi:10.1097/NCC.0000000000000192
  6. Brownhill S, Chang E, Bidewell J, Johnson A. A decision model for community nurses providing bereavement care. Br J Commun Nurs. 2013;18(3):133–139. doi:10.12968/bjcn.2013.18.3.133
  7. Schenker Y, Althouse AD, Rosenzweig M, et al. Effect of an oncology nurse-led primary palliative care intervention on patients with advanced cancer: The CONNECT cluster randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2021;181(11):1451. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2021.5185
  8. Wang J, Zou X, Cong L, Liu H. Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of nurse-led care in Chinese patients with rheumatoid arthritis: A randomized trial comparing with rheumatologist-led care. Int J Nurs Pract. 2018;24(1):e12605. doi:10.1111/ijn.12605
  9. Cheng X, Wei S, Zhang H, Xue S, Wang W, Zhang K. Nurse-led interventions on quality of life for patients with cancer: A meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2018;97(34):e12037. doi:10.1097/MD.0000000000012037
  10. Monterosso L, Platt V, Bulsara M, Berg M. Systematic review and meta-analysis of patient reported outcomes for nurse-led models of survivorship care for adult cancer patients. Cancer Treat Rev. 2019;73:62–72. doi:10.1016/j.ctrv.2018.12.007
  11. Lin H, Zhou S, Zhang D, Huang L. Evaluation of a nurse-led management program to complement the treatment of adolescent acute lymphoblastic leukemia patients. Appl Nurs Res. 2016;32:e1–e5. doi:10.1016/j.apnr.2016.08.001
  12. Kirkham AA, Van Patten CL, Gelmon KA, et al. Effectiveness of oncologist-referred exercise and healthy eating programming as a part of supportive adjuvant care for early breast cancer. Oncologist. 2018;23(1):105–115. doi:10.1634/theoncologist.2017-0141
  13. Wan C, Meng Q, Yang Z, et al. Validation of the simplified Chinese version of EORTC QLQ-C30 from the measurements of five types of inpatients with cancer. Ann Oncol. 2008;19(12):2053–2060. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdn417
  14. Tang PL, Wang C, Hung MF, Lin HS. Assessment of symptom distress in cancer patients before and after radiotherapy. Cancer Nurs. 2011;34(1):78–84. doi:10.1097/NCC.0b013e3181f04ac8
  15. Kim YH, Choi KS, Han K, Kim HW. A psychological intervention programme for patients with breast cancer under chemotherapy and at a high risk of depression: A randomised clinical trial. J Clin Nurs. 2018;27(3–4):572–581. doi:10.1111/jocn.13910
  16. Beaver K, Williamson S, Sutton C, 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(1):150–160. doi:10.1111/1471-0528.14000
  17. Malmström M, Ivarsson B, Klefsgård R, Persson K, Jakobsson U, Johansson J. The effect of a nurse led telephone supportive care programme on patients’ quality of life, received information and health care contacts after oesophageal cancer surgery: A six month RCT-follow-up study. Int J Nurs Stud. 2016;64:86–95. doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2016.09.009
  18. Kimman ML, Dirksen CD, Voogd AC, 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(7):1027–1036. doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2010.12.003
  19. Verschuur EML, Steyerberg EW, Tilanus HW, et al. Nurse-led follow-up of patients after oesophageal or gastric cardia cancer surgery: A randomised trial. Br J Cancer. 2009;100(1):70–76. doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6604811