Literature DB >> 16077933

Patient surveillance after curative-intent surgery for rectal cancer.

Frank E Johnson1, Walter E Longo, Kenichi Ode, Umar S Shariff, Trifonas Papettas, Alaine E McGarry, Steven R Gammon, Paul A Lee, Riccardo A Audisio, Erik M Grossmann, Katherine S Virgo.   

Abstract

The follow-up of patients with rectal cancer after potentially curative resection has significant financial and clinical implications for patients and society. The ideal regimen for monitoring patients is unknown. We evaluated the self-reported practice patterns of a large, diverse group of experts. There is little information available describing the actual practice of clinicians who perform potentially curative surgery on rectal cancer patients and follow them after recovery. The 1795 members of the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons were asked, via a detailed questionnaire, how often they request 14 discrete follow-up modalities in their patients treated for cure with TNM stage I, II, or III rectal cancer over the first five post-treatment years. 566/1782 (32%) responded and 347 of the respondents (61%) provided evaluable data. Members of the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons typically follow their own patients postoperatively rather than sending them back to their referral source. Office visit and serum CEA level are the most frequently requested items for each of the first five postoperative years. Endoscopy and imaging tests are also used regularly. Considerable variation exists among these highly experienced, highly credentialed experts. The surveillance strategies reported here rely most heavily on relatively simple and inexpensive tests. Endoscopy is employed frequently; imaging tests are employed less often. The observed variation in the intensity of postoperative monitoring is of concern.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16077933

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Oncol        ISSN: 1019-6439            Impact factor:   5.650


  5 in total

Review 1.  Surveillance of patients following surgery with curative intent for colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Steven Gan; Katherine Wilson; Paul Hollington
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2007-07-28       Impact factor: 5.742

2.  Evaluation of patients with clinically detected recurrence of rectal carcinoma: Current practice patterns of colorectal surgeons.

Authors:  Ankur Sangoi; Uday Patel; Kenichi Ode; Riccardo Audisio; Katherine S Virgo; Frank E Johnson
Journal:  Oncol Lett       Date:  2010-03-01       Impact factor: 2.967

3.  Practice patterns in rectal cancer patient follow-up are unaffected by surgeon age.

Authors:  Uday Patel; Kenichi Ode; Riccardo A Audisio; Katherine S Virgo; Frank E Johnson
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 2.037

4.  Diagnosis delay and follow-up strategies in colorectal cancer. Prognosis implications: a study protocol.

Authors:  Salvador Pita Fernández; Sonia Pértega Díaz; Beatriz López Calviño; Paloma González Santamaría; Teresa Seoane Pillado; Francisco Arnal Monreal; Francesc Maciá; María Antonia Sánchez Calavera; Alejandro Espí Macías; Manuel Valladares Ayerbes; Alejandro Pazos; Margarita Reboredo López; Luis González Saez; María Ramos Montserrat; Josep María Segura Noguera; Isabel Monreal Aliaga; Luis González Luján; María Martín Rabadán; Cristiane Murta Nascimento; Olga Pueyo; Marta Maia Boscá Watts; Elena Cabeza Irigoyen; Montserrat Casmitjana Abella; Marina Pinilla; Ana Costa Alcaraz; Amador Ruiz Torrejón; Andrea Burón Pust; Concepción García Aranda; María de Lluc Bennasar; Sergio Lafita Mainz; Maite Novella; Hermini Manzano; Catalina Vadell; Esther Falcó; Magdalena Esteva
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2010-10-05       Impact factor: 4.430

5.  PET/CT: will it change the way that we use CT in cancer imaging?

Authors:  Rodney J Hicks; Robert E Ware; Eddie W F Lau
Journal:  Cancer Imaging       Date:  2006-10-31       Impact factor: 3.909

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.