BACKGROUND The precise content and frequency of follow-up of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) is variable and guideline adherence is low. The aim of this study was to assess the view of colorectal surgeons on their local follow-up schedule and to clarify their opinions about risk-stratification and organ preserving therapies. Equally important, adherence to the Dutch national guidelines was determined. METHODS Colorectal surgeons were invited to complete a web-based survey about the importance and interval of clinical follow-up, CEA monitoring and the use of imaging modalities. Furthermore, the opinions regarding physical examination, risk-stratification, organ preserving strategies, and follow-up setting were assessed. Data were analyzed using quantitative and qualitative analysis methods. RESULTS A total of 106 colorectal surgeons from 52 general and 5 university hospitals filled in the survey, yielding a hospital response rate of 74% and a surgeon response rate of 42%. The follow-up of patients with CRC was mainly done by surgeons (71%). The majority of the respondents (68%) did not routinely perform physical examination during follow-up of rectal patients. Abdominal ultrasound was the predominant modality used for detection of liver metastases (77%). Chest X-ray was the main modality for detecting lung metastases (69%). During the first year of follow-up, adherence to the minimal guideline recommendations was high (99-100%). The results demonstrate that, within the framework of the guidelines, some respondents applied a more intensive follow-up and others a less intensive schedule. The majority of the respondents (77%) applied one single follow-up imaging schedule for all patients that underwent treatment with curative intent. CONCLUSIONS Dutch colorectal surgeons' adherence to minimal guideline recommendations was high, but within the guideline framework, opinions differed about the required intensity and content of clinical visits, the interval of CEA monitoring, and the importance and frequency of imaging techniques. This national survey demonstrates current follow-up practice throughout the Netherlands and highlights the follow-up differences of curatively treated patients with CRC.

中文翻译：

---

大肠癌患者随访实践的主要差异；荷兰的国家调查结果。

背景技术大肠癌（CRC）患者的随访的准确内容和频率是可变的，并且指南依从性低。这项研究的目的是评估结直肠外科医师对他们当地的随访计划的看法，并阐明他们对风险分层和器官保留疗法的看法。同样重要的是，确定遵守荷兰国家准则。方法邀请大肠外科医生完成基于网络的调查，以了解临床随访的重要性和间隔时间，CEA监测以及成像方式的使用。此外，还评估了有关体格检查，风险分层，器官保存策略和随访情况的意见。使用定量和定性分析方法分析数据。结果调查覆盖了52家普通医院和5所大学医院的106位结直肠外科医生，医院的回应率为74％，外科医生的回应率为42％。CRC患者的随访主要由外科医生（71％）完成。大部分受访者（68％）在直肠癌患者随访期间未定期进行身体检查。腹部超声检查是检测肝转移的主要方式（77％）。胸部X光检查是检测肺转移的主要方式（69％）。在随访的第一年，对最低指导标准的遵守率很高（99-100％）。结果表明，在准则的框架内，一些受访者采用了更深入的随访，而另一些受访者则采用了较不密集的时间表。大多数受访者（77％）对所有接受过治愈性治疗的患者均采用了单一的随访成像计划。结论荷兰结直肠外科医师对最低指导标准的遵循率很高，但在指导框架内，对于所需的临床就诊强度和内容，CEA监测的间隔以及影像学技术的重要性和频率，意见不一。这项全国调查显示了荷兰目前的随访做法，并强调了治愈性CRC患者的随访差异。关于所需的临床就诊强度和内容，CEA监测的间隔以及成像技术的重要性和频率，意见不一。这项全国调查显示了荷兰目前的随访做法，并强调了治愈性CRC患者的随访差异。关于所需的临床就诊强度和内容，CEA监测的间隔以及成像技术的重要性和频率，意见不一。这项全国调查显示了荷兰目前的随访做法，并强调了治愈性CRC患者的随访差异。