Improved quality of colon cancer surveillance after implementation of a personalized surveillance schedule

2020 ◽  
Vol 122 (3) ◽  
pp. 529-537
Author(s):  
Jessica Rueff ◽  
Benjamin Weixler ◽  
Carsten T. Viehl ◽  
Alex Ochsner ◽  
Rene Warschkow ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colon Cancer ◽  
Cancer Surveillance ◽  
Colon Cancer Surveillance

Colon cancer surveillance in inflammatory bowel disease: unclear gain but no psychological pain?

2014 ◽  
Vol 44 (2) ◽  
pp. 131-138 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. Mountifield ◽  
P. Bampton ◽  
R. Prosser ◽  
A. Mikocka-Walus ◽  
J. M. Andrews
Keyword(s):  
Inflammatory Bowel Disease ◽  
Colon Cancer ◽  
Bowel Disease ◽  
Cancer Surveillance ◽  
Psychological Pain ◽  
Inflammatory Bowel ◽  
Colon Cancer Surveillance

COLON CANCER SURVEILLANCE

1995 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 671-687
Author(s):  
Paul M. Choi ◽  
Won Ho Kim
Keyword(s):  
Colon Cancer ◽  
Cancer Surveillance ◽  
Colon Cancer Surveillance

Quality of care study in the surveillance of curable colon cancer.

2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (30_suppl) ◽  
pp. 237-237
Author(s):  
Aarti Sonia Bhardwaj ◽  
Randall F. Holcombe
Keyword(s):  
Colon Cancer ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Medical Oncology ◽  
Compliance Rate ◽  
Cancer Surveillance ◽  
Stage Ii ◽  
Stage Iii ◽  
Post Surgery ◽  
Care Study

237 Background: The 2005 ASCO surveillance guidelines for Stage II/III colon cancer recommended chest, abdomen (and pelvis) imaging annually for 3 years, checking a CEA every 3 months for the first 3 years and colonoscopy 1 year after surgery or preoperatively. Our primary aim was to determine Mount Sinai Hospital’s (MSH) compliance rate with ASCO surveillance guidelines, with a goal of achieving 80% compliance. We hypothesized a bias to over-imaging. A secondary aim was to determine the frequency at which high risk Stage II patients were referred to medical oncology. Methods: A retrospective study of 118 patients with newly diagnosed stage II or III colon cancer at MSH in 2011 and 2012 was undertaken. Results: Compliance rates for early surveillance measures included. 1. Checking CEA approximately every 3 months: Stage II - 84%; Stage III - 88%. 2. Colonoscopy guidelines: Stage II - 72% and Stage III - 94%. Imaging post surgery or adjuvant treatment: Stage II - 48% and Stage III - 70%. Subsequent imaging: Stage II - 44%; Stage III - 28%. (See Table.) Overall compliance with early surveillance guidelines was 55% for Stage II patients and 83% for Stage III patients. All of the non-compliance for subsequent imaging was due to overscanning. Only 62% of high risk Stage II patients were referred to medical oncology. Conclusions: Our baseline compliance to early surveillance measures for colon cancer did not consistently achieve our pre-specified benchmark. Specific areas of improvement include avoidance of overscanning during colon cancer surveillance after adjuvant chemotherapy and an improved rate of referral of high risk Stage II patients to medical oncology after surgery. [Table: see text]

scholarly journals Development and validation of a model to predict outcomes of colon cancer surveillance

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (7) ◽  
pp. 767-778
Author(s):  
Johnie Rose ◽  
Laura Homa ◽  
Chung Yin Kong ◽  
Gregory S. Cooper ◽  
Michael W. Kattan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colon Cancer ◽  
Cancer Surveillance ◽  
Development And Validation ◽  
Colon Cancer Surveillance

Tu1073 Chromoendoscopy for Colon Cancer Surveillance in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Is it Ready for Prime Time?

2016 ◽  
Vol 150 (4) ◽  
pp. S833-S834
Author(s):  
Muhammad Ali Khan ◽  
Faisal Kamal ◽  
Umar Darr ◽  
Sehrish Kamal ◽  
Sobia Khan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Inflammatory Bowel Disease ◽  
Colon Cancer ◽  
Bowel Disease ◽  
Cancer Surveillance ◽  
Prime Time ◽  
Inflammatory Bowel ◽  
Colon Cancer Surveillance
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document