ArticleInternational journal of colorectal disease2013
Large variation between hospitals in follow-up for colorectal cancer in southern Netherlands.
Article in International journal of colorectal disease, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aims of the study were to describe the follow-up of colorectal cancer (CRC) patients in southern Netherlands and examine their overall and disease-free survival.
methodsPatients newly diagnosed with CRC in 2003-2005 and 2008 with a survival of at least 1 year after diagnosis and recorded in the retrospective Eindhoven Cancer Registry were included (n = 579). Follow-up was defined as at least one liver imaging and at least two carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) measurements. Logistic regression analyses were conducted to assess determinants of follow-up. Proportions of patients undergoing colonoscopy, CEA measurements and liver and chest imaging were calculated. Overall and disease-free survival were calculated.
resultsPatients ≥75 years (odds ratio (OR) 0.5 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.3-0.7)) were less likely to receive follow-up, contrasting patients <50 years (OR 3.1 (95% CI 1.3-7.4)). In 2008, follow-up intensity increased (OR 2.3 (95% CI 1.2-4.3)), especially for liver imaging and CEA measurements. There were large differences in follow-up intensity and activities between hospitals, which were unaffected by comorbidity: ranges for colonoscopy 15-73 %, CEA measurement 46-91 % and imaging of the liver 22-70 % between hospitals. No effect of follow-up intensity was found on 5-year disease-free survival for patients aged <75 years (64 vs. 68 %; p = 0.6). Similarly, no effect of follow-up intensity on 5-year overall survival was found in these patients (77 vs. 82 %; p = 0.07).
conclusionLarge variation in follow-up was found for patients with CRC, mainly declining with age and hospital of follow-up. Over time, follow-up became more intensive, especially with respect to liver imaging and CEA measurements. However, follow-up consisting of at least one liver imaging and at least two CEA measurements did not improve overall and disease-free survival.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23624873What OpenQuestion holds
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.