Literature DB >> 25014181

Surveillance patterns after curative-intent colorectal cancer surgery in Ontario.

Jensen Tan, Jennifer Muir, Natalie Coburn, Simron Singh, David Hodgson, Refik Saskin, Alex Kiss, Lawrence Paszat, Abraham El-Sedfy, Eva Grunfeld, Craig Earle, Calvin Law.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Postoperative surveillance following curative-intent resection of colorectal cancer (CRC) is variably performed due to existing guideline differences and to the limited data supporting different strategies.
OBJECTIVES: To examine population-based rates of surveillance imaging and endoscopy in patients in Ontario following curative-intent resection of CRC with no evidence of recurrence, as well as patient or disease factors that may predispose certain groups to more frequent versus less frequent surveillance; to provide insight to the care patients receive in the presence of conflicting guidelines, in efforts to help improve care of CRC survivors by identifying any potential underuse or overuse of particular surveillance modalities, or inequalities in access to surveillance.
METHOD: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using data from the Ontario Cancer Registry and several linked databases. Ontario patients undergoing curative-intent CRC resection from 2003 to 2007 were identified, excluding patients with probable disease relapse. In the five-year period following surgery, the number of imaging and endoscopic examinations was determined.
RESULTS: There were 4960 patients included in the study. Over the five-year postoperative period, the highest proportion of patients who underwent postoperative surveillance received the following number of tests for each modality examined: one to three abdominopelvic computed tomography (CT) scans (n=2073 [41.8%]); one to three abdominal ultrasounds (n=2443 [49.3%]); no chest CTs, one to three chest x-rays (n=2385 [48.1%]); and two endoscopies (n=1845 [37.2%]). Odds of not receiving any abdominopelvic imaging (CT or abdominal ultrasound) were higher in those who did not receive adjuvant chemotherapy (OR 6.99 [95% CI 5.26 to 9.35]) or those living in certain geographical areas, but were independent of age, sex and income. Nearly all patients (n=4473 [90.2%]) underwent ≥1 endoscopy at some point during the follow-up period.
CONCLUSION: In contrast to findings from similar studies in other jurisdictions, most Ontario CRC survivors receive postoperative surveillance with imaging and endoscopy, and care is equitable across sociodemographic groups, although unexplained geographical variation in practice exists and warrants further investigation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25014181      PMCID: PMC4210233          DOI: 10.1155/2014/870968

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol        ISSN: 2291-2789


  26 in total

1.  Cancer physicians' attitudes toward colorectal cancer follow-up.

Authors:  C C Earle; E Grunfeld; D Coyle; M C Cripps; H S Stern
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 32.976

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

Authors:  M Jeffery; B E Hickey; P N Hider
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2007-01-24

3.  Rational follow-up after curative cancer resection.

Authors:  Matthew J Furman; Laura A Lambert; Mary E Sullivan; Giles F Whalen
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2013-01-28       Impact factor: 44.544

4.  Geographic and patient variation among Medicare beneficiaries in the use of follow-up testing after surgery for nonmetastatic colorectal carcinoma.

Authors:  G S Cooper; Z Yuan; A Chak; A A Rimm
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1999-05-15       Impact factor: 6.860

5.  Colorectal cancer surveillance: 2005 update of an American Society of Clinical Oncology practice guideline.

Authors:  Christopher E Desch; Al B Benson; Mark R Somerfield; Patrick J Flynn; Carol Krause; Charles L Loprinzi; Bruce D Minsky; David G Pfister; Katherine S Virgo; Nicholas J Petrelli
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2005-10-31       Impact factor: 44.544

6.  Yearly colonoscopy, liver CT, and chest radiography do not influence 5-year survival of colorectal cancer patients.

Authors:  D Schoemaker; R Black; L Giles; J Toouli
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  1998-01       Impact factor: 22.682

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.  Value of postoperative surveillance after radical surgery for colorectal cancer: results of a cohort study.

Authors:  A Castells; X Bessa; M Daniels; C Ascaso; A M Lacy; J C García-Valdecasas; L Gargallo; F Novell; E Astudillo; X Filella; J M Piqué
Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum       Date:  1998-06       Impact factor: 4.585

9.  Follow-up care, surveillance protocol, and secondary prevention measures for survivors of colorectal cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline endorsement.

Authors:  Jeffrey A Meyerhardt; Pamela B Mangu; Patrick J Flynn; Larissa Korde; Charles L Loprinzi; Bruce D Minsky; Nicholas J Petrelli; Kim Ryan; Deborah H Schrag; Sandra L Wong; Al B Benson
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2013-11-12       Impact factor: 44.544

Review 10.  Follow-up of patients with curatively resected colorectal cancer: a practice guideline.

Authors:  Alvaro Figueredo; R Bryan Rumble; Jean Maroun; Craig C Earle; Bernard Cummings; Robin McLeod; Lisa Zuraw; Caroline Zwaal
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2003-10-06       Impact factor: 4.430

View more
  7 in total

1.  An Introduction to Health Care Administrative Data.

Authors:  Suzanne M Cadarette; Lindsay Wong
Journal:  Can J Hosp Pharm       Date:  2015 May-Jun

2.  Assessing surveillance utilization and value in commercially insured patients with colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Kangho Suh; Veena Shankaran; Aasthaa Bansal
Journal:  Am J Manag Care       Date:  2022-05-01       Impact factor: 3.247

3.  The association of adjuvant therapy with survival at the population level following pancreatic adenocarcinoma resection.

Authors:  Daniel J Kagedan; Ravish S Raju; Matthew E Dixon; Elizabeth Shin; Qing Li; Ning Liu; Maryam Elmi; Abraham El-Sedfy; Lawrence Paszat; Alexander Kiss; Craig C Earle; Nicole Mittmann; Natalie G Coburn
Journal:  HPB (Oxford)       Date:  2016-02-09       Impact factor: 3.647

4.  Variation in routine follow-up care after curative treatment for head-and-neck cancer: a population-based study in Ontario.

Authors:  K E Brennan; S F Hall; T E Owen; R J Griffiths; Y Peng
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2018-04-30       Impact factor: 3.677

5.  Image quality of abdominal ultrasonography after esophagogastroduodenoscopy is preserved by using carbon dioxide insufflation: A non-inferiority test in the same subject.

Authors:  Tsuyoshi Suda; Yukihiro Shirota; Hiroaki Takimoto; Yasunori Tsukada; Kensaku Takishita; Takahiro Nadamura; Masaki Miyazawa; Yuji Hodo; Tokio Wakabayashi
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-09-29       Impact factor: 3.752

6.  Colon cancer care and survival: income and insurance are more predictive in the USA, community primary care physician supply more so in Canada.

Authors:  Kevin M Gorey; Sindu M Kanjeekal; Frances C Wright; Caroline Hamm; Isaac N Luginaah; Emma Bartfay; Guangyong Zou; Eric J Holowaty; Nancy L Richter
Journal:  Int J Equity Health       Date:  2015-10-29

7.  Assessment of risk factors affecting mortality in patients with colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Arif Emre; Sami Akbulut; Mehmet Sertkaya; Muharrem Bitiren; Ilhami Taner Kale; Ertan Bulbuloglu
Journal:  Prz Gastroenterol       Date:  2018-02-07
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.