Impact on survival of intensive follow up after curative resection for colorectal cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials

By A. Renehan, Matthias Egger, M. Saunders, S. O'dwyer. British medical journal, 2002

665 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Colorectal cancer surveillance: 2005 update of an American Society of Clinical Oncology practice guideline. (2005, neutral): “In addition, the guideline has organized the recommendations into five broad categories: (1) history and physical examinationandriskassessment;( 2 )laboratorytests;(3)imaging procedures;(4)endoscopicsurveillancetechniques;and(5) a new category of laboratory-based prognostic and predictive factors.”
Guidelines for colorectal cancer screening and surveillance in moderate and high risk groups (update from 2002) (2010, background): “Four well-conducted systematic reviews are supportive of clinical follow-up, but three of them conclude that there is a lack of evidence to confirm or refute the premise that follow-up detects potentially resectable disease.”
Prognosis Research Strategy (PROGRESS) 2: Prognostic Factor Research (2013, methodology): “Other examples of prognostic factors being used for monitoring include CD4 count in HIV infection, blood pressure or temperature in critical care medicine, and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) levels in colorectal cancer [25].”