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
. 2019 Sep 4;9(9):CD002200.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002200.pub4.

Follow-up strategies for patients treated for non-metastatic colorectal cancer

Mark Jeffery  1 , Brigid E Hickey, Phillip N Hider
Affiliations

Follow-up strategies for patients treated for non-metastatic colorectal cancer

Mark Jeffery et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. .

Abstract

Background: This is the fourth update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2002 and last updated in 2016.It is common clinical practice to follow patients with colorectal cancer for several years following their curative surgery or adjuvant therapy, or both. Despite this widespread practice, there is considerable controversy about how often patients should be seen, what tests should be performed, and whether these varying strategies have any significant impact on patient outcomes.

Objectives: To assess the effect of follow-up programmes (follow-up versus no follow-up, follow-up strategies of varying intensity, and follow-up in different healthcare settings) on overall survival for patients with colorectal cancer treated with curative intent. Secondary objectives are to assess relapse-free survival, salvage surgery, interval recurrences, quality of life, and the harms and costs of surveillance and investigations.

Search methods: For this update, on 5 April 2109 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Science Citation Index. We also searched reference lists of articles, and handsearched the Proceedings of the American Society for Radiation Oncology. In addition, we searched the following trials registries: ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We contacted study authors. We applied no language or publication restrictions to the search strategies.

Selection criteria: We included only randomised controlled trials comparing different follow-up strategies for participants with non-metastatic colorectal cancer treated with curative intent.

Data collection and analysis: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently determined study eligibility, performed data extraction, and assessed risk of bias and methodological quality. We used GRADE to assess evidence quality.

Main results: We identified 19 studies, which enrolled 13,216 participants (we included four new studies in this second update). Sixteen out of the 19 studies were eligible for quantitative synthesis. Although the studies varied in setting (general practitioner (GP)-led, nurse-led, or surgeon-led) and 'intensity' of follow-up, there was very little inconsistency in the results.Overall survival: we found intensive follow-up made little or no difference (hazard ratio (HR) 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 1.04: I² = 18%; high-quality evidence). There were 1453 deaths among 12,528 participants in 15 studies. In absolute terms, the average effect of intensive follow-up on overall survival was 24 fewer deaths per 1000 patients, but the true effect could lie between 60 fewer to 9 more per 1000 patients.Colorectal cancer-specific survival: we found intensive follow-up probably made little or no difference (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.07: I² = 0%; moderate-quality evidence). There were 925 colorectal cancer deaths among 11,771 participants enrolled in 11 studies. In absolute terms, the average effect of intensive follow-up on colorectal cancer-specific survival was 15 fewer colorectal cancer-specific survival deaths per 1000 patients, but the true effect could lie between 47 fewer to 12 more per 1000 patients.Relapse-free survival: we found intensive follow-up made little or no difference (HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.21; I² = 41%; high-quality evidence). There were 2254 relapses among 8047 participants enrolled in 16 studies. The average effect of intensive follow-up on relapse-free survival was 17 more relapses per 1000 patients, but the true effect could lie between 30 fewer and 66 more per 1000 patients.Salvage surgery with curative intent: this was more frequent with intensive follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 1.98, 95% CI 1.53 to 2.56; I² = 31%; high-quality evidence). There were 457 episodes of salvage surgery in 5157 participants enrolled in 13 studies. In absolute terms, the effect of intensive follow-up on salvage surgery was 60 more episodes of salvage surgery per 1000 patients, but the true effect could lie between 33 to 96 more episodes per 1000 patients.Interval (symptomatic) recurrences: these were less frequent with intensive follow-up (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.86; I² = 66%; moderate-quality evidence). There were 376 interval recurrences reported in 3933 participants enrolled in seven studies. Intensive follow-up was associated with fewer interval recurrences (52 fewer per 1000 patients); the true effect is between 18 and 75 fewer per 1000 patients.Intensive follow-up probably makes little or no difference to quality of life, anxiety, or depression (reported in 7 studies; moderate-quality evidence). The data were not available in a form that allowed analysis.Intensive follow-up may increase the complications (perforation or haemorrhage) from colonoscopies (OR 7.30, 95% CI 0.75 to 70.69; 1 study, 326 participants; very low-quality evidence). Two studies reported seven colonoscopic complications in 2292 colonoscopies, three perforations and four gastrointestinal haemorrhages requiring transfusion. We could not combine the data, as they were not reported by study arm in one study.The limited data on costs suggests that the cost of more intensive follow-up may be increased in comparison with less intense follow-up (low-quality evidence). The data were not available in a form that allowed analysis.

Authors' conclusions: The results of our review suggest that there is no overall survival benefit for intensifying the follow-up of patients after curative surgery for colorectal cancer. Although more participants were treated with salvage surgery with curative intent in the intensive follow-up groups, this was not associated with improved survival. Harms related to intensive follow-up and salvage therapy were not well reported.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Mark Jeffery was an international member of the Follow‐up After Colorectal Surgery (FACS) trial management committee. Brigid E Hickey: nothing to declare Phil N Hider: nothing to declare Adrienne M: nothing to declare

Figures

1
1
Study flow diagram
2
2
'Risk of bias' summary: review authors' judgements about each 'Risk of bias' item for each included study
3
3
Funnel plot of comparison 1. Intensive follow‐up versus minimalist follow‐up, outcome: 1.1 overall survival
4
4
Funnel plot of comparison 1. Intensive follow‐up versus minimalist follow‐up, outcome: 1.2 colorectal cancer‐specific survival
5
5
Funnel plot of comparison 1. Intensive follow‐up versus minimalist follow‐up, outcome: 1.3 relapse‐free survival
1.1
1.1. Analysis
Comparison 1 Intensive follow‐up versus minimalist follow‐up, Outcome 1 Overall survival.
1.2
1.2. Analysis
Comparison 1 Intensive follow‐up versus minimalist follow‐up, Outcome 2 Colorectal cancer‐specific survival.
1.3
1.3. Analysis
Comparison 1 Intensive follow‐up versus minimalist follow‐up, Outcome 3 Relapse‐free survival.
1.4
1.4. Analysis
Comparison 1 Intensive follow‐up versus minimalist follow‐up, Outcome 4 Salvage surgery.
1.5
1.5. Analysis
Comparison 1 Intensive follow‐up versus minimalist follow‐up, Outcome 5 Interval recurrences.
1.6
1.6. Analysis
Comparison 1 Intensive follow‐up versus minimalist follow‐up, Outcome 6 Harms (colonoscopic complications).
1.7
1.7. Analysis
Comparison 1 Intensive follow‐up versus minimalist follow‐up, Outcome 7 Overall survival SG Healthcare professional.
1.8
1.8. Analysis
Comparison 1 Intensive follow‐up versus minimalist follow‐up, Outcome 8 Overall survival SGA "dose" of follow‐up.
1.9
1.9. Analysis
Comparison 1 Intensive follow‐up versus minimalist follow‐up, Outcome 9 OS SGA CEA versus NO CEA.
1.10
1.10. Analysis
Comparison 1 Intensive follow‐up versus minimalist follow‐up, Outcome 10 OS CT versus no CT.
1.11
1.11. Analysis
Comparison 1 Intensive follow‐up versus minimalist follow‐up, Outcome 11 OS CT versus < 2 or no CT.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Update of

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

References to studies included in this review

CEAwatch 2015 {unpublished data only}
    1. Verberne C, Doornbos PM, Grossmann I, Bock GH, Wiggers T. Intensified follow‐up in colorectal cancer patients using frequent carcino‐embryonic antigen (CEA) measurements and CEA‐triggered imaging. European Journal of Cancer. 2013; Vol. 49:S480. - PubMed
    1. Verberne CJ, Wiggers T, Grossmann I, Bock GH, Vermeulen KM. Cost‐effectiveness of a carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) based follow‐up programme for colorectal cancer (the CEA Watch trial). Colorectal Disease 2016;18(3):O91‐o96. - PubMed
    1. Verberne CJ, Zhan Z, Bock G, Wiggers T. Intensifying colorectal cancer follow‐up survival analysis of the randomized multicenter CEAwatch trial. European Journal of Surgical Oncology. 2016; Vol. 42:9 S106.
    1. Verberne CJ, Zhan Z, Heuvel E, Grossmann I, Doornbos PM, Havenga K, et al. Intensified follow‐up in colorectal cancer patients using frequent carcino‐embryonic antigen (CEA) measurements and CEA‐triggered imaging: results of the randomized "CEAwatch" trial. European Journal of Surgical Oncology 2015;41(9):1188‐96. - PubMed
    1. Verberne CJ, Zhan Z, Heuvel ER, Oppers F, Jong AM, Grossmann I, et al. Survival analysis of the CEAwatch multicentre clustered randomized trial. British Journal of Surgery 2017;104(8):1069‐77. [DOI: 10.1002/bjs.10535] - DOI - PubMed
COLOFOL 2018 {unpublished data only}
    1. Hansdotter P, Wille‐Jørgensen, Horváth‐Puhó E, Petersen SH, Martling A, Sørenson HT. The COLOFOL trial: study design and comparison of the study population with the source cancer population. Clinical Epidemiology 2016;8:15‐21. - PMC - PubMed
    1. NCT00225641. Assessment of frequency of surveillance after curative resection in patients with stage II and III colorectal cancer [COLOFOL ‐ a pragmatic study to assess the frequency of surveillance tests after curative resection in patients with stage II and III colorectal cancer ‐ a randomised multicentre trial]. clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00225641?term=NCT00225641&rank=1 (first received 14 November 2012).
    1. Wille‐Jorgensen P, Syk I, Smedh K, Laurberg S, Nielsen DT, Petersen SH, et al. Effect of more vs less frequent follow‐up testing on overall and colorectal cancer‐specific survival mortality in patients with stage II or III colorectal cancer. The COLFOL randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2018;319(20):2095‐103. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Wille‐Jørgensen P, Laurberg S, Påhlman L, Carriquiry L, Lundqvist N, Smedh K, et al. An interim analysis of recruitment to the COLOFOL trial. Colorectal Disease 2009;11(7):756‐8. - PubMed
    1. Wille‐Jørgensen P, Laurberg S, Toft Sørensen H, Påhlman L, on behalf of the COLOFOL study group. COLOFOL study protocol a pragmatic study to assess the frequency of surveillance tests after curative resection in patients with stage II and III colorectal cancer– a randomised multicentre trial. www.colofol.com/html/download/COLOFOL_7‐5.pdf (accessed 30 April 2008).
FACS 2014 {published data only}
    1. Corkhill A, Primrose JN, Mant D, The FACS Study Group. Follow up after colorectal cancer (the FACS trial). British Journal of Cancer 2004;91(Suppl 1):S78.
    1. Mant D, Gray A, Pugh S, Campbell H, George S, Fuller A, et al. A randomised controlled trial to assess the cost‐effectiveness of intensive versus no scheduled follow‐up in patients who have undergone resection for colorectal cancer with curative intent. Health Technology Assessment 2017; Vol. 21, issue 32. [DOI: 10.3310/hta21320] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Mant D, Perera R, Gray A, Rose P, Fuller A, Corkhill A, et al. Effect of 3‐5 years of scheduled CEA and CT follow‐up to detect recurrence of colorectal cancer: FACS randomized controlled trial. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2013; Vol. 31S:3500. - PubMed
    1. NCT00560365. Follow‐up study of patients who have undergone surgery for stage I, stage II, or stage III colorectal cancer [A randomised controlled trial to assess the cost‐effectiveness of intensive versus no scheduled follow‐up in patients who have undergone resection for colorectal cancer with curative intent (FACS ‐ Follow‐up After Colorectal Surgery)]. clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00560365?term=NCT00560365&rank=1 (first received 14 November 2012).
    1. Primrose J, Mant D, Rose P, George S, Nugent K, Gray A, et al. A randomised controlled trial to assess the cost‐effectiveness of intensive versus no scheduled follow‐up in patients who have undergone resection for colorectal cancer with curative intent (The FACS Trial). www.nets.nihr.ac.uk/projects/hta/991099. Winchester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., (accessed 23 July 2018). - PMC - PubMed
GILDA 1998 {unpublished data only}
    1. Fossati R, Andreoni A, Costanzo B, Fossati D, Johnson G, Liberati L, et al. Preliminary results of the Italian study "GILDA" [Preliminari dello studio I risultati preliminari dello studio italiano GILDA]. 2005. [3026272]
    1. Grossmann EM, Johnson FE, Virgo KS, Longo WE, Fossati R. Follow‐up of colorectal cancer patients after resection with curative intent‐the GILDA trial. Surgical Oncology 2004;13(2‐3):119‐24. - PubMed
    1. Johnson FE, Virgo KS, Grossmann EM, Longo WE, Fossati R. Colorectal cancer patient follow‐up following surgery with curative intent: the GILDA trial. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2004 ASCO Annual Meeting Proceedings (Post‐meeting Edition) 2004;22:14S.
    1. Rosati G, Ambrosini G, Barni S, Andreoni B, Corradini G, Luchena G, et al. A randomized trial of intensive versus minimal surveillance of patients with resected Dukes B2‐C colorectal carcinoma. Annals of Oncology 2016;27(2):274‐80. [DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdv541] - DOI - PubMed
Kjeldsen 1997 {published data only}
    1. Kjeldsen BJ, Kronborg O, Fenger C, Jørgensen OD. A prospective randomised study of follow‐up after radical surgery for colorectal cancer. British Journal of Surgery 1997;84(5):666‐9. - PubMed
    1. Kjeldsen BJ, Kronborg O, Fenger C, Jørgensen OD. The pattern of recurrent colorectal cancer in a prospective randomised study and the characteristics of diagnostic tests. International Journal of Colorectal Disease 1997;12(6):329‐34. - PubMed
    1. Kjeldsen BJ, Thorsen H, Whalley D, Kronborg O. Influence of follow‐up on health‐related quality of life after radical surgery for colorectal cancer. Scandinavian Journal of Colorectal Diseases 1999;34(5):509‐15. - PubMed
Mäkelä 1995 {published data only}
    1. Mäkelä J, Laitinen S, Kairaluoma MI. Early results of follow‐up after radical resection for colorectal cancer. Preliminary results of a prospective randomized trial. Surgical Oncology 1992;1(2):157‐61. - PubMed
    1. Mäkelä JT, Laitinen SO, Kairaluoma MI. Five‐year follow‐up after radical surgery for colorectal cancer. Results of a prospective randomized trial. Archives of Surgery 1995;130(10):1062‐7. - PubMed
Ohlsson 1995 {published data only}
    1. Kronborg O, Fenger C, Deichgräber E, Hansen L. Follow‐up after radical surgery for colorectal cancer. Design of a randomized study. Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology 1988;23(Suppl 149):159‐62. - PubMed
    1. Ohlsson B, Breland U, Ekberg H, Graffner H, Tranberg KG. Follow‐up after curative surgery for colorectal carcinoma. Randomized comparison with no follow‐up. Diseases of the Colon and Rectum 1995;38(6):619‐26. - PubMed
ONCOLINK {published data only}
    1. Augestad KM, Norum J, Dehof S, Aspevik R, Ringberg U, Nestvold T, et al. Cost‐effectiveness and quality of life in surgeon versus general practitioner‐organised colon cancer surveillance: a randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open 2013;3(4):e002391. [NCT00572143] - PMC - PubMed
    1. Augestad KM, Norum J, Rose J, Lindsetmo RO. A prospective analysis of false positive events in a National Colon Cancer Surveillance Program. BMC Health Services Research 2014;14:137. [DOI: 10.1186/1472-6963-14-137] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Augestad KM, Vonen B, Aspevik R, Nestvold T, Ringberg U, Johnsen R, et al. Should the surgeon or the general practitioner (GP) follow up patients after surgery for colon cancer? A randomized controlled trial protocol focusing on quality of life, cost‐effectiveness and serious clinical events. BMC Health Services Research 2008;8:137. - PMC - PubMed
    1. NCT00572143. Follow‐up after surgery for colon cancer. General practice vs. surgical‐based follow‐up? (ONKOLINK). clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00572143?term=follow‐up&type=Intr&amp... (accessed 9 Janury 2019).
Pietra 1998 {published data only}
    1. Pietra N, Sarli L, Costi R, Ouchemi C, Grattarola M, Peracchia A. Role of follow‐up in management of local recurrences of colorectal cancer: a prospective, randomized study. Diseases of the Colon and Rectum 1998;41(9):1127‐33. - PubMed
Rodríguez‐Moranta 2006 {published data only}
    1. Bessa X, Saló J, Arcusa A, Elizalde J, Boadas J, Alentorn E, et al. Effectiveness of postoperative follow‐up in patients with colorectal cancer to detect curable recurrences. Preliminary analysis of a multicenter, randomized controlled trial. Gastroenterology and Hepatology. 2001; Vol. 24:2.
    1. Rodríguez‐Moranta F, Saló J, Arcusa A, Boadas J, Piñol V, Bessa X, et al. Postoperative surveillance in patients with colorectal cancer who have undergone curative resection: a prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2006;24(3):386‐93. - PubMed
Schoemaker 1998 {published data only}
    1. Schoemaker D, Black R, Giles L, Toouli J. Yearly colonoscopy, liver CT, and chest radiography do not influence 5‐year survival of colorectal cancer patients. Gasteroenterology 1998;114(1):7‐14. - PubMed
Secco 2002 {published data only}
    1. Secco GB, Fardelli R, Gianquinto D, Bonfante P, Baldi E, Ravera G, et al. Efficacy and cost of risk adapted follow‐up in patients after colorectal cancer surgery: a prospective, randomized and controlled trial. European Journal of Surgical Oncology 2002;28(4):418‐23. - PubMed
Sobhani 2008 {published data only}
    1. Sobhani I, Tiret E, Labtahi R, Aparicio T, Itti E, Montravers F, et al. Early detection of recurrence by 18FDG‐PET in the follow‐up of patients with colorectal cancer. British Journal of Cancer 2008;98(5):875‐80. - PMC - PubMed
Sobhani 2018 {unpublished data only}
    1. NCT00624260. Impact of PET scan on the curative strategy of colo‐rectal cancers : a randomized study (ITEP). clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/record/NCT00624260?term=NCT00624260&rank=1 (accessed 27 May 2018).
    1. Sobhani I, Baumgaertner I, Tounigand C, Ette E, Brunetti F, Gagniere C, et al. option19 Follow‐up of colorectal cancer (CRC) patients including 18FDGPET‐CT (PET‐CT): an open‐label multicenter randomized trial (clinical trial: NCT 00624260). United European Gastroenterology Journal. 2017; Vol. 5:S1 A13.
    1. Sobhani I, Baumgaertner I, Itti E, Luciani A, Layese R, Natella PA, et al. Colorectal cancer (CRC) patients surveyed by 18FDGPET‐CT (PET‐CT): an open label multicenter randomized trial (NCT 00624260). Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2018; Vol. 35:15S1.
    1. Sobhani I, Itti E, Baumgaertner I, Layese R, Andre T, Ducreux M, et al. Colorectal cancer (CRC) Monitoring by Six‐Monthly 18 FDG‐PET/CT: An Open‐Label Multicientre Randomised Trial. Annals of Oncology 2018;29(4):931‐937. [DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdy031] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Sobhani I, Itti E, Baumgaertner I, Layese R, Andre T, Ducreux M, et al. Colorectal cancer (CRC) monitering by six‐monthly 18. academic‐oup‐com.ezproxy.library.uq.edu.au/annonc/article/29/4/931/4819113#supplement... (accessed 20 June 2018) 2018; Vol. 29, issue 4.
Strand 2011 {published data only}
    1. Strand E, Nygren I, Bergkvist L, Smedh K. Nurse or surgeon follow‐up after rectal cancer: a randomized trial. Colorectal Disease 2011;13(9):999‐1003. - PubMed
SurvivorCare 2013 {published data only}
    1. Jefford M, Aranda S, Gough K, Lotfi‐Jam K, Butow P, Krishnasamy M, et al. Evaluating a nurse‐led survivorship care package (SurvivorCare) for bowel cancer survivors: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials 2013;14(1):260. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Jefford M, Gough K, Drosdowsky A, Russell L, Aranda S, Butow P, et al. A randomized controlled trial of a nurse‐led supportive care package (SurvivorCare) for survivors of colorectal cancer. Oncologist 2016;21(8):1014‐23. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Jefford M, Gough K, Drosdowsky A, Russell L, Aranda S, Butow PN, et al. A randomized controlled trial (RCT) of a supportive care package (SurvivorCare, SC) for survivors of colorectal cancer (CRC). Journal of Clinical Oncology 2016;34(3):3S1. - PMC - PubMed
Treasure 2014 {published data only}
    1. ISRCTN76694943. A multicentre trial to evaluate the use of serial carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) assay as the prime indicator for second‐look surgery in recurrent colorectal cancer. www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN76694943?q=&filters=&sort=&offset=14345... (accessed 6 April 2019).
    1. Lennon T, Houghton J, Northover J, on behalf of CRC/NIH CEA Trial Working Party. Post‐operative CEA monitoring and second‐look surgery in colorectal cancer: trial results. British Journal of Cancer. Proceedings of Ninth Annual Scientific Meeting of the British Oncological Association. New Jersey: Macmillan Publishers Ltd, 1994:16.
    1. Northover J, Houghton J, Lennon T. CEA to detect recurrence of colon cancer. JAMA 1994;272(1):31. - PubMed
    1. Treasure T, Monson K, Fiorentino F, Russell C. The CEA Second‐Look Trial: a randomised controlled trial of carcinoembryonic antigen prompted reoperation for recurrent colorectal cancer. BMJ open 2014;4(5):e004385. [DOI: 10.1.1136/bmjopen-2013-004385] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Wang 2009 {published data only}
    1. Wang T, Cui Y, Huang WS, Deng YH, Gong W, Li CJ, et al. The role of postoperative colonoscopic surveillance after radical surgery for colorectal cancer: a prospective, randomized clinical study. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 2009;69(3 Pt 2):609‐15. - PubMed
Wattchow 2006 {published data only}
    1. Wattchow DA, Weller D, Pilotto L, Estermann A. Randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing hospital and general practice based follow‐up of patients with colon cancer. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Surgery 2002;72 Suppl:A22.
    1. Wattchow DA, Weller DP, Esterman A, Pilotto LS, McGorm K, Hammett Z, et al. General practice vs surgical‐based follow‐up for patients with colon cancer: randomised controlled trial. British Journal of Cancer 2006;94(8):1116‐21. - PMC - PubMed

References to studies excluded from this review

Kronborg 1981 {published data only}
    1. Kronborg O, Hage E, Deichgraeber E. A prospective, partly randomized study of the effectiveness of repeated examination of the colon after polypectomy and radical surgery for cancer. Scandinavian Journal of Gasteroenterology 1981;16(7):879‐84. - PubMed
NCT00182234 {published data only}
    1. NCT00182234. SONICS ‐ Effectiveness of Specialist Oncology Nursing. clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/study/NCT00182234?term=NCT00182234&rank=1 (accessed 23 July 2018).
    1. Sussman J, Bainbridge D, Whelan TJ, Brazil K, Parpia S, Wiernikowski J, et al. Evaluation of a specialized oncology nursing supportive care intervention in newly diagnosed breast and colorectal cancer patients following surgery: a cluster randomized trial. Supportive Care in Cancer 2018;26(5):1533‐41. - PubMed
Sano 2004 {published data only}
    1. Sano Y, Fujii T, Oda Y, Matsuda T, Kozu T, Kudo S, et al. A multicenter randomized controlled trial designed to evaluate follow‐up surveillance strategies for colorectal cancer: the Japan Polyp Study. Digestive Endoscopy 2004;16(4):376‐8.
Serrano 2018 {published data only}
    1. Serrano P, Gu C, Husien M, Jalink D, Martel G, Tsang ME, et al. Effect of PET‐CT on disease recurrence and its management in patients with potentially resectable colorectal cancer liver metastases: the long‐term results of a randomized controlled trial. Annals of Surgical Oncology. 2018; Vol. 25:1S. - PubMed

References to studies awaiting assessment

Barillari 1996 {published data only}
    1. Barillari P, Ramacciato G, Manetti G, Bovino A, Sammartino P, Stipa V. Surveillance of colorectal cancer: effectiveness of early detection of intraluminal recurrences on prognosis and survival of patients treated for cure. Diseases of the Colon and Rectum 1996;39(4):388‐93. - PubMed
NCT00199654 {unpublished data only}
    1. NCT00199654. Follow‐up care with or without CEA assessments in patients who have undergone surgery for stage II or stage III colorectal cancer [Follow‐up of fully resected stage II or III colorectal cancer. Phase III multicentric prospective randomised study]. clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00995202?term=NCT00995202&rank=1 (first received 14 November 2012).
UMN000001318 {unpublished data only}
    1. UMN000001318. Randomized control trial of follow‐up schedule after curative resection for colorectal cancer. upload.umin.ac.jp/cgi‐open‐bin/ctr_e/ctr_view.cgi?recptno=R000001417 (accessed 6 April 2019).

References to ongoing studies

COLOPEC {unpublished data only}
    1. NCT03413254. Second and third look laparoscopy in pT4 colon cancer patients for early detection of peritoneal metastases (COLOPEC‐II). clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03413254?term=follow‐up&type=Intr&amp... (accessed 9 January 2019).
FURCA {published data only}
    1. Jakobsen IH, Juul T, Bernstein I, Christensen P, Jensen FS, Johansen C, et al. Follow‐up after rectal cancer: developing and testing a novel patient‐led follow‐up program. Study protocol. Acta Oncologica 2017;56(2):307. - PubMed
    1. NCT03622437. Individual follow‐up after rectal cancer ‐ focus on the needs of the patient (FURCA). clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03622437?id=NCT03622437&rank=1 (accessed 09 January 2019).
HIPEC {unpublished data only}
    1. NCT01628211. Second look laparoscopy in colorectal cancer (HIPEC) [Randomized phase 2 study comparing second look laparoscopy to standard follow up in patients with no radiologic evidence of disease at 6 months after complete resection of colorectal mucinous carcinoma]. clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01628211?term=NCT01628211&rank=1 (first received 20 August 2014).
ProphyloCHIP {unpublished data only}
    1. Goere D, Glehen O, Quenet F, Ducreux M, Guilloit J, Texier M, et al. Results of a randomized phase 3 study evaluating the potential benefit of a secondlook surgery plus HIPEC in patients at high risk of developing colorectal peritoneal metastases (PROPHYLOCHIP‐ NTC01226394). Journal of Clinical Oncology 2018;36(15S):3531.
    1. NCT01226394. Multicentric phase III trial comparing simple follow‐up to exploratory laparotomy plus "in principle" HIPEC (hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy) in colorectal patients initially treated with surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy who have a high risk of developing colorectal peritoneal carcinomatosis. clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01226394?id=NCT01226394&rank=1 (accessed 6 June 2018).
SCORE {published data only}
    1. ACTRN126170000004369p. Shared care of colorectal cancer survivors ‐ a randomised controlled trial of hospital‐based follow up versus shared hospital / community follow up for survivors of colorectal cancer. www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=371925 (accessed 01 August 2018).
    1. Jefford M, Emery J, Grunfeld E, Martin A, Rodger P, Murray AM, et al. SCORE: shared care of colorectal cancer survivors: protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials 2017;18(1):506. - PMC - PubMed
SURVEILLANCE {unpublished data only}
    1. Lepage C, Phelip J‐M, Cany L, Faroux R, Manfredi S, Ain J‐F. Effect of 5 years of imaging and CEA follow‐up to detect recurrence of colorectal cancer: the FFCD PRODIGE 13 randomised phase III trial. Digestive and Liver Disease 2015;47(7):529‐31. - PubMed
    1. Lepage C, Phelip JM, Cany L, Maillard E, Lievre A, Chatellier T, et al. Effect of 5 years of imaging and CEA follow‐up to detect recurrence of colorectal cancer‐PRODIGE 13 a FFCD and Unicancer phase III trial: baseline characteristics. Annals of Oncology 2016.
    1. NCT00995202. Follow‐up care with or without CEA assessments in patients who have undergone surgery for stage II or stage III colorectal cancer [Follow‐up of fully resected stage II or III colorectal cancer. Phase III multicentric prospective randomised study]. clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00995202?term=NCT00995202&rank=1 (first received 14 November 2012).

Additional references

Aaronson 1993
    1. Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B, Bullinger M, Cull A, Duez NJ, et al. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ‐C30: a quality‐of‐life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 1993;85:365‐76. - PubMed
Alberts 2005
    1. Alberts SR, Horvath WL, Sternfeld WC, Goldberg RM, Mahoney MR, Dakhil SR, et al. Oxaliplatin, fluorouracil, and leucovorin for patients with unresectable liver‐only metastases from colorectal cancer: a North Central Cancer Treatment Group phase II study. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2005;23(36):9243‐9. - PubMed
Altman 1992
    1. Altman DG. Practical statistics for medical research. London: Chapman and Hall, 1992.
Anderson 1996
    1. Anderson RT, Aaronson NK, Bullinger M, McBee WL. A review of the progress towards developing health‐related quality of life instruments for international clinical studies and outcomes research. PharmacoEconomics 1996;10(4):336‐55. - PubMed
Apolone 1998
    1. Apolone G, Mosconi P. The Italian SF‐36 Health Survey: translation, validation and norming. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 1998;51(11):1025‐36. - PubMed
Araghizadeh 2001
    1. Araghizadeh FY, Timmcke AE, Opelka FG, Hicks TC, Beck DE. Colonoscopic perforations. Diseases of the Colon and Rectum 2001;44(5):713‐6. - PubMed
Audisio 1996
    1. Audisio RA, Setti‐Carraro P, Segala M, Capko D, Andreoni B, Tiberio G. Follow‐up in colorectal cancer patients: a cost‐benefit analysis. Annals of Surgical Oncology 1996;3(4):349‐57. - PubMed
Audisio 2000
    1. Audisio RA, Robertson C. Colorectal cancer follow‐up: perspectives for future studies. European Journal of Surgical Oncology 2000;26(4):329‐37. - PubMed
Augestad 2014
    1. Augestad KM, Rose J, Crawhsaw B, Cooper G, Delaney C. Do the benefits outweigh the side effects of colorectal cancer surveillance? A systematic review. World Journal of Gastrointestinal Oncology 2014;6(5):104‐11. - PMC - PubMed
Baca 2011
    1. Baca B, Beart RW, Etzioni DA. Surveillance after colorectal cancer resection: a systematic review. Diseases of the Colon and Rectum 2011;54(8):1036‐48. - PubMed
Bowles 2004
    1. Bowles CJ, Leicester R, Romaya C, Swarbrick E, Williams CB, Epstein O. A prospective study of colonoscopy practice in the UK today: are we adequately prepared for national colorectal cancer screening tomorrow?. Gut 2004;53(2):277‐83. - PMC - PubMed
Böhm 1993
    1. Böhm B, Schwenk W, Hucke HP, Stock W. Does methodic long‐term follow‐up affect survival after curative resection of colorectal carcinoma?. Diseases of the Colon and Rectum 1993;36(3):280‐6. - PubMed
Cella 1993
    1. Cella DF, Tulsky DS, Gray G, Sarafian B, Linn E, Bonomi A, et al. The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy scale: development and validation of the general measure. Journal of Clinical Oncology 1993;11(3):570‐9. - PubMed
Choti 2002
    1. Choti MA, Sitzmann JV, Tiburi MF, Sumetchotimetha W, Rangsin R, Schulick RD, et al. Trends in long‐term survival following liver resection for hepatic colorectal metastases. Annals of Surgery 2002;235(6):759‐66. - PMC - PubMed
Collopy 1992
    1. Collopy BT. The follow‐up of patients after resection for large bowel cancer, May 1992. Colorectal Surgical Society of Australia. Medical Journal of Australia 1992;157(9):633‐4. - PubMed
Connor 2001
    1. Connor S, Frizelle FA, Bagshaw PF. Follow‐up after attempted curative surgery for colorectal cancer; postal survey of New Zealand surgeons' practice. New Zealand Medical Journal 2001;114(1129):151‐3. - PubMed
Covidence [Computer program]
    1. Veritas Health Innovation. Covidence. Version accessed 23 October 2015. Melbourne, Australia: Veritas Health Innovation.
Custers 2014
    1. Custers J, Berg SW, Laarhoven HW, Beliker EM, Gielissen MF, Prins JB, et al. The Cancer Worry Scale: detecting fear of recurrence in breast cancer survivors. Cancer Nursing 2014;37(1):E44‐50. - PubMed
Deeks 2017
    1. Deeks JJ, Higgins JP, Altman DG (editors), on behalf of the Cochrane Statistical Methods Group. Chapter 9: Analysing data and undertaking meta‐analyses. In: Higgins JPT, Churchill R, Chandler J, Cumpston MS (editors), Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 5.2.0 (updated June 2017), Cochrane, 2017. Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.
DevCan 2005 [Computer program]
    1. Statistical Research and Applications Branch National Cancer Institute. DevCan: probability of developing or dying of cancer software. Version 6.7.0. Statistical Research and Applications Branch National Cancer Institute, 2005.
Dolan 1997
    1. Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Medical Care 1997;35:1095‐108. - PubMed
Dupuy 1984
    1. Dupuy H. The Psychological General Well‐Being (PGWB) Index. In: Wenger N, Mattson M, Furberg D, Elinson J editor(s). Assessment of Quality of Life in Clinical Trials of Cardiovascular Therapies. New York: Le Jacq Publishing, 1984. - PubMed
Edelman 1997
    1. Edelman MJ, Meyers FJ, Siegel D. The utility of follow‐up testing after curative cancer therapy: a critical review and economic analysis. Journal of General Internal Medicine 1997;12(5):318‐31. - PMC - PubMed
Edge 2010
    1. Edge SB, Byrd SR, Compton CC. In: Edge SB, Byrd SR, Compton CC, et al. editor(s). AJCC Cancer Staging Manual. 7th Edition. New York: Springer Verlag, 2010.
Fleischer 1989
    1. Fleischer DE, Goldberg SB, Browning TH, Cooper JN, Friedman E, Goldner FH, et al. Detection and surveillance of colorectal cancer. JAMA 1989;261(4):580‐5. - PubMed
Fossati 2015
    1. Fossati R. Colorectal cancer follow‐up review update overdue [personal communication]. Email to: GM Jeffery 4 May 2015.
Gandek 1998
    1. Gandek B, Ware JE, Aaronson NK, Apolone G, Bjorner JB, Brazier JE, et al. Cross‐validation of item selection and scoring for the SF‐12 Health Survey in nine countries: results form the IQOLA Project. International Quality of Life Assessment. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 1998;51(11):1171‐8. - PubMed
Gerdes 1990
    1. Gerdes H. Surveillance after colon cancer: is it worthwhile?. Gastroenterology 1990;99(6):1849‐51. - PubMed
GRADEpro GDT [Computer program]
    1. McMaster University (developed by Evidence Prime). GRADEpro GDT. Version (accessed 07th August 2019). Hamilton (ON): McMaster University (developed by Evidence Prime).
Grossman 2004
    1. Grossmann EM, Johnson FE, Virgo KS, Longo WE, Fossati R. Follow‐up of colorectal cancer patients after resection with curative intent‐the GILDA trial. Surgical Oncology 2004;13(2‐3):119‐24. - PubMed
Higgins 2002
    1. Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta‐analysis. Statistics in Medicine 2002;21(11):1539‐58. - PubMed
Higgins 2017
    1. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Sterne JA (editors). Chapter 8:Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins JPT, Churchill R, Chandler J, Cumpston MS (editors), Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 5.2.0 (updated June 2017), Cochrane, 2017. Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.
Higgins 2018
    1. Higgins JP, Lasserson T, Chandler J, Tovey D, Churchill R. Standards for the conduct and reporting of new Cochrane Intervention Reviews, reporting of protocols and the planning, conduct and reporting of updates. Methodological Expectations of Cochrane Intervention Reviews (MECIR). Available from community.cochrane.org/mecir‐manual 2018.
Hodgkinson 2007
    1. Hodgkinson K, Butow P, Hunt GE, Pendlebury S, Hobbs KM, Lo SK, et al. The development and evaluation of a measure to assess cancer survivor's unmet supportive care needs; the CaSUN (Cancer Survivors Unmet Needs Measure). Psycho‐oncology 2007;16:796‐804. - PubMed
Hunt 1980
    1. Hunt SM, McKenna SP, McEwen J, Backett EM, Williams J, Papp E. A quantitative approach to perceived health status: a validation study. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 1980;34(4):281‐6. - PMC - PubMed
Kanas 2012
    1. Kanas GP, Taylor A, Primrose JN, Langeberg WJ, Kelsh MA, Mowat FS, et al. Survival after liver resection in metastatic colorectal cancer: review and meta‐analysis of prognostic factors. Clinical Epidemiology 2012;4:283‐301. - PMC - PubMed
Kievit 2000
    1. Kievit J. Colorectal cancer follow‐up: a reassessment of empirical evidence on effectiveness. European Journal of Surgical Oncology 2000;26(4):322‐8. - PubMed
Lee 2007
    1. Lee WS, Yun SH, Chun HK, Lee WY, Yun HR, Kim J, et al. Pulmonary resection for metastases from colorectal cancer: prognostic factors and survival. International Journal of Colorectal Diseases 2007;22(6):699‐704. - PubMed
McArdle 2000
    1. McArdle C. ABC of colorectal cancer: effectiveness of follow‐up. BMJ 2000;321(7272):1332‐5. - PMC - PubMed
Moertel 1993
    1. Moertel CG, Fleming TR, Macdonald JS, Haller DG, Laurie JA, Tangen C. An evaluation of the carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) test for monitoring patients with resected colon cancer. JAMA 1993;270(8):943‐7. - PubMed
Moher 2009
    1. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta‐analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Medicine 6;7:e1000097. [DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed1000097] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Mokhles 2016
    1. Mokhles S, Macbeth F, Farewell V, Fiorentino F, Williams NR, Younes RN, et al. Meta‐analysis of colorectal cancer follow‐up after potentially curative resection. British Journal of Surgery 2016;103(10):1259‐67. - PMC - PubMed
Muratore 2007
    1. Muratore A, Zorzi D, Bouzari H, Amisano M, Massucco P, Sperti E, et al. Asymptomatic colorectal cancer with un‐resectable liver metastases: immediate colorectal resection or up‐front systemic chemotherapy?. Annals of Surgical Oncology 2007;14(2):766‐70. - PubMed
Oellerich 2017
    1. Oellerich M, Schültz E, Beck J, Kanzow P, Plowman P, Weiss G, et al. Using circulating cell‐free DNA to monitor personalized cancer therapy. Critical Reviews in Clinical Laboratory Science 2017;54(3):205‐18. - PubMed
Ovaska 1989
    1. Ovaska JT, Järvinen HJ, Mecklin JP. The value of a follow‐up programme after radical surgery for colorectal carcinoma. Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology 1989;24(4):416‐22. - PubMed
Pawlik 2005
    1. Pawlik TM, Scoggins CR, Zorzi D, Abdalla EK, Andres A, Eng C, et al. Effect of surgical margin status on survival and site of recurrence after hepatic resection for colorectal metastases. Annals of Surgery 2005;241(5):715‐22. - PMC - PubMed
Pfister 2004
    1. Pfister DG, Benson AB, Somerfield MR. Clinical practice. Surveillance strategies after curative treatment of colorectal cancer. New England Journal of Medicine 2004;350(23):2375‐82. - PubMed
Pita‐Fernández 2014
    1. Pita‐Fernández S, Alhayek‐Aí M, González‐Martin C, López‐Calviño B, Seoane‐Pillado T, Pértega‐Díaz S. Intensive follow‐up strategies improve outcomes in nonmetastatic colorectal cancer patients after curative surgery: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Annals of Oncology Advance Access 2014;00:1‐12. - PubMed
Rabenek 2008
    1. Rabeneck L, Paszat LF, Hilsden RJ, Saskin R, Leddin D, Grunfeld E, et al. Bleeding and perforation after outpatient colonoscopy and their risk factors in usual clinical practice. Gastroenterology 2008;135(6):1899‐1906. - PubMed
Renehan 2002
    1. Renehan A, Egger M, Saunders MP, O'Dwyer ST. Impact on survival of intensive follow‐up after curative resection for colorectal cancer: systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomised trials. BMJ 2002;324:813. - PMC - PubMed
Renehan 2004
    1. Renehan AG, O'Dwyer ST, Whynes DK. Cost effectiveness analysis of intensive versus conventional follow up after curative resection for colorectal cancer. BMJ 2004;328(7431):81‐5. - PMC - PubMed
Review Manager 2014 [Computer program]
    1. Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration. Review Manager 5 (RevMan 5). Version 5.3. Copenhagen: Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014.
Rojas 2005
    1. Rojas MP, Telaro E, Russo A, Fossati R, Palli D, Rosselli Del Turco M, et al. Follow‐up strategies for women treated for early breast cancer. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2005, Issue 1. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001768.pub2] - DOI - PubMed
Ryuk 2014
    1. Ryuk JP, Choi GS, Park JS, Kim HJ, Park SY, Yoon GS, et al. Predictive factors and the prognosis of recurrence of colorectal cancer within 2 years after curative resection. Annals of Surgical Treatment and Research 2014;86(3):143‐51. - PMC - PubMed
Sadahiro 2003
    1. Sadahiro S, Suzuki T, Ishikawa K, Nakamura T, Tanaka Y, Masuda T, et al. Recurrence patterns after curative resection of colorectal cancer in patients followed for a minimum of ten years. Hepatogastroenterology 2003;50(53):1362‐6. - PubMed
Schünemann 2013
    1. Schünemann H, Brożek J, Guyatt G, Oxman A, editor(s). Handbook for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations using the GRADE approach (updated October 2013). GRADE Working Group, 2013. Available from gdt.guidelinedevelopment.org/app/handbook/handbook.html.
Spinhoven 1997
    1. Spinhoven P, Ormel J, Sloekers PP, Kempen GI, Speckens E, Hemert M, et al. A validation study of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) in different groups of Dutch subjects. Psychological Medicine 1997;27(2):363‐70. - PubMed
Sprangers 1993
    1. Sprangers MA, Cull A, Bjordal K, Groenvold M, Aaronson NK. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer. Approach to quality of life assessment: guidelines for developing questionnaire modules. EORTC Study Group on Quality of Life. Quality of Life Research 1993;2(4):287‐95. - PubMed
Stiggelbout 1997
    1. Stiggelbout AM, Haes JC, Vree R, Velde CJ, Bruijninckx CM, Groningen K, et al. Follow‐up of colorectal cancer patients: quality of life and attitudes towards follow‐up. British Journal of Cancer 1997;75(6):914‐20. - PMC - PubMed
Sugarbaker 1987
    1. Sugarbaker PH, Gianola FJ, Dwyer A, Neuman NR. A simplified plan for follow‐up of patients with colon and rectal cancer supported by prospective studies of laboratory and radiologic test results. Surgery 1987;102(1):79‐87. - PubMed
Tierney 2007
    1. Tierney JF, Stewart LA, Ghersi D, Burdett S, Sydes MR. Practical methods for incorporating summary time‐to‐event data into meta‐analysis. Trials 2007; Vol. 8:16. - PMC - PubMed
Tjandra 2007
    1. Tjandra JJ, Chan MK. Follow‐up after curative resection of colorectal cancer: a meta‐analysis. Diseases of the Colon and Rectum 2007;50(11):1783‐99. - PubMed
Van Cutsem 2006
    1. Cutsem EM, Nordlinger B, Adam R, Köhne CH, Pozzo C, Poston G, et al. European Colorectal Metastases Treatment Group. Towards a pan‐European consensus on the treatment of patients with colorectal liver metastases. European Journal of Cancer 2006;42(14):2212‐21. - PubMed
Vernava 1994
    1. Vernava AM, Longo WE, Virgo KS, Coplin MA, Wade TP, Johnson FE. Current follow‐up strategies after resection of colon cancer. Results of a survey of members of the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons. Diseases of the Colon and Rectum 1994;37(6):573‐83. - PubMed
Virgo 1995
    1. Virgo KS, Vernava AM, Longo WE, McKirgan LW, Johnson FE. Cost of patient follow‐up after potentially curative colorectal cancer treatment. JAMA 1995;273(23):1837‐41. - PubMed
Walker 1988
    1. Walker AM, Martin‐Moreno JM, Artalejo FR. Odd man out: a graphical approach to meta‐analysis. American Journal of Public Health 1988;78(8):961‐6. - PMC - PubMed
Ware 1993
    1. Ware J, Snoww KK, Kosinski MA, Gandek BG. SF36 Health Survey: Manual and Interpretation Guide. 165‐6. Vol. 30, Lincoln: Quality Metric, Inc, 1993.
Ware 1995
    1. Ware J, Kosinski M, Keller S. SF‐12: How to Score the SF‐12 Physical and Mental Health Summary Scales. 2nd Edition. Boston Massachusetts: The Health Institute, New England Medical Centre, 1995.
Whistance 2009
    1. Whistance RN, Conroy T, Chie W, Costantini A, Sezer O, Koller M, et al. European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Group. Clinical and psychometric validation of the EORTC QLQ‐CR29 questionnaire module to assess health‐related quality of life in patients with colorectal cancer. European Journal of Cancer 2009;45(17):3017‐26. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2009.08.014.] - DOI - PubMed
Yoo 2006
    1. Yoo PS, Lopez‐Soler RI, Longo WE, Cha CH. Liver resection for metastatic colorectal cancer in the age of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and bevacizumab. Clinical Colorectal Cancer 2006;6(3):202‐7. - PubMed
Zabora 2001
    1. Zabora J, BrintzenhofeSzoc K, Jacobsen P, Curbow B, Piantadosi S, Hooker C, et al. A new psychosocial screening instrument for use with cancer patients. Psychosomatics 2001;42:241‐6. - PubMed
Zigmond 1983
    1. Zigmond AS, Snaith RP. The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 1983;67(6):361‐70. - PubMed

References to other published versions of this review

Jeffery 2007
    1. Jeffery M, Hickey BE, Hider PN. Follow‐up strategies for patients treated for non‐metastatic colorectal cancer. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2007, Issue 1. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002200.pub2] - DOI - PubMed
Jeffery 2016
    1. Jeffery M, Hickey BE, Hider PN, See AM. Follow‐up strategies for patients treated for non‐metastatic colorectal cancer. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2016, Issue 11. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002200.pub3] - DOI - PubMed

Publication types