Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16622437›Full record

Trial reportBritish journal of cancer2006

General practice vs surgical-based follow-up for patients with colon cancer: randomised controlled trial.

D A Wattchow, D P Weller, A Esterman, L S Pilotto, K McGorm, Z Hammett, C Platell, C Silagy

Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract readComparative StudyMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in British journal of cancer, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07572370 (Evaluating the De-Escalation of Surveillance for Patients Who Have Undergone Curative Treatment for Primary Breast Cancer - A Prospective, Randomised Controlled Trial), which is not on this map. Cited by 99 papers, 17 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
99citing papers in PubMed, 17 pooled it
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT07572370 recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Evaluating the De-Escalation of Surveillance for Patients Who Have Undergone Curative Treatment for Primary Breast Cancer - A Prospective, Randomised Controlled Trial

TypeobservationalSponsorRoyal College of Surgeons, IrelandRan2025 to 2028Enrolled560ConditionsBreast CancerArmsDeescalation of surveillance
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

99 citing papers in PubMed, 17 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 215 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Survivorship care for cancer patients in primary versus secondary care: a systematic review.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2021
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Guideline
  12. Blood CEA levels for detecting recurrent colorectal cancer.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015
    Pooled it
  13. Receipt of recommended surveillance among colorectal cancer survivors: a systematic review.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2013
    Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. A systematic review of patient surveillance after curative gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a brief review.Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association · 2012
    Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Follow-up of cancer in primary care versus secondary care: systematic review.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2009
    Pooled it
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

39 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

D A WattchowDepartment of Surgery, Flinders University, Adelaide, 5042 South Australia, and Department of Surgery, Fremantle Hospital, Western Australia.
D P Weller
A Esterman
L S Pilotto
K McGorm
Z Hammett
C Platell
C Silagy
Flinders University · AUFremantle Hospital · AUUniversity of Edinburgh · GBUniversity of South Australia · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This trial examined the optimal setting for follow-up of patients after treatment for colon cancer by either general practitioners or surgeons. In all, 203 consenting patients who had undergone potentially curative treatment for colon cancer were randomised to follow-up by general practitioners or surgeons. Follow-up guidance recommended three monthly clinical review and annual faecal occult blood tests (FOBT) and were identical in both study arms. Primary outcome measures (measured at baseline, 12 and 24 months were (1) quality of life, SF-12; physical and mental component scores, (2) anxiety and depression: Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and (3) patient satisfaction: Patient Visit-Specific Questionnaire. Secondary outcomes (at 24 months) were: investigations, number and timing of recurrences and deaths. In all, 170 patients were available for follow-up at 12 months and 157 at 24 months. At 12 and 24 months there were no differences in scores for quality of life (physical component score, P=0.88 at 12 months; P=0.28 at 24 months: mental component score, P=0.51, P=0.47; adjusted), anxiety (P=0.72; P=0.11) depression (P=0.28; P=0.80) or patient satisfaction (P=0.06, 24 months). General practitioners ordered more FOBTs than surgeons (rate ratio 2.4, 95% CI 1.4-4.4), whereas more colonoscopies (rate ratio 0.7, 95% CI 0.5-1.0), and ultrasounds (rate ratio 0.5, 95% CI 0.3-1.0) were undertaken in the surgeon-led group. Results suggest similar recurrence, time to detection and death rates in each group. Colon cancer patients with follow-up led by surgeons or general practitioners experience similar outcomes, although patterns of investigation vary.

Indexed as

Continuity of Patient CareAgedAged, 80 and overAnxietyAustraliaColonic NeoplasmsDepressionFamily PracticeFemaleFollow-Up StudiesGeneral SurgeryHumansMaleMiddle AgedOutcome and Process Assessment, Health CarePatient Satisfaction

Identifiers

PMID16622437
PMCPMC2361245
OpenAlexW2021682226

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.