Oncological follow-up after radical gastrectomy for cancer still represents a discrepancy in the field, with many retrospective series demonstrating that early diagnosis of recurrence does not result in an improvement in patient survival; yet, many centers with high quality of care still provide routine patient follow-up after surgery by clinical and instrumental controls. This was the topic for a web round table entitled "Rationale and limits of oncological follow-up after gastrectomy for cancer" that was launched one year before the 10(th) International Gastric Cancer Congress. Authors having specific expertise were invited to comment on their previous publications to provide the subject for an open debate. During a three-month-long discussion, 32 authors from 12 countries participated, and 2299 people visited the dedicated web page. Substantial differences emerged between the participants: authors from Japan, South Korea, Italy, Brazil, Germany and France currently engage in instrumental follow-up, whereas authors from Eastern Europe, Peru and India do not, and British and American surgeons practice it in a rather limited manner or in the context of experimental studies. Although endoscopy is still considered useful by most authors, all the authors recognized that computed tomography scanning is the method of choice to detect recurrence; however, many limit follow-up to clinical and biochemical examinations, and acknowledge the lack of improved survival with early detection.
Follow-up after gastrectomy for cancer: results of an international web round table
DE MANZONI, Giovanni
2014-01-01
Abstract
Oncological follow-up after radical gastrectomy for cancer still represents a discrepancy in the field, with many retrospective series demonstrating that early diagnosis of recurrence does not result in an improvement in patient survival; yet, many centers with high quality of care still provide routine patient follow-up after surgery by clinical and instrumental controls. This was the topic for a web round table entitled "Rationale and limits of oncological follow-up after gastrectomy for cancer" that was launched one year before the 10(th) International Gastric Cancer Congress. Authors having specific expertise were invited to comment on their previous publications to provide the subject for an open debate. During a three-month-long discussion, 32 authors from 12 countries participated, and 2299 people visited the dedicated web page. Substantial differences emerged between the participants: authors from Japan, South Korea, Italy, Brazil, Germany and France currently engage in instrumental follow-up, whereas authors from Eastern Europe, Peru and India do not, and British and American surgeons practice it in a rather limited manner or in the context of experimental studies. Although endoscopy is still considered useful by most authors, all the authors recognized that computed tomography scanning is the method of choice to detect recurrence; however, many limit follow-up to clinical and biochemical examinations, and acknowledge the lack of improved survival with early detection.
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
