Skip to main content
PMC home page
Postgraduate Medical Journal logoLink to Postgraduate Medical Journal
. 2003 Jul;79(933):403–407. doi: 10.1136/pmj.79.933.403

Patients' views on follow up of colorectal cancer: implications for risk communication and decision making

S Papagrigoriadis 1, B Heyman 1
PMCID: PMC1742752  PMID: 12897220

Abstract

Background: Medical views about the clinical value and potential detrimental effect on quality of life of postoperative follow up are divided. There is no literature on the views of British patients with colorectal cancer towards the follow up process.

Aim: To investigate patients' views and experiences of follow up of colorectal cancer, and to assess their attitudes towards suggested changes to follow up policy.

Patients and methods: A total of 156 asymptomatic and disease-free patients with colorectal cancer were identified from the follow up clinic. Recurrence-free status was confirmed through retrieval of computerised clinic letters. A postal survey using a 39 item piloted questionnaire was undertaken. Data analysis generated descriptive statistics and logistic regression models.

Results: A response rate of 61% (95) was obtained. Among these respondents, 63% (60) had undergone initial surgery within three years of the time of the survey, and 86% (82) patients expected a further follow up appointment. Majorities of the sample, ranging from 71% (67) to 96% (91), expressed satisfaction with respect to clinic delays, staff conduct and knowledge about their case, consultation time, and being able to discuss personal problems freely. However some patients reported difficulty in discussing sexual problems at the clinic. Appointment imminence caused anxiety, sleep problems, and decreased appetite in 35% (35), 27% (26), and 8 % (8) of patients respectively. However, 78% (74) patients felt reassured and optimistic for the future after receiving results. Such optimism is not necessarily justified in terms of estimated mortality risks. A majority (78%, 66) stated that they would value finding out about the presence of recurrence even if there would be no survival benefit. Nearly half of the sample (48%, 43) felt that they would disagree with the cessation of follow up in any circumstances. Only 47% (42) and 27% (24) indicated that they would accept follow up by a specialist nurse or their general practitioner, respectively. Attitude to follow up was unrelated to reported anxiety before appointments. Only 22% (19) of the sample could identify risk indicators for recurrence, but 64% (61) agreed that they would like to be told what to look for.

Discussion: A sample of patients with colorectal cancer expressed a high degree of satisfaction with hospital follow up. Although a substantial minority reported suffering from pre-visit anxiety, most felt that this disadvantage was compensated for by reassuring results, and believed that investigations did not have a significant negative impact on their quality of life. Respondents valued hospital follow up, and half would reject complete discharge or alternative forms of follow up. These findings demonstrate that patients have a different perception of the risk of recurrence than clinicians who would consider the survival prospects for most patients to be more or less unaffected by follow up interventions. Attempted modifications to follow up policies should be introduced with caution, and should take account of patient understanding of medical reasoning. The findings also raise questions about risk communication with patients.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (65.1 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Andersen M. R., Peacock S., Nelson J., Wilson S., McIntosh M., Drescher C., Urban N. Worry about ovarian cancer risk and use of ovarian cancer screening by women at risk for ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2002 Apr;85(1):3–8. doi: 10.1006/gyno.2001.6556. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Aro A. R., Pilvikki Absetz S., van Elderen T. M., van der Ploeg E., van der Kamp L. J. False-positive findings in mammography screening induces short-term distress - breast cancer-specific concern prevails longer. Eur J Cancer. 2000 Jun;36(9):1089–1097. doi: 10.1016/s0959-8049(00)00065-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Blanchard C. G., Labrecque M. S., Ruckdeschel J. C., Blanchard E. B. Information and decision-making preferences of hospitalized adult cancer patients. Soc Sci Med. 1988;27(11):1139–1145. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(88)90343-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Blanchard C. G., Labrecque M. S., Ruckdeschel J. C., Blanchard E. B. Information and decision-making preferences of hospitalized adult cancer patients. Soc Sci Med. 1988;27(11):1139–1145. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(88)90343-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Brazier J. E., Harper R., Jones N. M., O'Cathain A., Thomas K. J., Usherwood T., Westlake L. Validating the SF-36 health survey questionnaire: new outcome measure for primary care. BMJ. 1992 Jul 18;305(6846):160–164. doi: 10.1136/bmj.305.6846.160. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Coulter A. Paternalism or partnership? Patients have grown up-and there's no going back. BMJ. 1999 Sep 18;319(7212):719–720. doi: 10.1136/bmj.319.7212.719. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Grunfeld E., Mant D., Vessey M. P., Fitzpatrick R. Specialist and general practice views on routine follow-up of breast cancer patients in general practice. Fam Pract. 1995 Mar;12(1):60–65. doi: 10.1093/fampra/12.1.60. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. James N. D., Guerrero D., Brada M. Who should follow up cancer patients? Nurse specialist based outpatient care and the introduction of a phone clinic system. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 1994;6(5):283–287. doi: 10.1016/s0936-6555(05)80267-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Jamison R. L., Donohue J. H., Nagorney D. M., Rosen C. B., Harmsen W. S., Ilstrup D. M. Hepatic resection for metastatic colorectal cancer results in cure for some patients. Arch Surg. 1997 May;132(5):505–511. doi: 10.1001/archsurg.1997.01430290051008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Maughan Karen, Heyman Bob, Matthews Margaret. In the shadow of risk. How men cope with a partner's gynaecological cancer. Int J Nurs Stud. 2002 Jan;39(1):27–34. doi: 10.1016/s0020-7489(01)00004-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Mella J., Biffin A., Radcliffe A. G., Stamatakis J. D., Steele R. J. Population-based audit of colorectal cancer management in two UK health regions. Colorectal Cancer Working Group, Royal College of Surgeons of England Clinical Epidemiology and Audit Unit. Br J Surg. 1997 Dec;84(12):1731–1736. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Mäkelä J. T., Laitinen S. O., Kairaluoma M. I. Five-year follow-up after radical surgery for colorectal cancer. Results of a prospective randomized trial. Arch Surg. 1995 Oct;130(10):1062–1067. doi: 10.1001/archsurg.1995.01430100040009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Ohlsson B., Breland U., Ekberg H., Graffner H., Tranberg K. G. Follow-up after curative surgery for colorectal carcinoma. Randomized comparison with no follow-up. Dis Colon Rectum. 1995 Jun;38(6):619–626. doi: 10.1007/BF02054122. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Papagrigoriadis S., Koreli A. The needs of general practitioners in the follow-up of patients with colorectal cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2001 Sep;27(6):541–544. doi: 10.1053/ejso.2001.1106. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Renehan Andrew G., Egger Matthias, Saunders Mark P., O'Dwyer Sarah T. Impact on survival of intensive follow up after curative resection for colorectal cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials. BMJ. 2002 Apr 6;324(7341):813–813. doi: 10.1136/bmj.324.7341.813. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Rockwood K., Stolee P., Robertson D., Shillington E. R. Response bias in a health status survey of elderly people. Age Ageing. 1989 May;18(3):177–182. doi: 10.1093/ageing/18.3.177. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Schoemaker D., Black R., Giles L., Toouli J. Yearly colonoscopy, liver CT, and chest radiography do not influence 5-year survival of colorectal cancer patients. Gastroenterology. 1998 Jan;114(1):7–14. doi: 10.1016/s0016-5085(98)70626-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Sharma V. K., Vasudeva R., Howden C. W. Colorectal cancer screening and surveillance practices by primary care physicians: results of a national survey. Am J Gastroenterol. 2000 Jun;95(6):1551–1556. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2000.02093.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Stiggelbout A. M., de Haes J. C., Vree R., van de Velde C. J., Bruijninckx C. M., van Groningen K., Kievit J. Follow-up of colorectal cancer patients: quality of life and attitudes towards follow-up. Br J Cancer. 1997;75(6):914–920. doi: 10.1038/bjc.1997.161. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Vernava A. M., 3rd, Longo W. E., Virgo K. S., Coplin M. A., Wade T. P., Johnson F. E. Current follow-up strategies after resection of colon cancer. Results of a survey of members of the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons. Dis Colon Rectum. 1994 Jun;37(6):573–583. doi: 10.1007/BF02050993. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Virgo K. S., Vernava A. M., Longo W. E., McKirgan L. W., Johnson F. E. Cost of patient follow-up after potentially curative colorectal cancer treatment. JAMA. 1995 Jun 21;273(23):1837–1841. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Weber D. C., Bieri S., Kurtz J. M., Miralbell R. Prospective pilot study of sildenafil for treatment of postradiotherapy erectile dysfunction in patients with prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1999 Nov;17(11):3444–3449. doi: 10.1200/JCO.1999.17.11.3444. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Postgraduate Medical Journal are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES