|
1
|
Abdul Gafoor SM, Robinson S, Diskantova S, Woodcock E, Yethenpa S, Holloran S, Nelson T. Patient-initiated follow-up for high-risk cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma: how we do it and 2 years of outcome data. Clin Exp Dermatol 2024; 49:1205-1212. [PMID: 38747386 DOI: 10.1093/ced/llae160] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/02/2023] [Revised: 04/24/2024] [Accepted: 04/28/2024] [Indexed: 09/20/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND For patients with high-risk cutaneous squamous cell carcinomas (cSCCs), current guidance suggests we should offer post-treatment follow-up appointments at regular intervals for 24 months. Is this to improve prognosis, provide psychological support or find the next cancer? Recent data confirm that recurrence and metastasis are rarer events, and that perhaps these intense follow-up schedules do not really lead to improved health outcomes. OBJECTIVES To question whether current follow-up practices are truly needed by introducing an option of patient-initiated follow-up (PIFU). METHODS We enrolled 476 patients with cSCC (January 2020-January 2023) who fulfilled the definition of high-risk cSCC based on guidelines in use at the time. Of the total, 59 did not fulful the inclusion criteria and were excluded; 250 (52.5%) did not recontact us during the 2-year period, with no clinical record of complications or recurrences; and 167 (35.1%) utilized the PIFU pathway, of which 119 patients required only one face-to-face appointment. Seven patients (1.5%) developed metastatic disease, 11 (2.3%) developed recurrence and 68 (14.3%) developed cSCC at another site. All lesions were identified by the patient via PIFU. We saved 1250 follow-up appointments from those who did not contact us (n = 250), financially equating to £181 462.50. CONCLUSIONS Our data imply that PIFU can be considered safe alternative practice for patients with cSCC. Patients independently identified the need for review without scheduled follow-up, making these appointments available to other patient cohorts. Although follow-up appointments may provide mental health support, they can be inconvenient and not the ideal use of our healthcare resources. Our findings support a call for revision of existing skin cancer health policies to cope with and subsequently improve our practices for better patient care.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Sophie Robinson
- Department of Dermatology, University Hospitals Plymouth NHS Trust, Plymouth, UK
| | | | - Emma Woodcock
- Department of Dermatology, University Hospitals Plymouth NHS Trust, Plymouth, UK
| | - Sonam Yethenpa
- Department of Dermatology, Royal Cornwall Hospital, Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust, Truro, UK
| | - Sophie Holloran
- Department of Dermatology, University Hospitals Plymouth NHS Trust, Plymouth, UK
| | - Toby Nelson
- Department of Dermatology, University Hospitals Plymouth NHS Trust, Plymouth, UK
| |
Collapse
|
|
2
|
Su H, Xie S, Wang S, Huang L, Lyu J, Pan Y. New findings in prognostic factor assessment for adenocarcinoma of transverse colon: a comparison study between competing-risk and COX regression analysis. Front Med (Lausanne) 2024; 11:1301487. [PMID: 38357650 PMCID: PMC10864588 DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2024.1301487] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/25/2023] [Accepted: 01/08/2024] [Indexed: 02/16/2024] Open
Abstract
Purpose Competing-risk analysis was used to accurately assess prognostic factors for cancer-specific death in patients with adenocarcinoma of transverse colon (ATC), and the results were compared with those from a conventional Cox regression analysis. Materials and Methods Patients diagnosed with ATC between 2000 and 2019 were selected from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database. The crude mortality rates of patients with ATC were calculated and their differences were tested using the Gray's test, respectively. In performing multivariate analysis, the Cox regression model and the subdistribution hazard function (SD) in competing risk analysis were utilized, respectively. Results This study included 21,477 eligible patients. The SD model indicated that age, etc. are actual independent prognostic factors. In contrast to previous recognition, the results of the Cox regression showed false-positives for sex and Carcinoembryonic antigen, and underestimated point-estimates in the stage and American Joint Committee on Cancer stage due to competing events. A detailed comparison of treatment revealed that the larger surgical scopes were prognostic risk factors compared with the smaller scope of local tumor excision, partial colectomy, or segmental resection. Patients treated with external proton beam radiotherapy had an increased risk compared with those with no radiotherapy and internal radiotherapy. Conclusions After comparing the results of the two methods and mitigating the significant bias introduced by Cox regression, we found independent factors that really affect the prognosis of ATC. On the other hand, in terms of ATC, a larger surgical scope and external proton beam radiotherapy may not improve the long-term survival of patients. Therefore, when faced with ATC patients, these differences should be noted and treated differently from common colorectal cancer patients. Thus, clinicians are able to give more targeted treatment plans and prognostic assessments.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hongbo Su
- Department of General Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Jinan University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China
| | - Shuping Xie
- Department of Health Statistics, School of Public Health, Shanxi Medical University, Taiyuan, China
| | - Shanshan Wang
- Section of Occupational Medicine, Department of Special Medicine, Shanxi Medical University, Taiyuan, Shanxi, China
| | - Liying Huang
- Department of Clinical Research, The First Affiliated Hospital of Jinan University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China
| | - Jun Lyu
- Department of Clinical Research, The First Affiliated Hospital of Jinan University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China
- Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Traditional Chinese Medicine Informatization, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China
| | - Yunlong Pan
- Department of General Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Jinan University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China
| |
Collapse
|
|
3
|
Cui LL, Cui SQ, Qu Z, Ren ZQ. Intensive follow-up vs conventional follow-up for patients with non-metastatic colorectal cancer treated with curative intent: A meta-analysis. World J Gastrointest Oncol 2023; 15:2197-2211. [PMID: 38173431 PMCID: PMC10758651 DOI: 10.4251/wjgo.v15.i12.2197] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/21/2023] [Revised: 09/22/2023] [Accepted: 10/30/2023] [Indexed: 12/14/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The frequency and content of follow-up strategies remain controversial for colorectal cancer (CRC), and scheduled follow-ups have limited value. AIM To compare intensive and conventional follow-up strategies for the prognosis of non-metastatic CRC treated with curative intent using a meta-analysis. METHODS PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched for potentially eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from inception until April 2023. The Cochrane risk of bias was used to assess the methodological quality of the included studies. The hazard ratio, relative risk, and 95% confidence interval were used to calculate survival and categorical data, and pooled analyses were performed using the random-effects model. Additional exploratory analyses were performed for sensitivity, subgroups, and publication bias. RESULTS Eighteen RCTs involving 8533 patients with CRC were selected for the final analysis. Intensive follow-up may be superior to conventional follow-up in improving overall survival, but this difference was not statistically significant. Moreover, intensive follow-up was associated with an increased incidence of salvage surgery compared to conventional follow-up. In addition, there was no significant difference in the risk of recurrence between intensive and conventional follow-up strategies, whereas intensive follow-up was associated with a reduced risk of interval recurrence compared to conventional follow-up. Finally, the effects of intensive and conventional follow-up strategies differed when stratified by tumor location and follow-up duration. CONCLUSION Intensive follow-up may have a beneficial effect on the overall survival of patients with non-metastatic CRC treated with curative intent.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Li-Li Cui
- Department of Operating Room, Jiangsu Taizhou People’s Hospital, Taizhou 225300, Jiangsu Province, China
| | - Shi-Qi Cui
- Department of Oncology, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou 310020, Zhejiang Province, China
| | - Zhong Qu
- Department of Endoscopy Center, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou 310020, Zhejiang Province, China
| | - Zhen-Qing Ren
- Department of Nursing, Jiangsu Taizhou People’s Hospital, Taizhou 225300, Jiangsu Province, China
| |
Collapse
|
|
4
|
Rulanda MC, Mogensen O, Jensen PT, Hansen DG, Wu C, Jeppesen MM. Patient-initiated follow-up in women with early-stage endometrial cancer: A long-term follow-up of the OPAL trial. BJOG 2023; 130:1593-1601. [PMID: 37277320 DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.17567] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/09/2023] [Revised: 05/16/2023] [Accepted: 05/22/2023] [Indexed: 06/07/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE A long-term follow-up of the OPAL trial to compare the effect of patient-initiated (PIFU) versus hospital-based (HBFU) follow-up on fear of cancer recurrence (FCR), quality of life (QoL) and healthcare use after 34 months of follow-up. DESIGN Pragmatic, multicentre randomised trial. SETTING Four Danish departments of gynaecology between May 2013 and May 2016. POPULATION 212 women diagnosed with stage I low-intermediate risk endometrial carcinoma. METHODS The control group attended HBFU with regular outpatient visits (i.e., 8) for 3 years after primary treatment. The intervention group underwent PIFU with no prescheduled visits but with instructions about alarm symptoms and options of self-referral. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The endpoints were FCR as measured by the Fear of Cancer Recurrence Inventory (FCRI) and QoL as measured by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Core Questionnaire C-30 (EORTC QLQ C-30), and healthcare use as measured by questionnaires and chart reviews after 34 months of follow-up. RESULTS FCR decreased from baseline to 34 months in both groups and no difference was found between allocations (difference -6.31 [95% confidence interval -14.24 to 1.63]). QoL remained stable with no difference in any domains between the two arms at 34 months using a linear mixed model analysis. The use of healthcare was significantly lower in the PIFU group (P < 0.01). CONCLUSION Patient-initiated follow-up is a valid alternative to hospital-based follow-up for people who have been treated for endometrial cancer and have low risk of recurrence.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Ole Mogensen
- Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
- Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark
| | - Pernille Tine Jensen
- Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
- Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark
| | - Dorte Gilså Hansen
- Research Unit for General Practice, Institute of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
| | - Chunsen Wu
- The Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
- Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark
| | | |
Collapse
|
|
5
|
Dretzke J, Chaudri T, Balaji R, Mehanna H, Nankivell P, Moore DJ. A systematic review of the effectiveness of patient-initiated follow-up after cancer. Cancer Med 2023; 12:19057-19071. [PMID: 37602830 PMCID: PMC10557867 DOI: 10.1002/cam4.6462] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/17/2022] [Revised: 07/25/2023] [Accepted: 08/06/2023] [Indexed: 08/22/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The traditional cancer follow-up (FU) model for cancer survivors is by scheduled clinic appointments; however, this is not tailored to patient needs and is becoming unsustainable. Patient-initiated follow-up (PIFU) may be a more effective and flexible alternative. This systematic review aims to analyse all existing evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the effectiveness of PIFU compared with other FU models that include routinely scheduled appointments in adults who have been treated with curative intent for any type of cancer. METHODS Standard systematic review methodology aimed at limiting bias was used for study identification, selection and data extraction. MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Epistemonikos were searched for systematic reviews to March 2022, and Cochrane CENTRAL was searched for RCTs from 2018 (April 2023). Ongoing trial registers were searched (WHO ICTRP, ClinicalTrials.gov, April 2023). Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials comparing PIFU with an alternative FU model in adult cancer survivors. Risk of bias assessment was via the Cochrane risk of bias tool-2. Meta-analysis was precluded by clinical heterogeneity and results were reported narratively. RESULTS Ten RCTs were included (six breast, two colorectal, one endometrial cancer and one melanoma, total n = 1754); all studies had risk of bias concerns, particularly relating to how missing data were handled, and populations were unlikely to be representative. Limited findings in breast cancer suggested that type of FU does not affect recurrence detection or patient-related outcomes, while PIFU may reduce the number of clinic visits. Adding patient-led surveillance to routine FU may increase melanoma detection. Evidence for other types of cancer is too limited to draw firm conclusions. CONCLUSIONS PIFU may be a viable FU model in breast cancer, but further research is needed for other types of cancer and on long-term outcomes. A protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020181424).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Janine Dretzke
- Institute of Applied Health ResearchUniversity of BirminghamBirminghamUK
| | - Talhah Chaudri
- Birmingham Medical SchoolUniversity of BirminghamBirminghamUK
| | - Rishab Balaji
- Birmingham Medical SchoolUniversity of BirminghamBirminghamUK
| | - Hisham Mehanna
- Institute for Head and Neck Studies and EducationUniversity of BirminghamBirminghamUK
| | - Paul Nankivell
- Institute for Head and Neck Studies and EducationUniversity of BirminghamBirminghamUK
| | - David J. Moore
- Institute of Applied Health ResearchUniversity of BirminghamBirminghamUK
| | | |
Collapse
|
|
6
|
Frazzoni L, La Marca M, DI Giorgio V, Laterza L, Bazzoli F, Hassan C, Fuccio L. Endoscopic surveillance after surgery for colorectal cancer. Minerva Med 2023; 114:224-236. [PMID: 32573518 DOI: 10.23736/s0026-4806.20.06732-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/08/2022]
Abstract
Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common cancers worldwide and its global incidence is rapidly increasing among adults younger than 50 years, especially in the 20-39 age group. Once a curative resection is achieved, surveillance is mandatory. Colonoscopy has a pivotal role aimed at resecting premalignant neoplasms and detecting cancer at a curable stage. In the current review, an update on the role of surveillance colonoscopy after CRC is provided, considered the most recent international guidelines and evidence published on this issue. In particular, several questions have been answered, why, how and how often colonoscopy should be performed, whether intensive surveillance is more effective than standard surveillance, how endoscopically resected T1 cancer should be followed, the different management existing between colon and rectal cancer, and, finally, how to improve the endoscopic surveillance. In a period of resource constraints, appropriateness will be mandatory, thus understanding how to optimize the role of colonoscopy in the surveillance of patients with a history of CRC is of crucial importance. Improving the quality of colonoscopy and identifying risk factors for recurrent and new-onset CRC, will allow us to individualize the surveillance program while sparing health care cost.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Leonardo Frazzoni
- Unit of Gastroenterology, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, S. Orsola-Malpighi University Hospital, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| | - Marina La Marca
- Unit of Gastroenterology, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, S. Orsola-Malpighi University Hospital, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| | - Valentina DI Giorgio
- Unit of Gastroenterology, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, S. Orsola-Malpighi University Hospital, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| | - Liboria Laterza
- Unit of Gastroenterology, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, S. Orsola-Malpighi University Hospital, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| | - Franco Bazzoli
- Unit of Gastroenterology, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, S. Orsola-Malpighi University Hospital, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| | - Cesare Hassan
- Unit of Endoscopy, Nuovo Regina Margherita Hospital, Rome, Italy
| | - Lorenzo Fuccio
- Unit of Gastroenterology, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, S. Orsola-Malpighi University Hospital, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy -
| |
Collapse
|
|
7
|
Luk HM, Ngu SF, Lau LSK, Tse KY, Chu MMY, Kwok ST, Ngan HYS, Chan KKL. Patient-Initiated Follow-Up in Ovarian Cancer. Curr Oncol 2023; 30:3627-3636. [PMID: 37185389 PMCID: PMC10136438 DOI: 10.3390/curroncol30040276] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/13/2023] [Revised: 03/13/2023] [Accepted: 03/24/2023] [Indexed: 03/29/2023] Open
Abstract
This study aimed to assess the feasibility of patient-initiated follow-up (PIFU) in combination with regular tumour marker monitoring as an alternative to conventional hospital follow-up for ovarian cancer survivors. Women who had recently completed treatment for ovarian cancer and had a raised pre-treatment tumour marker were recruited. Participants were allocated to PIFU (intervention group) or conventional hospital follow-up (control group) according to their own preference. Both groups had regular tumour marker monitoring. The change in fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) score as measured by the FCR inventory, and the supportive care need (SCN) scores as measured by the SCN survey at baseline and at 6 months between PIFU and hospital follow-up were compared. Out of 64 participants, 37 (58%) opted for hospital follow-up and 27 (42%) opted for PIFU. During the 6-month study period, there was no significant difference in the change of FCR between the two groups (p = 0.35). There was a significant decrease in the sexuality unmet needs score in the intervention group from baseline to 6-month FU (mean difference −8.7, 95% confidence interval −16.1 to −1.4, p = 0.02). PIFU with tumour marker monitoring is a feasible follow-up approach in ovarian cancer survivorship care. FCR and SCN were comparable between PIFU and conventional hospital follow-up.
Collapse
|
|
8
|
Lauretta A, Montori G, Guerrini GP. Surveillance strategies following curative resection and non-operative approach of rectal cancer: How and how long? Review of current recommendations. World J Gastrointest Surg 2023; 15:177-192. [PMID: 36896297 PMCID: PMC9988648 DOI: 10.4240/wjgs.v15.i2.177] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/23/2022] [Revised: 12/30/2022] [Accepted: 01/18/2023] [Indexed: 02/27/2023] Open
Abstract
Different follow-up strategies are available for patients with rectal cancer following curative treatment. A combination of biochemical testing and imaging investigation, associated with physical examination are commonly used. However, there is currently no consensus about the types of tests to perform, the timing of the testing, and even the need for follow-up at all has been questioned. The aim of this study was to review the evidence of the impact of different follow-up tests and programs in patients with non-metastatic disease after definitive treatment of the primary. A literature review was performed of studies published on MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and Web of Science up to November 2022. Current published guidelines from the most authoritative specialty societies were also reviewed. According to the follow-up strategies available, the office visit is not efficient but represents the only way to maintain direct contact with the patient and is recommended by all authoritative specialty societies. In colorectal cancer surveillance, carcinoembryonic antigen represents the only established tumor marker. Abdominal and chest computed tomography scan is recommended considering that the liver and lungs are the most common sites of recurrence. Since local relapse in rectal cancer is higher than in colon cancer, endoscopic surveillance is mandatory. Different follow-up regimens have been published but randomized comparisons and meta-analyses do not allow to determine whether intensive or less intensive follow-up had any significant influence on survival and recurrence detection rate. The available data do not allow the drawing of final conclusions on the ideal surveillance methods and the frequency with which they should be applied. It is very useful and urgent for clinicians to identify a cost-effective strategy that allows early identification of recurrence with a special focus for high-risk patients and patients undergoing a “watch and wait” approach.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrea Lauretta
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Centro di Riferimento Oncologico di Aviano IRCCS, Aviano 33081, Italy
| | - Giulia Montori
- Department of General Surgery, Vittorio Veneto Hospital, ULSS 2 Marca Trevigiana, Vittorio Veneto 31029, Italy
| | - Gian Piero Guerrini
- Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Surgical Oncology and Liver Transplantation Unit, Policlinico-AUO Modena, Modena 41124, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
|
9
|
Dawood ZS, Alaimo L, Lima HA, Moazzam Z, Shaikh C, Ahmed AS, Munir MM, Endo Y, Pawlik TM. Circulating Tumor DNA, Imaging, and Carcinoembryonic Antigen: Comparison of Surveillance Strategies Among Patients Who Underwent Resection of Colorectal Cancer-A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol 2023; 30:259-274. [PMID: 36219278 DOI: 10.1245/s10434-022-12641-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/09/2022] [Accepted: 09/22/2022] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Almost one-third of colorectal cancer (CRC) patients experience recurrence after resection; nevertheless, follow-up strategies remain controversial. We sought to systematically assess and compare the accuracy of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), imaging [positron emission tomography (PET) and computed tomography (CT) scans], and circulating tumor DNA (CtDNA) as surveillance strategies. PATIENTS AND METHODS PubMed, Medline, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane, Web of Science, and CINAHL were systematically searched. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) was used to assess methodological quality. We performed a bivariate random-effects meta-analysis and reported pooled sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) values for each surveillance strategy. RESULTS Thirty studies were included in the analysis. PET scans had the highest sensitivity to detect recurrence (0.95; 95%CI 0.91-0.97), followed by CT scans (0.77; 95%CI 0.67-0.85). CtDNA positivity had the highest specificity to detect recurrence (0.95; 95%CI 0.91-0.97), followed by increased CEA levels (0.88; 95%CI 0.82-0.92). Furthermore, PET scans had the highest DOR to detect recurrence (DOR 120.7; 95%CI 48.9-297.9) followed by CtDNA (DOR 37.6; 95%CI 20.8-68.0). CONCLUSION PET scans had the highest sensitivity and DOR to detect recurrence, while CtDNA had the highest specificity and second highest DOR. Combinations of traditional cross-sectional/functional imaging and newer platforms such as CtDNA may result in optimized surveillance of patients following resection of CRC.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Zaiba Shafik Dawood
- Medical College, The Aga Khan University Hospital, Stadium Road, Karachi, 74800, Pakistan
| | - Laura Alaimo
- Department of Surgery, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center and James Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, OH, USA
| | - Henrique A Lima
- Department of Surgery, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center and James Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, OH, USA
| | - Zorays Moazzam
- Department of Surgery, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center and James Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, OH, USA
| | - Chanza Shaikh
- Department of Surgery, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center and James Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, OH, USA
| | | | - Muhammad Musaab Munir
- Department of Surgery, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center and James Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, OH, USA
| | - Yutaka Endo
- Department of Surgery, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center and James Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, OH, USA
| | - Timothy M Pawlik
- Department of Surgery, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center and James Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, OH, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
|
10
|
Newton C, Beaver K, Clegg A. Patient initiated follow-up in cancer patients: A systematic review. Front Oncol 2022; 12:954854. [PMID: 36313728 PMCID: PMC9606321 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.954854] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/27/2022] [Accepted: 09/21/2022] [Indexed: 12/02/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Patient-initiated follow-up (PIFU) is increasingly being implemented for oncology patients, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic, given the necessary reduction in face-to-face hospital outpatient appointments. We do not know if PIFU has a positive (or negative) impact on overall, or progression free, survival. Objectives To investigate the impact of PIFU on overall survival, progression free survival, patient satisfaction, psychological morbidity, specifically quality of life (QoL) and economic costs compared to hospital follow up (HFU), for any type of cancer. Methods We carried out a systematic review using five electronic databases: MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycInfo and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Studies were eligible if they were controlled clinical trials comparing PIFU with another form of active follow-up. Effectiveness was assessed using the primary outcome of overall survival and secondary outcomes of progression free survival, patient satisfaction, psychological morbidity, QoL and cost effectiveness. Results Eight studies met the inclusion criteria and were included. Only one study included survival as a primary outcome and indicated no significant differences between hospital-based follow-up and PIFU, although not adequately powered to detect a difference in survival. For secondary outcomes, few differences were found between PIFU and other forms of active follow-up. One study reported significant differences in fear of cancer recurrence between PIFU and HFU although did not reach the limit of clinical significance; in the short term, fear decreased significantly more in hospital based follow-up. Conclusion We do not have evidence to support the impact of PIFU on survival or progression free survival. Fully powered randomized controlled trials are required to determine the full impact of PIFU in the longer term.
Collapse
|
|
11
|
Galjart B, Höppener DJ, Aerts JGJV, Bangma CH, Verhoef C, Grünhagen DJ. Follow-up strategy and survival for five common cancers: A meta-analysis. Eur J Cancer 2022; 174:185-199. [PMID: 36037595 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2022.07.025] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/25/2022] [Revised: 07/19/2022] [Accepted: 07/21/2022] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of intensive follow-up after curative intent treatment for five common solid tumours, in terms of survival and treatment of recurrences. METHODS A systematic literature search was conducted, identifying comparative studies on follow-up for colorectal, lung, breast, upper gastro-intestinal and prostate cancer. Outcomes of interest were overall survival (OS), cancer specific survival (CSS), and treatment of recurrences. Random effects meta-analyses were conducted, with particular focus on studies at low risk of bias. RESULTS Fourteen out of 63 studies were considered to be at low risk of bias (8 colorectal, 4 breast, 0 lung, 1 upper gastro-intestinal, 1 prostate). These studies showed no significant impact of intensive follow-up on OS (hazard ratio, 95% confidence interval) for colorectal (0.99; 0.92-1.06), breast 1.06 (0.92-1.23), upper gastro-intestinal (0.78; 0.51-1.19) and prostate cancer (1.00; 0.86-1.16). No impact on CSS (hazard ratio, 95% confidence interval) was found for colorectal cancer (0.94; 0.77-1.16). CSS was not reported for other cancer types. Intensive follow-up increased the rate of curative treatment (relative risk; 95% confidence interval) for colorectal cancer recurrences (1.30; 1.05-1.61), but not for upper gastro-intestinal cancer recurrences (0.92; 0.47-1.81). For the other cancer types, no data on treatment of recurrences was available in low risk studies. CONCLUSION For colorectal and breast cancer, high quality studies do not suggest an impact of intensive follow-up strategies on survival. Colorectal cancer recurrences are more often treated locally after intensive follow-up. For other cancer types evaluated, limited high quality research on follow-up is available.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Boris Galjart
- Department of Surgical Oncology and Gastrointestinal Surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Diederik J Höppener
- Department of Surgical Oncology and Gastrointestinal Surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Joachim G J V Aerts
- Department of Pulmonology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Christiaan H Bangma
- Department of Urology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Cornelis Verhoef
- Department of Surgical Oncology and Gastrointestinal Surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Dirk J Grünhagen
- Department of Surgical Oncology and Gastrointestinal Surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|
|
12
|
The utility of surveillance CT scans in a cohort of survivors of colorectal cancer. J Cancer Surviv 2022:10.1007/s11764-021-01155-y. [PMID: 35040075 DOI: 10.1007/s11764-021-01155-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/25/2021] [Accepted: 12/04/2021] [Indexed: 11/27/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer worldwide. After curative intent treatment, international guidelines recommend surveillance protocols which include annual CT chest, abdomen and pelvis (CAP) and serum carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) monitoring which aim to improve overall survival by early detection of recurrence. Despite the widespread recommendations, robust evidence of an overall survival benefit is lacking. Our study aimed to quantify the utility of annual CT CAP as a surveillance modality in comparison to the rate of potentially harmful false-positive and incidental findings. METHODS High-risk stage II and stage III CRC patients were retrospectively identified from the Sydney Cancer Survivorship Centre database. Findings on surveillance CT were classified into confirmed recurrence or the potentially harmful findings of (a) false-positive or (b) clinically significant incidental finding. RESULTS A total of 376 surveillance CT CAPs were performed in 174 survivors between 12 September 2013 and 30 June 2020. The recurrence rate during the study period was 23/174 (13.2%) with the majority of recurrences detected by abnormal CEA (14/23, 60.9%) versus surveillance CT (4/23, 17.4%), with the remainder identified on non-surveillance CT (5/23, 21.7%). Curative intent surgery was performed in 12/23 people with CRC recurrence. Surveillance CT was shown to result in high levels of false-positive (31/174, 17.8% of patients) or clinically significant incidental findings (30/174, 17.2% of patients). The risk of identifying these potentially harmful findings was ongoing with each year of surveillance CT. CONCLUSION Surveillance CT was associated with low detection rates and high rates of potentially harmful findings bringing this surveillance modality under further scrutiny. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS An increased emphasis should be placed on educating survivors on the benefits of surveillance CT weighed against the risk of potentially harmful findings.
Collapse
|
|
13
|
Park MY, Park IJ, Ryu HS, Jung J, Kim MS, Lim SB, Yu CS, Kim JC. Optimal Postoperative Surveillance Strategies for Colorectal Cancer: A Retrospective Observational Study. Cancers (Basel) 2021; 13:3502. [PMID: 34298715 PMCID: PMC8306168 DOI: 10.3390/cancers13143502] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/28/2021] [Revised: 07/12/2021] [Accepted: 07/12/2021] [Indexed: 11/25/2022] Open
Abstract
This study aimed to assess whether surveillance intensity is associated with recurrence and survival in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients. Overall, 3794 patients with pathologic stage I-III CRC who underwent radical surgery between January 2012 and December 2014 were examined. Surveillance comprised abdominopelvic computed tomography (CT) every 6 months and chest CT annually for 5 years. Patients who underwent more than and less than an average of three imaging examinations annually were assigned to the high-intensity (HI) and low-intensity (LI) groups, respectively. Demographics were similar in both groups. T and N stages were higher and perineural and lymphovascular invasion were more frequent in the HI group (p < 0.001 each). The mean overall survival (OS) was similar for both groups; however, recurrence-free survival (RFS) was longer (p < 0.001) and post-recurrence survival (PRS) was shorter (p = 0.024) in the LI group. In the multivariate analysis, surveillance intensity was associated with RFS (p < 0.001) in contrast to PRS (p = 0.731). In patients with high recurrence risk predicted using the nomogram, OS was longer in the HI group (p < 0.001). A higher imaging frequency in patients at high risk of recurrence could be expected to lead to a slight increase in PRS but does not improve OS. Therefore, rather than increasing the number of CT scans in high-risk patients, other imaging modalities or innovative approaches, such as liquid biopsy, are required.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - In-Ja Park
- Department of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul 05505, Korea; (M.-Y.P.); (H.-S.R.); (J.J.); (M.-S.K.); (S.-B.L.); (C.-S.Y.); (J.-C.K.)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
|
14
|
Giglio V, Schneider P, Madden K, Lin B, Multani I, Baldawi H, Thornley P, Naji L, Levin M, Wang P, Bozzo A, Wilson D, Ghert M. Published randomized controlled trials of surveillance in cancer patients - a systematic review. Oncol Rev 2021; 15:522. [PMID: 34267889 PMCID: PMC8256375 DOI: 10.4081/oncol.2021.522] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/08/2020] [Accepted: 04/09/2021] [Indexed: 01/14/2023] Open
Abstract
With solid tumor cancer survivorship increasing, the number of patients requiring post-treatment surveillance also continues to increase. This highlights the need for evidence-based cancer surveillance guidelines. Ideally, these guidelines would be based on combined high-quality data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We present a systematic review of published cancer surveillance RCTs in which we sought to determine the feasibility of data pooling for guideline development. We carried out a systematic search of medical databases for RCTs in which adult patients with solid tumors that had undergone surgical resection with curative intent and had no metastatic disease at presentation, were randomized to different surveillance regimens that assessed effectiveness on overall survival (OS). We extracted study characteristics and primary and secondary outcomes, and assessed risk of bias and validity of evidence with standardized checklist tools. Our search yielded 32,216 articles for review and 18 distinct RCTs were included in the systematic review. The 18 trials resulted in 23 comparisons of surveillance regimens. There was a highlevel of variation between RCTs, including the study populations evaluated, interventions assessed and follow-up periods for the primary outcome. Most studies evaluated colorectal cancer patients (11/18, [61%]). The risk of bias and validity of evidence were variable and inconsistent across studies. This review demonstrated that there is tremendous heterogeneity among RCTs that evaluate effectiveness of different postoperative surveillance regimens in cancer patients, rendering the consolidation of data to inform high-quality cancer surveillance guidelines unfeasible. Future RCTs in the field should focus on consistent methodology and primary outcome definition.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Victoria Giglio
- Division of Orthopedic Surgery, Department of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Patricia Schneider
- Division of Orthopedic Surgery, Department of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Kim Madden
- Division of Orthopedic Surgery, Department of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Bill Lin
- Division of Orthopedic Surgery, Department of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | | | - Hassan Baldawi
- Division of Orthopedic Surgery, Department of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Patrick Thornley
- Division of Orthopedic Surgery, Department of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Leen Naji
- Department of Family Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Marc Levin
- Michael DeGroote School of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Peiyao Wang
- Division of Orthopedic Surgery, Department of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Anthony Bozzo
- Division of Orthopedic Surgery, Department of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - David Wilson
- Hamilton Health Sciences, Juravinski Hospital and Cancer Center, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Michelle Ghert
- Hamilton Health Sciences, Juravinski Hospital and Cancer Center, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
|
15
|
Monteil J, Le Brun-Ly V, Cachin F, Zasadny X, Seitz JF, Mundler O, Selvy M, Smith D, Rullier E, Lavau-Denes S, Lades G, Labrunie A, Lecaille C, Valli N, Leobon S, Terrebonne E, Deluche E, Tubiana-Mathieu N. Comparison of 18FDG-PET/CT and conventional follow-up methods in colorectal cancer: A randomised prospective study. Dig Liver Dis 2021; 53:231-237. [PMID: 33153929 DOI: 10.1016/j.dld.2020.10.012] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/03/2020] [Revised: 10/02/2020] [Accepted: 10/06/2020] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND A surveillance program was performed in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients after surgery, to diagnose asymptomatic recurrence. AIMS To assess whether 18-FDG positron emission tomography/CT (PET/CT) improved the detection of recurrence during a 3-year follow-up. METHODS A multicentre, two-arm randomised prospective trial comparing different 36-month follow-up strategies. Complete colonoscopy was performed at baseline and after 3 years and clinical exams with imaging every 3 months. The conventional arm (A) received carcinoembryonic antigen, liver echography, and alternated between lung radiography and computed tomography (CT) scans. The experimental arm (B) received PET/CT. RESULTS A total of 365 patients with colon (79.4%) or rectal cancer (20.6%), stages II (48.2%) or III (50.8%), were enroled in this study. At 36 months, intention-to-treat analysis revealed recurrence in 31 (17.2%) patients in arm A and 47 (25.4%) in arm B (p = 0.063). At 3 years, 7 of 31 relapses (22.5%) in arm A were surgically treated with curative intent, compared to 17 of 47 (36.2%) in arm B (p = 0.25). The rates of recurrence and new cancers were higher in arm B than arm A (p = 0.038). CONCLUSIONS PET/CT follow-up every 6 months did not increase the rate of recurrence at 3 years or the rate of surgically treated recurrence compared with conventional follow-up.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jacques Monteil
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital, Limoges, France
| | | | - Florent Cachin
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Jean Perrin Cancer Institute, Clermont-Ferrand, France
| | - Xavier Zasadny
- Department of Radiotherapy, François Chénieux Clinic, Limoges, France
| | - Jean-François Seitz
- Department of Oncology and Hepato-Gastroenterology, University Hospital La Timone, Marseille, France
| | - Olivier Mundler
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital La Timone, Marseille, France
| | - Marie Selvy
- Department of Digestive Surgery and Oncology, Estaing Hospital, Clermont-Ferrand, France
| | - Denis Smith
- Department of Digestive Oncology, University Hospital Saint André, Bordeaux, France
| | - Eric Rullier
- Department of Digestive Surgery, University Hospital Saint André, Bordeaux, France
| | | | - Guillaume Lades
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital, Limoges, France
| | - Anais Labrunie
- Department of Biostatistics and Clinical Research, University Hospital, Limoges, France
| | - Cedric Lecaille
- Department of Gastroenterology and Digestive Oncology, Bordeaux Nord Polyclinic, Bordeaux, France
| | - Nathalie Valli
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Bordeaux Nord Polyclinic, Bordeaux, France
| | - Sophie Leobon
- Department of Medical Oncology, University Hospital, Limoges, France
| | - Eric Terrebonne
- Department of Gastroenterology and Digestive Oncology, University Hospital Haut-Lévêque, Bordeaux, France
| | - Elise Deluche
- Department of Medical Oncology, University Hospital, Limoges, France.
| | | |
Collapse
|
|
16
|
Hines RB, Jiban MJH, Lee E, Odahowski CL, Wallace AS, Adams SJE, Rahman SMM, Zhang S. Characteristics Associated With Nonreceipt of Surveillance Testing and the Relationship With Survival in Stage II and III Colon Cancer. Am J Epidemiol 2021; 190:239-250. [PMID: 32902633 DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwaa195] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/20/2020] [Revised: 08/30/2020] [Accepted: 09/03/2020] [Indexed: 12/13/2022] Open
Abstract
We investigated characteristics of patients with colon cancer that predicted nonreceipt of posttreatment surveillance testing and the subsequent associations between surveillance status and survival outcomes. This was a retrospective cohort study of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database combined with Medicare claims. Patients diagnosed between 2002 and 2009 with disease stages II and III and who were between 66 and 84 years of age were eligible. A minimum of 3 years' follow-up was required, and patients were categorized as having received any surveillance testing (any testing) versus none (no testing). Poisson regression was used to obtain risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals for the relative likelihood of No Testing. Cox models were used to obtain subdistribution hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals for 5- and 10-year cancer-specific and noncancer deaths. There were 16,009 colon cancer cases analyzed. Patient characteristics that predicted No Testing included older age, Black race, stage III disease, and chemotherapy. Patients in the No Testing group had an increased rate of 10-year cancer death that was greater for patients with stage III disease (subdistribution hazard ratio = 1.79, 95% confidence interval: 1.48, 2.17) than those with stage II disease (subdistribution hazard ratio = 1.41, 95% confidence interval: 1.19, 1.66). Greater efforts are needed to ensure all patients receive the highest quality medical care after diagnosis of colon cancer.
Collapse
|
|
17
|
Recurrence Risk after Radical Colorectal Cancer Surgery-Less Than before, But How High Is It? Cancers (Basel) 2020; 12:cancers12113308. [PMID: 33182510 PMCID: PMC7696064 DOI: 10.3390/cancers12113308] [Citation(s) in RCA: 31] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/15/2020] [Revised: 10/27/2020] [Accepted: 11/06/2020] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
Simple Summary Evidence indicates that recurrence risk after colon cancer today is less than it was when trials performed decades ago showed that adjuvant chemotherapy reduces the risk and prolong disease-free and overall survival. After rectal cancer surgery, local recurrence rates have decreased but it is unclear if systemic recurrences have. After a systematic review of available literature reporting recurrence risks after curative colorectal cancer surgery we report that the risks are lower today than they were in the past and that this risk reduction is not solely ascribed to the use of adjuvant therapy. Adjuvant therapy always means overtreatment of many patients, already cured by the surgery. Fewer recurrences mean that progress in the care of these patients has happened but also that the present guidelines giving recommendations based upon old data must be adjusted. The relative gains from adding chemotherapy are not altered, but the absolute number of patients gaining is less. Abstract Adjuvant chemotherapy aims at eradicating tumour cells sometimes present after radical surgery for a colorectal cancer (CRC) and thereby diminish the recurrence rate and prolong time to recurrence (TTR). Remaining tumour cells will lead to recurrent disease that is usually fatal. Adjuvant therapy is administered based upon the estimated recurrence risk, which in turn defines the need for this treatment. This systematic overview aims at describing whether the need has decreased since trials showing that adjuvant chemotherapy provides benefits in colon cancer were performed decades ago. Thanks to other improvements than the administration of adjuvant chemotherapy, such as better staging, improved surgery, the use of radiotherapy and more careful pathology, recurrence risks have decreased. Methodological difficulties including intertrial comparisons decades apart and the present selective use of adjuvant therapy prevent an accurate estimate of the magnitude of the decreased need. Furthermore, most trials do not report recurrence rates or TTR, only disease-free and overall survival (DFS/OS). Fewer colon cancer patients, particularly in stage II but also in stage III, today display a sufficient need for adjuvant treatment considering the burden of treatment, especially when oxaliplatin is added. In rectal cancer, neo-adjuvant treatment will be increasingly used, diminishing the need for adjuvant treatment.
Collapse
|
|
18
|
Skelton WP, Franke AJ, Iqbal A, George TJ. Comprehensive literature review of randomized clinical trials examining novel treatment advances in patients with colon cancer. J Gastrointest Oncol 2020; 11:790-802. [PMID: 32953161 PMCID: PMC7475336 DOI: 10.21037/jgo-20-184] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/11/2020] [Accepted: 07/20/2020] [Indexed: 12/18/2022] Open
Abstract
The treatment of colon cancer has had numerous recent advances, in terms of surgical approach, adjuvant therapies, and more. In this review, the authors examine randomized clinical trials comparing open surgery to laparoscopic surgery (including total mesocolic excision), and also examine the role of robotic surgery. Novel surgical techniques including the no-touch technique, side-to-side anastomosis, suture technique, complete mesocolic excision (CME) with central vascular ligation (CVL), and natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) are outlined. The role of placing endoscopic self-expandable metal stents (SEMS) for colonic obstruction is compared and contrasted with the surgical approach, and the effect that the anti-VEGF inhibitor bevacizumab may have on this side effect profile is further explored. The role of the resection of the primary tumor in the setting of metastatic disease is examined with respect to survival benefit. Pathways of perioperative care which can accelerate post-surgical recovery, including enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) are examined. The role of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with high-risk stage II and patients with stage III disease is examined, along with the role on circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) as well as with the biologic targeted agents cetuximab and bevacizumab. Lastly, the authors detail the postoperative surveillance schedules after surgical resection with respect to survival outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- William Paul Skelton
- Division of Medical Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, University of South Florida, Florida, USA
| | - Aaron J. Franke
- Division of Medical Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, University of South Florida, Florida, USA
| | - Atif Iqbal
- Section of Colorectal Surgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, USA
| | - Thomas J. George
- Division of Hematology & Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of Florida College of Medicine, Florida, USA
| |
Collapse
|
|
19
|
Surveillance Colonoscopy in Older Stage I Colon Cancer Patients and the Association With Colon Cancer-Specific Mortality. Am J Gastroenterol 2020; 115:924-933. [PMID: 32142485 DOI: 10.14309/ajg.0000000000000537] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Guideline-issuing groups differ regarding the recommendation that patients with stage I colon cancer receive surveillance colonoscopy after cancer-directed surgery. This observational comparative effectiveness study was conducted to evaluate the association between surveillance colonoscopy and colon cancer-specific mortality in early stage patients. METHODS This was a retrospective cohort study of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database combined with Medicare claims. Surveillance colonoscopy was assessed as a time-varying exposure up to 5 years after cancer-directed surgery with the following groups: no colonoscopy, one colonoscopy, and ≥ 2 colonoscopies. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to balance covariates. The time-dependent Cox regression model was used to obtain inverse probability of treatment weighting-adjusted hazard ratios (HRs), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for 5- and 10-year colon cancer, other cancer, and noncancer causes of death. RESULTS There were 8,783 colon cancer cases available for analysis. Overall, compared with patients who received one colonoscopy, the no colonoscopy group experienced an increased rate of 10-year colon cancer-specific mortality (HR = 1.63; 95% CI 1.31-2.04) and noncancer death (HR = 1.36; 95% CI 1.25-1.49). Receipt of ≥ 2 colonoscopies was associated with a decreased rate of 10-year colon cancer-specific death (HR = 0.60; 95% CI 0.45-0.79), other cancer death (HR = 0.68; 95% CI 0.53-0.88), and noncancer death (HR = 0.69; 95% CI 0.62-0.76). Five-year cause-specific HRs were similar to 10-year estimates. DISCUSSION These results support efforts to ensure that stage I patients undergo surveillance colonoscopy after cancer-directed surgery to facilitate early detection of new and recurrent neoplastic lesions.
Collapse
|
|
20
|
Hall C, Clarke L, Pal A, Buchwald P, Eglinton T, Wakeman C, Frizelle F. A Review of the Role of Carcinoembryonic Antigen in Clinical Practice. Ann Coloproctol 2019; 35:294-305. [PMID: 31937069 PMCID: PMC6968721 DOI: 10.3393/ac.2019.11.13] [Citation(s) in RCA: 122] [Impact Index Per Article: 20.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/29/2019] [Accepted: 11/13/2019] [Indexed: 12/11/2022] Open
Abstract
Carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) is not normally produced in significant quantities after birth but is elevated in colorectal cancer. The aim of this review was to define the current role of CEA and how best to investigate patients with elevated CEA levels. A systematic review of CEA was performed, in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Studies were identified from PubMed, Cochrane library, and controlled trials registers. We identified 2,712 papers of which 34 were relevant. Analysis of these papers found higher preoperative CEA levels were associated with advanced or metastatic disease and thus poorer prognosis. Postoperatively, failure of CEA to return to normal was found to be indicative of residual or recurrent disease. However, measurement of CEA levels alone was not sufficient to improve survival rates. Two algorithms are proposed to guide investigation of patients with elevated CEA: one for patients with elevated CEA after CRC resection, and another for patients with de novo elevated CEA. CEA measurement has an important role in the investigation, management and follow-up of patients with colorectal cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Claire Hall
- Colorectal Unit, Department of Surgery, University of Otago, Christchurch, New Zealand
| | - Louise Clarke
- Colorectal Unit, Department of Surgery, University of Otago, Christchurch, New Zealand
| | - Atanu Pal
- Colorectal Unit, Department of Surgery, University of Otago, Christchurch, New Zealand
- Norfolk & Norwich University Hospital, Norwich, UK
| | - Pamela Buchwald
- Colorectal Unit, Department of Surgery, University of Otago, Christchurch, New Zealand
| | - Tim Eglinton
- Colorectal Unit, Department of Surgery, University of Otago, Christchurch, New Zealand
| | - Chris Wakeman
- Colorectal Unit, Department of Surgery, University of Otago, Christchurch, New Zealand
| | - Frank Frizelle
- Colorectal Unit, Department of Surgery, University of Otago, Christchurch, New Zealand
| |
Collapse
|
|
21
|
Høeg BL, Bidstrup PE, Karlsen RV, Friberg AS, Albieri V, Dalton SO, Saltbæk L, Andersen KK, Horsboel TA, Johansen C. Follow-up strategies following completion of primary cancer treatment in adult cancer survivors. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2019; 2019:CD012425. [PMID: 31750936 PMCID: PMC6870787 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd012425.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 28] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/06/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Most cancer survivors receive follow-up care after completion of treatment with the primary aim of detecting recurrence. Traditional follow-up consisting of fixed visits to a cancer specialist for examinations and tests are expensive and may be burdensome for the patient. Follow-up strategies involving non-specialist care providers, different intensity of procedures, or addition of survivorship care packages have been developed and tested, however their effectiveness remains unclear. OBJECTIVES The objective of this review is to compare the effect of different follow-up strategies in adult cancer survivors, following completion of primary cancer treatment, on the primary outcomes of overall survival and time to detection of recurrence. Secondary outcomes are health-related quality of life, anxiety (including fear of recurrence), depression and cost. SEARCH METHODS We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, four other databases and two trials registries on 11 December 2018 together with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA We included all randomised trials comparing different follow-up strategies for adult cancer survivors following completion of curatively-intended primary cancer treatment, which included at least one of the outcomes listed above. We compared the effectiveness of: 1) non-specialist-led follow-up (i.e. general practitioner (GP)-led, nurse-led, patient-initiated or shared care) versus specialist-led follow-up; 2) less intensive versus more intensive follow-up (based on clinical visits, examinations and diagnostic procedures) and 3) follow-up integrating additional care components relevant for detection of recurrence (e.g. patient symptom education or monitoring, or survivorship care plans) versus usual care. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We used the standard methodological guidelines by Cochrane and Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. For each comparison, we present synthesised findings for overall survival and time to detection of recurrence as hazard ratios (HR) and for health-related quality of life, anxiety and depression as mean differences (MD), with 95% confidence intervals (CI). When meta-analysis was not possible, we reported the results from individual studies. For survival and recurrence, we used meta-regression analysis where possible to investigate whether the effects varied with regards to cancer site, publication year and study quality. MAIN RESULTS We included 53 trials involving 20,832 participants across 12 cancer sites and 15 countries, mainly in Europe, North America and Australia. All the studies were carried out in either a hospital or general practice setting. Seventeen studies compared non-specialist-led follow-up with specialist-led follow-up, 24 studies compared intensity of follow-up and 12 studies compared patient symptom education or monitoring, or survivorship care plans with usual care. Risk of bias was generally low or unclear in most of the studies, with a higher risk of bias in the smaller trials. Non-specialist-led follow-up compared with specialist-led follow-up It is uncertain how this strategy affects overall survival (HR 1.21, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.15; 2 studies; 603 participants), time to detection of recurrence (4 studies, 1691 participants) or cost (8 studies, 1756 participants) because the certainty of the evidence is very low. Non-specialist- versus specialist-led follow up may make little or no difference to health-related quality of life at 12 months (MD 1.06, 95% CI -1.83 to 3.95; 4 studies; 605 participants; low-certainty evidence); and probably makes little or no difference to anxiety at 12 months (MD -0.03, 95% CI -0.73 to 0.67; 5 studies; 1266 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We are more certain that it has little or no effect on depression at 12 months (MD 0.03, 95% CI -0.35 to 0.42; 5 studies; 1266 participants; high-certainty evidence). Less intensive follow-up compared with more intensive follow-up Less intensive versus more intensive follow-up may make little or no difference to overall survival (HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.14; 13 studies; 10,726 participants; low-certainty evidence) and probably increases time to detection of recurrence (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.92; 12 studies; 11,276 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Meta-regression analysis showed little or no difference in the intervention effects by cancer site, publication year or study quality. It is uncertain whether this strategy has an effect on health-related quality of life (3 studies, 2742 participants), anxiety (1 study, 180 participants) or cost (6 studies, 1412 participants) because the certainty of evidence is very low. None of the studies reported on depression. Follow-up strategies integrating additional patient symptom education or monitoring, or survivorship care plans compared with usual care: None of the studies reported on overall survival or time to detection of recurrence. It is uncertain whether this strategy makes a difference to health-related quality of life (12 studies, 2846 participants), anxiety (1 study, 470 participants), depression (8 studies, 2351 participants) or cost (1 studies, 408 participants), as the certainty of evidence is very low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Evidence regarding the effectiveness of the different follow-up strategies varies substantially. Less intensive follow-up may make little or no difference to overall survival but probably delays detection of recurrence. However, as we did not analyse the two outcomes together, we cannot make direct conclusions about the effect of interventions on survival after detection of recurrence. The effects of non-specialist-led follow-up on survival and detection of recurrence, and how intensity of follow-up affects health-related quality of life, anxiety and depression, are uncertain. There was little evidence for the effects of follow-up integrating additional patient symptom education/monitoring and survivorship care plans.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Beverley L Høeg
- Danish Cancer Society Research CenterSurvivorship UnitStrandboulevarden 49CopenhagenCentral Denmark RegionDenmark2100
| | - Pernille E Bidstrup
- Danish Cancer Society Research CenterSurvivorship UnitStrandboulevarden 49CopenhagenCentral Denmark RegionDenmark2100
| | - Randi V Karlsen
- Danish Cancer Society Research CenterSurvivorship UnitStrandboulevarden 49CopenhagenCentral Denmark RegionDenmark2100
| | - Anne Sofie Friberg
- Danish Cancer Society Research CenterSurvivorship UnitStrandboulevarden 49CopenhagenCentral Denmark RegionDenmark2100
- Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University HospitalDepartment of OncologyCopenhagenDenmark
| | - Vanna Albieri
- Danish Cancer Society Research CenterStatistics and Pharmaco‐Epidemiology UnitStrandboulevarden 49CopenhagenDenmark
| | - Susanne O Dalton
- Danish Cancer Society Research CenterSurvivorship UnitStrandboulevarden 49CopenhagenCentral Denmark RegionDenmark2100
- Zealand University HospitalDepartment of OncologyNæstvedDenmark
| | - Lena Saltbæk
- Danish Cancer Society Research CenterSurvivorship UnitStrandboulevarden 49CopenhagenCentral Denmark RegionDenmark2100
- Zealand University HospitalDepartment of OncologyNæstvedDenmark
| | - Klaus Kaae Andersen
- Danish Cancer Society Research CenterStatistics and Pharmaco‐Epidemiology UnitStrandboulevarden 49CopenhagenDenmark
| | - Trine Allerslev Horsboel
- Danish Cancer Society Research CenterSurvivorship UnitStrandboulevarden 49CopenhagenCentral Denmark RegionDenmark2100
| | - Christoffer Johansen
- Danish Cancer Society Research CenterSurvivorship UnitStrandboulevarden 49CopenhagenCentral Denmark RegionDenmark2100
- Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University HospitalDepartment of OncologyCopenhagenDenmark
| | | |
Collapse
|
|
22
|
Jeffery M, Hickey BE, Hider PN. Follow-up strategies for patients treated for non-metastatic colorectal cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2019; 9:CD002200. [PMID: 31483854 PMCID: PMC6726414 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd002200.pub4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 49] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/06/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND This is the fourth update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2002 and last updated in 2016.It is common clinical practice to follow patients with colorectal cancer for several years following their curative surgery or adjuvant therapy, or both. Despite this widespread practice, there is considerable controversy about how often patients should be seen, what tests should be performed, and whether these varying strategies have any significant impact on patient outcomes. OBJECTIVES To assess the effect of follow-up programmes (follow-up versus no follow-up, follow-up strategies of varying intensity, and follow-up in different healthcare settings) on overall survival for patients with colorectal cancer treated with curative intent. Secondary objectives are to assess relapse-free survival, salvage surgery, interval recurrences, quality of life, and the harms and costs of surveillance and investigations. SEARCH METHODS For this update, on 5 April 2109 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Science Citation Index. We also searched reference lists of articles, and handsearched the Proceedings of the American Society for Radiation Oncology. In addition, we searched the following trials registries: ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We contacted study authors. We applied no language or publication restrictions to the search strategies. SELECTION CRITERIA We included only randomised controlled trials comparing different follow-up strategies for participants with non-metastatic colorectal cancer treated with curative intent. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently determined study eligibility, performed data extraction, and assessed risk of bias and methodological quality. We used GRADE to assess evidence quality. MAIN RESULTS We identified 19 studies, which enrolled 13,216 participants (we included four new studies in this second update). Sixteen out of the 19 studies were eligible for quantitative synthesis. Although the studies varied in setting (general practitioner (GP)-led, nurse-led, or surgeon-led) and 'intensity' of follow-up, there was very little inconsistency in the results.Overall survival: we found intensive follow-up made little or no difference (hazard ratio (HR) 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 1.04: I² = 18%; high-quality evidence). There were 1453 deaths among 12,528 participants in 15 studies. In absolute terms, the average effect of intensive follow-up on overall survival was 24 fewer deaths per 1000 patients, but the true effect could lie between 60 fewer to 9 more per 1000 patients.Colorectal cancer-specific survival: we found intensive follow-up probably made little or no difference (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.07: I² = 0%; moderate-quality evidence). There were 925 colorectal cancer deaths among 11,771 participants enrolled in 11 studies. In absolute terms, the average effect of intensive follow-up on colorectal cancer-specific survival was 15 fewer colorectal cancer-specific survival deaths per 1000 patients, but the true effect could lie between 47 fewer to 12 more per 1000 patients.Relapse-free survival: we found intensive follow-up made little or no difference (HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.21; I² = 41%; high-quality evidence). There were 2254 relapses among 8047 participants enrolled in 16 studies. The average effect of intensive follow-up on relapse-free survival was 17 more relapses per 1000 patients, but the true effect could lie between 30 fewer and 66 more per 1000 patients.Salvage surgery with curative intent: this was more frequent with intensive follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 1.98, 95% CI 1.53 to 2.56; I² = 31%; high-quality evidence). There were 457 episodes of salvage surgery in 5157 participants enrolled in 13 studies. In absolute terms, the effect of intensive follow-up on salvage surgery was 60 more episodes of salvage surgery per 1000 patients, but the true effect could lie between 33 to 96 more episodes per 1000 patients.Interval (symptomatic) recurrences: these were less frequent with intensive follow-up (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.86; I² = 66%; moderate-quality evidence). There were 376 interval recurrences reported in 3933 participants enrolled in seven studies. Intensive follow-up was associated with fewer interval recurrences (52 fewer per 1000 patients); the true effect is between 18 and 75 fewer per 1000 patients.Intensive follow-up probably makes little or no difference to quality of life, anxiety, or depression (reported in 7 studies; moderate-quality evidence). The data were not available in a form that allowed analysis.Intensive follow-up may increase the complications (perforation or haemorrhage) from colonoscopies (OR 7.30, 95% CI 0.75 to 70.69; 1 study, 326 participants; very low-quality evidence). Two studies reported seven colonoscopic complications in 2292 colonoscopies, three perforations and four gastrointestinal haemorrhages requiring transfusion. We could not combine the data, as they were not reported by study arm in one study.The limited data on costs suggests that the cost of more intensive follow-up may be increased in comparison with less intense follow-up (low-quality evidence). The data were not available in a form that allowed analysis. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS The results of our review suggest that there is no overall survival benefit for intensifying the follow-up of patients after curative surgery for colorectal cancer. Although more participants were treated with salvage surgery with curative intent in the intensive follow-up groups, this was not associated with improved survival. Harms related to intensive follow-up and salvage therapy were not well reported.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mark Jeffery
- Christchurch HospitalCanterbury Regional Cancer and Haematology ServicePrivate Bag 4710ChristchurchNew Zealand8140
| | - Brigid E Hickey
- Princess Alexandra HospitalRadiation Oncology Mater Service31 Raymond TerraceBrisbaneQueenslandAustralia4101
- The University of QueenslandSchool of MedicineBrisbaneAustralia
| | - Phillip N Hider
- University of Otago, ChristchurchDepartment of Population HealthPO Box 4345ChristchurchNew Zealand8140
| | | |
Collapse
|
|
23
|
Intensive follow-up strategies after radical surgery for nonmetastatic colorectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. PLoS One 2019; 14:e0220533. [PMID: 31361784 PMCID: PMC6667274 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0220533] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/20/2019] [Accepted: 07/14/2019] [Indexed: 02/05/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Intensive follow-up after surgery for colorectal cancers is common in clinical practice, but evidence of a survival benefit is limited. OBJECTIVE To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis on the effects of follow-up strategies for nonmetastatic colorectal cancer. DATA SOURCES We searched Medline, Embase, and CENTRAL databases through May 30, 2018. STUDY SELECTION We included randomized clinical trials evaluating intensive follow-up versus less follow-up in patients with nonmetastatic colorectal cancer. INTERVENTIONS Intensive follow-up. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES Overall survival. RESULTS The analyses included 17 trials with a total of 8039 patients. Compared with less follow-up, intensive follow-up significantly improved overall survival in patients with nonmetastatic colorectal cancer after radical surgery (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.74-0.97, P = 0.01; I2 = 30%; high quality). Subgroup analyses showed that differences between intensive-frequency and intensive-test follow-up (P = 0.04) and between short interval and long interval of follow-up (P = 0.02) in favor of the former one. LIMITATIONS Clinical heterogeneity of interventions. CONCLUSIONS For patients with nonmetastatic colorectal cancer after curative resection, intensive follow-up strategy was associated with an improvement in overall survival compared with less follow-up strategy. Intensive-frequency follow-up strategy was associated with a greater reduction in mortality compared with intensive-test follow-up strategy.
Collapse
|
|
24
|
Gamboa AC, Zaidi MY, Lee RM, Speegle S, Switchenko JM, Lipscomb J, Cloyd JM, Ahmed A, Grotz T, Leiting J, Fournier K, Lee AJ, Dineen S, Powers BD, Lowy AM, Kotha NV, Clarke C, Gamblin TC, Patel SH, Lee TC, Lambert L, Hendrix RJ, Abbott DE, Vande Walle K, Lafaro K, Lee B, Johnston FM, Greer J, Russell MC, Staley CA, Maithel SK. Optimal Surveillance Frequency After CRS/HIPEC for Appendiceal and Colorectal Neoplasms: A Multi-institutional Analysis of the US HIPEC Collaborative. Ann Surg Oncol 2019; 27:134-146. [PMID: 31243668 DOI: 10.1245/s10434-019-07526-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/25/2019] [Indexed: 01/19/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND No guidelines exist for surveillance following cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS/HIPEC) for appendiceal and colorectal cancer. The primary objective was to define the optimal surveillance frequency after CRS/HIPEC. METHODS The U.S. HIPEC Collaborative database (2000-2017) was reviewed for patients who underwent a CCR0/1 CRS/HIPEC for appendiceal or colorectal cancer. Radiologic surveillance frequency was divided into two categories: low-frequency surveillance (LFS) at q6-12mos or high-frequency surveillance (HFS) at q2-4mos. Primary outcome was overall survival (OS). RESULTS Among 975 patients, the median age was 55 year, 41% were male: 31% had non-invasive appendiceal (n = 301), 45% invasive appendiceal (n = 435), and 24% colorectal cancer (CRC; n = 239). With a median follow-up time of 25 mos, the median time to recurrence was 12 mos. Despite less surveillance, LFS patients had no decrease in median OS (non-invasive appendiceal: 106 vs. 65 mos, p < 0.01; invasive appendiceal: 120 vs. 73 mos, p = 0.02; colorectal cancer [CRC]: 35 vs. 30 mos, p = 0.8). LFS patients had lower median PCI scores compared with HFS (non-invasive appendiceal: 10 vs. 19; invasive appendiceal: 10 vs. 14; CRC: 8 vs. 11; all p < 0.01). However, on multivariable analysis, accounting for PCI score, LFS was still not associated with decreased OS for any histologic type (non-invasive appendiceal: hazard ratio [HR]: 0.28, p = 0.1; invasive appendiceal: HR: 0.73, p = 0.42; CRC: HR: 1.14, p = 0.59). When estimating annual incident cases of CRS/HIPEC at 375 for non-invasive appendiceal, 375 invasive appendiceal and 4410 colorectal, LFS compared with HFS for the initial two post-operative years would potentially save $13-19 M/year to the U.S. healthcare system. CONCLUSIONS Low-frequency surveillance after CRS/HIPEC for appendiceal or colorectal cancer is not associated with decreased survival, and when considering decreased costs, may optimize resource utilization.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Adriana C Gamboa
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Mohammad Y Zaidi
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Rachel M Lee
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Shelby Speegle
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Jeffrey M Switchenko
- Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Joseph Lipscomb
- Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Jordan M Cloyd
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA
| | - Ahmed Ahmed
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA
| | - Travis Grotz
- Division of Hepatobiliary and Pancreas Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Jennifer Leiting
- Division of Hepatobiliary and Pancreas Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Keith Fournier
- Department of Surgical Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Andrew J Lee
- Department of Surgical Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Sean Dineen
- Department of Surgery, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA
| | | | - Andrew M Lowy
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, University of California, San Diego, CA, USA
| | - Nikhil V Kotha
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, University of California, San Diego, CA, USA
| | - Callisia Clarke
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA
| | - T Clark Gamblin
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA
| | - Sameer H Patel
- Department of Surgery, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, OH, USA
| | - Tiffany C Lee
- Department of Surgery, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, OH, USA
| | - Laura Lambert
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA, USA
| | - Ryan J Hendrix
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA, USA
| | - Daniel E Abbott
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA
| | - Kara Vande Walle
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA
| | - Kelly Lafaro
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, CA, USA
| | - Byrne Lee
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, CA, USA
| | | | - Jonathan Greer
- Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Maria C Russell
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Charles A Staley
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Shishir K Maithel
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
|
25
|
Rose J, Homa L, Kong CY, Cooper GS, Kattan MW, Ermlich BO, Meyers JP, Primrose JN, Pugh SA, Shinkins B, Kim U, Meropol NJ. Development and validation of a model to predict outcomes of colon cancer surveillance. Cancer Causes Control 2019; 30:767-778. [DOI: 10.1007/s10552-019-01187-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/02/2018] [Accepted: 05/17/2019] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
|
|
26
|
Hines RB, Jiban MJH, Specogna AV, Vishnubhotla P, Lee E, Zhang S. The association between post-treatment surveillance testing and survival in stage II and III colon cancer patients: An observational comparative effectiveness study. BMC Cancer 2019; 19:418. [PMID: 31053096 PMCID: PMC6500008 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-019-5613-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/06/2018] [Accepted: 04/12/2019] [Indexed: 12/31/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The best strategy for surveillance testing in stage II and III colon cancer patients following curative treatment is unknown. Previous randomized controlled trials have suffered from design limitations and yielded conflicting evidence. This observational comparative effectiveness research study was conducted to provide new evidence on the relationship between post-treatment surveillance testing and survival by overcoming the limitations of previous clinical trials. METHODS This was a retrospective cohort study of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database combined with Medicare claims (SEER-Medicare). Stage II and III colon cancer patients diagnosed from 2002 to 2009 and between 66 to 84 years of age were eligible. Adherence to surveillance testing guidelines-including carcinoembryonic antigen, computed tomography, and colonoscopy-was assessed for each year of follow-up and overall for up to three years post-treatment. Patients were categorized as More Adherent and Less Adherent according to testing guidelines. Patients who received no surveillance testing were excluded. The primary outcome was 5-year cancer-specific survival; 5-year overall survival was the secondary outcome. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) using generalized boosted models was employed to balance covariates between the two surveillance groups. IPTW-adjusted survival curves comparing the two groups were performed by the Kaplan-Meier method. Weighted Cox regression was used to obtain hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the relative risk of death for the Less Adherent group versus the More Adherent group. RESULTS There were 17,860 stage II and III colon cancer cases available for analysis. Compared to More Adherent patients, Less Adherent patients experienced slightly better 5-year cancer-specific survival (HR = 0.83, 95% CI 0.76-0.90) and worse 5-year noncancer-specific survival (HR = 1.61, 95% CI 1.43-1.82) for years 2 to 5 of follow-up. There was no difference between the groups in overall survival (HR = 1.04, 95% CI 0.98-1.10). CONCLUSIONS More surveillance testing did not improve 5-year cancer-specific survival compared to less testing and there was no difference between the groups in overall survival. The results of this study support a risk-stratified, shared decision-making surveillance strategy to optimize clinical and patient-centered outcomes for colon cancer patients in the survivorship phase of care.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Robert B Hines
- Department of Population Health Sciences, University of Central Florida College of Medicine, 6900 Lake Nona Blvd, Orlando, FL, 328270, USA.
| | - Md Jibanul Haque Jiban
- Department of Population Health Sciences, University of Central Florida College of Medicine, 6900 Lake Nona Blvd, Orlando, FL, 328270, USA
| | - Adrian V Specogna
- University of Central Florida College of Health Professions and Sciences, Orlando, FL, USA
| | | | - Eunkyung Lee
- University of Central Florida College of Health Professions and Sciences, Orlando, FL, USA
| | - Shunpu Zhang
- Department of Population Health Sciences, University of Central Florida College of Medicine, 6900 Lake Nona Blvd, Orlando, FL, 328270, USA
| |
Collapse
|
|
27
|
Teke ME, Emuakhagbon VS. Trends in Colorectal Cancer Surveillance: Current Strategies and Future Innovations-. CURRENT COLORECTAL CANCER REPORTS 2019. [DOI: 10.1007/s11888-019-00433-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/09/2022]
|
|
28
|
Kupfer SS, Lubner S, Coronel E, Pickhardt PJ, Tipping M, Graffy P, Keenan E, Ross E, Li T, Weinberg DS. Adherence to postresection colorectal cancer surveillance at National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers. Cancer Med 2018; 7:5351-5358. [PMID: 30338661 PMCID: PMC6247039 DOI: 10.1002/cam4.1678] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/01/2018] [Revised: 05/13/2018] [Accepted: 05/18/2018] [Indexed: 01/12/2023] Open
Abstract
Guidelines recommend surveillance after resection of colorectal cancer (CRC), but rates of adherence to surveillance are variable and have not been studied at National Cancer Institute (NCI)‐designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers. The aim of this study was to determine rates of adherence to standard postresection CRC surveillance recommendations including physician visits, carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), computed tomography (CT), and colonoscopy after CRC resection at three NCI‐designated centers. Data on patients with resected CRC from 2010 to 2017 were reviewed. Adherence to physician visits was defined as having at least two visits within 14 months after surgical resection. CEA adherence was defined as having at least four CEA levels drawn within 14 months. CT and colonoscopy adherence were defined as completing each between 10 and 14 months from surgical resection. Chi‐square test and logistic regression analyses were performed for overall adherence and adherence to individual components. A total of 241 CRC patients were included. Overall adherence was 23%. While adherence to physician visits was over 98%, adherence to CEA levels, CT, and colonoscopy were each less than 50%. Center was an independent predictor of adherence to CEA, CT, and/or colonoscopy. Stage III disease predicted CT adherence, while distance traveled of 40 miles or less predicted colonoscopy adherence. Overall adherence to postresection CRC guideline‐recommended care is low at NCI‐designated centers. Adherence rates to surveillance vary by center, stage, and distance traveled for care. Understanding factors associated with adherence is critical to ensure CRC patients benefit from postresection surveillance.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sonia S Kupfer
- Section of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois
| | - Sam Lubner
- University of Wisconsin School of Medicine & Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin
| | - Emmanuel Coronel
- Section of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois
| | - Perry J Pickhardt
- University of Wisconsin School of Medicine & Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin
| | - Matthew Tipping
- University of Wisconsin School of Medicine & Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin
| | - Peter Graffy
- University of Wisconsin School of Medicine & Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin
| | | | - Eric Ross
- Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Tianyu Li
- Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | | |
Collapse
|
|
29
|
Jeppesen MM, Jensen PT, Hansen DG, Christensen RD, Mogensen O. Patient-initiated follow up affects fear of recurrence and healthcare use: a randomised trial in early-stage endometrial cancer. BJOG 2018; 125:1705-1714. [PMID: 29978593 DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.15396] [Citation(s) in RCA: 41] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 06/26/2018] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To test the hypothesis that patient-initiated follow up reduces the fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) and healthcare use when compared with traditional hospital-based follow up. DESIGN Pragmatic, multicentre randomised trial. SETTING Four Danish departments of gynaecology between May 2013 and May 2016. POPULATION One hundred and fifty-six women diagnosed with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage I low-intermediate risk endometrial carcinoma. METHODS Women allocated to the control group attended hospital-based follow up consisting of regular outpatient visits for 3 years after primary treatment. Women in the intervention group were instructed in patient-initiated follow up, which included careful instruction in alarm symptoms and options for self-referral rather than a schedule of examinations. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The primary end point was FCR as measured by the Fear of Cancer Recurrence Inventory (FCRI) after 10 months of follow up. Secondary end points included cancer-related use of primary and secondary health care during the first 10 months after treatment. RESULTS In the primary analysis, FCR decreased significantly more in the control group from baseline to 10 months of follow up (difference -5.9, 95% CI -10.9 to -0.9). The majority of this improvement happened after only 3 months of follow up. Women receiving the intervention had fewer examinations at the department compared with the control group (0 versus 2 median visits, P < 0.01) and 58% of these examinations were scheduled because of vaginal bleeding. CONCLUSIONS Hospital-based follow up alleviates FCR significantly more than patient-initiated follow up, though the estimated difference was small. Patient-initiated follow up is a feasible, potentially cost-reducing follow-up approach in a population of endometrial cancer survivors with low risk of recurrence. The decision to use patient-initiated follow up should balance these benefits and harms. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT Patient-initiated follow up reduces healthcare use but maintains fear of recurrence in endometrial cancer. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY Why and how was the study carried out? Follow up of women with endometrial cancer is resource consuming and previous research suggests that it is not effective. Even though the women benefit from reassurance at follow up, routine examinations may also remind the women of the disease and induce fear of cancer recurrence. Furthermore, routine follow up may delay recurrence diagnosis, because the women do not report their symptoms until the next scheduled visit. In the research explained in this article, patient-initiated follow up was evaluated as an alternative to traditional follow up. The women were randomly assigned to one of two follow-up programmes: regular gynaecological examinations at the department of gynaecology or self-referral with careful instruction in alarm symptoms, that is, patient-initiated follow up. The level of fear of cancer recurrence in the two groups was obtained by questionnaires. Information on healthcare use was obtained by questionnaires and a chart review. What were the main findings? Regular examinations at the department of gynaecology reduced the fear of cancer recurrence significantly more than patient-initiated follow up, though the difference was small. Women who were instructed in alarm symptoms, under self-referral, were able to monitor their symptoms, and this approach significantly reduced the number of examinations at the department of gynaecology. What are the limitations of the work? Participants in the self-referral group knew that they were examined less than other women, and this may have induced fear of cancer recurrence. Similarly, the regular completion of questionnaires regarding fear of cancer recurrence may have reminded the women of the disease and diminished the difference between the two groups. What are the implications for patients Patient-initiated follow up reduced healthcare use but maintained fear of cancer recurrence in women who had survived early-stage endometrial cancer. Future analyses on quality of life and cost-effectiveness are needed to balance the benefits and harms of patient-initiated follow up.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M M Jeppesen
- Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.,Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
| | - P T Jensen
- Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.,Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
| | - D G Hansen
- The National Research Centre of Cancer Rehabilitation, Research Unit of General Practice, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
| | - R D Christensen
- Research Unit of General Practice, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
| | - O Mogensen
- Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.,The Pelvic Cancer Patient Area, Karolinska University Hospital and the Karolinske Institute, Stockholm, Sweden
| |
Collapse
|
|
30
|
Hines RB, Jiban MJH, Choudhury K, Loerzel V, Specogna AV, Troy SP, Zhang S. Post-treatment surveillance testing of patients with colorectal cancer and the association with survival: protocol for a retrospective cohort study of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database. BMJ Open 2018; 8:e022393. [PMID: 29705770 PMCID: PMC5931281 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-022393] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/15/2022] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Although the colorectal cancer (CRC) mortality rate has significantly improved over the past several decades, many patients will have a recurrence following curative treatment. Despite this high risk of recurrence, adherence to CRC surveillance testing guidelines is poor which increases cancer-related morbidity and potentially, mortality. Several randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with varying surveillance strategies have yielded conflicting evidence regarding the survival benefit associated with surveillance testing. However, due to differences in study protocols and limitations of sample size and length of follow-up, the RCT may not be the best study design to evaluate this relationship. An observational comparative effectiveness research study can overcome the sample size/follow-up limitations of RCT designs while assessing real-world variability in receipt of surveillance testing to provide much needed evidence on this important clinical issue. The gap in knowledge that this study will address concerns whether adherence to National Comprehensive Cancer Network CRC surveillance guidelines improves survival. METHODS AND ANALYSIS Patients with colon and rectal cancer aged 66-84 years, who have been diagnosed between 2002 and 2008 and have been included in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database, are eligible for this retrospective cohort study. To minimise bias, patients had to survive at least 12 months following the completion of treatment. Adherence to surveillance testing up to 5 years post-treatment will be assessed in each year of follow-up and overall. Binomial regression will be used to assess the association between patients' characteristics and adherence. Survival analysis will be conducted to assess the association between adherence and 5-year survival. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION This study was approved by the National Cancer Institute and the Institutional Review Board of the University of Central Florida. The results of this study will be disseminated by publishing in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, presentation at national/international scientific conferences and posting through social media.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Robert B Hines
- Internal medicine, University of Central Florida College of Medicine, Orlando, Florida, USA
| | | | - Kanak Choudhury
- Statistics, University of Central Florida College of Sciences, Orlando, Florida, USA
| | - Victoria Loerzel
- University of Central Florida College of Nursing, Orlando, Florida, USA
| | - Adrian V Specogna
- University of Central Florida College of Health and Public Affairs, Orlando, Florida, USA
| | - Steven P Troy
- University of Central Florida College of Medicine, Orlando, Florida, USA
| | - Shunpu Zhang
- Statistics, University of Central Florida College of Sciences, Orlando, Florida, USA
| |
Collapse
|
|
31
|
Colorectal Cancer Surveillance: What Is the Optimal Frequency of Follow-up and Which Tools Best Predict Recurrence? CURRENT COLORECTAL CANCER REPORTS 2017. [DOI: 10.1007/s11888-017-0382-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/19/2022]
|
|
32
|
Mant D, Gray A, Pugh S, Campbell H, George S, Fuller A, Shinkins B, Corkhill A, Mellor J, Dixon E, Little L, Perera-Salazar R, Primrose J. A randomised controlled trial to assess the cost-effectiveness of intensive versus no scheduled follow-up in patients who have undergone resection for colorectal cancer with curative intent. Health Technol Assess 2017; 21:1-86. [PMID: 28641703 PMCID: PMC5494506 DOI: 10.3310/hta21320] [Citation(s) in RCA: 42] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/03/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Intensive follow-up after surgery for colorectal cancer is common practice but lacks a firm evidence base. OBJECTIVE To assess whether or not augmenting symptomatic follow-up in primary care with two intensive methods of follow-up [monitoring of blood carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) levels and scheduled imaging] is effective and cost-effective in detecting the recurrence of colorectal cancer treatable surgically with curative intent. DESIGN Randomised controlled open-label trial. Participants were randomly assigned to one of four groups: (1) minimum follow-up (n = 301), (2) CEA testing only (n = 300), (3) computerised tomography (CT) only (n = 299) or (4) CEA testing and CT (n = 302). Blood CEA was measured every 3 months for 2 years and then every 6 months for 3 years; CT scans of the chest, abdomen and pelvis were performed every 6 months for 2 years and then annually for 3 years. Those in the minimum and CEA testing-only arms had a single CT scan at 12-18 months. The groups were minimised on adjuvant chemotherapy, gender and age group (three strata). SETTING Thirty-nine NHS hospitals in England with access to high-volume services offering surgical treatment of metastatic recurrence. PARTICIPANTS A total of 1202 participants who had undergone curative treatment for Dukes' stage A to C colorectal cancer with no residual disease. Adjuvant treatment was completed if indicated. There was no evidence of metastatic disease on axial imaging and the post-operative blood CEA level was ≤ 10 µg/l. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Primary outcome Surgical treatment of recurrence with curative intent. Secondary outcomes Time to detection of recurrence, survival after treatment of recurrence, overall survival and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained. RESULTS Detection of recurrence During 5 years of scheduled follow-up, cancer recurrence was detected in 203 (16.9%) participants. The proportion of participants with recurrence surgically treated with curative intent was 6.3% (76/1202), with little difference according to Dukes' staging (stage A, 5.1%; stage B, 7.4%; stage C, 5.6%; p = 0.56). The proportion was two to three times higher in each of the three more intensive arms (7.5% overall) than in the minimum follow-up arm (2.7%) (difference 4.8%; p = 0.003). Surgical treatment of recurrence with curative intent was 2.7% (8/301) in the minimum follow-up group, 6.3% (19/300) in the CEA testing group, 9.4% (28/299) in the CT group and 7.0% (21/302) in the CEA testing and CT group. Surgical treatment of recurrence with curative intent was two to three times higher in each of the three more intensive follow-up groups than in the minimum follow-up group; adjusted odds ratios (ORs) compared with minimum follow-up were as follows: CEA testing group, OR 2.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02 to 5.65; CT group, OR 3.69, 95% CI 1.63 to 8.38; and CEA testing and CT group, OR 2.78, 95% CI 1.19 to 6.49. Survival A Kaplan-Meier survival analysis confirmed no significant difference between arms (log-rank p = 0.45). The baseline-adjusted Cox proportional hazards ratio comparing the minimum and intensive arms was 0.87 (95% CI 0.67 to 1.15). These CIs suggest a maximum survival benefit from intensive follow-up of 3.8%. Cost-effectiveness The incremental cost per patient treated surgically with curative intent compared with minimum follow-up was £40,131 with CEA testing, £43,392 with CT and £85,151 with CEA testing and CT. The lack of differential impact on survival resulted in little difference in QALYs saved between arms. The additional cost per QALY gained of moving from minimum follow-up to CEA testing was £25,951 and for CT was £246,107. When compared with minimum follow-up, combined CEA testing and CT was more costly and generated fewer QALYs, resulting in a negative incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (-£208,347) and a dominated policy. LIMITATIONS Although this is the largest trial undertaken at the time of writing, it has insufficient power to assess whether or not the improvement in detecting treatable recurrence achieved by intensive follow-up leads to a reduction in overall mortality. CONCLUSIONS Rigorous staging to detect residual disease is important before embarking on follow-up. The benefit of intensive follow-up in detecting surgically treatable recurrence is independent of stage. The survival benefit from intensive follow-up is unlikely to exceed 4% in absolute terms and harm cannot be absolutely excluded. A longer time horizon is required to ascertain whether or not intensive follow-up is an efficient use of scarce health-care resources. Translational analyses are under way, utilising tumour tissue collected from Follow-up After Colorectal Surgery trial participants, with the aim of identifying potentially prognostic biomarkers that may guide follow-up in the future. TRIAL REGISTRATION Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN41458548. FUNDING This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 32. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- David Mant
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Alastair Gray
- Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Siân Pugh
- University Surgery, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - Helen Campbell
- Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Stephen George
- Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - Alice Fuller
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Bethany Shinkins
- Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Andrea Corkhill
- Southampton Clinical Trials Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - Jane Mellor
- Southampton Clinical Trials Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - Elizabeth Dixon
- Southampton Clinical Trials Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - Louisa Little
- Southampton Clinical Trials Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - Rafael Perera-Salazar
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - John Primrose
- University Surgery, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| |
Collapse
|
|
33
|
Godhi S, Godhi A, Bhat R, Saluja S. Colorectal Cancer: Postoperative Follow-up and Surveillance. Indian J Surg 2017; 79:234-237. [PMID: 28659677 DOI: 10.1007/s12262-017-1610-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/12/2015] [Accepted: 02/24/2017] [Indexed: 12/28/2022] Open
Abstract
Follow-up and surveillance form an important aspect of care in patients with colorectal cancers (CRC). Most recurrences will occur within 2 years of surgery and 90% by 5 years. Follow up protocols have not been well defined in stage I disease and the approach should be individualized. As 40% of patients with stages II and III will develop recurrences, intensive postoperative follow-up strategy is recommended for them. It includes visit to the clinician for clinical examination, serum carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), computed tomography (CT) of the chest and abdomen, colonoscopy, and flexible proctosigmoidoscopy in rectal cancers. Surveillance should be undertaken in those who are medically fit for repeat surgical procedures or for chemoradiotherapy. The concept of intensive post operative surveillance is based on the fact that some of these patients can have resectable/curable recurrence.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Satyajit Godhi
- Surgical Gastroenterology, Apollo Hospitals, Bangalore, Karnataka India
| | - Ashok Godhi
- Surgery, Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, Belgaum, Karnataka India
| | - Ravishankar Bhat
- Surgical Gastroenterology, Apollo Hospitals, Bangalore, Karnataka India
| | - Sundeep Saluja
- Surgical Gastroenterology , G.B. Panth Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education and Research, New Delhi, India
| |
Collapse
|
|
34
|
Sehdev A, Sherer EA, Hui SL, Wu J, Haggstrom DA. Patterns of computed tomography surveillance in survivors of colorectal cancer at Veterans Health Administration facilities. Cancer 2017; 123:2338-2351. [PMID: 28211937 DOI: 10.1002/cncr.30569] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/04/2016] [Revised: 11/21/2016] [Accepted: 12/26/2016] [Indexed: 01/21/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Annual computed tomography (CT) scans are a component of the current standard of care for the posttreatment surveillance of survivors of colorectal cancer (CRC) after curative-intent resection. The authors conducted a retrospective study with the primary aim of assessing patient, physician, and organizational characteristics associated with the receipt of CT surveillance among veterans. METHODS The Department of Veterans Affairs Central Cancer Registry was used to identify patients diagnosed with AJCC collaborative stage I to III CRC between 2001 and 2009. Patient sociodemographic and clinical (ie, CRC stage and comorbidity) characteristics, provider specialty, and organizational characteristics were measured. Hierarchical multivariable logistic regression models were used to assess the association between patient, provider, and organizational characteristics on receipt of 1) consistently guideline-concordant care (at least 1 CT every 12 months for both of the first 2 years of CRC surveillance) versus no CT receipt and 2) potential overuse (>1 CT every 12 months during the first 2 years of CRC surveillance) of CRC surveillance using CT. The authors also analyzed the impact of the 2005 American Society of Clinical Oncology update in CRC surveillance guidelines on care received over time. RESULTS For 2263 survivors of stage II/III CRC who were diagnosed after 2005, 19.4% of patients received no surveillance CT, whereas potential overuse occurred in both surveillance years for 14.9% of patients. Guideline-concordant care was associated with younger age, higher stage of disease (stage III vs stage II), and geographic region. In adjusted analyses, younger age and higher stage of disease (stage III vs stage II) were found to be associated with overuse. There was no significant difference in the annual rate of CT scanning noted across time periods (year ≤ 2005 vs year > 2005). CONCLUSIONS Among a minority of veteran survivors of CRC, both underuse and potential overuse of CT surveillance were present. Patient factors, but no provider or organizational characteristics, were found to be significantly associated with patterns of care. The 2005 change in American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines did not appear to have an impact on rates of surveillance CT. Cancer 2017;123:2338-2351. © 2017 American Cancer Society.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Amikar Sehdev
- Division of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana.,Center for Health Services Research, Regenstrief Institute, Indianapolis, Indiana.,Richard M. Fairbanks School of Public Health, Indiana University, Indianapolis, Indiana
| | - Eric A Sherer
- Department of Chemical Engineering, Louisiana Tech University, Ruston, Louisiana.,Center for Health Information and Communication, Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Health Services Research and Development Service, Indianapolis, Indiana
| | - Siu L Hui
- Center for Health Services Research, Regenstrief Institute, Indianapolis, Indiana
| | - Jingwei Wu
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, College of Public Health, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - David A Haggstrom
- Center for Health Services Research, Regenstrief Institute, Indianapolis, Indiana.,Center for Health Information and Communication, Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Health Services Research and Development Service, Indianapolis, Indiana.,Division of General Internal Medicine and Geriatrics, Department of Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana
| |
Collapse
|
|
35
|
van der Stok EP, Spaander MCW, Grünhagen DJ, Verhoef C, Kuipers EJ. Surveillance after curative treatment for colorectal cancer. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2016; 14:297-315. [DOI: 10.1038/nrclinonc.2016.199] [Citation(s) in RCA: 118] [Impact Index Per Article: 13.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/14/2022]
|
|
36
|
Sekiguchi M, Matsuda T, Saito Y. Surveillance after endoscopic and surgical resection of colorectal cancer. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol 2016; 30:959-970. [PMID: 27938790 DOI: 10.1016/j.bpg.2016.09.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/24/2016] [Revised: 08/05/2016] [Accepted: 09/06/2016] [Indexed: 01/31/2023]
Abstract
With the increase in colorectal cancer burden, surveillance following endoscopic and surgical resection is an essential issue. The aim of surveillance programs is improvement of patient survival by early detection of residual tumor tissue or local recurrence, metachronous colorectal tumors, and metastases. Appropriate surveillance should be determined according to this risk of factors. In current guidelines, only surveillance colonoscopy is recommended after endoscopic resection of polyps with high-grade dysplasia, whereas intensive, multimodality surveillance using colonoscopy, radiological imaging and tumor marker measurements is recommended following surgical resection of invasive colorectal cancer. Detailed recommendations, including the timing of surveillance, are described based on high-quality evidence. However, there are still many unresolved issues for which more high-quality evidence is required.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Masau Sekiguchi
- Cancer Screening Center, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan; Endoscopy Division, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan; Division of Screening Technology, Center for Public Health Sciences, National Cancer Center, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Takahisa Matsuda
- Cancer Screening Center, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan; Endoscopy Division, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan; Division of Screening Technology, Center for Public Health Sciences, National Cancer Center, Tokyo, Japan.
| | - Yutaka Saito
- Endoscopy Division, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
|
37
|
Jeffery M, Hickey BE, Hider PN, See AM. Follow-up strategies for patients treated for non-metastatic colorectal cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016; 11:CD002200. [PMID: 27884041 PMCID: PMC6464536 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd002200.pub3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 76] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/16/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND It is common clinical practice to follow patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) for several years following their curative surgery or adjuvant therapy, or both. Despite this widespread practice, there is considerable controversy about how often patients should be seen, what tests should be performed, and whether these varying strategies have any significant impact on patient outcomes. This is the second update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2002 and first updated in 2007. OBJECTIVES To assess the effects of intensive follow-up for patients with non-metastatic colorectal cancer treated with curative intent. SEARCH METHODS For this update, we searched CENTRAL (2016, Issue 3), MEDLINE (1950 to May 20th, 2016), Embase (1974 to May 20th, 2016), CINAHL (1981 to May 20th, 2016), and Science Citation Index (1900 to May 20th, 2016). We also searched reference lists of articles, and handsearched the Proceedings of the American Society for Radiation Oncology (2011 to 2014). In addition, we searched the following trials registries (May 20th, 2016): ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We further contacted study authors. No language or publication restrictions were applied to the search strategies. SELECTION CRITERIA We included only randomised controlled trials comparing different follow-up strategies for participants with non-metastatic CRC treated with curative intent. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two authors independently determined trial eligibility, performed data extraction, and assessed methodological quality. MAIN RESULTS We studied 5403 participants enrolled in 15 studies. (We included two new studies in this second update.) Although the studies varied in setting (general practitioner (GP)-led, nurse-led, or surgeon-led) and "intensity" of follow-up, there was very little inconsistency in the results.Overall survival: we found no evidence of a statistical effect with intensive follow-up (hazard ratio (HR) 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 1.02; I² = 4%; P = 0.41; high-quality evidence). There were 1098 deaths among 4786 participants enrolled in 12 studies.Colorectal cancer-specific survival: this did not differ with intensive follow-up (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.12; I² = 0%; P = 0.45; moderate-quality evidence). There were 432 colorectal cancer deaths among 3769 participants enrolled in seven studies.Relapse-free survival: we found no statistical evidence of effect with intensive follow-up (HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.18; I² = 5%; P = 0.39; moderate-quality evidence). There were 1416 relapses among 5253 participants enrolled in 14 studies.Salvage surgery with curative intent: this was more frequent with intensive follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 1.98, 95% CI 1.53 to 2.56; I² = 31%; P = 0.14; high-quality evidence). There were 457 episodes of salvage surgery in 5157 participants enrolled in 13 studies.Interval (symptomatic) recurrences: these were less frequent with intensive follow-up (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.86; I² = 66%; P = 0.007; moderate-quality evidence). Three hundred and seventy-six interval recurrences were reported in 3933 participants enrolled in seven studies.Intensive follow-up did not appear to affect quality of life, anxiety, nor depression (reported in three studies).Harms from colonoscopies did not differ with intensive follow-up (RR 2.08, 95% CI 0.11 to 40.17; moderate-quality evidence). In two studies, there were seven colonoscopic complications in 2112 colonoscopies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS The results of our review suggest that there is no overall survival benefit for intensifying the follow-up of patients after curative surgery for colorectal cancer. Although more participants were treated with salvage surgery with curative intent in the intensive follow-up group, this was not associated with improved survival. Harms related to intensive follow-up and salvage therapy were not well reported.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mark Jeffery
- Christchurch HospitalCanterbury Regional Cancer and Haematology ServicePrivate Bag 4710ChristchurchNew Zealand8140
| | | | - Phil N Hider
- University of Otago, ChristchurchDepartment of Population HealthPO Box 4345ChristchurchNew Zealand8140
| | - Adrienne M See
- Princess Alexandra HospitalRadiation Oncology Mater Service31 Raymond TerraceBrisbaneAustralia4101
| |
Collapse
|
|
38
|
Mokhles S, Macbeth F, Farewell V, Fiorentino F, Williams NR, Younes RN, Takkenberg JJM, Treasure T. Meta-analysis of colorectal cancer follow-up after potentially curative resection. Br J Surg 2016; 103:1259-68. [PMID: 27488593 PMCID: PMC5031212 DOI: 10.1002/bjs.10233] [Citation(s) in RCA: 82] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/19/2016] [Revised: 05/15/2016] [Accepted: 05/17/2016] [Indexed: 12/24/2022]
Abstract
Background After potentially curative resection of primary colorectal cancer, patients may be monitored by measurement of carcinoembryonic antigen and/or CT to detect asymptomatic metastatic disease earlier. Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to find evidence for the clinical effectiveness of monitoring in advancing the diagnosis of recurrence and its effect on survival. MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science and other databases were searched for randomized comparisons of increased intensity monitoring compared with a contemporary standard policy after resection of primary colorectal cancer. Results There were 16 randomized comparisons, 11 with published survival data. More intensive monitoring advanced the diagnosis of recurrence by a median of 10 (i.q.r. 5–24) months. In ten of 11 studies the authors reported no demonstrable difference in overall survival. Seven RCTs, published from 1995 to 2016, randomly assigned 3325 patients to a monitoring protocol made more intensive by introducing new methods or increasing the frequency of existing follow-up protocols versus less invasive monitoring. No detectable difference in overall survival was associated with more intensive monitoring protocols (hazard ratio 0·98, 95 per cent c.i. 0·87 to 1·11). Conclusion Based on pooled data from randomized trials published from 1995 to 2016, the anticipated survival benefit from surgical treatment resulting from earlier detection of metastases has not been achieved.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- S Mokhles
- Department of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - F Macbeth
- Wales Cancer Trials Unit, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
| | - V Farewell
- Medical Research Council Biostatistics Unit, Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - F Fiorentino
- Division of Surgery and Cancer, and Imperial College Trials Unit, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | - N R Williams
- Surgical and Interventional Trials Unit, Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, Faculty of Medical Sciences, University College London, London, UK
| | - R N Younes
- Oncology Centre, Hospital Alemão Oswaldo Cruz, Sao Paulo, Brazil
| | - J J M Takkenberg
- Department of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - T Treasure
- Clinical Operational Research Unit, University College London, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
|
39
|
Le AT, Tzeng CWD. Does finding early recurrence improve outcomes, and at what cost? J Surg Oncol 2016; 114:329-35. [PMID: 27393742 DOI: 10.1002/jso.24370] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/10/2016] [Accepted: 06/30/2016] [Indexed: 12/14/2022]
Abstract
The putative goal of surveillance is the early detection of recurrence while both the cancer and patient are still treatable. To be cost and clinically effective, surveillance requires a tailored approach based on stage, tumor biology, conditional survival, and available treatment options. Although surveillance is the major component of care for cancer patients after potentially curative treatment, current guidelines for surveillance lack the high-level data seen on the treatment side of the patient care continuum. J. Surg. Oncol. 2016;114:329-335. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anh-Thu Le
- Department of Surgery, University of Kentucky Medical Center, Lexington, Kentucky
| | - Ching-Wei D Tzeng
- Department of Surgery, University of Kentucky Medical Center, Lexington, Kentucky
| |
Collapse
|
|
40
|
Ouchi A, Asano M, Aono K, Watanabe T, Oya S. Staple-line recurrence arising 10 years after functional end-to-end anastomosis for colon cancer: a case report. Surg Case Rep 2016; 1:7. [PMID: 26943375 PMCID: PMC4747930 DOI: 10.1186/s40792-014-0011-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/25/2014] [Accepted: 12/22/2014] [Indexed: 02/05/2023] Open
Abstract
We report a rare case of late staple-line recurrence arising 10 years after functional end-to-end anastomosis for splenic flexure colon cancer. An 80-year-old man, who underwent partial colectomy with functional end-to-end anastomosis for splenic flexure colon cancer 10 years earlier, presented with a chief complaint of anorexia. Complete blood count showed anemia, and the fecal occult blood test was positive. Lower gastrointestinal series showed an irregular defect of the splenic flexure, and colonoscopy showed an ulcerated tumor on the staple line of the primary surgery. Partial colectomy was performed, and the tumor was pathologically diagnosed as moderately differentiated tubular adenocarcinoma, resembling the pathology of primary colon cancer. This case suggests the importance of considering staple-line recurrence after functional end-to-end anastomosis for colon cancer even more than 5 years after primary surgery.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Akira Ouchi
- Department of Surgery, Chita City Hospital, 2-1 Nagai, Shinchi, Chita, Aichi, 478-8640, Japan.
| | - Masahiko Asano
- Department of Surgery, Chita City Hospital, 2-1 Nagai, Shinchi, Chita, Aichi, 478-8640, Japan.
| | - Keiya Aono
- Department of Surgery, Chita City Hospital, 2-1 Nagai, Shinchi, Chita, Aichi, 478-8640, Japan.
| | - Tetsuya Watanabe
- Department of Surgery, Chita City Hospital, 2-1 Nagai, Shinchi, Chita, Aichi, 478-8640, Japan.
| | - Shingo Oya
- Department of Surgery, Chita City Hospital, 2-1 Nagai, Shinchi, Chita, Aichi, 478-8640, Japan.
| |
Collapse
|
|
41
|
Verberne CJ, Wiggers T, Grossmann I, de Bock GH, Vermeulen KM. Cost-effectiveness of a carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) based follow-up programme for colorectal cancer (the CEA Watch trial). Colorectal Dis 2016; 18:O91-6. [PMID: 26757353 DOI: 10.1111/codi.13273] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/24/2015] [Accepted: 11/18/2015] [Indexed: 02/08/2023]
Abstract
AIM The study CEA Watch (Netherlands Trial Register 2182) has shown that an intensified follow-up schedule with more frequent carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) measurements but fewer outpatient visits detects more curable recurrences compared with the usual follow-up protocol in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients. The aim of the study was to compare the cost and cost-effectiveness between various follow-up programmes. METHOD In total, 3223 patients with stage I-III CRC were followed between October 2010 and October 2012. Direct medical costs were calculated per patient adding the costs for all visits, CEA measurements and imaging. Productivity losses and travel expenses were calculated using answers from questionnaires. The cost-effectiveness displayed the additional costs per additional patient with recurrent disease and used an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) to compare them. RESULTS The mean yearly cost per patient was €548 in the intensified protocol and €497 in the control protocol. The ICER was €94 (95% CI €76-€157) per cent; to detect one additional patient with a recurrence in the intervention protocol compared with the control protocol would require an additional €9400. For curable recurrences, the ICER was €607 (95% CI €5695-€5728). Annual patient-reported costs were €509 per year in the intervention protocol and €488 in the control protocol. CONCLUSION The current study demonstrates that the direct medical and patient-reported cost of a newly introduced, safe and effective way of CRC follow-up was comparable to that of standard care. The ICER per curable recurrence was considered acceptably low.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- C J Verberne
- Department of Surgery, University Medical Centre Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - T Wiggers
- Department of Surgery, University Medical Centre Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - I Grossmann
- Department of Surgery, University Medical Centre Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - G H de Bock
- Department of Epidemiology, University Medical Centre Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - K M Vermeulen
- Department of Epidemiology, University Medical Centre Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
|
42
|
Kahi CJ, Boland CR, Dominitz JA, Giardiello FM, Johnson DA, Kaltenbach T, Lieberman D, Levin TR, Robertson DJ, Rex DK. Colonoscopy surveillance after colorectal cancer resection: recommendations of the US multi-society task force on colorectal cancer. Gastrointest Endosc 2016; 83:489-98.e10. [PMID: 26802191 DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2016.01.020] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Charles J Kahi
- Richard L. Roudebush VA Medical Center, Indianapolis, IN; Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana.
| | | | - Jason A Dominitz
- VA Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, Washington; University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington
| | | | | | - Tonya Kaltenbach
- Veterans Affairs Palo Alto, Palo Alto, California; Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California
| | | | | | - Douglas J Robertson
- VA Medical Center, White River Junction, Vermont; Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, NH
| | - Douglas K Rex
- Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana
| |
Collapse
|
|
43
|
Kahi CJ, Boland CR, Dominitz JA, Giardiello FM, Johnson DA, Kaltenbach T, Lieberman D, Levin TR, Robertson DJ, Rex DK. Colonoscopy Surveillance After Colorectal Cancer Resection: Recommendations of the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Gastroenterology 2016; 150:758-768.e11. [PMID: 26892199 DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2016.01.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 139] [Impact Index Per Article: 15.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
The US Multi-Society Task Force has developed updated recommendations to guide health care providers with the surveillance of patients after colorectal cancer (CRC) resection with curative intent. This document is based on a critical review of the literature regarding the role of colonoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy, endoscopic ultrasound, fecal testing and CT colonography in this setting. The document addresses the effect of surveillance, with focus on colonoscopy, on patient survival after CRC resection, the appropriate use and timing of colonoscopy for perioperative clearing and for postoperative prevention of metachronous CRC, specific considerations for the detection of local recurrence in the case of rectal cancer, as well as the place of CT colonography and fecal tests in post-CRC surveillance.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Charles J Kahi
- Richard L. Roudebush VA Medical Center, Indianapolis, IN; Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana.
| | | | - Jason A Dominitz
- VA Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, Washington; University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington
| | | | | | - Tonya Kaltenbach
- Veterans Affairs Palo Alto, Palo Alto, California; Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California
| | | | | | - Douglas J Robertson
- VA Medical Center, White River Junction, Vermont; Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, NH
| | - Douglas K Rex
- Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana
| | | |
Collapse
|
|
44
|
Kahi CJ, Boland CR, Dominitz JA, Giardiello FM, Johnson DA, Kaltenbach T, Lieberman D, Levin TR, Robertson DJ, Rex DK. Colonoscopy Surveillance after Colorectal Cancer Resection: Recommendations of the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Am J Gastroenterol 2016; 111:337-46; quiz 347. [PMID: 26871541 DOI: 10.1038/ajg.2016.22] [Citation(s) in RCA: 52] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/02/2015] [Accepted: 12/07/2015] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
The US Multi-Society Task Force has developed updated recommendations to guide health care providers with the surveillance of patients after colorectal cancer (CRC) resection with curative intent. This document is based on a critical review of the literature regarding the role of colonoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy, endoscopic ultrasound, fecal testing and CT colonography in this setting. The document addresses the effect of surveillance, with focus on colonoscopy, on patient survival after CRC resection, the appropriate use and timing of colonoscopy for perioperative clearing and for postoperative prevention of metachronous CRC, specific considerations for the detection of local recurrence in the case of rectal cancer, as well as the place of CT colonography and fecal tests in post-CRC surveillance.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Charles J Kahi
- Richard L. Roudebush VA Medical Center, Indianapolis, IN.,Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana
| | | | - Jason A Dominitz
- VA Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, Washington.,University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington
| | | | | | - Tonya Kaltenbach
- Veterans Affairs Palo Alto, Palo Alto, California.,Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California
| | | | | | - Douglas J Robertson
- VA Medical Center, White River Junction, Vermont.,Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, NH
| | - Douglas K Rex
- Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana
| |
Collapse
|
|
45
|
Hansdotter Andersson P, Wille-Jørgensen P, Horváth-Puhó E, Petersen SH, Martling A, Sørensen HT, Syk I. The COLOFOL trial: study design and comparison of the study population with the source cancer population. Clin Epidemiol 2016; 8:15-21. [PMID: 26869813 PMCID: PMC4734721 DOI: 10.2147/clep.s92661] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/19/2022] Open
Abstract
Introduction The COLOFOL trial, a prospective randomized multicenter trial comparing two follow-up regimes after curative surgical treatment for colorectal cancer, focuses on detection of asymptomatic recurrences. This paper aims to describe the design and recruitment procedure in the COLOFOL trial, comparing demographic characteristics between randomized patients and eligible patients not included in the study. Materials and methods COLOFOL was designed as a pragmatic trial with wide inclusion criteria and few exclusion criteria, in order to obtain a sample reflecting the general patient population. To be eligible, patients had to be 75 years or younger and curatively resected for stage II or III colorectal cancer. Exclusion criteria were hereditary colorectal cancer, no signed consent, other malignancy, and life expectancy less than 2 years due to concomitant disease. In four of the 24 participating centers, we scrutinized hospital inpatient data to identify all colorectal cancer patients who underwent surgery, in order to ascertain all eligible patients who were not included in the study and to compare them with enrolled patients. Results Of a total of 4,445 eligible patients, 2,509 patients were randomized (56.4% inclusion rate). A total of 1,221 eligible patients were identified in the scrutinized hospitals, of which 684 (56%) were randomized. No difference in age or sex distribution was observed between randomized and nonrandomized eligible patients. However, a difference was noted in tumor location and stage distribution, with 5.6% more patients in the randomized group having colon cancer and 6.7% more patients having stage II disease. Conclusion Patients in the two study arms were not only demographically similar, but also similar to nonincluded eligible patients, apart from stage and localization. The analyses will be stratified by these variables. Taken together, we conclude that our trial results will be robust and possible to extrapolate to the target population.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | - Anna Martling
- Department of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Karolinska Institutet, Solna, Sweden
| | - Henrik Toft Sørensen
- Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
| | - Ingvar Syk
- Department of Surgery, Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden
| |
Collapse
|
|
46
|
Gabr A, Elsaba TM, Razek K, Tamam S, Atta H. Excision Repair Cross-Complementation Group 1 (ERCC1): A Prognostic and Predictive Biomarker in Patients with Colorectal Cancer Receiving Adjuvant Oxaliplatin Based Chemotherapy. ACTA ACUST UNITED AC 2016. [DOI: 10.4236/jct.2016.79065] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022]
|
|
47
|
Follow-Up Strategy After Primary and Early Diagnosis. Updates Surg 2016. [DOI: 10.1007/978-88-470-5767-8_1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/22/2022]
|
|
48
|
Nicholson BD, Shinkins B, Pathiraja I, Roberts NW, James TJ, Mallett S, Perera R, Primrose JN, Mant D. Blood CEA levels for detecting recurrent colorectal cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015; 2015:CD011134. [PMID: 26661580 PMCID: PMC7092609 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd011134.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 104] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/21/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Testing for carcino-embryonic antigen (CEA) in the blood is a recommended part of follow-up to detect recurrence of colorectal cancer following primary curative treatment. There is substantial clinical variation in the cut-off level applied to trigger further investigation. OBJECTIVES To determine the diagnostic performance of different blood CEA levels in identifying people with colorectal cancer recurrence in order to inform clinical practice. SEARCH METHODS We conducted all searches to January 29 2014. We applied no language limits to the searches, and translated non-English manuscripts. We searched for relevant reviews in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, MEDION and DARE databases. We searched for primary studies (including conference abstracts) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Science Citation Index & Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science. We identified ongoing studies by searching WHO ICTRP and the ASCO meeting library. SELECTION CRITERIA We included cross-sectional diagnostic test accuracy studies, cohort studies, and randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of post-resection colorectal cancer follow-up that compared CEA to a reference standard. We included studies only if we could extract 2 x 2 accuracy data. We excluded case-control studies, as the ratio of cases to controls is determined by the study design, making the data unsuitable for assessing test accuracy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors (BDN, IP) assessed the quality of all articles independently, discussing any disagreements. Where we could not reach consensus, a third author (BS) acted as moderator. We assessed methodological quality against QUADAS-2 criteria. We extracted binary diagnostic accuracy data from all included studies as 2 x 2 tables. We conducted a bivariate meta-analysis. We used the xtmelogit command in Stata to produce the pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity and we also produced hierarchical summary ROC plots. MAIN RESULTS In the 52 included studies, sensitivity ranged from 41% to 97% and specificity from 52% to 100%. In the seven studies reporting the impact of applying a threshold of 2.5 µg/L, pooled sensitivity was 82% (95% confidence interval (CI) 78% to 86%) and pooled specificity 80% (95% CI 59% to 92%). In the 23 studies reporting the impact of applying a threshold of 5 µg/L, pooled sensitivity was 71% (95% CI 64% to 76%) and pooled specificity 88% (95% CI 84% to 92%). In the seven studies reporting the impact of applying a threshold of 10 µg/L, pooled sensitivity was 68% (95% CI 53% to 79%) and pooled specificity 97% (95% CI 90% to 99%). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS CEA is insufficiently sensitive to be used alone, even with a low threshold. It is therefore essential to augment CEA monitoring with another diagnostic modality in order to avoid missed cases. Trying to improve sensitivity by adopting a low threshold is a poor strategy because of the high numbers of false alarms generated. We therefore recommend monitoring for colorectal cancer recurrence with more than one diagnostic modality but applying the highest CEA cut-off assessed (10 µg/L).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Brian D Nicholson
- University of OxfordNuffield Department of Primary Care Health SciencesOxfordUK
| | - Bethany Shinkins
- University of LeedsAcademic Unit of Health Economics101 Clarendon RoadLeedsUKLS29LJ
| | - Indika Pathiraja
- University of OxfordNuffield Department of Primary Care Health SciencesOxfordUK
| | - Nia W Roberts
- University of OxfordBodleian Health Care LibrariesKnowledge Centre, ORC Research Building, Old Road CampusOxfordOxfordshireUKOX3 7DQ
| | - Tim J James
- Oxford University Hospitals NHS TrustClinical BiochemistryHeadingtonOxfordUK
| | - Susan Mallett
- University of BirminghamPublic Health, Epidemiology and BiostatisticsEdgbastonBirminghamUKB15 2TT
| | - Rafael Perera
- University of OxfordNuffield Department of Primary Care Health SciencesOxfordUK
| | - John N Primrose
- University of SouthamptonDepartment of SurgerySouthampton General HospitalTremona RoadSouthamptonUKS0322AB
| | - David Mant
- University of OxfordNuffield Department of Primary Care Health SciencesOxfordUK
| | | |
Collapse
|
|
49
|
Makhoul R, Alva S, Wilkins KB. Surveillance and Survivorship after Treatment for Colon Cancer. Clin Colon Rectal Surg 2015; 28:262-70. [PMID: 26648797 PMCID: PMC4655110 DOI: 10.1055/s-0035-1564435] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/06/2023]
Abstract
Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer diagnosed in the United States. Majority of patients have localized disease that is amenable to curative resection. Disease recurrence remains a major concern after resection. In addition, patients are at an increased risk for developing a second or metachronous colon cancer. The principal goal of surveillance following treatment of colon cancer is to improve disease-free and overall survival. Survivorship is a distinct phase following surveillance to help improve quality of life and promote longevity.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rami Makhoul
- Rutger-Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital, New Brunswick, New Jersey
| | - Suraj Alva
- Rutger-Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital, New Brunswick, New Jersey
| | - Kirsten B. Wilkins
- Rutger-Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital, New Brunswick, New Jersey
| |
Collapse
|
|
50
|
Adams K, Higgins L, Beazley S, Papagrigoriadis S. Intensive surveillance following curative treatment of colorectal cancer allows effective treatment of recurrence even if limited to 4 years. Int J Colorectal Dis 2015; 30:1677-84. [PMID: 26320020 DOI: 10.1007/s00384-015-2356-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 08/02/2015] [Indexed: 02/04/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Current evidence suggests a survival benefit to post-operative surveillance following curative colorectal cancer resection; however, there is still no consensus on the optimal duration and form. OBJECTIVES The objective is to prospectively audit outcomes of an intensive colorectal cancer follow-up scheme for time to recurrence and survival. METHODS We used a surveillance protocol designed to incorporate regular clinical, biochemical, radiological and endoscopic measures at pre-defined intervals. SETTING The setting was a Department of Colorectal Surgery in a Tertiary Academic Centre. Follow-up was led by specially trained colorectal nurses in conjunction with surgeons. PATIENTS Consecutive patients who had undergone curative treatment for colorectal cancer were included in this study. MAIN OUTCOMES Outcomes were measured in terms of overall survival and disease recurrence. RESULTS There were 436 patients entered into follow-up, all treated with curative intent. Mean age 65.9 years (SD 12.9 years) and 240 male (55.0 %). Ninety-four patients (21.5 %) with stage I disease, 119 (27.3 %) stage IIa, 30 (6.9 %) stage IIb, 18 (4.1 %) stage IIIa, 78 (17.9 %) stage IIIb, 45 (10.4 %) stage IIIc and 52 (11.9 %) stage IV. Overall median survival was 37.5 months for all patients, (range 0.0-207.8 months). Ninety-two (21.1 %) cancer-related deaths were recorded during the course of the study. The overall 5-year actuarial cancer-related survival was 81.7 %. There was a 40.3 % 5-year actuarial survival was recorded in patients with 39 a recurrence, 57.7 % in patients treated with further curative 40 intent and 27.7 % in patients who received palliative treatment 41 (P < 0.001). Ninety-seven percent of recurrences were detected within 4 years of curative treatment. CONCLUSIONS This follow-up protocol confers an 81 % overall 5-year actuarial survival. Our study suggests that surveillance after curative resection can be limited to 4 years, which would lead to detection of over 97 % of all recurrences.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Katie Adams
- Department of Academic Colorectal Surgery, King's College Hospital, 2nd Floor Hambledon Wing, Denmark Hill, London, SE5 9RS, UK
| | - Lynne Higgins
- Department of Academic Colorectal Surgery, King's College Hospital, 2nd Floor Hambledon Wing, Denmark Hill, London, SE5 9RS, UK
| | - Stella Beazley
- Department of Academic Colorectal Surgery, King's College Hospital, 2nd Floor Hambledon Wing, Denmark Hill, London, SE5 9RS, UK
| | - Savvas Papagrigoriadis
- Department of Academic Colorectal Surgery, King's College Hospital, 2nd Floor Hambledon Wing, Denmark Hill, London, SE5 9RS, UK.
| |
Collapse
|