ArticleWorld journal of gastroenterology2025
Diagnostic yield of follow-up in patients undergoing surgery for non-metastatic colorectal cancer.
Article in World journal of gastroenterology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Computed tomography-dominant surveillance strategies for colorectal cancer: Improving early detection of recurrence.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Article
- Challenges in colorectal cancer post-surgical surveillance: A critical evaluation and path forward.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Article
- Personalized surveillance in colorectal cancer: Integrating circulating tumor DNA and artificial intelligence into post-treatment follow-up.World journal of gastroenterology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEvidence on adherence, diagnostic performance and impact on survival to intensive follow-up after surgery for colorectal cancer (CRC) is limited.
aimTo analyze the diagnostic performance of surveillance colonoscopy, computed tomography (CT), and tumor markers (TMs) in detecting CRC recurrence or metastasis during follow-up after CRC resection. Secondary objectives included degree of adherence to clinical practice guidelines surveillance recommendations and factors associated with adherence and all-cause and CRC mortality.
methodsThe single-center retrospective cohort study including patients undergoing curative resection of stage I-III CRC during 2010-2015. Follow-up was performed using TMs every 6 months, yearly CT for 5 years, and colonoscopy at years 1 and 4. Demographic, primary tumor data, and results at follow-up were collected.
resultsOf 574 included patients included, 153 had recurrences or metastases. Of this group, 136 (88.9%) were diagnosed by CT, 10 (6.5%) by CT and colonoscopy, and 7 (4.6%) by colonoscopy; only 67.8% showed TMs elevation. Adherence to follow-up recommendations was 68.8% for the first colonoscopy, 74% for the first CT scan, and 96.6% for the first blood test; these values declined over time. Younger age at diagnosis [odds ratio (OR) 0.93; 95%CI: 0.91-0.95], CRC stages I-II (OR 0.38; 95%CI: 0.24-0.61), and adherence to follow-up recommendations (OR 0.30; 95%CI: 0.20-0.46) were independently associated with lower risk for all-cause death at 5 years.
conclusionCT scan had the highest diagnostic yield. Adherence to follow-up recommendations was low and decreased during follow-up. Younger age at diagnosis, stage, and follow-up adherence were associated with lower 5-year mortality.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.