Original Articles

Annals of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 2, Issue 6, pp 472-482

First online:

Surveillance after curative colon cancer resection: Practice patterns of surgical subspecialists

  • Katherine S. VirgoAffiliated withFrom the Department of Surgery, St. Louis University School of MedicineJohn Cochran Veterans Affairs Medical Center
  • , Terence P. WadeAffiliated withFrom the Department of Surgery, St. Louis University School of MedicineJohn Cochran Veterans Affairs Medical Center
  • , Walter E. LongoAffiliated withFrom the Department of Surgery, St. Louis University School of MedicineJohn Cochran Veterans Affairs Medical Center
  • , Margaret A. CoplinAffiliated withJohn Cochran Veterans Affairs Medical Center
  • , Anthony M. VernavaAffiliated withFrom the Department of Surgery, St. Louis University School of MedicineJohn Cochran Veterans Affairs Medical Center
  • , Frank E. JohnsonAffiliated withFrom the Department of Surgery, St. Louis University School of MedicineJohn Cochran Veterans Affairs Medical Center

Rent the article at a discount

Rent now

* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.

Get Access

Abstract

Background: In the literature, suggested strategies for the follow-up of colon cancer patients after potentially curative resections vary widely. The optimal regimen to monitor for recurrences and new primary tumors remains unknown. The nationwide cost impact of wide practice variation is also unknown.

Methods: The 1,070 members of The Society of Surgical Oncology (SSO) were surveyed using a detailed questionnaire to measure the practice patterns of surgical experts nationwide. Respondents were asked how often they use nine separate methodologies in follow-up during years 1–5 postsurgery for TNM stage I, II, and III patients. Costs were estimated for representative less and more intensive strategies.

Results: Evaluable responses were received from 349 members (33%). Office visit and carcinoembryonic antigen analysis were performed most frequently. SSO members generally see patients every 3 months in years 1–2, every 6 months in years 3–4, and annually thereafter. There was wide variability in test ordering patterns and moderate variation between SSO and previously surveyed American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons members. The charge differential between representative less and more intensive follow-up strategies for each annual U.S. patient cohort is ∼$800 million.

Conclusions: Actual practice patterns vary widely, indicating lack of consensus regarding optimal follow-up. The enormous cost differential associated with such variation is difficult to justify because there is no proven benefit of more intensive follow-up.

Key Words

Follow-up Colon cancer Cost analyses