Display options
Cite
Augestad KM, Rose J, Crawshaw B, et al. Do the benefits outweigh the side effects of colorectal cancer surveillance? A systematic review. World J Gastrointest Oncol. 2014;6(5):104-11doi: 10.4251/wjgo.v6.i5.104.
Augestad, K. M., Rose, J., Crawshaw, B., Cooper, G., & Delaney, C. (2014). Do the benefits outweigh the side effects of colorectal cancer surveillance? A systematic review. World journal of gastrointestinal oncology, 6(5), 104-11. https://doi.org/10.4251/wjgo.v6.i5.104
Augestad, Knut Magne, et al. "Do the benefits outweigh the side effects of colorectal cancer surveillance? A systematic review." World journal of gastrointestinal oncology vol. 6,5 (2014): 104-11. doi: https://doi.org/10.4251/wjgo.v6.i5.104
Augestad KM, Rose J, Crawshaw B, Cooper G, Delaney C. Do the benefits outweigh the side effects of colorectal cancer surveillance? A systematic review. World J Gastrointest Oncol. 2014 May 15;6(5):104-11. doi: 10.4251/wjgo.v6.i5.104. PMID: 24834140; PMCID: PMC4021326.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

World J Gastrointest Oncol. 2014 May 15;6(5):104-11. doi: 10.4251/wjgo.v6.i5.104.

Do the benefits outweigh the side effects of colorectal cancer surveillance? A systematic review.

World journal of gastrointestinal oncology

Knut Magne Augestad, Johnie Rose, Benjamin Crawshaw, Gregory Cooper, Conor Delaney

Affiliations

  1. Knut Magne Augestad, Benjamin Crawshaw, Conor Delaney, Department of Colorectal Surgery, University Hospitals Case Medical Center, Cleveland, OH 44106, United States.

PMID: 24834140 PMCID: PMC4021326 DOI: 10.4251/wjgo.v6.i5.104

Abstract

Most patients treated with curative intent for colorectal cancer (CRC) are included in a follow-up program involving periodic evaluations. The survival benefits of a follow-up program are well delineated, and previous meta-analyses have suggested an overall survival improvement of 5%-10% by intensive follow-up. However, in a recent randomized trial, there was no survival benefit when a minimal vs an intensive follow-up program was compared. Less is known about the potential side effects of follow-up. Well-known side effects of preventive programs are those of somatic complications caused by testing, negative psychological consequences of follow-up itself, and the downstream impact of false positive or false negative tests. Accordingly, the potential survival benefits of CRC follow-up must be weighed against these potential negatives. The present review compares the benefits and side effects of CRC follow-up, and we propose future areas for research.

Keywords: Cancer survivorship; Colorectal cancer; False positive; Follow-up; Surveillance

References

  1. Psychooncology. 2007 Sep;16(9):814-20 - PubMed
  2. JAMA. 2000 Oct 18;284(15):1954-61 - PubMed
  3. Gut. 2010 May;59(5):666-89 - PubMed
  4. Br J Cancer. 1990 Dec;62(6):1018-22 - PubMed
  5. Arch Surg. 1999 May;134(5):503-11; discussion 511-3 - PubMed
  6. Br J Cancer. 2005 Feb 14;92(3):430-3 - PubMed
  7. J Clin Oncol. 2012 Jan 1;30(1):88-109 - PubMed
  8. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2010 Oct;45(10):1255-61 - PubMed
  9. BMJ. 1997 Jan 18;314(7075):174-7 - PubMed
  10. JAMA. 2012 Jun 13;307(22):2418-29 - PubMed
  11. Colorectal Dis. 2009 Sep;11(7):756-8 - PubMed
  12. CMAJ. 1996 Jul 15;155(2):169-76 - PubMed
  13. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2000 Dec;175(6):1653-8 - PubMed
  14. CMAJ. 1996 May 15;154(10):1493-9 - PubMed
  15. Colorectal Dis. 2011 Sep;13(9):959-60 - PubMed
  16. Ann Intern Med. 2007 Apr 3;146(7):502-10 - PubMed
  17. J Clin Oncol. 2006 Nov 10;24(32):5166-9 - PubMed
  18. Surg Oncol. 2009 Mar;18(1):15-24 - PubMed
  19. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012 May;75(5):1072-9 - PubMed
  20. Lancet Oncol. 2013 Jul;14(8):721-32 - PubMed
  21. Ann Oncol. 1995;6 Suppl 2:41-6 - PubMed
  22. BMJ. 1995 Jul 1;311(6996):54 - PubMed
  23. JAMA. 2014 Jan 15;311(3):263-70 - PubMed
  24. Am J Surg. 2000 Jul;180(1):1-5 - PubMed
  25. J Gastrointest Surg. 2005 Mar;9(3):320-8 - PubMed
  26. Cancer. 2005 Jul 15;104(2):314-20 - PubMed
  27. World J Surg. 2010 Nov;34(11):2689-700 - PubMed
  28. Cancer Nurs. 2012 Sep-Oct;35(5):E26-34 - PubMed
  29. Med Decis Making. 2011 Jul-Aug;31(4):611-24 - PubMed
  30. Ann Intern Med. 2006 Dec 19;145(12):880-6 - PubMed
  31. Br J Cancer. 1997;75(6):914-20 - PubMed
  32. J Cancer. 2013;4(3):217-26 - PubMed
  33. Br J Surg. 1997 May;84(5):666-9 - PubMed
  34. Cancer. 2007 Jun 1;109(11):2222-8 - PubMed
  35. Br J Cancer. 2006 Apr 24;94(8):1116-21 - PubMed
  36. Lancet Oncol. 2011 Jun;12(6):594-603 - PubMed
  37. CMAJ. 1996 Jun 15;154(12):1837-43 - PubMed
  38. Dis Colon Rectum. 2007 Nov;50(11):1783-99 - PubMed
  39. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2000 Oct;385(6):412-20 - PubMed
  40. Ann Oncol. 2010 May;21 Suppl 5:v70-7 - PubMed
  41. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2007 Oct;33(10):1515-26 - PubMed
  42. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2002;(1):CD002200 - PubMed
  43. Gastroenterology. 1998 Jan;114(1):7-14 - PubMed
  44. Dis Colon Rectum. 2002 Apr;45(4):476-84 - PubMed
  45. Eur Respir J. 2011 Jul;38(1):154-61 - PubMed
  46. Dis Colon Rectum. 2007 Jun;50(6):801-9 - PubMed
  47. Dis Colon Rectum. 2005 Mar;48(3):411-23 - PubMed
  48. J Clin Oncol. 2013 May 10;31(14):1775-81 - PubMed
  49. BMJ Open. 2013 Apr 04;3(4): - PubMed
  50. Am J Surg. 2011 Mar;201(3):353-7; discussion 357-8 - PubMed
  51. Int J Colorectal Dis. 1997;12(6):329-34 - PubMed
  52. BMJ. 2013 Sep 16;347:f5334 - PubMed

Publication Types