Tim Chew1, Tim Bright2, Timothy J Price3, David I Watson2, Peter G Devitt1. 1. Discipline of Surgery, Adelaide University, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, Australia. 2. Department of Surgery, Flinders University, Flinders Medical Centre, Adelaide, Australia. 3. Department of Medical Oncology, the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Adelaide, Australia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Follow-up practices for patients who have undergone surgical resection of esophagogastric malignancies are variable and poorly documented. To better understand practice, a questionnaire was used to survey surgeons and medical oncologists to determine whether any consensus exists. METHODS: An opt-in online questionnaire was sent to esophagogastric surgeons and medical oncologists via the membership lists for the Australian and New Zealand Gastric and Oesophageal Surgery Association (ANZGOSA), the Australian Gastro-Intestinal Trials Groups (AGITG), and the Medical Oncology Group of Australia (MOGA). The questionnaire proposed five clinical scenarios and provided a range of follow-up options for each scenario. Clinicians were asked to indicate which best matched their clinical practice. RESULTS: Most clinicians follow patients for at least 3-5 years following resection of gastric or esophageal cancer. In total, 52% perform routine surveillance imaging, with individual scenarios not altering this. Tumor markers are infrequently used. Endoscopy and routine blood tests are used by around half the respondents. CONCLUSION: There was little consensus about the use of investigations to monitor patients following esophagogastric cancer surgery. Choices do not follow guidelines or evidence. The identified patterns of postoperative surveillance practice appear not to be evidence based, and generally do not match recently published Australian guidelines.
PURPOSE: Follow-up practices for patients who have undergone surgical resection of esophagogastric malignancies are variable and poorly documented. To better understand practice, a questionnaire was used to survey surgeons and medical oncologists to determine whether any consensus exists. METHODS: An opt-in online questionnaire was sent to esophagogastric surgeons and medical oncologists via the membership lists for the Australian and New Zealand Gastric and Oesophageal Surgery Association (ANZGOSA), the Australian Gastro-Intestinal Trials Groups (AGITG), and the Medical Oncology Group of Australia (MOGA). The questionnaire proposed five clinical scenarios and provided a range of follow-up options for each scenario. Clinicians were asked to indicate which best matched their clinical practice. RESULTS: Most clinicians follow patients for at least 3-5 years following resection of gastric or esophageal cancer. In total, 52% perform routine surveillance imaging, with individual scenarios not altering this. Tumor markers are infrequently used. Endoscopy and routine blood tests are used by around half the respondents. CONCLUSION: There was little consensus about the use of investigations to monitor patients following esophagogastric cancer surgery. Choices do not follow guidelines or evidence. The identified patterns of postoperative surveillance practice appear not to be evidence based, and generally do not match recently published Australian guidelines.
Authors: Emmanuele Abate; Steven R DeMeester; Joerg Zehetner; Arzu Oezcelik; Shahin Ayazi; Jesse Costales; Farzaneh Banki; John C Lipham; Jeffrey A Hagen; Tom R DeMeester Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Feiran Lou; Camelia S Sima; Prasad S Adusumilli; Manjit S Bains; Inderpal S Sarkaria; Valerie W Rusch; Nabil P Rizk Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 15.609
Authors: Jaffer A Ajani; Thomas A D'Amico; Khaldoun Almhanna; David J Bentrem; Stephen Besh; Joseph Chao; Prajnan Das; Crystal Denlinger; Paul Fanta; Charles S Fuchs; Hans Gerdes; Robert E Glasgow; James A Hayman; Steven Hochwald; Wayne L Hofstetter; David H Ilson; Dawn Jaroszewski; Kory Jasperson; Rajesh N Keswani; Lawrence R Kleinberg; W Michael Korn; Stephen Leong; A Craig Lockhart; Mary F Mulcahy; Mark B Orringer; James A Posey; George A Poultsides; Aaron R Sasson; Walter J Scott; Vivian E Strong; Thomas K Varghese; Mary Kay Washington; Christopher G Willett; Cameron D Wright; Debra Zelman; Nicole McMillian; Hema Sundar Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2015-02 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: William H Allum; Jane M Blazeby; S Michael Griffin; David Cunningham; Janusz A Jankowski; Rachel Wong Journal: Gut Date: 2011-06-24 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Philip H Pucher; Annie Coombes; Orla Evans; Joanna Taylor; Jonathan L Moore; Annabelle White; Jesper Lagergren; Cara Baker; Mark Kelly; James A Gossage; Jason Dunn; Sebastian Zeki; Ben E Byrne; Jervoise Andreyev; Andrew R Davies Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2022-03-11 Impact factor: 3.359