BACKGROUND: Complete resection of a gastric cancer and adjacent lymph nodes offers the only chance for cure of the disease. However, disease recurrence occurs in 22-51% of cases, and its prognosis is very poor. Many clinicians perform post-operative follow-up for these patients, although there is no consensus on the regimen, frequency of visits, mode of testing, or the rationale of a follow-up program. PURPOSE: The objective of this systematic review was to identify the evidence for surveillance in patients with resected gastric cancer, specifically examining the interval of follow-up and the modalities utilized. METHODS: Electronic literature searches were conducted using Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from January 1st 1998 to December 1st 2009. All search titles and abstracts were independently rated for relevance by a minimum of two reviewers. RESULTS: Five articles were selected. A total of 810 patients underwent post-operative follow-up. History and physical examination, hematological and chemistry profile, endoscopy (esophagogastroduodenoscopy [EGD]), and computed tomography (CT) were the most frequently employed modalities. CT detected the majority of recurrences in the included studies. The survival post-recurrence was significantly higher in the asymptomatic group compared with symptomatic group in three studies, but this may simply reflect lead-time bias. No differences in overall survival (OS) were found. CONCLUSION: The included studies failed to show an improvement in OS with more intense surveillance. Further prospective studies are required to determine whether a subgroup of patients may benefit from more intensive follow-up.
BACKGROUND: Complete resection of a gastric cancer and adjacent lymph nodes offers the only chance for cure of the disease. However, disease recurrence occurs in 22-51% of cases, and its prognosis is very poor. Many clinicians perform post-operative follow-up for these patients, although there is no consensus on the regimen, frequency of visits, mode of testing, or the rationale of a follow-up program. PURPOSE: The objective of this systematic review was to identify the evidence for surveillance in patients with resected gastric cancer, specifically examining the interval of follow-up and the modalities utilized. METHODS: Electronic literature searches were conducted using Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from January 1st 1998 to December 1st 2009. All search titles and abstracts were independently rated for relevance by a minimum of two reviewers. RESULTS: Five articles were selected. A total of 810 patients underwent post-operative follow-up. History and physical examination, hematological and chemistry profile, endoscopy (esophagogastroduodenoscopy [EGD]), and computed tomography (CT) were the most frequently employed modalities. CT detected the majority of recurrences in the included studies. The survival post-recurrence was significantly higher in the asymptomatic group compared with symptomatic group in three studies, but this may simply reflect lead-time bias. No differences in overall survival (OS) were found. CONCLUSION: The included studies failed to show an improvement in OS with more intense surveillance. Further prospective studies are required to determine whether a subgroup of patients may benefit from more intensive follow-up.
Authors: Joseph J Bennett; Mithat Gonen; Michael D'Angelica; David P Jaques; Murray F Brennan; Daniel G Coit Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Daniele Marrelli; Alfonso De Stefano; Giovanni de Manzoni; Paolo Morgagni; Alberto Di Leo; Franco Roviello Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2005-02 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: A M Stiggelbout; J C de Haes; R Vree; C J van de Velde; C M Bruijninckx; K van Groningen; J Kievit Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 1997 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: D A Wattchow; D P Weller; A Esterman; L S Pilotto; K McGorm; Z Hammett; C Platell; C Silagy Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2006-04-24 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Leila Sisic; Moritz J Strowitzki; Susanne Blank; Henrik Nienhueser; Sara Dorr; Georg Martin Haag; Dirk Jäger; Katja Ott; Markus W Büchler; Alexis Ulrich; Thomas Schmidt Journal: Gastric Cancer Date: 2017-07-24 Impact factor: 7.370
Authors: David L Chan; Matthew Cheung; Craig C Earle; Natalie Coburn; Nicole Mittmann; Farah Rahman; Ning Liu; Simron Singh Journal: J Gastrointest Cancer Date: 2020-03
Authors: K E Mulder; S Ahmed; J D Davies; C M Doll; S Dowden; S Gill; V Gordon; P Hebbard; H Lim; A McFadden; J P McGhie; J Park; R Wong Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2016-12-21 Impact factor: 3.677
Authors: Thiago Pereira Diniz; Wilson L da Costa; Camila Couto Gomes; Victor Hugo F de Jesus; Tiago C Felismino; Silvio Melo Torres; Héber S C Ribeiro; Alessandro L Diniz; André Luís de Godoy; Igor Correia de Farias; Emmanuel Dias-Neto; Maria Paula Curado; Felipe J F Coimbra Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2021-11-15 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Paolo Aurello; Niccolò Petrucciani; Laura Antolino; Diego Giulitti; Francesco D'Angelo; Giovanni Ramacciato Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2017-05-21 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Sing Yu Moorcraft; Elisa Fontana; David Cunningham; Clare Peckitt; Tom Waddell; Elizabeth C Smyth; William Allum; Jeremy Thompson; Sheela Rao; David Watkins; Naureen Starling; Ian Chau Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2016-02-17 Impact factor: 4.430