Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
addClaim

[Effectiveness of regular after-care in R0-resected rectal carcinoma].

Authors: W, Schwenk; W, Stock;

[Effectiveness of regular after-care in R0-resected rectal carcinoma].

Abstract

Regular follow-up programs after radical resections of rectal carcinoma have been introduced in numerous hospitals. The main goal of a regular follow-up program is the early diagnosis of tumor recurrence in the asymptomatic stage to allow further radical resection. We evaluated the efficiency (quote of further resections of asymptomatic tumor recurrences) of regular follow-up after resection of 288 rectal carcinomas. 88 patients developed recurrent disease (47 primary locoregional recurrence, 27 distant metastasis, 14 locoregional and distant recurrence). Only 31 patients were asymptomatic at the time of recurrence (metastasis 55.6%, locoregional recurrence 31.9%, local and distant recurrence 7.1%; p < 0.05). In 31 patients (13 asymptomatic, 18 symptomatic) further R0-resection was possible. Locoregional recurrences were resected more often following anterior resection than after abdominal perineal resection. With 13 radical resections of asymptomatic recurrence the efficiency of regular follow-up was only 4.5%. Therefore efficiency alone does not justify regular follow-up examinations. Follow-up still makes sense for psychosocial support, diagnosis of metachronous colonic carcinoma, treatment of postoperative complications and critical evaluation of the results of surgery. Furthermore the follow up data can be used to plan adjuvant therapy studies.

Related Organizations
Keywords

Reoperation, Rectal Neoplasms, Aftercare, Proctoscopy, Survival Rate, Postoperative Complications, Lymphatic Metastasis, Humans, Neoplasm Recurrence, Local, Follow-Up Studies, Neoplasm Staging

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    0
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
0
Average
Average
Average
Upload OA version
Are you the author of this publication? Upload your Open Access version to Zenodo!
It’s fast and easy, just two clicks!