The True NTH Prostate Cancer Survivorship Care programme: Development and evaluation of a model for delivering follow-up care to men with prostate cancer.

42 Background: Increasing use of prostate specific antigen (PSA), improvements in treatment and aging population have led to the escalating incidence of prostate cancer. 5 year survival rate is relatively high and men who have completed treatment require long-term follow-up to detect recurrence or progression of disease, monitor adverse effects of treatment and identify and address psychosocial needs. Studies demonstrate men have a range of unmet physical and psychosocial needs, and health services are struggling to cope with the growing numbers. Changes is critical for long-term sustainability of the health system in many developed nations Methods: This presentation presents a model of follow up care centered on remote surveillance of PSA combined with promoting patient self-management. This initiative is part of the True NTH programme of developments initiated in the UK with funding from Movember Foundation and Prostate Cancer UK. Traditional face to face clinic follow up consultations are replaced with: patient directed individually tailored care and surveillance programme which involves: a 4 hour preparatory patient workshop, remote assessment of unmet needs and symptoms and surveillance of PSA, patient information resources, survivorship care plan, communication of treatment summary and management plan to primary care, and rapid recall system for assessment in secondary care should the need arise. The care programme is mediated through clinician and patient access to an IT portal enabling communication. RESULTS The second part of the presentation will describe the evaluation protocol. A historical cohort design is comparing a group of men receiving clinic follow up care (N = 300) with men enrolled on the care programme (N = 300) in 3 centers. Patient-reported outcomes are collected at baseline, 4 months and 8 months. Health economic evaluation will compare costs of clinic based follow up with those of the care programme from both a health service and patient perspective. CONCLUSIONS The evaluation will generate data on impact, acceptability and cost of this model of follow-up care.