Search

Context: The primary lesion in penile cancer is managed by surgery or radiation. Surgical options include penile-sparing surgery, amputative surgery, laser excision, and Moh's micrographic surgery. Radiation is applied as external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and brachytherapy. The treatment aims to completely remove the primary lesion and preserve a sufficient functional penile stump., Objective: To assess whether the 5-yr recurrence-free rate and other outcomes, such as sexual function, quality of life, urination, and penile preserving length, vary between various treatment options., Evidence Acquisition: The EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; Cochrane HTA, DARE, HEED), Google Scholar, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for publications from 1990 through May 2021. Randomized controlled trials, nonrandomized comparative studies (NRCSs), and case series (CSs) were included., Evidence Synthesis: The systematic review included 88 studies, involving 9578 men from 16 NRCSs and 72 CSs. The cumulative mean 5-yr recurrence-free rates were 82.0% for penile-sparing surgery, 83.9% for amputative surgery, 78.6% for brachytherapy, 55.2% for EBRT, 69.4% for lasers, and 88.2% for Moh's micrographic surgery, as reported from CSs, and 76.7% for penile-sparing surgery and 93.3% for amputative surgery, as reported from NRCSs. Penile surgery affects sexual function, but amputative surgery causes more appearance concerns. After brachytherapy, 25% of patients reported sexual dysfunction. Both penile-sparing surgery and amputative surgery affect all aspects of psychosocial well-being., Conclusions: Despite the poor quality of evidence, data suggest that penile-sparing surgery is not inferior to amputative surgery in terms of recurrence rates in selected patients. Based on the available information, however, broadly applicable recommendations cannot be made; appropriate patient selection accounts for the relative success of all the available methods., Patient Summary: We reviewed the evidence of various techniques to treat penile tumor and assessed their effectiveness in oncologic control and their functional outcomes. Penile-sparing as well as amputative surgery is an effective treatment option, but amputative surgery has a negative impact on sexual function. Penile-sparing surgery and radiotherapy are associated with a higher risk of local recurrence, but preserve sexual function and quality of life better. Laser and Moh's micrographic surgery could be used for smaller lesions., (© 2022 The Authors.)

Context: - A complete diagnosis of acute leukemia requires knowledge of clinical information combined with morphologic evaluation, immunophenotyping and karyotype analysis, and often, molecular genetic testing. Although many aspects of the workup for acute leukemia are well accepted, few guidelines have addressed the different aspects of the diagnostic evaluation of samples from patients suspected to have acute leukemia., Objective: - To develop a guideline for treating physicians and pathologists involved in the diagnostic and prognostic evaluation of new acute leukemia samples, including acute lymphoblastic leukemia, acute myeloid leukemia, and acute leukemias of ambiguous lineage., Design: - The College of American Pathologists and the American Society of Hematology convened a panel of experts in hematology and hematopathology to develop recommendations. A systematic evidence review was conducted to address 6 key questions. Recommendations were derived from strength of evidence, feedback received during the public comment period, and expert panel consensus., Results: - Twenty-seven guideline statements were established, which ranged from recommendations on what clinical and laboratory information should be available as part of the diagnostic and prognostic evaluation of acute leukemia samples to what types of testing should be performed routinely, with recommendations on where such testing should be performed and how the results should be reported., Conclusions: - The guideline provides a framework for the multiple steps, including laboratory testing, in the evaluation of acute leukemia samples. Some aspects of the guideline, especially molecular genetic testing in acute leukemia, are rapidly changing with new supportive literature, which will require on-going updates for the guideline to remain relevant.

Objectives: To develop evidence-based guideline recommendations through a systematic review of the literature to establish standard molecular biomarker testing of colorectal cancer (CRC) tissues to guide epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) therapies and conventional chemotherapy regimens., Methods: The American Society for Clinical Pathology, College of American Pathologists, Association for Molecular Pathology, and American Society of Clinical Oncology convened an expert panel to develop an evidence-based guideline to establish standard molecular biomarker testing and guide therapies for patients with CRC. A comprehensive literature search that included more than 4,000 articles was conducted., Results: Twenty-one guideline statements were established., Conclusions: Evidence supports mutational testing for EGFR signaling pathway genes, since they provide clinically actionable information as negative predictors of benefit to anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody therapies for targeted therapy of CRC. Mutations in several of the biomarkers have clear prognostic value. Laboratory approaches to operationalize CRC molecular testing are presented. Key Words: Molecular diagnostics; Gastrointestinal; Histology; Genetics; Oncology., (Copyright © 2017 American Society for Clinical Pathology, College of American Pathologists, Association for Molecular Pathology, American Society for Clinical Oncology, and American Society for Investigative Pathology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Context: -There is ample evidence from the solid tumor literature that synoptic reporting improves accuracy and completeness of relevant data. No evidence-based guidelines currently exist for synoptic reporting for bone marrow samples., Objective: -To develop evidence-based recommendations to standardize the basic components of a synoptic report template for bone marrow samples., Design: -The College of American Pathologists Pathology and Laboratory Quality Center convened a panel of experts in hematopathology to develop recommendations. A systematic evidence review was conducted to address 5 key questions. Recommendations were derived from strength of evidence, open comment feedback, and expert panel consensus., Results: -Nine guideline statements were established to provide pathology laboratories with a framework by which to develop synoptic reporting templates for bone marrow samples. The guideline calls for specific data groups in the synoptic section of the pathology report; provides a list of evidence-based parameters for key, pertinent elements; and addresses ancillary testing., Conclusion: -A framework for bone marrow synoptic reporting will improve completeness of the final report in a manner that is clear, succinct, and consistent among institutions.

Question: Is there a benefit associated with the use of extracorporeal photopheresis (ecp) compared with other treatment options for patients who have received allogeneic stem-cell transplantation (sct) and are experiencing graft-versus-host disease (gvhd), if response rate, survival, or improvement in symptoms are the outcomes of interest?, Perspectives: After allogeneic sct, gvhd is a common complication historically categorized as either acute (agvhd: onset ≤100 days post-transplantation) or chronic (cgvhd: >100 days post-transplantation). Graft-versus-host disease occurs when the donor's immune cells recognize the host patient's tissues and organs as foreign and attack them, causing a multitude of problems, often in liver, gastrointestinal system, and skin. Photopheresis is one therapy that has emerged since the early 2000s for the management of steroid-refractory gvhd because of its steroid-sparing ability, low associated toxicity, and efficacy in some clinical settings. The present recommendation report summarizes the available data about photopheresis for the treatment of gvhd and provides recommendations on its use., Methodology: The medline (Ovid) database was systematically searched for January 1995 to August 2013, and the best available evidence was used to draft recommendations relevant to adult and pediatric patients in Ontario who have received allogeneic sct and are experiencing gvhd. Draft recommendations were first reviewed by clinical and methodology experts before undergoing internal review. Final approval of this practice guideline report was obtained from both the Stem Cell Transplant Steering Committee and the Report Approval Panel of the Program in Evidence-Based Care., Recommendations: These recommendations apply to adult and pediatric patients who have received an allogeneic sct and are experiencing gvhd: ecp is an acceptable therapy for the treatment of steroid-dependent or refractory agvhd in adult and pediatric patients.ecp is an effective therapy for the treatment of steroid-dependent or refractory cgvhd in adult and pediatric patients., Qualifying Statement: In Ontario, ecp is currently a covered therapy for patients with steroid-refractory gvhd who meet certain eligibility criteria.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most common cause of cancer deaths in Canadian men and women - accounting for almost 12% of all cancer deaths. In Ontario, it is estimated that 8100 persons were diagnosed with CRC in 2011, and 3250 died from the disease. CRC incidence and mortality rates in Ontario are among the highest in the world. Screening offers the best opportunity to reduce this burden of disease. The present report describes the findings and recommendations of Cancer Care Ontario's Fecal Immunochemical Tests (FIT) Guidelines Expert Panel, which was convened in September 2010 by the Program in Evidence-Based Care. The purpose of the present guideline is to evaluate the existing evidence concerning FIT to inform the decision on how to replace the current guaiac fecal occult blood test with FIT in the Ontario ColonCancerCheck Program. Eleven articles were included in the present guideline, comprising two systematic reviews, five articles reporting on three randomized controlled trials, and reports of four other studies. Additionally, one laboratory study was obtained that reported on several parameters of FIT tests that helped to inform the present recommendation. The performance of FIT is superior to the standard guaiac fecal occult blood test in terms of screening participation rates and the detection of CRC and advanced adenoma. Given greater specimen instability with the use of FIT, a pilot study should be undertaken to determine how to implement the FIT in Ontario.

Background: Fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy is considered standard treatment of advanced colorectal cancer. Recent studies indicate benefit to the addition of bevacizumab, a recombinant monoclonal antibody targeting vascular endothelial growth factor., Methods: Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and conference proceedings were searched to identify randomized trials in advanced colorectal cancer comparing chemotherapy plus bevacizumab with chemotherapy alone. A meta-analysis of published data was carried out., Results: Five trials comparing chemotherapy plus bevacizumab with chemotherapy alone as first- or second-line treatment were identified. Our meta-analysis indicates an advantage in favor of the addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy in terms of overall survival (OS) [hazard ratio (HR) 0.79; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69-0.90; P = 0.0005], progression-free survival (PFS) (HR 0.63; 95% CI 0.49-0.81, P = 0.0004), and response rate (RR 1.50; 95% CI 1.06-2.10, P = 0.02). The most commonly observed adverse effects related to bevacizumab included hypertension, proteinuria, bleeding, and thrombosis. Gastrointestinal perforation and poor wound healing were also observed; however, their incidence was rare., Conclusions: For patients with advanced colorectal cancer receiving first- or second-line fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy, the addition of bevacizumab improves PFS and OS at the expense of increased incidence of toxicity. The magnitude of benefit may differ based on the chemotherapy regimen with which bevacizumab is partnered.

Background: The objective is to provide surgical and pathological guidelines for radical prostatectomy (RP) with or without concurrent pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) to achieve optimal benefit for patients, with minimal risk of harm., Methods: For surgical questions, a literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane database was performed. A literature search for the pathological questions was not conducted since the protocol for invasive carcinomas of the prostate gland developed by the College of American Pathologists (CAP) was endorsed. Urologists and pathologists were consulted for their assessment of the surgical and pathological recommendations., Results: Limited high-quality evidence from 95 primary studies was available and, therefore, the expert panel developed recommendations on the basis of a consensus of the expert opinion of the working group and through a consultation with urologists and pathologists. In addition to the CAP protocol, some technical recommendations related to the handling and processing of the specimen were made., Conclusion: Radical prostatectomy is recommended for the surgical treatment of prostate cancer, depending on a patient's preoperative risk profile. The panel unanimously determined that the goals for RP are to attain a positive margin rate of <25% for pT2 disease, a mortality rate of <1%, rates of rectal injury of <1% and blood transfusion rates of <10% in non-anemic patients. Standard PLND should be mandatory in high-risk patients, should be recommended for intermediate-risk patients and should be optional for low-risk patients. The quality and effectiveness of this treatment and of subsequent patient care depend on good management, effective communication and reporting between surgeons and pathologists working together as part of a multidisciplinary team. The complete guideline document is posted on the Cancer Care Ontario website (www.cancercare.on.ca); search in their Toolbox, Quality Guidelines & Standards, Clinical Program category under "surgery."

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the most common cause of non-tobacco-related cancer deaths in Canadian men and women, accounting for 10% of all cancer deaths. An estimated 7800 men and women will be diagnosed with CRC, and 3250 will die from the disease in Ontario in 2007. Given that CRC incidence and mortality rates in Ontario are among the highest in the world, the best opportunity to reduce this burden of disease would be through screening. The present report describes the findings and recommendations of Cancer Care Ontario's Colonoscopy Standards Expert Panel, which was convened in March 2006 by the Program in Evidence-Based Care. The recommendations will form the basis of the quality assurance program for colonoscopy delivered in support of Ontario's CRC screening program.

Question: What is the role of oxaliplatin combined with 5-fluorouracil (5-fu) and folinic acid (fa) in the first- and second-line treatment of advanced (unresectable locally advanced or metastatic) colorectal cancer?, Perspectives: Evidence was selected and reviewed by two members of the Gastrointestinal Cancer Disease Site Group (gi dsg) of Cancer Care Ontario's Program in Evidence-Based Care (pebc) and by a methodologist. The resulting practice guideline report has been reviewed and approved by the gi dsg, which comprises medical and radiation oncologists, surgeons, a pathologist, and patient representatives. External review by Ontario practitioners was obtained through a mailed survey. Final approval of the original guideline report was obtained from the Practice Guidelines Coordinating Committee., Outcomes: Outcomes of interest were 1-year survival, response rates, and quality of life., Methodology: The medline, cancerlit, embase, Guidelines International Network, and Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched for relevant studies. Recommendations were formed based on the evidence reviewed. Through a survey, these recommendations were appraised by Ontario clinicians; the recommendations were then revised by the gi dsg. The systematic review and modified recommendations were approved by a review body within pebc., Results: The literature review found twenty-one randomized controlled trials and two meta-analyses. Evidence on first-line treatment found infusional 5-fu/fa/oxaliplatin (folfox) to be superior to bolus 5-fu/fa/irinotecan (ifl) for rates of median survival and tumour response, with lower incidences of most adverse effects except peripheral neuropathy. For second-line treatment after fluoropyrimidine monotherapy, folfox is a reasonable alternative for patients with contraindications to second-line irinotecan. After progression on infusional 5-fu/fa/irinotecan (folfiri), folfox is the preferred therapy. Evidence from a single randomized trial suggests that additional benefits can be expected with the addition of bevacizumab to the folfox regimen in second-line treatment., Practice Guideline: These recommendations apply to adult patients with advanced colorectal cancer who have high performance status (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score 0-2). Refer to Appendix A for available treatment options and to Appendix b for recommended dosages and schedules. The folfox regimen is an important component of therapy for advanced colorectal cancer. FIRST-LINE THERAPY: In one trial, folfox was shown to be superior to ifl. The folfox regimen has superior rates of median survival and tumour response. Compared with ifl, folfox has lower incidences of severe nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and febrile neutropenia, but a higher incidence of peripheral neuropathy. Short-term infusional 5-fu/fa in combination with either oxaliplatin (folfox) or irinotecan (folfiri) are both acceptable alternatives for fit patients when combination therapy is the preferred treatment. Choice of first-line therapy may rely on patient factors and preferences-for example, less neuropathy with irinotecan versus less alopecia with oxaliplatin. SECOND-LINE THERAPY: After progression on first-line anti-thymidylate synthase monotherapy (for example, 5-fu/fa, capecitabine), irinotecan is standard second-line therapy. The folfox regimen is a reasonable alternative for patients with contraindications to the use of second-line irinotecan. After progression on both irinotecan and an anti-thymidylate synthase agent, folfox is the preferred therapy. Recent trials suggest that, as compared with folfox alone, folfox combined with bevacizumab provides additional survival benefits., Qualifying Statements: The role of radiation therapy, either alone or in combination with chemotherapy, for locally advanced unresectable colorectal cancer is not addressed in this guideline. Use of chronomodulated regimens is a topic that intersects with the use of oxaliplatin/5-fu combinations, particularly chronomodulation of 5-fu in these combinations. Chronomodulation of oxaliplatin has not been extensively studied, and the topic of chronomodulation is beyond the scope of this guideline and is not addressed. Although data exist to support the use of bevacizumab in combination with folfox in second-line treatment, no first-line treatment data are available on which to make a recommendation.

Background: Cholangiocarcinoma and gallbladder cancer are difficult to treat curatively. The treatment of choice is surgery, dependent on detection at a resectable stage. No chemotherapy or radiotherapy options have shown substantial activity. Gemcitabine has demonstrated response in similar cancers. Considering the lack of treatment options for cholangiocarcinoma and gallbladder cancer, a systematic review of the evidence on gemcitabine use for these indications was performed., Objective: To perform a systematic review to evaluate the role of gemcitabine in the treatment of cholangiocarcinoma and gallbladder cancer., Methods: The MEDLINE database was searched (1996 to March 2005) using the medical subject headings 'gemcitabine' and 'gallbladder neoplasms' with results limited to English only. Proceedings from the 1998 to 2004 meetings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, including the 2004 Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium, were searched for relevant abstracts. The Canadian Medical Association infobase and the National Guidelines Clearinghouse were also searched for practice guideline reports. Reports were selected and reviewed by two reviewers, and the reference lists from those were searched for additional trials., Results: A total of 13 single-arm phase II trial reports were obtained., Conclusions: In appropriate patients with gallbladder cancer or cholangiocarcinoma, surgery offers the best chance for survival and should remain the first treatment of choice. For patients not considered candidates for surgery, but willing and able to tolerate chemotherapy alone or in combination with a fluoropyrimidine (such as 5-fluorouracil or capecitabine), gemcitabine appears to be a reasonable alternative to best supportive care, although this conclusion has not been confirmed with a randomized controlled trial.

Background: Carcinoma of the esophagus is an aggressive malignancy with an increasing incidence. Its virulence, in terms of symptoms and mortality, justifies a continued search for optimal therapy. A clinical practice guideline was developed based on a systematic review investigating neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy on resectable thoracic esophageal cancer., Methods: A systematic review with meta-analysis was developed and clinical recommendations were drafted. External review of the practice guideline report by practitioners in Ontario, Canada was obtained through a mailed survey, and incorporated. Final approval of the practice guideline was obtained from the Practice Guidelines Coordinating Committee., Results: The systematic review was developed and recommendations were drafted, and the report was mailed to Ontario practitioners for external review. Ninety percent of respondents agreed with both the evidence summary and the draft recommendations, while only 69% approved of the draft recommendations as a practice guideline. Based on the external review, a revised document was created. The revised practice guideline was submitted to the Practice Guidelines Coordinating Committee for review. All 11 members of the PGCC returned ballots. Eight PGCC members approved the practice guideline report as written and three members approved the guideline conditional on specific concerns being addressed. After these recommended changes were made, the final practice guideline report was approved., Conclusion: In consideration of the systematic review, external review, and subsequent Practice Guidelines Coordinating Committee revision suggestions, and final approval, the Gastrointestinal Cancer Disease Site Group recommends the following:For adult patients with resectable thoracic esophageal cancer for whom surgery is considered appropriate, surgery alone (i.e., without neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy) is recommended as the standard practice.

Background: Carcinoma of the esophagus is an aggressive malignancy with an increasing incidence. Its virulence, in terms of symptoms and mortality, justifies a continued search for optimal therapy. The large and growing number of patients affected, the high mortality rates, the worldwide geographic variation in practice, and the large body of good quality research warrants a systematic review with meta-analysis., Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis investigating the impact of neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy on resectable thoracic esophageal cancer to inform evidence-based practice was produced.MEDLINE, CANCERLIT, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and abstracts from the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology were searched for trial reports. Included were randomized trials or meta-analyses of neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatments compared with surgery alone or other treatments in patients with resectable thoracic esophageal cancer. Outcomes of interest were survival, adverse effects, and quality of life. Either one- or three-year mortality data were pooled and reported as relative risk ratios., Results: Thirty-four randomized controlled trials and six meta-analyses were obtained and grouped into 13 basic treatment approaches. Single randomized controlled trials detected no differences in mortality between treatments for the following comparisons:- Preoperative radiotherapy versus postoperative radiotherapy.- Preoperative and postoperative radiotherapy versus postoperative radiotherapy. Preoperative and postoperative radiotherapy was associated with a significantly higher mortality rate.- Postoperative chemotherapy versus postoperative radiotherapy.- Postoperative radiotherapy versus postoperative radiotherapy plus protein-bound polysaccharide versus chemoradiation versus chemoradiation plus protein-bound polysaccharide. Pooling one-year mortality detected no statistically significant differences in mortality between treatments for the following comparisons:- Preoperative radiotherapy compared with surgery alone (five randomized trials).- Postoperative radiotherapy compared with surgery alone (five randomized trials).- Preoperative chemotherapy versus surgery alone (six randomized trials).- Preoperative and postoperative chemotherapy versus surgery alone (two randomized trials).- Preoperative chemoradiation therapy versus surgery alone (six randomized trials). Single randomized controlled trials detected differences in mortality between treatments for the following comparison:- Preoperative hyperthermia and chemoradiotherapy versus preoperative chemoradiotherapy in favour of hyperthermia. Pooling three-year mortality detected no statistically significant difference in mortality between treatments for the following comparison:- Postoperative chemotherapy compared with surgery alone (two randomized trials). Pooling three-year mortality detected statistically significant differences between treatments for the following comparisons:- Preoperative chemoradiation therapy versus surgery alone (six randomized trials) in favour of preoperative chemoradiation with surgery.- Preoperative chemotherapy compared with preoperative radiotherapy (one randomized trial) in favour of preoperative radiotherapy., Conclusion: For adult patients with resectable thoracic esophageal cancer for whom surgery is considered appropriate, surgery alone (i.e., without neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy) is recommended as the standard practice.

Background: This systematic review with meta-analysis was designed to evaluate the literature and to develop recommendations regarding the use of preoperative radiotherapy in the management of patients with resectable rectal cancer., Methods: The MEDLINE, CANCERLIT and Cochrane Library databases, and abstracts published in the annual proceedings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology were systematically searched for evidence. Relevant reports were reviewed by four members of the Gastrointestinal Cancer Disease Site Group and the references from these reports were searched for additional trials. External review by Ontario practitioners was obtained through a mailed survey. Final approval of the practice guideline report was obtained from the Practice Guidelines Coordinating Committee., Results: Two meta-analyses of preoperative radiotherapy versus surgery alone, nineteen trials that compared preoperative radiotherapy plus surgery to surgery alone, and five trials that compared preoperative radiotherapy to alternative treatments were obtained. Randomized trials demonstrate that preoperative radiotherapy followed by surgery is significantly more effective than surgery alone in preventing local recurrence in patients with resectable rectal cancer and it may also improve survival. A single trial, using surgery with total mesorectal excision, has shown similar benefits in local recurrence., Conclusion: For adult patients with clinically resectable rectal cancer we conclude that: Preoperative radiotherapy is an acceptable alternative to the previous practice of postoperative radiotherapy for patients with stage II and III resectable rectal cancer. Both preoperative and postoperative radiotherapy decrease local recurrence but neither improves survival as much as postoperative radiotherapy combined with chemotherapy. Therefore, if preoperative radiotherapy is used, chemotherapy should be added postoperatively to at least patients with stage III disease.

Background: A systematic review was conducted to evaluate the literature regarding the impact of follow-up on colorectal cancer patient survival and, in a second phase, recommendations were developed., Methods: The MEDLINE, CANCERLIT, and Cochrane Library databases, and abstracts published in the 1997 to 2002 proceedings of the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology were systematically searched for evidence. Study selection was limited to randomized trials and meta-analyses that examined different programs of follow-up after curative resection of colorectal cancer where five-year overall survival was reported. External review by Ontario practitioners was obtained through a mailed survey. Final approval of the practice guideline report was obtained from the Practice Guidelines Coordinating Committee., Results: Six randomized trials and two published meta-analyses of follow-up were obtained. Of six randomized trials comparing one follow-up program to a more intense program, only two individual trials detected a statistically significant survival benefit favouring the more intense follow-up program. Pooling of all six randomized trials demonstrated a significant improvement in survival favouring more intense follow-up (Relative Risk Ratio 0.80 (95%CI, 0.70 to 0.91; p = 0.0008). Although the rate of recurrence was similar in both of the follow-up groups compared, asymptomatic recurrences and re-operations for cure of recurrences were more common in patients with more intensive follow-up. Trials including CEA monitoring and liver imaging also had significant results, whereas trials not including these tests did not., Conclusion: Follow-up programs for patients with curatively resected colorectal cancer do improve survival. These follow-up programs include frequent visits and performance of blood CEA, chest x-rays, liver imaging and colonoscopy, however, it is not clear which tests or frequency of visits is optimal. There is a suggestion that improved survival is due to diagnosis of recurrence at an earlier, asymptomatic stage which allows for more curative resection of recurrence. Based on this evidence and consideration of the biology of colorectal cancer and present practices, a guideline was developed. Patients should be made aware of the risk of disease recurrence or second bowel cancer, the potential benefits of follow-up and the uncertainties requiring further clinical trials. For patients at high-risk of recurrence (stages IIb and III) clinical assessment is recommended when symptoms occur or at least every 6 months the first 3 years and yearly for at least 5 years. At the time of those visits, patients may have blood CEA, chest x-ray and liver imaging. For patients at lower risk of recurrence (stages I and Ia) or those with co-morbidities impairing future surgery, only visits yearly or when symptoms occur. All patients should have a colonoscopy before or within 6 months of initial surgery, and repeated yearly if villous or tubular adenomas >1 cm are found; otherwise repeat every 3 to 5 years. All patients having recurrences should be assessed by a multidisciplinary team in a cancer centre.