A prospective randomized study of follow-up after radical surgery for colorectal cancer

Published randomized controlled trials of surveillance in cancer patients - a systematic review

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.

Risk Stratification Based on Synchronous Neoplasia and Clinical Physicochemical Characteristics Predicts a Higher Incidence of Metachronous Advanced Neoplasia in Patients Undergoing Colorectal Resection for Colorectal Cancer

Purpose

Patients who undergo primary colorectal cancer (CRC) resection remain at increased risk for metachronous advanced neoplasia (MAN) in the remnant colorectum. This study aimed to investigate the incidence and clinicopathological characteristics predictive of MAN development in the residual colon after surgery.

Patients and Methods

We retrospectively reviewed 450 primary CRC cases referred to our hospital during a 4-year period. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify risk factors for MAN. The cumulative incidence of MAN was evaluated by the Cox proportional hazards model.

Results

MAN development was confirmed in 78 of the 450 patients (17.3%). Overall 1-, 2-, 3-, and 5-year cumulative probabilities were 0.9%, 4.8%, 9.8%, and 16.1%, respectively, for MAN. Among the clinical and colonoscopic factors at baseline, the independent factors that were significantly associated with MAN were synchronous neoplasia, carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) level ≥10.0 ng/mL, and index cancer size ≥50 mm. The cumulative probability of MAN was significantly higher for patients with synchronous advanced neoplasia (SAN) than for those without synchronous neoplasia (P = 0.000). A subgroup analysis of patients based on the CEA level and index cancer size indicated that CEA ≥10 ng/mL and index cancer ≥50 mm resulted in a significantly higher cumulative probability of MAN (P = 0.039).

Conclusion

Patients with SAN or high preoperative serum CEA levels and large index cancer are at increased risk for early-onset MAN. More intensive surveillance strategies may be appropriate for these groups. Risk stratification based on synchronous neoplasia and clinical physicochemical characteristics requires further investigations involving modified appropriate postoperative colonoscopic surveillance schedules.

Virtual Colorectal Cancer Surveillance: Bringing Scope Rate to Target

BACKGROUND

Although endoscopy is recommended at 1 year after colorectal cancer (CRC) resection to detect locally recurrent CRC, earlier work at our Veterans Affairs (VA) facility demonstrated that 35% of patients achieve this metric.

STUDY DESIGN

The interdisciplinary team used quality improvement methods to standardize processes and implement a gastroenterology-managed virtual surveillance clinic. The intervention clinic was implemented in August 2014. Veterans who underwent resection for stage I to III CRC at a single VA facility from January 2010 to December 2017 were included, with those undergoing resection between January 2010 and July 2014 considered pre-intervention and those undergoing resection between August 2014 and December 2017 considered post-intervention. The primary endpoint was the proportion of eligible patients for whom endoscopy was completed within 1 year of resection. Secondary outcomes were the proportion of patients who completed endoscopy within 18 months of resection or at any time post-resection and time to surveillance endoscopy.

RESULTS

A total of 186 patients underwent resection for stage I to III CRC from 2010 to 2017; of these, 160 (86%) were eligible for endoscopy at 1-year post-resection (98 pre-intervention and 62 post-intervention). In the pre-intervention period, 30 of 98 patients (30.6%) underwent surveillance endoscopy within 1 year vs 31 of 62 (50.0%) post-intervention (p = 0.031). When evaluated at 18 months after resection, 56 of 98 patients (57.1%) in the pre-intervention group vs 52 of 62 (83.9%) in the post-intervention group underwent surveillance endoscopy (p = 0.001). Median time from resection to endoscopy decreased during the study period, from 1.19 years pre-intervention (interquartile range 0.93 to 1.74 years) to 1.0 years post-intervention (interquartile range 0.93 to 1.09 years) (p = 0.006).

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of a virtual surveillance clinic with standardized processes was associated with increased guideline-concordant endoscopic surveillance after CRC resection.

Follow-up strategies following completion of primary cancer treatment in adult cancer survivors

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.

Intensive follow-up strategies after radical surgery for nonmetastatic colorectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

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.

Optimal Surveillance Frequency After CRS/HIPEC for Appendiceal and Colorectal Neoplasms: A Multi-institutional Analysis of the US HIPEC Collaborative

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.

Colonoscopy Surveillance After Colorectal Cancer: the Optimal Interval for Follow-Up

PURPOSE

Patients who have undergone curative surgery for colorectal cancer are at risk of developing a metachronous colorectal tumour or anastomotic recurrence. The aim of this study was to determine the incidence of recurrent colorectal cancer in a cohort of patients who participated in a colonoscopy surveillance programme.

METHODS

This single-centre retrospective observational cohort study included patients who underwent curative surgery for colorectal cancer between 2005 and 2015. All reports of postoperative colonoscopies were retrieved to calculate the incidence rates of recurrence and metachronous colorectal cancer.

RESULTS

Of 2420 patients, 1644 (67.9%) underwent at least one postoperative colonoscopy and 776 (32.1%) did not. In 1087 patients, colonoscopy was performed in the first 18 months after surgery, which detected 34 (3.1%) instances of metachronous colorectal tumours or anastomotic recurrence. Thirty-three additional patients were also diagnosed with recurrent colorectal cancer, but the tumours were detected by other diagnostic modalities or detected perioperatively, rather than by colonoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with a history of colorectal cancer have an increased risk for a second colorectal tumour. Therefore, we recommend a colonoscopic surveillance programme with the first colonoscopy performed 1 year after curative surgery, which is in accordance with national guidelines.

Role of surveillance imaging and endoscopy in colorectal cancer follow-up: Quality over quantity?

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a prevalent disease and represents a major cause of morbidity and mortality in the developed world. Intensive post-treatment surveillance is routinely recommended by major expert groups for early stage (II and III) CRC survivors because previous meta-analyses showed a modest, but significant survival benefit. This practice has been recently challenged based on data emerging from several large phase III randomized trials that demonstrated a lack of survival benefit from intensive surveillance strategies. In addition, findings from cost-effectiveness analyses of such an approach are inconsistent. Data on real-world practice, specifically adherence to these follow-up guidelines, are also limited. The debate is especially controversial in resected stage IV patients where there are currently no clear guidelines for follow-up. In an era of personalized medicine, there may be a shift towards a more risk-adapted approach to better define the optimal follow-up strategy. In this article, we review the evidence and highlight the role of surveillance in CRC survivors.

Sites of Recurrence After Complete Cytoreduction and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy for Patients with Peritoneal Carcinomatosis from Colorectal and Appendiceal Adenocarcinoma: A Tertiary Center Experience

BACKGROUND

This report describes patterns of disease recurrence after optimal cytoreduction (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) for peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) of colorectal (CRC) and appendiceal adenocarcinoma (AC) origin.

METHODS

Patients undergoing optimal CRS/HIPEC (2007-2016) at the authors' institution were retrospectively reviewed from a prospectively maintained database. Data regarding disease recurrence were analyzed.

RESULTS

Of 74 patients who underwent CRS/HIPEC for PC from CRC (n = 46) or AC (n = 28), 49 (66%) had recurrence during a median follow-up period of 39.5 months. The sites of recurrence were peritoneal-only (n = 34, 69%), hematogenous-only (n = 6, 12%), and combined peritoneal and hematogenous (n = 9, 19%) sites. No patients with AC had hematogenous-only recurrence. The median disease-free survival (DFS) time for all the patients was 15 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 12.5-17.5 months). The recurrence rate after CRS/HIPEC was 41% at 1 year, 73% at 3 years, and 76% at 5 years. All the patients with hematogenous-only metastases experienced recurrence within 12 months after CRS/HIPEC. Mucinous or signet ring features predicted peritoneal recurrence (p = 0.041), whereas a complete cytoreduction of 1 was a predictor of early recurrence (p = 0.040). Patients who underwent repeat cytoreduction survived longer than those who received systemic chemotherapy alone. The median survival time after peritoneal-only recurrence was 33 months (95% CI 27.8-38.9 months).

CONCLUSION

Recurrence for patients with PC is common, even after optimal CRS/HIPEC. Hematogenous-only recurrence occurs early after CRS/HIPEC, suggesting occult disease at the time of treatment and highlighting the need for methods to identify micro-metastases and improve patient selection. Patients experiencing peritoneal-only recurrence had long survival period after CRS/HIPEC, suggesting its effectiveness at controlling peritoneal disease for a time.

Adherence to postresection colorectal cancer surveillance at National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers

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.

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

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.

Colorectal Cancer: Postoperative Follow-up and Surveillance

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.

Patterns of computed tomography surveillance in survivors of colorectal cancer at Veterans Health Administration facilities

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.

LncRNA NEAT1 Impacts Cell Proliferation and Apoptosis of Colorectal Cancer via Regulation of Akt Signaling

Long noncoding RNA (lncRNA) have been reported to modulate oncogenesis and be used to be target for tumor. The role of lncRNA NEAT1 (nuclear paraspeckle assembly transcript 1, Gene ID: 283131) in colorectal cancer (CRC) keeps unknown. This work was to investigate the pattern of lncRNA NEAT1 (NEAT1) expression in CRC and its functional value and biological significance. NEAT1 expression was analyzed in 56 cancer tissues and cell lines in CRC cases. Results showed that NEAT1 was significantly overexpressed in CRC cells and tissues. Clinicpathologic detection verified that high NEAT1 expression associated with bulk in CRC. The serum contents of NEAT1 were observably elevated comparing with healthy cases (P < 0.05). The levels of NEAT1 were elevated in distinguishing CRC from normal (ROC^AUC = 0.9471; P < 0.01). Moreover, Kaplan-Meier analysis found that NEAT1 elevation led to adverse survival (P < 0.05). Further experiments illustrated that of NEAT1 knockdown signally inhibited growth and facilitated apoptosis. Importantly, we confirmed that Akt signaling pathway was inactivated after loss of NEAT1 in CRC. Taken together, this work support the first evidence that NEAT1 can be used to be a promising biomarker and target for novel treatment for human CRC.

Follow-up strategies for patients treated for non-metastatic colorectal cancer

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.

Staple-line recurrence arising 10 years after functional end-to-end anastomosis for colon cancer: a case report

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.

Intensive surveillance following curative treatment of colorectal cancer allows effective treatment of recurrence even if limited to 4 years

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.

Clinical follow-up does not improve survival after resection of stage I-III colorectal cancer: A cohort study

INTRODUCTION

The benefit of clinical follow-up alongside CT & CEA in detecting recurrent colorectal cancer (CRC) remains unclear. Despite this, clinical review remains part of most surveillance protocols. This study assessed the efficacy of clinical follow-up in addition to CT/CEA in detecting disease recurrence.

METHODS

Patients undergoing surgery for CRC at a single centre between 2009 and 2011 were identified. Follow-up included clinical review, CT and CEA for 5 years. The primary endpoint of the study was method of detection of recurrence. Secondary endpoints included detection of surgically treatable recurrence, compliance with follow-up, disease free survival and overall survival.

RESULTS

118 patients with stage I-III CRC were included. Only 68.9% of scheduled follow-up events were performed (76.6% clinical reviews, 76.2% CT scans and 60.4% CEA tests). At median follow-up of 36 months, 26 patients had developed recurrence (median DFS 45.8 months). 17 patients (14.7%) had died (median OS 49.3 months). Sensitivity and specificity of follow up modality in detecting recurrence were; CT (92.3%, 100%), CEA (57.7%, 100%), clinical review (23.0%, 27.2%). Addition of clinical review did not identify any disease recurrence that was not detected by scheduled CT. Eight patients (30.7%) had surgically treatable recurrence - all were identified by scheduled CT.

CONCLUSION

The addition of CEA testing and clinical review to scheduled CT scanning offered no benefit in the detection of recurrent disease. Clinical review could be removed from follow-up protocols without any reduction in the detection of recurrent cancer.

Effectiveness of adjuvant radiotherapy after local excision of rectal cancer with deep submucosal invasion: a single-hospital, case-control analysis

BACKGROUND

The role of postoperative radiation therapy (RT) after local excision (LE) of deep submucosal invasive rectal cancer remains unclear. We evaluated the efficacy of adjuvant RT after LE of early rectal cancer with deep submucosal invasion.

METHODS

We screened 227 patients who underwent transanal excision or endoscopic removal of deep submucosal invasive rectal cancer between 1992 and 2012, of which 66 did not undergo radical surgery owing to the patient's preference or poor medical conditions. Of these, 35 (53 %) underwent LE alone (LE group) and 31 (47 %) received adjuvant RT after LE (LE + RT group). Nine patients in the RT group received concurrent adjuvant chemotherapy with 5-fluorouracil. Two independent pathologists reviewed histological data.

RESULTS

The mean age of patients in the LE + RT and LE groups was 59.5 ± 9.6 and 55.3 ± 11.2 years, respectively. The mean follow-up duration was 78.7 ± 66.7 months in the LE + RT group and 70.5 ± 45.7 months in the LE group. Cancer eventually recurred in six patients (9.1 %; two in the LE + RT group and four in the LE group). In five of these patients, recurrence occurred within 4 years after the initial treatment. The other patient, who was in the LE group, exhibited multiple lymph node metastases at the 116-month follow-up. Kaplan-Meier estimates of recurrence-free survival at 5 years after treatment were 96.8 % in the LE + RT group and 97 % in the LE group (P = 0.657).

CONCLUSION

RT after LE of early rectal cancer with deep submucosal invasion might not improve recurrence-free survival compared with LE alone.

Long-term follow-up for melanoma patients: is there any evidence of a benefit?

As the incidence of melanoma and the number of melanoma survivors continues to rise, optimal surveillance strategies are needed that balance the risks and benefits of screening in the context of contemporary resource use. Detection of recurrences has important implications for clinical management. Most current surveillance recommendations for melanoma survivors are based on low-level evidence with wide variations in practice patterns and an unknown clinical impact for the melanoma survivor.

A simulation model of colorectal cancer surveillance and recurrence

Background

Approximately one-third of those treated curatively for colorectal cancer (CRC) will experience recurrence. No evidence-based consensus exists on how best to follow patients after initial treatment to detect asymptomatic recurrence. Here, a new approach for simulating surveillance and recurrence among CRC survivors is outlined, and development and calibration of a simple model applying this approach is described. The model’s ability to predict outcomes for a group of patients under a specified surveillance strategy is validated.

Methods

We developed an individual-based simulation model consisting of two interacting submodels: a continuous-time disease-progression submodel overlain by a discrete-time Markov submodel of surveillance and re-treatment. In the former, some patients develops recurrent disease which probabilistically progresses from detectability to unresectability, and which may produce early symptoms leading to detection independent of surveillance testing. In the latter submodel, patients undergo user-specified surveillance testing regimens. Parameters describing disease progression were preliminarily estimated through calibration to match five-year disease-free survival, overall survival at years 1–5, and proportion of recurring patients undergoing curative salvage surgery from one arm of a published randomized trial. The calibrated model was validated by examining its ability to predict these same outcomes for patients in a different arm of the same trial undergoing less aggressive surveillance.

Results

Calibrated parameter values were consistent with generally observed recurrence patterns. Sensitivity analysis suggested probability of curative salvage surgery was most influenced by sensitivity of carcinoembryonic antigen assay and of clinical interview/examination (i.e. scheduled provider visits). In validation, the model accurately predicted overall survival (59% predicted, 58% observed) and five-year disease-free survival (55% predicted, 53% observed), but was less accurate in predicting curative salvage surgery (10% predicted; 6% observed).

Conclusions

Initial validation suggests the feasibility of this approach to modeling alternative surveillance regimens among CRC survivors. Further calibration to individual-level patient data could yield a model useful for predicting outcomes of specific surveillance strategies for risk-based subgroups or for individuals. This approach could be applied toward developing novel, tailored strategies for further clinical study. It has the potential to produce insights which will promote more effective surveillance—leading to higher cure rates for recurrent CRC.

Measuring ERCC1 protein expression in cancer specimens: validation of a novel antibody

Platinum chemotherapy remains part of standard therapies in the management of a variety of cancers. Severe side effects and a high degree of resistance to platinum drugs have led numerous researchers to search for predictive biomarkers, which could aid in identifying patients that are the most likely to respond to therapy. The ERCC1-ERCC4 endonuclease plays a critical role in the repair of platinum-DNA damage and has widely been studied in relation to sensitivity to platinum chemotherapy. The standard method to evaluate ERCC1 protein expression is through the use of immunohistochemistry with monoclonal antibody 8F1, an antibody that was recently found to bind an unrelated protein. The present study determines the specificity of a novel antibody, monoclonal antibody 4F9, and presents a method to evaluate ERCC1 expression in colorectal tumor specimens. Using relevant cell lines as controls, the specificity of antibody 4F9 was tested by immunoblotting, immunohistochemistry and immunofluorescence. Scoring guidelines to aid in the evaluation of ERCC1 tumor expression were developed and evaluated in archival formalin-fixed paraffin embedded colorectal cancer specimens. Antibody 4F9 was found to be specific by all methods applied and it was possible to evaluate the ERCC1 expression in the majority (85%) of colorectal cancer tumor specimens.

Colorectal cancer surveillance: what's new and what's next

The accumulated evidence from two decades of randomized controlled trials has not yet resolved the question of how best to monitor colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors for early detection of recurrent and metachronous disease or even whether doing so has its intended effect. A new wave of trial data in the coming years and an evolving knowledge of relevant biomarkers may bring us closer to understanding what surveillance strategies are most effective for a given subset of patients. To best apply these insights, a number of important research questions need to be addressed, and new decision making tools must be developed. In this review, we summarize available randomized controlled trial evidence comparing alternative surveillance testing strategies, describe ongoing trials in the area, and compare professional society recommendations for surveillance. In addition, we discuss innovations relevant to CRC surveillance and outline a research agenda which will inform a more risk-stratified and personalized approach to follow-up.

Early stage colon cancer

Evidence has now accumulated that colonoscopy and removal of polyps, especially during screening and surveillance programs, is effective in overall risk reduction for colon cancer. After resection of malignant pedunculated colon polyps or early stage colon cancers, long-term repeated surveillance programs can also lead to detection and removal of asymptomatic high risk advanced adenomas and new early stage metachronous cancers. Early stage colon cancer can be defined as disease that appears to have been completely resected with no subsequent evidence of involvement of adjacent organs, lymph nodes or distant sites. This differs from the clinical setting of an apparent “curative” resection later pathologically upstaged following detection of malignant cells extending into adjacent organs, peritoneum, lymph nodes or other distant sites, including liver. This highly selected early stage colon cancer group remains at high risk for subsequent colon polyps and metachronous colon cancer. Precise staging is important, not only for assessing the need for adjuvant chemotherapy, but also for patient selection for continued surveillance. With advanced stages of colon cancer and a more guarded outlook, repeated surveillance should be limited. In future, novel imaging technologies (e.g., confocal endomicroscopy), coupled with increased pathological recognition of high risk markers for lymph node involvement (e.g., “tumor budding”) should lead to improved staging and clinical care.

Follow-up after curative resection of colorectal cancer

Of the 13.7 million cancer survivors living in the United States as of January 2012, 1.2 million, or 9 %, were colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors. Determining an optimal surveillance for CRC survivors is necessary because of the significant burden follow-up poses to patients, physicians, and the health care system. Currently, there is no consensus regarding optimal follow-up in CRC patients. Current literature and published guidelines related to CRC follow-up were reviewed to examine the evidence for the surveillance strategies and specific tools demonstrated to improve outcome after curative CRC resection. An intensive surveillance strategy results in increased identification of recurrences amenable to curative resection but does not result in reduced overall or CRC-specific mortality. Patients most likely to benefit from surveillance include younger patients, those with earlier tumors, locoregional recurrences, longer time to recurrence, lower carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) levels before reoperation, and those with isolated recurrence. Complete resection of recurrence is the only factor consistently associated with improved survival. CEA, colonoscopy, and liver-focused imaging surveillance appear to have the greatest impact on mortality after curative CRC resection. A CRC surveillance strategy is recommended that includes tumor risk stratification, that provides a focus on identifying recurrences amenable to complete resection, and that utilizes those modalities demonstrated to be most effective at improving outcome after CRC resection.

Post-treatment surveillance of patients with colorectal cancer with surgically treated liver metastases

BACKGROUND

Little is known about current surveillance patterns after treatment of colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM) or whether the intensity of surveillance correlates with outcome. We sought to define current population-based patterns of surveillance and investigate whether intensity of surveillance impacted outcome.

METHODS

We queried the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-linked Medicare database for patients with CRLM diagnosed between 1991 and 2005 who underwent liver resection and/or tumor ablation. Frequency of post-treatment abdominal computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), or positron emission tomography (PET) was recorded for ≤ 5 years after treatment. The association between frequency of imaging with secondary interventions and long-term survival were analyzed.

RESULTS

We identified 1,739 patients with CRLM treated with surgery; median age was 73 years, and the majority were male (52.6%). CRLM treatment consisted of liver resection (61%), ablation (32%), or both simultaneously (6%). CT (97%) was utilized more often for post-treatment surveillance compared with MRI (7%) and PET (18%). A temporal trend was noted with more frequent surveillance imaging obtained in post-treatment year 1 (2.4 scans/year) versus year 5 (0.6 scans/year; P = .01); 66% of living patients had no imaging after 2 years. Frequency of surveillance imaging correlated with procedure type (total number of scans/5 years: resection, 5.0; ablation, 4.6; resection and ablation, 6.2; P = .01). Other factors associated with a greater frequency of surveillance included younger age at diagnosis, geographic location in the South, and CRLM directed surgery in 2000 through 2005 (all P < .05). Overall survival did not differ by intensity of surveillance imaging (3-4 scans/yr, 43 months vs 2 scans/yr, 57 months vs 1 scan/yr, 54 months; P = .08).

CONCLUSION

Marked heterogeneity exists in how often surveillance imaging is obtained after treatment of CRLM. Intensity of imaging does not affect time to second procedure or median survival duration. Surveillance guidelines for CRLM need to be refocused to provide the best value for healthcare resources.

Trends and patterns of utilization in post-treatment surveillance imaging among patients treated for hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Little is known about the patterns of utilization of surveillance imaging after treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We sought to define population-based patterns of surveillance and investigate if intensity of surveillance impacted outcome following HCC treatment.

METHODS

The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database was used to identify patients with HCC diagnosed between 1998 and 2007 who underwent resection, ablation, or intra-arterial therapy (IAT). The association between imaging frequency and long-term survival was analyzed.

RESULTS

Of the 1,467 patients, most underwent ablation only (41.5%), while fewer underwent liver resection only (29.6 %) or IAT only (18.3%). Most patients had at least one CT scan (92.7%) during follow-up, while fewer had an MRI (34.1%). A temporal trend was noted with more frequent surveillance imaging obtained in post-treatment year 1 (2.5 scans/year) vs. year 5 (0.9 scans/year; P = 0.01); 34.5% of alive patients had no imaging after 2 years. Frequency of surveillance imaging correlated with procedure type (total number of scans/5 years, resection, 4.7; ablation, 4.9; IAT, 3.7; P < 0.001). Frequency of surveillance imaging was not associated with a survival benefit (three to four scans/year, 49.5 months vs. two scans/year, 71.7 months vs. one scan/year, 67.6 months; P = 0.01) CONCLUSION: Marked heterogeneity exists in how often surveillance imaging is obtained following treatment of HCC. Higher intensity imaging does not confer a survival benefit.

Current and emerging surveillance strategies to expand the window of opportunity for curative treatment after surgery in colorectal cancer

Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer globally. At diagnosis, more than 70% of patients have nonmetastatic disease. Cure rates for early-stage colorectal cancer have improved with primary screening, improvements in surgical techniques and advances in adjuvant chemotherapy. Despite optimal primary treatment, 30-50% of these patients will still relapse. While death will result from widespread metastatic disease, patients with small volume oligometastatic disease are still considered curable with aggressive multimodality therapy. Hence, early detection of relapsed cancer when it is still amenable to resection expands the window of opportunity for cure. Here, the authors review the modalities currently employed in clinical practice and the evidence supporting intensive surveillance strategies. The authors also discuss ongoing clinical trials examining specific surveillance programs and emerging modalities that may be deployed in the future for early detection of metastatic disease.

Changing trends in the presentation of colorectal liver metastases in a single hepatobiliary tertiary referral centre over fourteen years

AIM

National Institute for Clinical Excellence guidelines suggest that patients who have undergone potentially curative treatment for colorectal cancer (CRC) should be followed up for 3 years. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the time to presentation with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) has changed over time. This information, which is currently unknown, may inform future decisions regarding follow-up.

METHODS

Patients presenting with metachronous isolated liver metastases between 1997 and 2011 were included. Timings of presentation with CRLM, rates of liver resection, survival data and factors associated with delayed presentation were investigated.

RESULTS

269 patients were included in the study. Those having their primary CRC resection between 1997 and 2007 presented earlier with liver metastases over time (r = -0.33, 95% CI -0.45 to -0.20). However, 26% of patients who developed CRLM did so beyond 3 years. There was no significant difference in rates of liver resections for those presenting within, or beyond, 3 years (p = 0.21). There was no significant difference in survival for those presenting with resectable CRLM within, or beyond, 3 years (Exp(b) = 0.60, 95% CI 0.28-1.28). No factors associated with late presentation were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that CRC follow-up should be extended to 5 years. Follow-up interventions should be more frequent in the early stages reflecting the trend towards earlier presentation with CRLM. The economic implications of extending follow-up compare favourably to other NHS funded initiatives.

Early recurrence in patients undergoing curative surgery for colorectal cancer: is it a predictor for poor overall survival?

PURPOSE

This study evaluated the prognostic value of early recurrence in patients who have undergone curative resection for colorectal cancer.

METHODS

A total of 1,159 consecutive patients who underwent curative resection for non-metastatic colorectal cancer from December 1998 to December 2007 were reviewed. The predictive factors for early recurrence postoperatively and the prognostic factors were analyzed.

RESULTS

Of the 1,159 patients, postoperative recurrence was identified in 280 (24.1%) patients, and 96 (34.3%) of the 280 patients with recurrence were designed as early recurrence (less than 1 year postoperatively). In multivariate analysis, tumor location, tumor diameter, number of retrieved lymph nodes, and lymphovascular invasion were the independent predictors for early recurrence. The early recurrence group had a significantly lower overall survival rate than that of the non-early recurrence group for both colon cancer (P < 0.001) and rectal cancer (P < 0.001). The overall survival rate for stage III tumors significantly differed between the early and non-early recurred patients (P < 0.001), whereas the rate did not differ between the patients with stage II tumors (P = 0.364). In multivariate analysis, early recurrence was an independent predictor for unfavorable overall survival. Moreover, differentiation, N category, and postoperative chemotherapy were the independent predictors for overall survival for the patients with both early and overall recurrence.

CONCLUSION

Poor survival was associated with early postoperative recurrence for patients who underwent curative resection for colorectal cancer. The use of adjuvant chemotherapy prolonged the survival of patients, irrespective of the interval of recurrence.

Metachronous adenoma on ileorectal anastomosis suture line and submucosal deep invasive cancer suspected of rapid growth in rectal remnant following long-term interval after curative surgery for advanced colon cancer

There is general agreement as to the value of postoperative surveillance and the effectiveness of colonoscopy in the early detection of metachronous colorectal lesions. In the present case, a 56-year-old woman with no family history of colon cancer underwent surveillance colonoscopy in which a metachronous flat adenoma was detected following an interval of 23 years after a colectomy and 20 years subsequent to treatment for uterine cancer. A second metachronous flat lesion histopathologically determined to be a submucosal (sm) deep invasive cancer with lymphovascular involvement was detected 12 months later. This second metachronous lesion was suspected of having developed rapidly in the rectal remnant accounting for its sm deep invasion. The findings of this case suggest colonoscopy surveillance guidelines proposed for individuals at high risk should be evaluated based on cancer history and an analysis of possible mismatch repair gene mutations. In addition, the first metachronous lesion was located directly on the suture line of the anastomosis. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) was indicated despite severe fibrosis into the sm layer. This case also demonstrates the successful use of improved ESD instruments, sm injection agents and technique refinements in the treatment of a technically difficult lesion with a high risk of complications.

Population-based longitudinal study of follow-up care for patients with colorectal cancer in Nova Scotia

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to examine colorectal cancer (CRC) follow-up care in Nova Scotia, Canada. More specifically, the objectives were to describe adherence to two elements of follow-up guidelines (colonoscopies and physician visits) and to identify factors associated with receiving at least guideline-recommended care.

METHODS

All patients with stage II or III CRC undergoing curative-intent surgery in Nova Scotia, Canada, were identified through the provincial cancer registry and anonymously linked to additional administrative health databases. For a 3-year follow-up period, beginning 1 year after the diagnosis date, descriptive statistics were calculated for physician visits and colonoscopies. Factors associated with receiving at least guideline-recommended care were identified using logistic regression.

RESULTS

Most patients received follow-up care from multiple physician specialties. In year 3, 58.1% of patients received oncologist follow-up care. Guideline adherence for colonoscopies was 52.4%, whereas guideline adherence for physician visits decreased from 41.9% to 25.4%. Receipt of at least guideline-recommended care was inversely associated with age and comorbidity for colonoscopy and inversely associated with age for physician visits.

CONCLUSION

Receipt of follow-up care from oncologists and primary care physicians, prolonged oncologist care, and receipt of care inconsistent with guideline recommendations suggest there may be potential issues with inefficient use of cancer system resources and integration of guidelines into follow-up care practices in Nova Scotia. Transitioning routine follow-up to primary care could potentially increase guideline adherence by improving access to and continuity of care. CRC may be well suited to targeted knowledge translation strategies to improve guideline adherence.

Intensive screening for resected stage II and III colorectal cancer

SUMMARY Disease recurrence continues to be a major cause of death in patients with resected stage II and III colorectal cancer. Distant and local relapses, unless successfully treated surgically, result in patient demise within 5 years in approximately 90% of patients. By contrast, patients who undergo curative-intent surgery and enter surgical remission experience 40–50% 5-year survival. Effective surveillance strategies are needed to improve the rate of colorectal cancer recurrence detection and maximize the chances of curative resections. In this article, we review the strength and shortfalls of the supportive data for intensive surveillance and reflect on the recommendations of various medical associations.

Surveillance after colorectal cancer resection: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Surveillance programs are widely accepted as an integral part of the treatment plan provided to patients after surgical treatment of colorectal cancer. Despite an enormous amount of research performed regarding these programs, there is still uncertainty regarding what is appropriate surveillance.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to systematically review recent literature regarding outcomes achieved with different types of surveillance programs for patients with surgically treated colorectal cancer.

DATA SOURCES

A search of the PubMed database was performed to identify studies published in the English language between January 2000 and January 2010.

STUDY SELECTION

We included 2 types of studies in our systematic review: first, comparative studies where 2 or more surveillance strategies were applied and outcomes compared; second, single-cohort studies where the outcomes of a single surveillance strategy were reported.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Cancer-related outcomes included survival, recurrence detection rate, and the ability of a recurrence to be resected with curative intent.

RESULTS

Our review found 15 studies meeting our inclusion criteria. Of these, 9 were comparative (4 randomized trials) and 6 were single-cohort studies. One study reported a better survival rate among patients who received more intensive follow-up. The vast majority of recurrences occurred within 3 years.

LIMITATIONS

Our review found that the recent literature regarding the efficacy of surveillance is inconclusive, largely because of the small sample sizes and the heterogeneity in the surveillance programs and outcomes reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Future randomized trials need to focus on larger sample sizes, and experimental designs should isolate specific elements of surveillance to better understand how each element contributes to improvements in patient outcomes. Risk stratification and duration of surveillance are key elements of surveillance strategies that also deserve focused investigation.

Initial experience with transanal endoscopic microsurgery: the need for understanding the limitations

INTRODUCTION

Transanal endoscopic microsurgery is an alternative to transanal excision or radical surgery for benign and carefully selected malignant rectal tumors. Advantages over transanal excision include better visualization, access to more proximal lesions, higher likelihood of negative margins, and lower recurrence rates. Compared to radical resection, patients experience lower rates of morbidity and mortality but may have higher rates of local recurrence.

METHODS

A review of a prospectively maintained database of patients scheduled for transanal endoscopic microsurgery was performed.

RESULTS

Ninety-three patients underwent 96 procedures for 13 carcinoid tumors, 1 submucosal mass, 46 adenomas, 12 in situ adenocarcinomas, and 21 invasive adenocarcinomas. Of these cases, 81.2% was successfully completed. There were nine complications (11.5%). Final pathology demonstrated 33 in situ and invasive adenocarcinomas. The mean follow-up was 25.9 months. The four recurrences (12.1%) occurred in: one tubulovillous adenoma, two in situ carcinomas, and one T2 lesion.

CONCLUSIONS

Transanal endoscopic microsurgery is appropriate for benign lesions such as carcinoid tumors and adenomas and can also be curative in carefully selected patients with early-stage invasive rectal cancer. In cases of invasive adenocarcinoma, it should be reserved for low-risk cancers in patients who accept the possible increased risk of recurrence.

The follow-up after radical surgery of colorectal cancer: is it time for a "tailored" strategy?

The problem of the surveillance for colorectal cancer after radical surgery is a widely debated argument. Like for other solid tumors, the issue is divided in 2 main routes: the early diagnosis of recurrence and the early diagnosis of a second primary cancer. Genetic and molecular features have been recognized as useful tools to measure these risks, however, the instruments are still insufficient to design a personalized strategy for the patient. In an era of "tailored therapies" in oncology, even the follow-up of the surgically treated patient for colorectal cancer should enter "a tailor's shop in which several competent tailors" should be available to manage a complex problem.

Follow-up routines in gynecological cancer - time for a change?

OBJECTIVE

To determine current practice of follow-up of Norwegian gynecological cancer patients, and to review available randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in gynecologic, breast and colorectal cancer patients in order to discuss whether such studies are feasible in gynecological cancer patients.

DESIGN

A combined questionnaire study and a systematic review of RCTs in follow-up of gynecological, breast, and colorectal cancers.

POPULATION

Gynecological, breast, and colorectal cancer patients.

METHODS

A questionnaire regarding follow-up routines was mailed to 31 gynecological departments in Norway. A systematic search on MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library databases was conducted to identify RCTs in follow-up of breast, colorectal, and gynecological cancers.

RESULTS

The questionnaire study showed that the number of controls varied from eight to 16 during the first five years' post-treatment. Routine investigations such as chest X-ray and cytology were frequently used in endometrial and cervical cancer. All departments used CA-125 in follow-up of ovarian cancer patients. Reviewing the literature, 19 RCTs of varying methodological quality were identified for colorectal and breast cancers, and none for gynecologic cancer. Different follow-up models were compared, and most studies concluded that there were no significant differences in the detection of recurrence, overall survival, and quality of life between the studied groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Follow-up routines after gynecological cancer vary in Norway. The optimal approach is unknown and RCTs comparing follow-up protocols are missing. Studies of breast and colorectal cancer patients show that studies on follow-up strategies are feasible but sufficient sample size and observation time are important.