Major differences in follow-up practice of patients with colorectal cancer; results of a national survey in the Netherlands

• Published in: BMC cancer 2020-01, Vol.20 (1), p.22-22, Article 22
• Main Authors: Qaderi, S M, Wijffels, N A T, Bremers, A J A, de Wilt, J H W
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Abdomen; Biomarkers; Cancer metastasis; Colonoscopy; Colorectal cancer; Colorectal carcinoma; Diagnostic imaging; Follow-up studies; Gastroenterology; Hospitals; Liver; Medical examination; Medical imaging; Metastases; Metastasis; Outpatient care facilities; Patient satisfaction; Patients; Physicians; Public opinion; Questionnaires; Rectum; Response rates; Schedules; Setting (Literature); Surgeons; Surveillance; Survey; Surveys; Survivorship; Thorax; Ultrasonic imaging; Ultrasound
• ISSN: 1471-2407; 1471-2407
• DOI: 10.1186/s12885-019-6509-0

The precise content and frequency of follow-up of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) is variable and guideline adherence is low. The aim of this study was to assess the view of colorectal surgeons on their local follow-up schedule and to clarify their opinions about risk-stratification and organ preserving therapies. Equally important, adherence to the Dutch national guidelines was determined. Colorectal surgeons were invited to complete a web-based survey about the importance and interval of clinical follow-up, CEA monitoring and the use of imaging modalities. Furthermore, the opinions regarding physical examination, risk-stratification, organ preserving strategies, and follow-up setting were assessed. Data were analyzed using quantitative and qualitative analysis methods. A total of 106 colorectal surgeons from 52 general and 5 university hospitals filled in the survey, yielding a hospital response rate of 74% and a surgeon response rate of 42%. The follow-up of patients with CRC was mainly done by surgeons (71%). The majority of the respondents (68%) did not routinely perform physical examination during follow-up of rectal patients. Abdominal ultrasound was the predominant modality used for detection of liver metastases (77%). Chest X-ray was the main modality for detecting lung metastases (69%). During the first year of follow-up, adherence to the minimal guideline recommendations was high (99-100%). The results demonstrate that, within the framework of the guidelines, some respondents applied a more intensive follow-up and others a less intensive schedule. The majority of the respondents (77%) applied one single follow-up imaging schedule for all patients that underwent treatment with curative intent. Dutch colorectal surgeons' adherence to minimal guideline recommendations was high, but within the guideline framework, opinions differed about the required intensity and content of clinical visits, the interval of CEA monitoring, and the importance and frequency of imaging techniques. This national survey demonstrates current follow-up practice throughout the Netherlands and highlights the follow-up differences of curatively treated patients with CRC.