Recommended Colorectal Cancer Surveillance Guidelines by the American Society of Clinical Oncology

Desch, Christopher E.; Benson, Al B.; Smith, Thomas J.; Flynn, Patrick J.; Krause, Carol; Loprinzi, Charles L.; Minsky, Bruce D.; Petrelli, Nicholas J.; Pfister, David G.; Somerfield, Mark R.

doi:10.1200/jco.1999.17.4.1312

Cited by 168 publications

(102 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…CEA wird in der Nachsorge in einer Literaturübersicht nicht empfohlen [1264]. Amerikanische (ASCO) und europäische (EGTM, European Group on Tumour Markers) Leitlinien zur Nachsorge enthalten jedoch das CEA [1263,1265,1267], wobei die Bestimmung alle 2 -3 Monate in den ersten 2 Jahren empfohlen wird.…”

Section: Hintergrundunclassified

See 1 more Smart Citation

S3-Leitlinie – Kolorektales Karzinom

Schmiegel

Buchberger

Follmann³

et al. 2017

Z Gastroenterol

151

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Hintergrundunclassified

“…Aus diesem Grunde wird von einer routinemäßigen Bestimmung dieser Serumparameter abgeraten. Ähnliches gilt für die Bestimmung eines Blutbildes [1265].…”

Section: Hintergrundunclassified

S3-Leitlinie – Kolorektales Karzinom

Schmiegel

Buchberger

Follmann³

et al. 2017

Z Gastroenterol

151

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Both the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and the American Society of Clinical Oncology Colorectal Cancer Surveillance Guidelines recommend a history and physical every 3 to 6 months for the first 2-3 years for stage 2 and 3 colorectal cancer survivors. [5][6][7][8] These guidelines do not, however, address who should be providing this follow-up care.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Trends in Follow-up and Preventive Care for Colorectal Cancer Survivors

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND: As cancer patients transition from treatment to survivorship, the responsibility of primary care providers (PCPs) versus oncology specialists is unclear.OBJECTIVES: To explore (1) physician types (PCPs versus oncology specialists) survivors visit during survivorship year 1, (2) preventive care received, (3) how preventive care receipt relates to physician types visited, and (4) trends in physician types visited and preventive care received over time. MEASUREMENTS: Using the SEER-Medicare database, we assessed the mean number of visits to different physician types, the percentage of survivors receiving preventive services, how receipt of preventive services related to physician types visited, and trends over time in physician visits and preventive care.RESULTS: There was a trend over time of increased visits to all physician types, which was statistically significant for oncology specialists and other physicians (p<.001) but not PCPs. The percentage of survivors receiving preventive services remained relatively stable across the 5 cohorts, except for an increase in bone densitometry (p<.05). Survivors who visited both a PCP and oncology specialist were most likely to receive each preventive care service (p<.05). CONCLUSIONS:Oncology specialist follow-up in survivorship year 1 is intensifying over time. Survivors not being followed-up by both PCPs and oncology specialists were less likely to receive preventive care. Clarifying the roles of PCPs and oncology specialists during followup can improve the quality of care for survivors.KEY WORDS: preventive care; cancer survivors; coordination of care.

show abstract

“…When we approximately applied these CE thresholds, in most cases, COL5 and COL3 could be considered a cost-effective method for second primary CRC screening for Korean male cancer survivors, regardless of the index cancer. Even if the index cancer were CRC, our finding could be applied and be consistent with the CRC surveillance guidelines of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) [45] . In ASCO guidelines, routine annual colonoscopies are not recommended for all CRC patients, and colonoscopy every 3-5 years could be sufficient to detect new CRCs and polyps [45] .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 60%

“…Even if the index cancer were CRC, our finding could be applied and be consistent with the CRC surveillance guidelines of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) [45] . In ASCO guidelines, routine annual colonoscopies are not recommended for all CRC patients, and colonoscopy every 3-5 years could be sufficient to detect new CRCs and polyps [45] . It is also important to consider the changes in CE of these strategies according to age of starting second primary CRC screening in cancer survivors.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 60%

What is the most cost-effective strategy to screen for second primary colorectal cancers in male cancer survivors in Korea?

Park¹,

Kim²,

Earle³

et al. 2009

WJG

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AIM:To identify a cost-effective strategy of second primary colorectal cancer (CRC) screening for cancer survivors in Korea using a decision-analytic model. METHODS:A Markov model estimated the clinical and economic consequences of a simulated 50-yearold male cancer survivors' cohort, and we compared the results of eight screening strategies: no screening, fecal occult blood test (FOBT) annually, FOBT every 2 years, sigmoidoscopy every 5 years, double contrast barium enema every 5 years, and colonoscopy every 10 years (COL10), every 5 years (COL5), and every 3 years (COL3). We included only direct medical costs, and our main outcome measures were discounted lifetime costs, life expectancy, and incremental costeffectiveness ratio (ICER). RESULTS:In the base-case analysis, the non-dominated strategies in cancer survivors were COL5, and COL3. The ICER for COL3 in cancer survivors was $5593/lifeyear saved (LYS), and did not exceed $10 000/LYS in one-way sensitivity analyses. If the risk of CRC in cancer survivors is at least two times higher than that in the general population, COL5 had an ICER of less than $10 500/LYS among both good and poor prognosis of index cancer. If the age of cancer survivors starting CRC screening was decreased to 40 years, the ICER of COL5 was less than $7400/LYS regardless of screening compliance. CONCLUSION:Our study suggests that more strict and frequent recommendations for colonoscopy such as COL5 and COL3 could be considered as economically reasonable second primary CRC screening strategies for Korean male cancer survivors.

show abstract

Recommended Colorectal Cancer Surveillance Guidelines by the American Society of Clinical Oncology

Abstract: American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Cited by 168 publications

References 33 publications

S3-Leitlinie – Kolorektales Karzinom

S3-Leitlinie – Kolorektales Karzinom

Trends in Follow-up and Preventive Care for Colorectal Cancer Survivors

What is the most cost-effective strategy to screen for second primary colorectal cancers in male cancer survivors in Korea?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About