Gene/Protein Disease Symptom Drug Enzyme Compound
Pivot Concepts:   Target Concepts:
Query: UMLS:C0009402 (colorectal cancer)
 53,228 document(s) hit in 31,850,051 MEDLINE articles (0.00 seconds)

Cancer survivors are at increased risk for recurrence of their original malignancy; development of second primary malignancies; and medical, developmental, and psychologic problems resulting from cancer therapy, genetic predisposition to cancer, and other risk factors. Surveillance following curative cancer treatment generally includes interval history and physical examinations every six months for five years. Thereafter, histories and examinations are recommended annually for breast cancer; every three months for two years, then every six months for three to five years for colorectal cancer; and every six months for five years, then annually for prostate cancer. Recommended laboratory tests and ancillary procedures include annual mammography of preserved breast tissue in breast cancer survivors, carcinoembryonic antigen level monitoring in conjunction with annual colonoscopy in colorectal cancer patients, and prostate-specific antigen measurements every six months for five years and then annually in prostate cancer survivors. In addition, family physicians should be attentive to concerns about altered body image or sexuality issues following curative surgical procedures. Continued emphasis on preventive health practices is encouraged. Physicians should remain alert to nonspecific symptoms or physical findings (e.g., mass, adenopathy) that can indicate cancer recurrence. In childhood cancer survivors, periodic evaluation that includes a plan for surveillance and prevention, incorporating risks based on previous cancer, therapy, genetic predispositions, personal behaviors, and comorbid health conditions, is recommended.
 ...
PMID:Care of cancer survivors. 1630 27

Chemotherapy that targets metastatic colorectal cancer originally developed in Europe and the US, and was introduced to Japan in April, 2005, where it has since headed toward full scale clinical applications. This event created an opportunity to re-evaluate the role of postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy in Japan. In Europe and the US, adjuvant therapy has centered on the intravenous administration of leucovorin/fluorouracil, while in Japan, it has been long-term continuous administration of oral fluoropyrimidine preparations. Despite this difference in historical background,guidelines created in 2005 recommend both LV/5-FU and LV/UFT regimens and there has been increased application of evidence-based adjuvant chemotherapy. The benefits of postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy in stage II and III (high risk of recurrence) colorectal cancer patients have also come to be recognized. Examination of a new survey of 100 medical specialists on the current state of adjuvant chemotherapy for colorectal cancer in Japanese clinical settings revealed that for stage III patients, there is a tendency to choose treatment based on evidence gathered from both home and abroad. In contrast, a solid majority (60%) of stage II patients are treated exclusively with oral fluoropyrimidine despite a lack of, or limited evidence of efficacy. At the same time, half of the physicians who treated stage II patients with adjuvant chemotherapy initially attempted to identify those with a high risk of cancer recurrence and treat them accordingly; which was a breakthrough in the clinical treatment approach. While ongoing comparative Japanese clinical studies that use adjuvant chemotherapy for the treatment of colorectal cancer were noted, consideration was also given to the desired future direction clinical research should take.
 ...
PMID:[Adjuvant chemotherapy for colorectal cancer in Japan-current state and problem areas]. 1749 61

The carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) blood test is included in most colorectal cancer follow up protocols, despite little clear evidence for its cost-effectiveness and survival benefit. In this study, patients' views were sought on the use of the CEA blood test in their follow up. Strong associations were found between the age of a patient's children and their concern about cancer recurrence and between concern about recurrence and anxiety about CEA test results (p<0.0001). Many patients expressed a desire for prognostic information, however uncertain or poor. Patients' views should be sought when designing colorectal cancer follow up protocols to ensure their needs are adequately addressed.
 ...
PMID:Carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) testing in colorectal cancer follow up: what do patients think? 1782 31

For individuals meeting Bethesda criteria for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer syndrome, the microsatellite instability (MSI) test is recommended as a screening evaluation before proceeding to genetic testing. The MSI test is new to the medical setting, but will be increasingly used to screen patients at high risk for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. The main goals of this study were to examine knowledge about and exposure to the MSI test among individuals considering the test, to evaluate perceived benefits and barriers to undergoing the MSI test, and to identify the demographic, medical, and psychosocial correlates of the perceived benefits and barriers to undergoing the test. One hundred and twenty-five patients completed a survey after being offered the test, but prior to making the decision whether to pursue MSI testing. Results indicated low levels of knowledge about and previous exposure to the MSI test. Participants held positive attitudes about the potential benefits of the test and perceived few barriers to undergoing the test. Motivations were similar to those cited by individuals considering other genetic tests. Participants with nonmetastatic disease, with lower perceived risk for cancer recurrence, and who reported more self-efficacy endorsed more benefits from the test. Higher levels of cancer-specific psychological distress were associated with more perceived barriers to having the test. These findings suggest that individuals considering the MSI test know very little about it but hold positive attitudes about the test's utility. More distressed patients, patients who perceive themselves at higher risk for cancer recurrence, and patients with metastatic disease might be less motivated to have the MSI test.
 ...
PMID:Knowledge and attitudes about microsatellite instability testing among high-risk individuals diagnosed with colorectal cancer. 1793 59

A surrogate endpoint is an endpoint that is observed before a true endpoint and is used to draw conclusions about the effect of intervention on true endpoint. To gauge confidence in the use of a surrogate endpoint, it must be validated. Two simple validation methods using data from multiple trials with surrogate and true endpoints are discussed: an estimation method extending previous work and new method based on hypothesis tests. The validation methods were applied to two data sets, each involving 10 randomized trials: one for patients with early colon cancer where the true endpoint was survival status at eight years and surrogate endpoint was cancer recurrence status at three years, and one for patients with advanced colorectal cancer where the true endpoint was survival status at 12 months and the surrogate endpoint was cancer recurrence status at six months. The estimation method uses the surrogate endpoint in the new trial and a model relating surrogate and true endpoints in previous trials to predict the effect of intervention on true endpoint in the new trial. For validation, each trial was successively treated as the ;new' trial and a comparison was made between predicted and observed effects of intervention on true endpoint. Performance of the surrogate endpoint was good in both data sets. The hypothesis testing method involves the z-statistic for the surrogate endpoint, which is the estimated effect of intervention on surrogate endpoint divided by its standard error. To use this z-statistic to test a null hypothesis of no effect of intervention on true endpoint, the critical value is increased above a standard level of 1.96 to a level determined by the relationships between surrogate and true endpoints in the data sets. This elevated critical value could be used for accelerated approval.
 ...
PMID:Two simple approaches for validating a binary surrogate endpoint using data from multiple trials. 1828 36

We report two cases of recurrent colorectal cancer in two patients who were treated successfully with a combined oral chemotherapeutic agent folinate/tegafur/uracil (UFT/LV) dosage. The first case was a 74-year-old woman who underwent Hartmann operation for colon cancer perforation. One year and 7 months after surgery, a local recurrence was found on the CT scan and endoscopy. It ended in exploratory laparotomy though we were operated on. Chemotherapy using 5-fluorouracil/Leucovorin (5-FU/LV) was performed six times. Sequentially, UFT/LV internal use was managed at our outpatient clinic. This patient has been living without side effects in the first three postoperative years, and without increase in tumors. The second case was a 65-year-old woman who underwent abdominoperineal resection of the rectum for rectal cancer. The histologic stage of disease aggravation of the patient was stageI. Post operatively, 2 years and 6 months later, we recognized a metastasis node on the lung upper right lobe of the patient and her CA19-9 value climbed dramatically. The patient took UFT/LV during outpatient visits to the hospital, the lung node shadow disappeared two months later, and CA19-9 decreased, too. The patient is living without a cancer recurrence now. UFT/LV treatment is one of the effective modalities against recurrence of colorectal cancer from outpatient treatment while maintaining QOL.
 ...
PMID:[Two cases of recurrent colorectal cancer treated successfully with folinate/tegafur/uracil (UFT/LV) chemotherapy on an outpatient basis]. 1840 40

This article highlights the individual merits and weaknesses of laparoscopic as compared with open surgery as the primary treatment of colorectal cancer. Although results clearly suggest that laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer results in an earlier postoperative recovery, it is more difficult to comment on rarer complications. To date, results from laparoscopic colorectal resections suggest that the resected specimen is oncologically comparable that obtained with open surgery, but more long-term data on cancer recurrence and survival at 3 and 5 years postoperatively are eagerly awaited.
 ...
PMID:Laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer: evidence to date. 1848 81

Survival rates from colorectal cancer (CRC) differ dramatically according to the stage of the tumor at diagnosis, with survival rates of 90% for patients with stage I disease but only 49% for those with stage III cancer. Many serum and tumor markers have been identified but none has provided a significant improvement over tumor stage as a prognostic indicator for cancer recurrence for patients with stage II or III disease. Aberrant activation of the hepatocyte growth factor (HGF)/HGF receptor (MET) signaling pathway is associated with both malignant transformation and metastatic potential of CRC. MACC1 (metastasis-associated in colon cancer-1) is a newly discovered gene that regulates this signaling cascade. The significant correlation between overexpression of MACC1 in CRC and both malignant transformation and subsequent risk for metastases in stage II and III CRC indicates that MACC1 tumor typing may prove valuable for determining risk for CRC recurrence. MACC1 may also be an important therapeutic target for CRC treatment.
 ...
PMID:Overexpression of MACC1 leads to downstream activation of HGF/MET and potentiates metastasis and recurrence of colorectal cancer. 1934 7

Postoperative surveillance for recurrent and/or metachronous disease is an important component of the treatment of patients with colorectal cancer. The optimal schedule of follow-up investigations remains controversial. Several randomized trials have suggested a moderate improvement in 5-year survival and earlier detection of cancer recurrence with the implementation of intensive surveillance protocols. Whether these protocols are cost-effective has yet to be determined. Current guidelines from the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons recommend periodic patient follow-up with office visits, carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) measurement, and endoscopy following potentially curative resection of colorectal cancer.
 ...
PMID:The role of postoperative surveillance in colorectal cancer. 2001 Dec 6

Secondary prevention of colorectal cancer, as opposed to primary prevention, indicates that a person has already had the disease and there are steps being taken to prevent cancer recurrence, usually as metachronous tumors. This generally involves annual surveillance with colonoscopy after surgical removal of the initial cancer if some aspect of the colon remains. However, some familial cases may involve other modalities, such as cyclooxygenase inhibitors, as an adjunct after the initial operation. Genetic testing in suspected familial cases may identify candidates for secondary prevention. The timing for secondary prevention is critical to prevent recurrent advanced disease, which is detrimental to patient survival. Recommendations are often empiric, but some cases are based on the biological behavior of the tumor. Close follow-up with a competent health care provider, such as a gastroenterologist, is necessary to help prevent recurrence.
Curr Colorectal Cancer Rep 2010 Jan
PMID:Secondary Prevention of Colorectal Cancer: Is There an Optimal Follow-up for Patients with Colorectal Cancer? 2015 68


<< Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next >>