Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Multicenter Study
. 2017 Oct 20;23(5):217-222.
doi: 10.5761/atcs.oa.17-00049. Epub 2017 Aug 15.

Follow-Up Practices of Surgeons and Medical Oncologists in Australia and New Zealand Following Resection of Esophagogastric Cancers

Tim Chew  1 , Tim Bright  2 , Timothy J Price  3 , David I Watson  2 , Peter G Devitt  1
Affiliations
Multicenter Study

Follow-Up Practices of Surgeons and Medical Oncologists in Australia and New Zealand Following Resection of Esophagogastric Cancers

Tim Chew et al. Ann Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. .

Abstract

Purpose: Follow-up practices for patients who have undergone surgical resection of esophagogastric malignancies are variable and poorly documented. To better understand practice, a questionnaire was used to survey surgeons and medical oncologists to determine whether any consensus exists.

Methods: An opt-in online questionnaire was sent to esophagogastric surgeons and medical oncologists via the membership lists for the Australian and New Zealand Gastric and Oesophageal Surgery Association (ANZGOSA), the Australian Gastro-Intestinal Trials Groups (AGITG), and the Medical Oncology Group of Australia (MOGA). The questionnaire proposed five clinical scenarios and provided a range of follow-up options for each scenario. Clinicians were asked to indicate which best matched their clinical practice.

Results: Most clinicians follow patients for at least 3-5 years following resection of gastric or esophageal cancer. In total, 52% perform routine surveillance imaging, with individual scenarios not altering this. Tumor markers are infrequently used. Endoscopy and routine blood tests are used by around half the respondents.

Conclusion: There was little consensus about the use of investigations to monitor patients following esophagogastric cancer surgery. Choices do not follow guidelines or evidence. The identified patterns of postoperative surveillance practice appear not to be evidence based, and generally do not match recently published Australian guidelines.

Keywords: esophageal neoplasms; follow-up studies; gastric neoplasms.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1. Length of proposed follow-up per scenario.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2. % electing to use imaging.
Fig. 3
Fig. 3. % electing to use endoscopy.
Fig. 4
Fig. 4. % electing to use tumor markers.
Fig. 5
Fig. 5. % electing to use routine blood tests.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Cancer in Australia: An overview 2012 http://www.aihw.gov.au/cancer/cancer-in-australia-overview-2012 (Accessed on Dec. 28, 2016)
    1. Moyes LH, Anderson JE, Forshaw MJ. Proposed follow up programme after curative resection for lower third oesophageal cancer. World J Surg Oncol 2010; 8: 75. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Crosby T. Scottish intercollegiate guidelines network (SIGN) 87- the management of oesophageal and gastric cancer. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2008; 20: 528-9. - PubMed
    1. Allum WH, Blazeby JM, Griffin SM, et al. Guidelines for the management of oesophageal and gastric cancer. Gut 2011; 60: 1449-72. - PubMed
    1. Abate E, DeMeester SR, Zehetner J, et al. Recurrence after esophagectomy for adenocarcinoma: defining optimal follow-up intervals and testing. J Am Coll Surg 2010; 210: 428-35. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms