Annals of Surgical Oncology Cite Track
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
This Article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Virgo, K. S.
Right arrow Articles by Johnson, F. E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Virgo, K. S.
Right arrow Articles by Johnson, F. E.

Annals of Surgical Oncology, Vol 2, Issue 6 472-482, Copyright © 1995 by Society of Surgical Oncology

ARTICLES

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

K. S. Virgo, T. P. Wade, W. E. Longo, M. A. Coplin, A. M. Vernava and F. E. Johnson
Department of Surgery, St. Louis University School of Medicine, USA.

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 approximately $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.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 BMJHome page
A. G Renehan, S. T O'Dwyer, and D. K Whynes
Cost effectiveness analysis of intensive versus conventional follow up after curative resection for colorectal cancer
BMJ, January 10, 2004; 328(7431): 81.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 BMJHome page
A. G Renehan, M. Egger, M. P Saunders, and S. T O'Dwyer
Impact on survival of intensive follow up after curative resection for colorectal cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials
BMJ, April 6, 2002; 324(7341): 813 - 813.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JNCI J Natl Cancer InstHome page
D. C. Hodgson, C. S. Fuchs, and J. Z. Ayanian
Impact of Patient and Provider Characteristics on the Treatment and Outcomes of Colorectal Cancer
J Natl Cancer Inst, April 4, 2001; 93(7): 501 - 515.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1995 by the Society of Surgical Oncology.