Warning: Undefined array key "mm" in /www/wwwroot/www.ai-bt.com/si.php on line 10 Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /www/wwwroot/www.ai-bt.com/si.php on line 10 Do the benefits outweigh the side effects of colorectal cancer surveillance? A systematic review.

Literature DB >> 24834140

Do the benefits outweigh the side effects of colorectal cancer surveillance? A systematic review.

Knut Magne Augestad¹, Johnie Rose¹, Benjamin Crawshaw¹, Gregory Cooper¹, Conor Delaney¹.

Abstract

Most patients treated with curative intent for colorectal cancer (CRC) are included in a follow-up program involving periodic evaluations. The survival benefits of a follow-up program are well delineated, and previous meta-analyses have suggested an overall survival improvement of 5%-10% by intensive follow-up. However, in a recent randomized trial, there was no survival benefit when a minimal vs an intensive follow-up program was compared. Less is known about the potential side effects of follow-up. Well-known side effects of preventive programs are those of somatic complications caused by testing, negative psychological consequences of follow-up itself, and the downstream impact of false positive or false negative tests. Accordingly, the potential survival benefits of CRC follow-up must be weighed against these potential negatives. The present review compares the benefits and side effects of CRC follow-up, and we propose future areas for research.

Entities: Disease Species

Keywords: Cancer survivorship; Colorectal cancer; False positive; Follow-up; Surveillance

Year: 2014 PMID： 24834140 PMCID： PMC4021326 DOI： 10.4251/wjgo.v6.i5.104

Source DB: PubMed Journal: World J Gastrointest Oncol

52 in total

1. Changes in cancer worry associated with participation in ovarian cancer screening.

Authors: M Robyn Andersen; Charles W Drescher; Yingye Zheng; Deborah J Bowen; Susan Wilson; Alicia Young; Martin McIntosh; Barry S Mahony; Kimberly A Lowe; Nicole Urban
Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2007-09 Impact factor: 3.894

2. An interim analysis of recruitment to the COLOFOL trial.

Authors: P Wille-Jørgensen; S Laurberg; L Påhlman; L Carriquiry; N Lundqvist; K Smedh; M Svanfeldt; J Bengtson
Journal: Colorectal Dis Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 3.788

Review 3. Prevention. How much harm? How much benefit? 3. Physical, psychological and social harm.

Authors: K G Marshall
Journal: CMAJ Date: 1996-07-15 Impact factor: 8.262

Review 4. Endoscopic surveillance after curative surgery for sporadic colorectal cancer: patient-tailored, tumor-targeted or biology-driven?

Authors: Kjetil Søreide
Journal: Scand J Gastroenterol Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 2.423

5. Ovarian carcinoma screening in women at intermediate risk: impact on quality of life and need for invasive follow-up.

Authors: Noah D Kauff; Karen E Hurley; Martee L Hensley; Mark E Robson; Gali Lev; Deborah Goldfrank; Mercedes Castiel; Carol L Brown; Jamie S Ostroff; Lucy E Hann; Kenneth Offit; Richard R Barakat
Journal: Cancer Date: 2005-07-15 Impact factor: 6.860

6. Patient satisfaction and health-related quality of life after treatment for colon cancer.

Authors: Carey A Gall; David Weller; Adrian Esterman; Louis Pilotto; Kelly McGorm; Zoe Hammett; David Wattchow
Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 4.585

Review 7. The GIVIO trial on the impact of follow-up care on survival and quality of life in breast cancer patients. Interdisciplinary Group for Cancer Care Evaluation.

Authors: A Liberati
Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 1995 Impact factor: 32.976

8. Follow-up of colorectal cancer patients: quality of life and attitudes towards follow-up.

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

9. Mechanisms of improved survival from intensive followup in colorectal cancer: a hypothesis.

Authors: A G Renehan; M Egger; M P Saunders; S T O'Dwyer
Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2005-02-14 Impact factor: 7.640

10. Effect of 3 to 5 years of scheduled CEA and CT follow-up to detect recurrence of colorectal cancer: the FACS randomized clinical trial.

Authors: John N Primrose; Rafael Perera; Alastair Gray; Peter Rose; Alice Fuller; Andrea Corkhill; Steve George; David Mant
Journal: JAMA Date: 2014-01-15 Impact factor: 56.272

11 in total

10. Healthcare utilisation in general practice and hospitals in the year preceding a diagnosis of cancer recurrence or second primary cancer: a population-based register study.

Authors: Linda Aagaard Rasmussen; Henry Jensen; Line Flytkjær Virgilsen; Alina Zalounina Falborg; Henrik Møller; Peter Vedsted
Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2019-12-05 Impact factor: 2.655

Do the benefits outweigh the side effects of colorectal cancer surveillance? A systematic review.

1. Changes in cancer worry associated with participation in ovarian cancer screening.

2. An interim analysis of recruitment to the COLOFOL trial.

Review 3. Prevention. How much harm? How much benefit? 3. Physical, psychological and social harm.

Review 4. Endoscopic surveillance after curative surgery for sporadic colorectal cancer: patient-tailored, tumor-targeted or biology-driven?

5. Ovarian carcinoma screening in women at intermediate risk: impact on quality of life and need for invasive follow-up.

6. Patient satisfaction and health-related quality of life after treatment for colon cancer.

Review 7. The GIVIO trial on the impact of follow-up care on survival and quality of life in breast cancer patients. Interdisciplinary Group for Cancer Care Evaluation.

8. Follow-up of colorectal cancer patients: quality of life and attitudes towards follow-up.

9. Mechanisms of improved survival from intensive followup in colorectal cancer: a hypothesis.

10. Effect of 3 to 5 years of scheduled CEA and CT follow-up to detect recurrence of colorectal cancer: the FACS randomized clinical trial.

1. Follow-up patterns of cancer survivors: a survey of Canadian radiation oncologists.

Review 2. Follow-up strategies for patients treated for non-metastatic colorectal cancer.

3. Clinical Pattern of Recurrent Disease during the Follow-Up of Rectal Carcinoma.

4. Symptomatic and Asymptomatic Colon Cancer Recurrence: A Multicenter Cohort Study.

5. The utility of surveillance CT scans in a cohort of survivors of colorectal cancer.

6. Follow-up strategies for patients treated for non-metastatic colorectal cancer.

Review 7. Optimal delivery of colorectal cancer follow-up care: improving patient outcomes.

Review 8. Tailored Treatment of Colorectal Cancer: Surgical, Molecular, and Genetic Considerations.

9. Physical plasma-treated saline promotes an immunogenic phenotype in CT26 colon cancer cells in vitro and in vivo.

10. Healthcare utilisation in general practice and hospitals in the year preceding a diagnosis of cancer recurrence or second primary cancer: a population-based register study.