152
|
Bastiaenen VP, Hovdenak Jakobsen I, Labianca R, Martling A, Morton DG, Primrose JN, Tanis PJ, Laurberg S. Consensus and controversies regarding follow-up after treatment with curative intent of nonmetastatic colorectal cancer: a synopsis of guidelines used in countries represented in the European Society of Coloproctology. Colorectal Dis 2019; 21:392-416. [PMID: 30506553 DOI: 10.1111/codi.14503] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/28/2018] [Accepted: 11/07/2018] [Indexed: 02/08/2023]
Abstract
AIM It is common clinical practice to follow patients for a period of years after treatment with curative intent of nonmetastatic colorectal cancer, but follow-up strategies vary widely. The aim of this systematic review was to provide an overview of recommendations on this topic in guidelines from member countries of the European Society of Coloproctology, with supporting evidence. METHOD A systematic search of Medline, Embase and the guideline databases Trip database, BMJ Best Practice and Guidelines International Network was performed. Quality assessment included use of the AGREE-II tool. All topics with recommendations from included guidelines were identified and categorized. For each subtopic, a conclusion was made followed by the degree of consensus and the highest level of evidence. RESULTS Twenty-one guidelines were included. The majority recommended that structured follow-up should be offered, except for patients in whom treatment of recurrence would be inappropriate. It was generally agreed that clinical visits, measurement of carcinoembryoinc antigen and liver imaging should be part of follow-up, based on a high level of evidence, although the frequency is controversial. There was also consensus on imaging of the chest and pelvis in rectal cancer, as well as endoscopy, based on lower levels of evidence and with a level of intensity that was contradictory. CONCLUSION In available guidelines, multimodal follow-up after treatment with curative intent of colorectal cancer is widely recommended, but the exact content and intensity are highly controversial. International agreement on the optimal follow-up schedule is unlikely to be achieved on current evidence, and further research should refocus on individualized 'patient-driven' follow-up and new biomarkers.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- V P Bastiaenen
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | - R Labianca
- Cancer Center, Ospedale Giovanni XXIII, Bergamo, Italy
| | - A Martling
- Department of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - D G Morton
- Academic Department of Surgery, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - J N Primrose
- University Surgery, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - P J Tanis
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - S Laurberg
- Department of Surgery, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
| | | |
Collapse
|
153
|
Pal SK, Miller MJ, Agarwal N, Chang SM, Chavez-MacGregor M, Cohen E, Cole S, Dale W, Magid Diefenbach CS, Disis ML, Dreicer R, Graham DL, Henry NL, Jones J, Keedy V, Klepin HD, Markham MJ, Mittendorf EA, Rodriguez-Galindo C, Sabel MS, Schilsky RL, Sznol M, Tap WD, Westin SN, Johnson BE. Clinical Cancer Advances 2019: Annual Report on Progress Against Cancer From the American Society of Clinical Oncology. J Clin Oncol 2019; 37:834-849. [DOI: 10.1200/jco.18.02037] [Citation(s) in RCA: 51] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/07/2023] Open
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | | | - Ezra Cohen
- University of California, San Diego, San Diego, CA
| | - Suzanne Cole
- Mercy Clinic Oncology and Hematology, Oklahoma City, OK
| | - William Dale
- City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, CA
| | | | | | - Robert Dreicer
- University of Virginia Cancer Center, Charlottesville, VA
| | | | | | - Joshua Jones
- University of Pennsylvania Health System, Philadelphia, PA
| | - Vicki Keedy
- Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
156
|
Taylor LJ, Xu K, Maloney JD, Voils CI, Weber SM, Funk LM, Abbott DE. Deficiencies in postoperative surveillance for veterans with gastrointestinal cancer. J Surg Oncol 2018; 119:273-277. [PMID: 30554412 DOI: 10.1002/jso.25333] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/21/2018] [Accepted: 11/26/2018] [Indexed: 11/09/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES National guidelines for gastrointestinal (GI) cancers offer surveillance algorithms to facilitate detection of recurrent disease, yet adherence rates are unknown. We sought to characterize postoperative surveillance patterns for veterans with GI cancer at a tertiary care Veterans Affairs Hospital. METHODS A single-center retrospective cohort study identified patients who underwent surgical resection for colorectal, gastroesophageal or hepatopancreaticobiliary malignancy from 2010-2016. We calculated the annual rate of cancer-directed clinic visits and abdominal imaging and used National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines as a benchmark by which to assess adequate surveillance. RESULTS Ninety-seven patients met inclusion criteria. Median surveillance time was 1203 days. Overall, 44% of patients had insufficient surveillance. Specifically, 11% received no postoperative imaging and 7% had no cancer-directed clinic visits. An additional 30% received less than recommended surveillance imaging and 12% attended fewer than recommended clinic visits. By disease site, insufficient imaging was most common for patients with hepatopancreaticobiliary cancer (63%), while inadequate clinic follow-up was highest for colorectal cancer (24%). CONCLUSION A significant proportion of veterans with GI cancer received either inadequate postoperative surveillance based on national guidelines. This deficiency represents an opportunity for improvement through targeted efforts, including telemedicine and education of patients and providers.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lauren J Taylor
- Department of Surgery, William S. Middleton Memorial Veterans Hospital, Madison, Wisconsin.,Department of Surgery, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin
| | - Kerui Xu
- Department of Surgery, William S. Middleton Memorial Veterans Hospital, Madison, Wisconsin.,Department of Surgery, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin
| | - James D Maloney
- Department of Surgery, William S. Middleton Memorial Veterans Hospital, Madison, Wisconsin.,Department of Surgery, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin
| | - Corrine I Voils
- Department of Surgery, William S. Middleton Memorial Veterans Hospital, Madison, Wisconsin.,Department of Surgery, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin
| | - Sharon M Weber
- Department of Surgery, William S. Middleton Memorial Veterans Hospital, Madison, Wisconsin.,Department of Surgery, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin
| | - Luke M Funk
- Department of Surgery, William S. Middleton Memorial Veterans Hospital, Madison, Wisconsin.,Department of Surgery, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin
| | - Daniel E Abbott
- Department of Surgery, William S. Middleton Memorial Veterans Hospital, Madison, Wisconsin.,Department of Surgery, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin
| |
Collapse
|
158
|
Chadi SA, Malcomson L, Ensor J, Riley RD, Vaccaro CA, Rossi GL, Daniels IR, Smart NJ, Osborne ME, Beets GL, Maas M, Bitterman DS, Du K, Gollins S, Sun Myint A, Smith FM, Saunders MP, Scott N, O'Dwyer ST, de Castro Araujo RO, Valadao M, Lopes A, Hsiao CW, Lai CL, Smith RK, Paulson EC, Appelt A, Jakobsen A, Wexner SD, Habr-Gama A, Sao Julião G, Perez R, Renehan AG. Factors affecting local regrowth after watch and wait for patients with a clinical complete response following chemoradiotherapy in rectal cancer (InterCoRe consortium): an individual participant data meta-analysis. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 2018; 3:825-836. [PMID: 30318451 DOI: 10.1016/s2468-1253(18)30301-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 128] [Impact Index Per Article: 18.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/03/2018] [Revised: 08/28/2018] [Accepted: 08/29/2018] [Indexed: 12/20/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND In patients with rectal cancer who achieve clinical complete response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, watch and wait is a novel management strategy with potential to avoid major surgery. Study-level meta-analyses have reported wide variation in the proportion of patients with local regrowth. We did an individual participant data meta-analysis to investigate factors affecting occurrence of local regrowth. METHODS We updated search results of a recent systematic review by searching MEDLINE and Embase from Jan 1, 2016, to May 5, 2017, and used expert knowledge to identify published studies reporting on local regrowth in patients with rectal cancer managed by watch and wait after clinical complete response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. We restricted studies to those that defined clinical complete response using criteria equivalent to São Paulo benchmarks (ie, absence of residual ulceration, stenosis, or mass within the rectum on clinical and endoscopic examination). The primary outcome was 2-year cumulative incidence of local regrowth, estimated with a two-stage random-effects individual participant data meta-analysis. We assessed the effects of clinical and treatment factors using Cox frailty models, expressed as hazard ratios (HRs). From these models, we derived percentage differences in mean θ as an approximation of the effect of measured covariates on between-centre heterogeneity. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42017070934. FINDINGS We obtained individual participant data from 11 studies, including 602 patients enrolled between March 11, 1990, and Feb 13, 2017, with a median follow-up of 37·6 months (IQR 25·0-58·7). Ten of the 11 datasets were judged to be at low risk of bias. 2-year cumulative incidence of local regrowth was 21·4% (random-effects 95% CI 15·3-27·6), with high levels of between-study heterogeneity (I2=61%). We noted wide between-centre variation in patient, tumour, and treatment characteristics. We found some evidence that increasing cT stage was associated with increased risk of local regrowth (random-effects HR per cT stage 1·40, 95% CI 1·00-1·94; ptrend=0·048). In a subgroup of 459 patients managed after 2008 (when pretreatment staging by MRI became standard), 2-year cumulative incidence of local regrowth was 19% (95% CI 13-28) for stage cT1 and cT2 tumours, 31% (26-37) for cT3, and 37% (21-60) for cT4 (random-effects HR per cT stage 1·50, random-effects 95% CI 1·03-2·17; ptrend=0·0330). We estimated that measured factors contributed 4·8-45·3% of observed between-centre heterogeneity. INTERPRETATION In patients with rectal cancer and clinical complete response after chemoradiotherapy managed by watch and wait, we found some evidence that increasing cT stage predicts for local regrowth. These data will inform clinician-patient decision making in this setting. Research is needed to determine other predictors of a sustained clinical complete response. FUNDING None.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sami A Chadi
- Division of Surgical Oncology and General Surgery, Princess Margaret Hospital and University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Lee Malcomson
- Manchester Cancer Research Centre and NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Division of Cancer Sciences, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK; Colorectal and Peritoneal Oncology Centre, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
| | - Joie Ensor
- Centre for Prognosis Research, Research Institute for Primary Care and Health Sciences, Keele University, Staffordshire, UK
| | - Richard D Riley
- Centre for Prognosis Research, Research Institute for Primary Care and Health Sciences, Keele University, Staffordshire, UK
| | - Carlos A Vaccaro
- Servicio Cirugia General, Sector de Coloproctologia, Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina
| | - Gustavo L Rossi
- Servicio Cirugia General, Sector de Coloproctologia, Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina
| | - Ian R Daniels
- Exeter Colorectal Unit, and Exeter Surgical Health Sciences Research Unit (HESRU), Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust, Exeter, Devon, UK
| | - Neil J Smart
- Exeter Colorectal Unit, and Exeter Surgical Health Sciences Research Unit (HESRU), Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust, Exeter, Devon, UK
| | - Melanie E Osborne
- Exeter Colorectal Unit, and Exeter Surgical Health Sciences Research Unit (HESRU), Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust, Exeter, Devon, UK
| | - Geerard L Beets
- Department of Surgery, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands; GROW, School of Oncology and Developmental Biology, University of Maastricht, Maastricht, Netherlands
| | - Monique Maas
- Department of Radiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | | | - Kevin Du
- Department of Radiation Oncology, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, NY, USA
| | | | | | - Fraser M Smith
- Royal Liverpool Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK
| | - Mark P Saunders
- Department of Clinical Oncology, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
| | - Nigel Scott
- Royal Preston NHS Foundation Trust, Preston, UK
| | - Sarah T O'Dwyer
- Colorectal and Peritoneal Oncology Centre, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
| | - Rodrigo Otavio de Castro Araujo
- Department of Abdominal and Pelvic Surgery, Instituto Nacional de Câncer José Alencar Gomes da Silva (INCA), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
| | - Marcus Valadao
- Department of Abdominal and Pelvic Surgery, Instituto Nacional de Câncer José Alencar Gomes da Silva (INCA), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
| | - Alberto Lopes
- Department of Abdominal and Pelvic Surgery, Instituto Nacional de Câncer José Alencar Gomes da Silva (INCA), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
| | - Cheng-Wen Hsiao
- Division of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Department of Surgery, Tri-Service General Hospital, National Defense Medical Center, Taipei, Taiwan, China
| | - Chien-Liang Lai
- Division of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Department of Surgery, Tri-Service General Hospital, National Defense Medical Center, Taipei, Taiwan, China
| | - Radhika K Smith
- Department of Surgery, Philadelphia VA Medical Center, and Division of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Emily Carter Paulson
- Department of Surgery, Philadelphia VA Medical Center, and Division of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Ane Appelt
- Danish Colorectal Cancer Center South, Vejle Hospital, Vejle, Denmark; Leeds Cancer Centre, St James's University Hospital, and Leeds Institute of Cancer and Pathology, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Anders Jakobsen
- Danish Colorectal Cancer Center South, Vejle Hospital, Vejle, Denmark
| | - Steven D Wexner
- Department of Colorectal Surgery, Cleveland Clinic Florida, Weston, FL, USA
| | | | - Guilherme Sao Julião
- Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, Molecular Biology and Genomics Lab, São Paulo, Brazil
| | - Rodiguo Perez
- Instituto Angelita e Joaquim Gama, São Paulo, Brazil; Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, Molecular Biology and Genomics Lab, São Paulo, Brazil
| | - Andrew G Renehan
- Colorectal and Peritoneal Oncology Centre, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK; Centre for Prognosis Research, Research Institute for Primary Care and Health Sciences, Keele University, Staffordshire, UK.
| |
Collapse
|