What Is the Appropriate Timetable for Tailored Follow-up?

Chapter

Abstract

Patients with colorectal cancer at risk for developing metastases or in the long run metachronous adenomas or cancers in the bowel should be offered a follow-up programme. In such a programme, consideration has to be taken regarding patients’ co-morbidity, stage of disease and organs to check. For metastatic spread, only those with stage II and III disease, as well as those having been curatively treated for metastases, should be included, and the organs of interest are the liver and lungs. Regarding surveillance for new malignancies in the bowel, all patients irrespective of stage, who are free of disease at 5 years, should be included. The aim of the whole surveillance programme is to find recurrences or a new primary which can be treated radically.

Keywords

Local Recurrence Circumferential Resection Margin Colonoscopy Surveillance Resected Metastasis Real Rationale 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Renehan AG, Egger M, Saunders MP, O’Dwyer ST (2002) Impact on survival of intensive follow up after curative resection for colorectal cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials. BMJ 324:813–821PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jeffery GM, Hickey BE, Hider P (2002) Follow-up strategies for patients treated for non-metastatic colorectal cancer (Cochrane Review). In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 4. Update Software, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wille-Jørgensen P, Laurberg S, Påhlman L, Carriquiry L, Lundqvist N, Smedh RK, Svanfeldt M, Bengtson A (2009) An interim analysis of recruitment to the COLOFOL trial. Colorectal Dis 10:756–758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jorgensen OD, Kronborg O, Fenger C (1995) A randomized surveillance study of patients with pedunculated and small sessile tubular and tubulovillous adenomas. The Funen Adenoma Follow-up Study. Scand J Gastroenterol 30:686–692PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Thiis-Evensen E, Hoff GS, Sauar J, Langmark F, Majak BM, Vatn MH (1999) Population-based surveillance by colonoscopy: effect on the incidence of colorectal cancer. Telemark Polyp Study I. Scand J Gastroenterol 34:414–420PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Quirke P, Steele R, Monson J, Grieve R, Khanna S, O’Callghan C, Sun Myint A, Bessell E, Thompson LC, Parmar M, Stephens RJ, Sebag-Montefiore D (2009) Effect of the plane of surgery achieved on local recurrence in patients operated with operable rectal cancer: a prospective study using data from the MRC CR07 and NCIC-CTGCO16 randomised clinical trial. Lancet 373:821–828PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Khani MH, Smedh K, Kraaz W (2010) Is the circumferential resection margin a predictor of local recurrence after preoperative radiotherapy and optimal surgery for rectal carcinom? Colorectal Dis 9:706–712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Körner H, Söreide K, Stokkeland PJ, Söreide JA (2007) Diagnostic accuracy of serum-carcinoembryonic antigen in recurrent colorectal cancer: a receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. Ann Surg Oncol 14:417–423PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Surgical SciencesUppsala UniversityUppsalaSweden

Personalised recommendations