Literature DB >> 15239990

Cost and effectiveness of follow-up examinations in patients with colorectal cancer resected for cure in a French population-based study.

Frédéric Borie1, Jean-Pierre Daurès, Bertrand Millat, Brigitte Trétarre.   

Abstract

The cost of follow-up examinations for patients having undergone potentially curative surgery for colorectal cancer is considerable. The aim of this study was to provide a thorough assessment of the cost and effectiveness of the follow-up tests used during the 5 years after surgical resection for colorectal cancer and its recurrences. We studied medical and economic data from the records of 256 patients registered in the Herault Tumor Registry who underwent potentially curative surgical resection in 1992. Recurrence, curative recurrence, survival, and the cost of follow-up tests were assessed respectively for at least 5 years. We analyzed the cost and effectiveness of follow-up tests in patients who received either follow-up with carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) monitoring as advocated by the 1998 French consensus conference recommendations (standard follow-up) or a more minimal follow-up schedule. Nine patients died in the postoperative period. The 5-year survival rates in the standard and minimal follow-up groups were 85% and 79%, respectively (p=0.25). Cost-effectiveness ratios were 2123 in Dukes' stage A patients, 4306 in Dukes' stage B patients, and 9600 in Dukes' stage C patients. Cost-effectiveness ratios for CEA monitoring and abdominal ultrasonography per patient alive in the standard follow-up group were 1238 and 2261.5, respectively. Cost-effectiveness ratios for CEA monitoring and abdominal ultrasonography per patient alive in the minimal follow-up group were 1478 and 573, respectively. There were no survivors 5 years after a recurrence when the recurrence was detected by physical examination, chest X-ray, and colonoscopy in either follow-up group. Dukes' classification is a poor indicator of patient selection. The follow-up tests should only include CEA monitoring and abdominal ultrasonography for the diagnosis of recurrence.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15239990     DOI: 10.1016/j.gassur.2004.02.012

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg        ISSN: 1091-255X            Impact factor:   3.452


  28 in total

1.  [Colonic cancer: change in circumstances and techniques of diagnosis in France between 1990 and 1995].

Authors:  P Grosclaude; C Herbert; B Tretare; P Arveux; N Raverdy; P Schaffer; F Menegoz; J Faivre
Journal:  Gastroenterol Clin Biol       Date:  1998-03

2.  The value of a follow-up programme after radical surgery for colorectal carcinoma.

Authors:  J T Ovaska; H J Järvinen; J P Mecklin
Journal:  Scand J Gastroenterol       Date:  1989-05       Impact factor: 2.423

3.  The value of hepatic ultrasound and biochemical liver tests in screening for liver metastases.

Authors:  M A Tempero; C A Williams; J C Anderson
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  1986-07       Impact factor: 44.544

Review 4.  Colorectal cancer. The bases for a comprehensive follow-up.

Authors:  J M Devesa; V Morales; J M Enriquez; J Nuño; J Camuñas; M J Hernandez; C Avila
Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum       Date:  1988-08       Impact factor: 4.585

5.  Detection of liver metastases from colorectal cancer: comparison of intraoperative US and CT during arterial portography.

Authors:  P Soyer; M Levesque; D Elias; G Zeitoun; A Roche
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1992-05       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  NCCN Colorectal Cancer Practice Guidelines. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

Authors:  P F Engstrom; A B Benson; A Cohen; J Doroshow; K Kiel; J Niederhuber; M Roh; M Tempero
Journal:  Oncology (Williston Park)       Date:  1996-11       Impact factor: 2.990

7.  Five-year follow-up after radical surgery for colorectal cancer. Results of a prospective randomized trial.

Authors:  J T Mäkelä; S O Laitinen; M I Kairaluoma
Journal:  Arch Surg       Date:  1995-10

8.  Portal-phase contrast-enhanced helical CT for the detection of malignant hepatic tumors: sensitivity based on comparison with intraoperative and pathologic findings.

Authors:  B S Kuszyk; D A Bluemke; B A Urban; M A Choti; R H Hruban; J V Sitzmann; E K Fishman
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1996-01       Impact factor: 3.959

9.  Follow-up in colorectal cancer patients: a cost-benefit analysis.

Authors:  R A Audisio; P Setti-Carraro; M Segala; D Capko; B Andreoni; G Tiberio
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  1996-07       Impact factor: 5.344

10.  Cost of patient follow-up after potentially curative colorectal cancer treatment.

Authors:  K S Virgo; A M Vernava; W E Longo; L W McKirgan; F E Johnson
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1995-06-21       Impact factor: 56.272

View more
  7 in total

1.  Estimating the cost related to surveillance of colorectal cancer in a French population.

Authors:  Catherine Lejeune; Christine Binquet; Franck Bonnetain; Amel Mahboubi; Michal Abrahamowicz; Thierry Moreau; Maria Raikou; Laurent Bedenne; Catherine Quantin; Claire Bonithon-Kopp
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2009-03-04

2.  Systematic follow-up after curative surgery for colorectal cancer in Norway: a population-based audit of effectiveness, costs, and compliance.

Authors:  Hartwig Körner; Kjetil Söreide; Pål J Stokkeland; Jon Arne Söreide
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 3.452

Review 3.  Receipt of recommended surveillance among colorectal cancer survivors: a systematic review.

Authors:  Melissa Y Carpentier; Sally W Vernon; L Kay Bartholomew; Caitlin C Murphy; Shirley M Bluethmann
Journal:  J Cancer Surviv       Date:  2013-05-16       Impact factor: 4.442

Review 4.  Alternatives for the intensive follow-up after curative resection of colorectal cancer. Potential novel biomarkers for the recommendations.

Authors:  Enikő Orosz; István Ember; Katalin Gombos; László Tóth; Ádám Tarpay; Ákos Pap; Szabolcs Ottó
Journal:  Pathol Oncol Res       Date:  2013-07-19       Impact factor: 3.201

Review 5.  Economic studies in colorectal cancer: challenges in measuring and comparing costs.

Authors:  K Robin Yabroff; Laurel Borowski; Joseph Lipscomb
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr       Date:  2013

6.  A cost and benefit study of esophagectomy for patients with esophageal cancer.

Authors:  Chih-Cheng Hsieh; Ching-Wen Chien
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2009-07-28       Impact factor: 3.452

Review 7.  Blood CEA levels for detecting recurrent colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Brian D Nicholson; Bethany Shinkins; Indika Pathiraja; Nia W Roberts; Tim J James; Susan Mallett; Rafael Perera; John N Primrose; David Mant
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2015-12-10
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.