RESUMEN
PURPOSE: New follow-up models of care are needed to ensure long-term comprehensive care for cancer survivors. We investigated the impact of a general practitioner (GP)-led follow-up program for prostate cancer (PCa) and renal cell cancer (RCC) survivors. METHODS: This retrospective monocentric study compared standard urologist-led follow-up to experimental GP-led follow-up within a nurse-led network for PCa and RCC survivors. To assess the safe continuity of follow-up, the number of patients lost to follow-up (LFU) was collected. A microcosting analysis from the French national health system perspective was conducted to describe incremental costs associated with experimental follow-up. A satisfaction survey was conducted to determine participating patient's and GP's satisfaction scores, ranging from 0 to 4 and 0 to 5, respectively. RESULTS: Among the 1274 patients included, 92/753 (12.2%) were LFU during standard follow-up vs 0/521 (0%) during experimental follow-up (p < 0.001). In the latter, the median management delay of suspected recurrence for PCa and RCC survivors was 20 [12-27] and 16 [10.5-31.25] days, and the mean incremental cost on a per-patient basis was 34.68 ± 105.87 and 64.24 ± 93.55, respectively. Patient and GP mean satisfaction scores were 3.6/4 and 3.9/5, respectively. CONCLUSION: The GP-led follow-up of PCa and RCC survivors within a nurse-led network seems to provide safe continuity of follow-up and seems not to be associated with major incremental costs. The surveys indicated high level of patient's satisfaction and encouraging results regarding GP's satisfaction. Randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm these findings and promote larger implementation of this type of follow-up care.