Irene Grossmann - Academia.edu (original) (raw)
Uploads
Papers by Irene Grossmann
Annals of Surgery, 2007
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Annals of Surgical Oncology, 2010
Background Preoperative staging of patients with colorectal carcinoma (CRC) has the potential ben... more Background Preoperative staging of patients with colorectal carcinoma (CRC) has the potential benefit of altering treatment options when metastases are present. The clinical value of chest computed tomography (CT) in staging remains unclear. Materials and Methods All patients who undergo colorectal surgery in our hospital are prospectively registered, including patient, treatment, and histopathological characteristics; outcome; and follow-up. Since January 2007, routine preoperative staging CT of chest and abdomen for patients with CRC has been performed as part of our regional guidelines. In this observational cohort study, an analysis on outcome was done after inclusion of 200 consecutive patients. Results Synchronous metastases were present in 60 patients (30%). Staging chest CT revealed pulmonary metastases in 6 patients, with 1 false positive finding. In 50 patients indeterminate lesions were seen on chest CT (25%). These were diagnosed during follow-up as true metastases (n = 8), bronchus carcinoma (n = 2), benign lesions (n = 25), and remaining unknown (n = 15). Ultimately, synchronous pulmonary metastases were diagnosed in 13 patients (7%), in 6 patients confined to the lung (3%). In none of the patients the treatment plan for the primary tumor was changed based on the staging chest CT. Conclusion The low incidence of pulmonary metastases and minimal consequences for the treatment plan limits the clinical value of routine staging chest CT before operation. It has several disadvantages such as costs, radiation exposure, and prolonged uncertainty because of the frequent finding of indeterminate lesions. Based on this study, a routine staging chest CT in CRC patients is not advocated.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Annals of Surgical Oncology
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Ejso, 2007
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Digestive Diseases, 2007
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Colorectal Disease, 2007
Objective Follow-up after curative resection of colorectal carcinoma (CRC) has been subjected to... more Objective Follow-up after curative resection of colorectal carcinoma (CRC) has been subjected to debate concerning its effectiveness to reduce cancer mortality. Current national and international guidelines advise CEA measurements every 3 months during 3 years after surgery. The common clinical practice and opinion about follow-up for colorectal carcinoma, was evaluated by means of a survey among Dutch general surgeons.Method A web-based survey of follow-up after treatment of CRC was sent to all registered Dutch general surgeons. A reply from 246 surgeons treating patients for colorectal carcinoma in 105 out of 118 hospitals was received (response rate 91%). Questions related to actual follow-up protocol, opinion about serum CEA monitoring, liver and/or lung metastasectomy, and motivation to participate in a new trial concerning follow-up.Results For the majority of surgeons the length of follow-up was influenced by age of the patient (62%) and physical condition (76%) prohibiting hepatic metastasectomy. The generally accepted follow-up protocol consisted of CEA measurements every 3 months in the first year and six-monthly thereafter, and ultrasound examination of the liver every 6 months. Nearly all surgeons (92%) were willing to participate in a new study of follow-up protocol.Conclusion The adherence to national guidelines for the follow-up of colorectal carcinoma is low. The indistinctness about follow-up after curative treatment of colorectal carcinoma also affects clinical practice. Recent advancements in imaging techniques, liver and lung surgery have changed circumstances, which are not yet anticipated upon in current guidelines. Renewal of follow-up based upon scientific evidence is required.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Annals of Surgery, 2007
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Annals of Surgical Oncology, 2010
Background Preoperative staging of patients with colorectal carcinoma (CRC) has the potential ben... more Background Preoperative staging of patients with colorectal carcinoma (CRC) has the potential benefit of altering treatment options when metastases are present. The clinical value of chest computed tomography (CT) in staging remains unclear. Materials and Methods All patients who undergo colorectal surgery in our hospital are prospectively registered, including patient, treatment, and histopathological characteristics; outcome; and follow-up. Since January 2007, routine preoperative staging CT of chest and abdomen for patients with CRC has been performed as part of our regional guidelines. In this observational cohort study, an analysis on outcome was done after inclusion of 200 consecutive patients. Results Synchronous metastases were present in 60 patients (30%). Staging chest CT revealed pulmonary metastases in 6 patients, with 1 false positive finding. In 50 patients indeterminate lesions were seen on chest CT (25%). These were diagnosed during follow-up as true metastases (n = 8), bronchus carcinoma (n = 2), benign lesions (n = 25), and remaining unknown (n = 15). Ultimately, synchronous pulmonary metastases were diagnosed in 13 patients (7%), in 6 patients confined to the lung (3%). In none of the patients the treatment plan for the primary tumor was changed based on the staging chest CT. Conclusion The low incidence of pulmonary metastases and minimal consequences for the treatment plan limits the clinical value of routine staging chest CT before operation. It has several disadvantages such as costs, radiation exposure, and prolonged uncertainty because of the frequent finding of indeterminate lesions. Based on this study, a routine staging chest CT in CRC patients is not advocated.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Annals of Surgical Oncology
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Ejso, 2007
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Digestive Diseases, 2007
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Colorectal Disease, 2007
Objective Follow-up after curative resection of colorectal carcinoma (CRC) has been subjected to... more Objective Follow-up after curative resection of colorectal carcinoma (CRC) has been subjected to debate concerning its effectiveness to reduce cancer mortality. Current national and international guidelines advise CEA measurements every 3 months during 3 years after surgery. The common clinical practice and opinion about follow-up for colorectal carcinoma, was evaluated by means of a survey among Dutch general surgeons.Method A web-based survey of follow-up after treatment of CRC was sent to all registered Dutch general surgeons. A reply from 246 surgeons treating patients for colorectal carcinoma in 105 out of 118 hospitals was received (response rate 91%). Questions related to actual follow-up protocol, opinion about serum CEA monitoring, liver and/or lung metastasectomy, and motivation to participate in a new trial concerning follow-up.Results For the majority of surgeons the length of follow-up was influenced by age of the patient (62%) and physical condition (76%) prohibiting hepatic metastasectomy. The generally accepted follow-up protocol consisted of CEA measurements every 3 months in the first year and six-monthly thereafter, and ultrasound examination of the liver every 6 months. Nearly all surgeons (92%) were willing to participate in a new study of follow-up protocol.Conclusion The adherence to national guidelines for the follow-up of colorectal carcinoma is low. The indistinctness about follow-up after curative treatment of colorectal carcinoma also affects clinical practice. Recent advancements in imaging techniques, liver and lung surgery have changed circumstances, which are not yet anticipated upon in current guidelines. Renewal of follow-up based upon scientific evidence is required.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact