These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
Pubmed for Handhelds
PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS
Search MEDLINE/PubMed
Title: Attendance at surveillance endoscopy of patients with adenoma or colorectal cancer. Author: Mulder SA, Van Leerdam ME, Ouwendijk RJ, Bac DJ, Giard RW, Kuipers EJ. Journal: Scand J Gastroenterol; 2007 Jan; 42(1):66-71. PubMed ID: 17190765. Abstract: OBJECTIVE: Surveillance of patients treated for adenoma or colorectal cancer (CRC) is intended to reduce the incidence of CRC. Responsibility for the adherence to surveillance advice is often left to the patients and family physician. It is not known whether this type of passive policy affects the efficacy of surveillance. The aim of this study was to determine the yield of surveillance without active invitation to follow-up endoscopy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study comprised a cohort follow-up of patients under 75 years of age with adenomas or CRC at index endoscopy in the period 1997-99. Adherence and intervals of follow-up endoscopy were determined up to December 2004. RESULTS: During the inclusion period 2946 patients underwent lower endoscopy. In total, 393 patients were newly diagnosed with colorectal polyps (n=280) or CRC (n=113). Polyps were classified as adenomas in 167/280 (61%) patients. Forty-five (27%) of the adenoma patients underwent surveillance endoscopy within the guideline interval, 63 (38%) underwent delayed endoscopy, and 59 (35%) did not have any follow-up at all. CRC was diagnosed in 113 patients. Thirty-six patients who died during the first year or were diagnosed with metastases were excluded from the analysis. Twenty-three (30%) of the remaining 77 patients underwent endoscopic surveillance according to the guidelines, 40 (52%) had delayed surveillance endoscopy, and 14/77 (18%) did not undergo surveillance endoscopy at all. CONCLUSIONS: In surveillance for colorectal neoplasia, active follow-up invitation is important. Given the low follow-up rate in our series, passive follow-up policies may lead to under-performance of surveillance programs. An active and controlled follow-up is advisable.[Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]