General thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2014
A proposal of postoperative follow-up pathways for lung cancer.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Sawada Shigeki, Shiono Satoshi, Yamashita Yoshinori, Tagawa Tsutomu, Ito Hiroyuki, Sato Toshihiko, Harada Hiroaki, Yamashita Motohiro
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: Although follow-up surveillance after resection for lung cancer is commonly performed in clinical practice, there is no standard follow-up program. We attempted to establish follow-up examination schedules that we considered would be acceptable to the majority of doctors, and would like to propose them as standard postoperative follow-up pathways.
METHODS: We carried out a retrospective analysis of patients' data and reviewed the time of detection of recurrence and the site of recurrence after resection. Published papers were also reviewed. The postoperative follow-up pathways were established based on these data.
PROPOSED FOLLOW-UP PATHWAY: The follow-up period was set at as 5 years after resection, and physical examinations, chest radiography, chest CT and blood examination are recommended. Two follow-up pathways were proposed taking the risk of recurrence into consideration: the Risk of recurrence-based pathway and the Comprehensive pathway. In the Risk of recurrence-based pathway, the follow-up examination schedule is modified according to the risk of recurrence. In the Comprehensive pathway, a single universal examination schedule is recommended for all patients. The choice between these two pathways is left to the discretion of the attending doctor.
CONCLUSIONS: We proposed two follow-up pathways, based on retrospective analysis of patients' data and a review of published papers, which we considered would be acceptable to the majority of doctors and would be suited to the current medical environment in Japan. A prospective study to evaluate the efficacy of the follow-up pathways is ongoing.
METHODS: We carried out a retrospective analysis of patients' data and reviewed the time of detection of recurrence and the site of recurrence after resection. Published papers were also reviewed. The postoperative follow-up pathways were established based on these data.
PROPOSED FOLLOW-UP PATHWAY: The follow-up period was set at as 5 years after resection, and physical examinations, chest radiography, chest CT and blood examination are recommended. Two follow-up pathways were proposed taking the risk of recurrence into consideration: the Risk of recurrence-based pathway and the Comprehensive pathway. In the Risk of recurrence-based pathway, the follow-up examination schedule is modified according to the risk of recurrence. In the Comprehensive pathway, a single universal examination schedule is recommended for all patients. The choice between these two pathways is left to the discretion of the attending doctor.
CONCLUSIONS: We proposed two follow-up pathways, based on retrospective analysis of patients' data and a review of published papers, which we considered would be acceptable to the majority of doctors and would be suited to the current medical environment in Japan. A prospective study to evaluate the efficacy of the follow-up pathways is ongoing.