High efficacy and patient satisfaction with a nurse‐led colorectal cancer surveillance programme with 10‐year follow‐up

2019 ◽  
Vol 89 (10) ◽  
pp. 1286-1290 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jayson Moloney ◽  
Carolynne Partridge ◽  
Sue Delanty ◽  
David Lloyd ◽  
M. Hung Nguyen
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Patient Satisfaction ◽  
Cancer Surveillance ◽  
High Efficacy ◽  
Surveillance Programme ◽  
Colorectal Cancer Surveillance

Predicting adherence to colorectal cancer surveillance after plypectomy

2001 ◽  
Vol 120 (5) ◽  
pp. A602-A602
Author(s):  
S RAWL ◽  
S BLACKBURN ◽  
L HACKWARD ◽  
N FINEBERG ◽  
T IMPERIALE ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cancer Surveillance ◽  
Colorectal Cancer Surveillance

Colorectal cancer follow-up: Patient satisfaction and amenability to telephone after care

2011 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 23-30 ◽  
Author(s):  
K. Beaver ◽  
C. Wilson ◽  
D. Procter ◽  
J. Sheridan ◽  
G. Towers ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Patient Satisfaction ◽  
After Care

scholarly journals Colorectal Cancer Surveillance after Index Colonoscopy: Guidance from the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology

2013 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 224-228 ◽  
Author(s):  
Desmond Leddin ◽  
Robert Enns ◽  
Robert Hilsden ◽  
Carlo A Fallone ◽  
Linda Rabeneck ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Task Force ◽  
Cancer Surveillance ◽  
Screening Tests ◽  
Average Risk ◽  
Health Care Environment ◽  
Canadian Association ◽  
The Us ◽  
Colonoscopy Surveillance

BACKGROUND: Differences between American (United States [US]) and European guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance may create confusion for the practicing clinician. Under- or overutilization of surveillance colonoscopy can impact patient care.METHODS: The Canadian Association of Gastroenterology (CAG) convened a working group (CAG-WG) to review available guidelines and provide unified guidance to Canadian clinicians regarding appropriate follow-up for colorectal cancer (CRC) surveillance after index colonoscopy. A literature search was conducted for relevant data that postdated the published guidelines.RESULTS: The CAG-WG chose the 2012 US Multi-Society Task Force (MSTF) on Colorectal Cancer to serve as the basis for the Canadian position, primarily because the US approach was the simplest and comprehensively addressed the issue of serrated polyps. Aspects of other guidelines were incorporated where relevant. The CAG-WG recommendations differed from the US MSTF guidelines in three main areas: patients with negative index colonoscopy should be followed-up at 10 years using any of the appropriate screening tests, including colonos-copy, for average-risk individuals; among patients with >10 adenomas, a one-year interval for subsequent colonoscopy is recommended; and for long-term follow-up, patients with low-risk adenomas on both the index and first follow-up procedures can undergo second follow-up colonos-copy at an interval of five to 10 years.DISCUSSION: The CAG-WG adapted the US MSTF guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance to the Canadian health care environment with a few modifications. It is anticipated that the present article will provide unified guidance that will enhance physician acceptance and encourage appropriate utilization of recommended surveillance intervals.

Colorectal cancer surveillance in patients with ulcerative colitis

1994 ◽  
Vol 81 (5) ◽  
pp. 689-691 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. Jonsson ◽  
L. Åhsgren ◽  
L. O. Andersson ◽  
R. Stenling ◽  
J. Rutegåd
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Ulcerative Colitis ◽  
Cancer Surveillance ◽  
Colorectal Cancer Surveillance

scholarly journals 22-year longitudinal study of repetitive colonoscopy in patients with a family history of colorectal cancer

2013 ◽  
Vol 95 (8) ◽  
pp. 586-590 ◽  
Author(s):  
JK Randall ◽  
CS Good ◽  
JM Gilbert
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Family History ◽  
British Society ◽  
Degree Relative ◽  
Surveillance Programme ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
Significant Pathology ◽  
History Of

Introduction We report the outcomes of a long-term surveillance programme for individuals with a family history of colorectal cancer. Methods The details of patients undergoing a colonoscopy having been referred on the basis of family history of colorectal cancer were entered prospectively into a database. Further colonoscopy was arranged on the basis of the findings. The outcomes assessed included incidence of cancer and adenoma identification at initial and subsequent colonoscopy. Results The records of 2,293 patients (917 men; median patient age: 51 years) were entered over 22 years, giving data on 3,982 colonoscopies. Eight adverse events (0.2%) were recorded. Twenty-seven cancers were found at first colonoscopy and thirteen developed during the follow-up period. There were significantly more cancers identified in those with more than one first-degree relative with cancer than in other groups (p=0.01). The number of adenomas identified at subsequent surveillance colonoscopies remained constant with between 9.3% and 12.0% of patients having adenomas that were removed. Two-thirds (68%) of patients with cancer and three-quarters (77%) with adenomas fell outside the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) 2006 guidelines. Conclusions Repeated colonoscopy continues to yield significant pathology including new cancers. These continue to occur despite removal of adenomas at prior colonoscopies. The majority of patients with cancers and adenomas fell outside the BSG 2006 guidelines; more would have fallen outside the 2010 guidelines.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document