Cochrane · systematic review · CD002200

Follow‐up strategies for patients treated for non‐metastatic colorectal cancer

Jeffery, M, Hickey, BE, Hider, PN · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2019 · Cochrane Library

Colorectal2 versionsAMSTAR 2: not assessed

SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.

Questions

current version

GRADE rated

No studies

Included studies

No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 1 · 16.7%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 2 · 33.3%High 3 · 50%

Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.

Questions and results

Show all 2 versions

Intensive follow‐up compared to less intensive follow‐up for patients treated for colorectal cancer with curative intent

6 questions

Outcome	Effect	Evidence	Status / GRADE
Overall survival Intensive follow‐up vs less intensive follow‐up	HR 0.91 [0.8, 1.04]	15 studies · 12528 participants	High
Colorectal cancer‐specific survival Intensive follow‐up vs less intensive follow‐up	HR 0.93 [0.81, 1.07]	11 studies · 11771 participants	Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision
Relapse‐free survival Intensive follow‐up vs less intensive follow‐up	HR 1.05 [0.92, 1.21]	16 studies · 8047 participants	High
Salvage surgery (surgery at relapse with curative intent) Intensive follow‐up vs less intensive follow‐up	RR 1.98 [1.53, 2.56]	13 studies · 5157 participants	High
Interval recurrences (recurrence CRC diagnosed between scheduled Intensive follow‐up vs less intensive follow‐up	RR 0.59 [0.41, 0.86]	7 studies · 3933 participants	Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency
Harms Colonoscopy complications ‐ bowel perforation Intensive follow‐up vs less intensive follow‐up	RR 6.83 [0.36, 131.21]	1 study · 326 participants	Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision