Management of colorectal cancer patients in Australia: the National Colorectal Cancer Care Survey
Background: The National Colorectal Cancer Care Survey was undertaken to determine the management patterns for individuals newly diagnosed with colorectal cancer in Australia. Methods: Between 1 February and 30 April 2000, all new cases of colorectal cancer registered at each Cancer Registry withi...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | ANZ journal of surgery 2004-01, Vol.74 (1-2), p.55-64 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Background: The National Colorectal Cancer Care Survey was undertaken to determine the management patterns for individuals newly diagnosed with colorectal cancer in Australia.
Methods: Between 1 February and 30 April 2000, all new cases of colorectal cancer registered at each Cancer Registry within Australia were entered into the survey. This generated a questionnaire that was sent to the treating surgeons. Chi‐squared and logistic regression analyses were used to determine levels of statistical significance for the various comparisons of interest.
Results: Of 2383 surgical questionnaires generated, 2015 (85%) were completed. A total of 1911 patients (95% of those who responded to the questionnaire) had an operation. Of the 86 guidelines for the management of colorectal cancer published by the National Health and Medical Research Council, the survey allowed for comparison between 18 of these, which covered a spectrum of surgical management. Thromboembolic prophylaxis was given to 1843 patients (96.4%) undergoing surgery. Prophylactic antibiotics were commonly used, but there appear to be issues regarding the best regimen to use. Curative resections were carried out in 1563 patients (81.8%), with anterior resections being the most commonly performed procedure. Adjuvant therapy was regularly used, but not all eligible patients were offered such treatment.
Conclusion: With the considerable resources required to develop clinical practice guidelines, studies like this are essential to monitor the impact of the guidelines. To ensure that the guidelines are in line with current evidence, regular reviews of the guideline recommendations are required. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1445-1433 1445-2197 |
DOI: | 10.1046/j.1445-1433.2003.02891.x |