A nationwide survey evaluating adherence to guidelines for follow-up after polypectomy or treatment for colorectal cancer
BACKGROUND: Endoscopic follow-up (FU) in patients treated for colorectal adenomas or cancer (CRC) is intended to reduce the incidence of CRC. In the Dutch postpolypectomy guidelines, the FU interval is solely determined by the number of previous adenomas, whereas in other countries size and histology are also taken into account. Whether this difference in policy is also reflected in clinical practice is unknown. Furthermore, FU guidelines after CRC are not standardized in The Netherlands, even though national recommendations are available. GOAL: To assess the adherence to the current Dutch postpolypectomy guidelines and to evaluate the FU policy after CRC resection. STUDY: A survey was sent to all Gastrointestinal Departments in The Netherlands. The survey consisted of questions on logistic organization of FU, postpolypectomy FU intervals, and FU after CRC. RESULTS: The response rate was 85%. In contrast to the national guidelines, size and histology of the adenomas were often taken into account, leading to shortening of the FU interval. With respect to the CRC cases, 52% of the respondents advised shorter FU intervals than advised by the national recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: Despite recent Dutch postpolypectomy guidelines, clinicians incorporate histology and size into their clinical strategy. Either further education on the guidelines is needed, or the guidelines need to be reconsidered. Furthermore, evidence-based guidelines for FU after CRC should be formulated.
|Keywords||Colorectal neoplasms, Follow-up, Practice guidelines|
|Persistent URL||dx.doi.org/10.1097/MCG.0b013e31809e703c, hdl.handle.net/1765/29359|
|Journal||Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology|
Mulder, S.A, Ouwendijk, R.J.T, van Leerdam, M.E, Nagengast, F.M, & Kuipers, E.J. (2008). A nationwide survey evaluating adherence to guidelines for follow-up after polypectomy or treatment for colorectal cancer. Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology, 42(5), 487–492. doi:10.1097/MCG.0b013e31809e703c