Skip to main content

Data from: Gynaecological cancer follow-up: national survey of current practice in the UK

Cite this dataset

Leeson, Simon et al. (2013). Data from: Gynaecological cancer follow-up: national survey of current practice in the UK [Dataset]. Dryad.


Objective: To establish a baseline of national practice for follow-up after treatment for gynaecological cancer. Design: Questionnaire survey. Setting: Gynaecological cancer centres and units. Geographical location: UK Participants: Members of the British Gynaecological Cancer Society and the National Forum of Gynaecological Oncology Nurses. Interventions: A questionnaire survey. Outcome measures: To determine schedules of follow-up, who provides it and what routine testing is used for patients who have had previous gynaecological cancer. Results: A total of 117 responses were obtained; 115 (98%) reported hospital scheduled regular follow-up appointments. Two involved General Practitioners. Follow-up was augmented or replaced by telephone follow-up in 29 (25%) and patient initiated appointments in 38 responses (32%). A total of 80 (68%) cancer specialists also offered combined follow-up clinics with other specialties. Clinical examinations for hospital based follow-up were mainly performed by doctors (67% for scheduled regular appointments and 63% for patient initiated appointments) while telephone follow-up care was provided in the majority by nurses (76%). Most respondents provided routine tests (76/117 (65%)), from which 66/76 (87%) reported carrying out surveillance tests for ovarian cancer, 35/76 (46%) for cervical cancer, 8/76 (11%) for vulval cancer and 7/76 (9%) for endometrial cancer. Usually patients were discharged after five years (82/117 (70%)), whereas three (3%) were discharged after four years, nine (8%) after three and one (1%) after two years. Conclusions: Practice varied but most used a standard hospital based protocol of appointments for five years and routine tests were performed usually for women with ovarian cancer. A minority utilised nurse-led or telephone follow-up. General Practitioners were rarely involved in routine care. A randomised study comparing various models of follow-up could be considered.

Usage notes