BACKGROUND: There are no clear recommendations to guide posttreatment surveillance in patients with pancreatic cancer. Our goal was to describe the posttreatment surveillance patterns in patients undergoing curative-intent resection for pancreatic cancer. METHODS: We used Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare linked data (1992-2005) to identify CT scans and physician visits in patients with pancreatic cancer who underwent curative resection (n = 2393). Surveillance began 90 days after surgery, and patients were followed for 2 years at 6-month intervals. Patients were censored if they died, experienced recurrence of disease, or entered hospice. RESULTS: A total of 2045 patients survived uncensored to the beginning of the surveillance period. CT scan use decreased from 20.9% of patients in month 4 to 6.4% in month 27. There was no temporal pattern in CT use to suggest regular surveillance. Twenty-three percent of patients did not receive a CT scan in the year after surgery, increasing to 42% the second year. Patients who underwent adjuvant therapy and patients diagnosed in later years had higher CT scan use over the surveillance periods. Most patients visited both a primary care physician and a cancer specialist in each 6-month surveillance period. Patients who visited cancer specialists were more likely to have any CT scan and to be scanned more frequently. CONCLUSIONS: Current surveillance patterns after resection for pancreatic cancer reflect the lack of established guidelines, implying a need for evaluation and standardization of surveillance protocols. The lack of a temporal pattern in CT testing suggests that most were obtained to evaluate symptoms rather than for routine surveillance.
BACKGROUND: There are no clear recommendations to guide posttreatment surveillance in patients with pancreatic cancer. Our goal was to describe the posttreatment surveillance patterns in patients undergoing curative-intent resection for pancreatic cancer. METHODS: We used Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare linked data (1992-2005) to identify CT scans and physician visits in patients with pancreatic cancer who underwent curative resection (n = 2393). Surveillance began 90 days after surgery, and patients were followed for 2 years at 6-month intervals. Patients were censored if they died, experienced recurrence of disease, or entered hospice. RESULTS: A total of 2045 patients survived uncensored to the beginning of the surveillance period. CT scan use decreased from 20.9% of patients in month 4 to 6.4% in month 27. There was no temporal pattern in CT use to suggest regular surveillance. Twenty-three percent of patients did not receive a CT scan in the year after surgery, increasing to 42% the second year. Patients who underwent adjuvant therapy and patients diagnosed in later years had higher CT scan use over the surveillance periods. Most patients visited both a primary care physician and a cancer specialist in each 6-month surveillance period. Patients who visited cancer specialists were more likely to have any CT scan and to be scanned more frequently. CONCLUSIONS: Current surveillance patterns after resection for pancreatic cancer reflect the lack of established guidelines, implying a need for evaluation and standardization of surveillance protocols. The lack of a temporal pattern in CT testing suggests that most were obtained to evaluate symptoms rather than for routine surveillance.
Authors: Gregory S Cooper; Christine Cole Johnson; Lois Lamerato; Laila M Poisson; Lonni Schultz; Jan Simpkins; Karen Wells; Marianne Ulcickas Yood; Gary Chase; S David Nathanson; Jennifer Elston Lafata Journal: Med Care Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Chang Moo Kang; Jun Young Kim; Gi Hong Choi; Kyung Sik Kim; Jin Sub Choi; Woo Jung Lee; Byong Ro Kim Journal: J Surg Res Date: 2007-04-09 Impact factor: 2.192
Authors: Chandrajit P Raut; Jennifer F Tseng; Charlotte C Sun; Huamin Wang; Robert A Wolff; Christopher H Crane; Rosa Hwang; Jean-Nicolas Vauthey; Eddie K Abdalla; Jeffrey E Lee; Peter W T Pisters; Douglas B Evans Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2007-07 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Nancy L Keating; Mary Beth Landrum; Edward Guadagnoli; Eric P Winer; John Z Ayanian Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-03-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Timothy J Kinsella; Yuji Seo; Joseph Willis; Thomas A Stellato; Christopher T Siegel; Deborah Harpp; James K Willson; Joseph Gibbons; Juan R Sanabria; Jeffrey M Hardacre; James P Schulak Journal: Am J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-10 Impact factor: 2.339
Authors: Claire F Snyder; Craig C Earle; Robert J Herbert; Bridget A Neville; Amanda L Blackford; Kevin D Frick Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-03-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Melissa A Frick; Carolyn C Vachani; Margaret K Hampshire; Christina Bach; Karen Arnold-Korzeniowski; James M Metz; Christine E Hill-Kayser Journal: J Gastrointest Oncol Date: 2017-10
Authors: Justin A Barnes; Melissa L Ellis; Sharon Hwang; Joan Emarine; Patti Merwin; Gregory D Salinas; Benjamin L Musher Journal: J Gastrointest Cancer Date: 2019-03
Authors: Joan L Warren; Michael J Barrett; Dolly P White; Robert Banks; Susannah Cafardi; Lindsey Enewold Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr Date: 2020-05-01
Authors: Raymond G Deobald; Eva S W Cheng; Yoo-Joung Ko; Frances C Wright; Paul J Karanicolas Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2014-12-24 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: Omar Hyder; Rebecca M Dodson; Hari Nathan; Joseph M Herman; David Cosgrove; Ihab Kamel; Jean-Francois H Geschwind; Timothy M Pawlik Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2013-09-13 Impact factor: 6.113