Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 192

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Follow-up of colorectal cancer: A meta-analysis

Rosen, Michael, Chan, Linda, Beart, Robert W., Vukasin, Petar, Anthone, Gary·1998·Diseases of the Colon & Rectum

Abstract

PURPOSE: The value of intensive follow-up for patients after resection of colorectal cancer remains controversial. This study reviews all randomized and prospective cohort studies to assess the value of aggressive follow-up. METHODS: The literature was searched from the years 1972 to 1996 for studies reporting on the follow-up of patients with colorectal cancer. Randomized and comparative-cohort studies that included history, physical examination, and carcinoembrionic antigen values at least three times a year for at least two years were included in a meta-analysis. Single-cohort studies with intensive follow-up and traditional follow-up were also included in a two-group comparative analysis for each outcome indicator. Outcome indicators were 1) curative resection rates after recurrent cancer, 2) survival rates of curative re-resections, 3) length of survival after recurrence, and 4) cumulative five-year survival. RESULTS: Two randomized and three comparative-cohort studies met these criteria and included 2,005 patients, which were evaluated in the meta-analysis. The cumulative five-year survival was 1.16 times higher in the intensively followed group (P = 0.003). Two and one-half times more curative re-resections were performed for recurrent cancer in those patients undergoing intensive follow-up (P = 0.0001). Those patients in the intensive follow-up group with a recurrence had a 3.62-times higher survival rate than the control (P = 0.0004). Fourteen single-cohort studies were also included in the comparative analysis of 6,641 patients. The findings from these aggregated studies support the results of the meta-analysis. CONCLUSION: Our study concludes that intensive follow-up detects more recurrent cancers at a stage amenable to curative resection, resulting in an improvement in survival of recurrences and an increased overall five-year cumulative rate of survival.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/bf02239433

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 192

Metadata

Authors
Rosen, M., Chan, L., Beart, R. W., Vukasin, P., & Anthone, G.
Venue
Diseases of the Colon & Rectum
Published
1998-09
Volume
41
Issue
9
Pages
1116-1126
ISSN
0012-3706 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2791033498
Cited by
192
References
0
FWCI
3.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Follow-up of colorectal cancer: A meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/bf02239433
The paper
Rosen, M., Chan, L., Beart, R. W., Vukasin, P., & Anthone, G. (1998). Follow-up of colorectal cancer: A meta-analysis. Diseases of the Colon & Rectum. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02239433

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.