4.7 Article

Follow-Up Strategy After Curative Resection of Gastric Cancer: A Nationwide Survey in Korea

Journal

ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY
Volume 17, Issue 1, Pages 54-64

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1245/s10434-009-0676-1

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

To date, guidelines for follow-up after curative resection in patients with gastric cancer have not been reported. Thus, most centers have managed the process according to institution-specific protocols. We investigated current follow-up practices after curative resection of gastric cancer using a nationwide survey in Korea, where gastric cancer is epidemic. From July to September 2007, questionnaires were sent out to 205 members of the Korean Gastric Cancer Association (KGCA). The questionnaire packet contained a covering letter, general information, and a questionnaire about follow-up schedules and methodologies. Forty-six percent (96/205) of the members of the KGCA returned the survey. The majority of responders indicated that patients with early gastric cancer were followed up every 6 months (64.4%) for the first year, every 12 months (47.9%) for the next 4 years, and every 12 months (68.8%) from the fifth year after surgery on. For patients with advanced gastric cancer, follow-up studies were carried out every 3 months (43.8%) for the first year, every 6 months for the next 4 years, and every 12 months (75.0%) from the fifth year onward. After surgery, most responders used computed tomography for imaging, carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and carbohydrate antigen (CA)19-9 as tumor markers, and serum iron among follow-up measures. Clinicians have a variety of approaches regarding the extent of follow-up and methodologies used after curative resection for gastric cancer. Therefore, a multicenter randomized trial will be needed to compare routine follow-up with intensive schedules. Our results could facilitate the design of such studies.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available