The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Follow-up of colorectal cancer: A meta-analysis
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Renehan, A. G., Egger, M., Saunders, M. P., & O'Dwyer, S. T. (2002) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.324.7341.813 · Cited by 651
Duffy, M. J., van Dalen, A., Haglund, C., Hansson, L., Holinski-Feder, E., Klapdor, R., Lamerz, R., Peltomaki, P., Sturgeon, C., & Topolcan, O. (2007) · European Journal of Cancer · doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2007.03.021 · Cited by 506
Follow-up of patients with curatively resected colorectal cancer: a practice guideline
Figueredo, A., Rumble, R. B., Maroun, J., Earle, C. C., Cummings, B., McLeod, R., Zuraw, L., Zwaal, C., & the members of the Gastrointestinal Cancer Disease Site Group of Cancer Care Ontario's Program in Evidence-based Care (2003) · BMC Cancer · doi:10.1186/1471-2407-3-26 · Cited by 392
Clinical utility of biochemical markers in colorectal cancer
Duffy, M. J., van Dalen, A., Haglund, C., Hansson, L., Klapdor, R., Lamerz, R., Nilsson, O., Sturgeon, C., & Topolcan, O. (2003) · European Journal of Cancer · doi:10.1016/s0959-8049(02)00811-0 · Cited by 374
Duffy, M. J., Lamerz, R., Haglund, C., Nicolini, A., Kalousová, M., Holubec, L., & Sturgeon, C. (2014) · International Journal of Cancer · doi:10.1002/ijc.28384 · Cited by 360
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.