Trends in surveillance for resected colorectal cancer, 2001-2009

Colonoscopy, imaging, and carcinoembryonic antigen: Comparison of guideline adherence to surveillance strategies in patients who underwent resection of colorectal cancer - A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Almost one-third of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) experience recurrence after resection. Adherence to surveillance guidelines largely dictates efficacy in early detection of recurrence. We sought to assess and compare adherence to postoperative surveillance guidelines for colonoscopy, imaging, and Carcinoembryonic Antigen (CEA).

METHODS

PubMed, Medline, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane, Web of Science, and CINAHL were systematically searched. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed and pooled adherence to each surveillance strategy was assessed for CEA, imaging, and colonoscopy.

RESULTS

Overall 14 studies (55,895 patients) met the inclusion criteria. Adherence to colonoscopy guidelines was the highest (70%, 95%CI 67-73), followed by imaging (63%, 95%CI 47-80), and CEA (54%; 95%CI 42-66). Among 7 (50%) studies that examined adherence to the American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines, compliance with colonoscopy was the highest (73%; 95% CI 70-76), followed by imaging (58%; 95% CI 37-78), and CEA (45%; 95%CI 37-52). Of note, guideline adherence to CEA testing was much lower than colonoscopy among patients with colon (OR 0.21; 95%CI 0.20-0.22) and rectal cancer (OR 0.25; 95%CI 0.23-0.28) (both p < 0.05). This was also noted when compared with imaging recommendations among older patients (OR = 0.62; 95%CI 0.42-0.93) and patients with stage II, (OR = 0.80; 95%CI 0.76-0.84) and stage III disease (OR = 0.88; 95%CI 0.82-0.94) (all p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

While guideline adherence to postoperative surveillance with colonoscopy was high, adherence to CEA testing and imaging surveillance strategies was markedly lower following CRC resection. Future studies should investigate avenues to improve compliance with surveillance guidelines among health care providers and patients to optimize postoperative follow-up for CRC.

A dyadic survey study of partner engagement in and patient receipt of guideline-recommended colorectal cancer surveillance

Background

We investigated whether partner (spouse or intimate partner) engagement in colorectal cancer (CRC) surveillance is associated with patient receipt of surveillance.

Methods

From 2019 to 2020 we surveyed Stage III CRC survivors diagnosed 2014–2018 at an academic cancer center, a community oncology practice and the Georgia SEER registry, and their partners. Partner engagement was measured across 3 domains: Informed about; Involved in; and Aware of patient preferences around surveillance. We evaluated bivariate associations between domains of partner engagement and independent partner variables. Analysis of variance and multivariable logistic regression were used to compare domains of engagement with patient-reported receipt of surveillance.

Results

501 patients responded (51% response rate); 428 had partners. 311 partners responded (73% response rate). Partners were engaged across all domains. Engagement varied by sociodemographics. Greater partner involvement was associated with decreased odds of receipt of composite surveillance (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.48–0.93) and trended towards significance for decreased odds of receipt of endoscopy (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.34–1.03) and CEA (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.55–1.04). Greater partner awareness was associated with increased odds of patients’ receipt of endoscopy (OR 2.18, 95% CI 1.15–4.12) and trended towards significance for increased odds of receipt of composite surveillance (OR 1.30, 95% CI 0.91–2.04).

Conclusion

Partners are engaged (informed, involved, and aware) in CRC surveillance. Future research to develop dyadic interventions that capitalize on the positive aspects of partner engagement may help partners effectively engage in surveillance to improve patient care.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-022-10131-3.

Impact of a Personal Health Record Intervention Upon Surveillance Among Colorectal Cancer Survivors: Feasibility Study

BACKGROUND

There are currently an estimated 1.5 million individuals living in the United States with colorectal cancer (CRC), and although the 5-year survival rate has increased, survivors are at risk for recurrence, particularly within the first 2-3 years after treatment. National guidelines recommend continued surveillance after resection to identify recurrence early on. Adherence among survivors ranges from 23% to 94%. Novel interventions are needed to increase CRC survivors' knowledge and confidence in managing their cancer and thus to increase adherence to follow-up surveillance.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is to develop and test the feasibility and efficacy of a stand-alone, web-based personal health record (PHR) to increase surveillance adherence among CRC survivors, with patient beliefs about surveillance as secondary outcomes.

METHODS

A pre- and postintervention feasibility trial was conducted testing the efficacy of the colorectal cancer survivor (CRCS)-PHR, which had been previously developed using an iterative, user-centered design approach.

RESULTS

The average age of the sample was 58 (SD 9.9) years, with 57% (16/28) male and the majority married (20/28, 71%) and employed full-time (15/28, 54%). We observed a significant increase in adherence to colonoscopy (before: 11/21, 52% vs after: 18/21, 86%; P=.005) and CEA (14/21, 67% vs 20/21, 95%; P=.01), as well as a slight increase in CT scans (14/21, 67% vs 18/21, 86%; P=.10). The only significant impact on secondary outcome (patient beliefs) was benefits of CEA test (P=.04), as most of the beliefs were high at baseline.

CONCLUSIONS

This feasibility study lays the groundwork for continued development of the CRCS-PHR to increase CRC surveillance. Patient-centered technologies, such as the CRCS-PHR, represent an important potential approach to improving the receipt of guideline-concordant care and follow-up surveillance, and not just for CRC survivors. Researchers should continue to develop patient-centered health technologies with clinician implementation in mind to increase patient self-efficacy and surveillance adherence.

Disparities in post-operative surveillance testing for metastatic recurrence among colorectal cancer survivors

PURPOSE

Among colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors, treatment for metastatic recurrence is most effective when malignancies are detected early through surveillance with carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) level test and computer tomography (CT) imaging. However, utilization of these tests is low, and many survivors fail to meet the recommended guidelines. This population-based study assesses individual- and neighborhood-level factors associated with receipt of CEA and CT surveillance testing.

METHODS

We used the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare data to identify Medicare beneficiaries diagnosed with CRC stages II-III between 2010 and 2013. We conducted multivariate logistic regression to estimate the effect of individual and neighborhood factors on receipt of CEA and CT tests within 18 months post-surgery.

RESULTS

Overall, 78% and 58% of CRC survivors received CEA and CT testing, respectively. We found significant within racial/ethnic differences in receipt of these surveillance tests. Medicare-Medicaid dual coverage was associated with 39% lower odds of receipt of CEA tests among non-Hispanic Whites, and Blacks with dual coverage had almost two times the odds of receiving CEA tests compared to Blacks without dual coverage.

CONCLUSIONS

Although this study did not find significant differences in receipt of initial CEA and CT surveillance testing across racial/ethnic groups, the assessment of the factors that measure access to care suggests differences in access to these procedures within racial/ethnic groups.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Our findings have implications for developing targeted interventions focused on promoting surveillance for the early detection of metastatic recurrence among colorectal cancer survivors and improve their health outcomes.

Clinical Significance of and Predictive Risk Factors for the Postoperative Elevation of Carcinoembryonic Antigen in Patients With Non-Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

Background

Recently, a few researches focus on the correlation between postoperative carcinoembryonic antigen (post-CEA) and the outcome of colorectal cancer (CRC), but none investigates the predictive value of post-CEA in a prognostic model. Besides, current recommendations on the frequency of post-CEA surveillance are not individualized and well followed. There is an absence of identification of patients who are more likely to have abnormal post-CEA levels and need more frequent CEA measurements.

Methods

Consecutive CRC patients who underwent curative surgery were enrolled and randomly divided into the discovery (n=352) and testing cohort (n=233). Impacts of preoperative CEA (pre-CEA) and post-CEA on prognosis were assessed. Cox regression model was applied to develop prognostic nomograms, which were validated by the concordance index (C-index), calibration curve, and receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) analysis. And prediction improvement of the nomograms was assessed with net reclassification improvement (NRI) and integrated discrimination improvement (IDI). Logistic regression was used to identify predictive risk factors and construct the prediction model for post-CEA elevation.

Results

Post-CEA independently predicted overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS), while pre-CEA did not. Post-CEA elevation represented higher risks in patients with normal pre-CEA, compared to those with persistent elevated CEA. The nomograms for OS and DFS were established with body mass index, tumor differentiation, N stage, lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio, and post-CEA. The nomograms showed good calibration and superior discrimination than pTNM stage, with the C-index of 0.783 and 0.759 in the discovery set and 0.712 and 0.774 in the testing set for OS and DFS, respectively. Comparisons between models using IDI and NRI implied that the nomograms performed better than pTNM stage and the predictive power could be improved with the addition of post-CEA. The prediction model for post-CEA elevation was established with age, platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio, preoperative CA19-9, and pre-CEA. The AUC of the model in the two cohorts was 0.802 and 0.764, respectively.

Conclusions

Elevated post-CEA was a strong indicator of poor prognosis. The addition of post-CEA significantly enhanced the performance of prognostic nomograms. And the prediction model for post-CEA elevation may help identify patients who ought to reasonably receive more intensive postoperative surveillance of CEA levels.

Stage II/III Rectal Cancer Post-Treatment Surveillance Patterns of Care: A SEER- Medicare Study

Introduction

Despite high rectal cancer recurrence rates, knowledge on post-treatment surveillance utilization is limited. Hence, this study aims to estimate patterns of post-treatment surveillance and determine associated factors.

Patients and Methods

Retrospective study of 1,024 SEER-Medicare patients >65 years old diagnosed with stage II/III rectal cancer between 2007-2013. Logistic regression was used to determine factors associated with ≥1 colonoscopy, ≥2 physician visits, ≥2 carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) tests and ≥2 computed tomographic colonography (CT) within 14 months after primary treatment.

Results

Fifty-five percent had ≥1 colonoscopy, 54% had ≥2 physician visits, 47% had ≥2 CEA tests and 20% had ≥2 CTs. In multivariable logistic models, younger age and receipt of chemoradiation therapy (vs none) were significant across all surveillance procedures while clinical factors such as comorbidity were not. Being married (OR=1.69; 95% CI: 1.26-2.26) and proximity to a high-volume hospital (≤15 vs >30 minutes, OR=1.56; 95% CI: 1.00-2.43) were associated with ≥1 colonoscopy. Female gender (OR=1.56; 95% CI: 1.17-2.09), being married (OR=1.56; 95% CI: 1.17-2.08), white race (OR=1.79; 95% CI: 1.23- 2.62) and surgery from high-volume surgeon (OR=1.47; 95% CI: 1.06-2.04) were associated with ≥2 physician visits. Female gender (OR=1.45; 95% CI: 1.08-1.95), being married (OR=1.46; 95% CI: 1.08-1.96) and surgery from high-volume surgeon (OR=1.55; 95% CI: 1.10-2.17) had higher ≥2 CEA tests.

Conclusions

Post-treatment surveillance remains low but is more common among younger patients and recipients of chemoradiation. Distinct profiles of patient characteristics and provider volume were associated with individual surveillance procedures suggesting the need for multicomponent strategies to increase surveillance.

Follow-up surveillance among colorectal cancer survivors of different sexual orientations

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to examine receipt of follow-up surveillance among sexual minority and heterosexual survivors and identify survivor-, physician-, and practice-level characteristics associated with follow-up surveillance.

METHODS

An average of 3 years after their stage I-III colorectal cancer diagnosis, we recruited survivors from four cancer registries. A questionnaire, which queried about sexual orientation and other eligibility criteria, was mailed to all cancer survivors. Subsequently, 418 eligible survivors without recurrent disease participated in a telephone survey. Colorectal cancer-specific follow-up surveillance was defined as colonoscopy, carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) test, or imaging test. We used logistic regression with forward selection to obtain models that best explained each follow-up test.

RESULTS

About 10% of survivors received no follow-up surveillance, while 70% had colonoscopies. While survivors irrespective of sexual orientation received follow-up surveillance, sexual minority survivors had 3 times the odds of receiving imaging tests compared to heterosexual survivors. Having a designated provider of any specialty was most salient for the receipt of surveillance.

CONCLUSIONS

Sexual minority survivors' greater receipt of imaging tests may indicate providers perceive them at greater risk for recurrence than heterosexual survivors. Future studies need to examine provider behaviors towards monitoring colorectal cancer survivors of diverse sexual orientations.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Guidelines recommend surveillance of colorectal cancer survivors to improve survival. This study showed that having a designated provider for follow-up is most salient for the receipt of surveillance, most survivors receive surveillance, and sexual minority survivors had more imaging tests compared to heterosexual survivors.

Characteristics Associated With Nonreceipt of Surveillance Testing and the Relationship With Survival in Stage II and III Colon Cancer

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.

Partners' engagement in surveillance among survivors of colorectal cancer: A qualitative study

Objectives

Following treatment of Stage III colorectal cancer, guidelines recommend 3–5 years of surveillance for recurrence. However, over half of the 1.2 million U.S. survivors of colorectal cancer fail to receive guideline‐concordant surveillance. In light of growing recognition that members of couples are interdependent and influence each other's health behaviors, we sought to describe, in their own words, the perspectives of spouses/partners on their engagement in patients’ surveillance.

Methods

We conducted in‐person, semi‐structured interviews with 10 survivors of stage III colorectal cancer and their partners, together and separately. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, iteratively coded, and analyzed to identify emergent themes pertaining to partner engagement. Findings were validated through triangulation between study team members and triangulation between dyadic and individual interviews, and through an extensive search of transcripts for disconfirming evidence.

Results

We identified three overarching domains of partner engagement in surveillance. First, psychosocial engagement included promoting patient participation in surveillance, showing care and concern, and attending to partner self‐care. Second, information‐seeking and dyadic communication focused on gathering information, staying informed about test results, and communicating about surveillance. Third, instrumental engagement referred to any explicit, objective activities such as scheduling appointments, attending appointments, and managing responsibilities at home. Participants shared strategies, examples, and in some cases unmet needs.

Conclusions

This study generated new, clinically meaningful knowledge about the ways in which partners engage in patients’ surveillance. Opportunities to leverage partners as informal resources in surveillance include development of dyadic interventions to help partners engage most effectively.

Inequitable access to surveillance colonoscopy among Medicare beneficiaries with surgically resected colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

After colorectal cancer (CRC) surgery, surveillance with colonoscopy is an important step for the early detection of local recurrence. Unfortunately, surveillance colonoscopy is underused, especially among racial/ethnic minorities. This study assesses the association between patient and neighborhood factors and receipt of surveillance colonoscopy.

METHODS

This retrospective, population-based cohort study used Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare linked data (2009-2014). Beneficiaries with surgically resected stage II or III CRC between the ages of 66 and 85 years were identified, and multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the effect of factors on receipt of colonoscopy.

RESULTS

Overall, 57.5% of the patients received initial surveillance colonoscopy. After adjustments for all factors, Blacks and Hispanics had lower odds of receiving colonoscopy than non-Hispanic Whites (NHWs; 29.6% for Blacks; P = .002; 12.9% for Hispanics; P > .05). NHWs with Medicaid coverage had 35% lower odds of surveillance colonoscopy than NHWs without Medicaid coverage. Minority patients with Medicaid were more likely to receive colonoscopy than their racial/ethnic counterparts without Medicaid coverage (P > .05). Hispanics residing in neighborhoods with incomes of ≥$90,000 had significantly lower odds of surveillance colonoscopy than Hispanics residing in neighborhoods with incomes of $0 to $30,000.

CONCLUSIONS

Receipt of initial surveillance colonoscopy remains low, and there are acute disparities between Black and NHW patients. The association between factors that assess a patient's ability to access colonoscopy and actual receipt of colonoscopy suggests inequitable access to surveillance colonoscopy within and across racial/ethnic groups.

Survivorship in Colorectal Cancer: A Cohort Study of the Patterns and Documented Content of Follow-Up Visits

Survivors of colorectal cancer (CRC) may experience a range of physical, psychosocial, and practical challenges as a consequence of their diagnosis. We assessed the patterns and documented content of follow-up visits within the first three years following treatment, in comparison to survivorship care guidelines. Survivors with stage I-III CRC who underwent curative resection at Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre from July 2015 to January 2018 were followed for up to 1080 days. Patterns of follow-up were calculated by recording the date and specialty of each visit; documented content was assessed using a study-specific audit tool for the first year (360 days) of follow-up. Forty-eight survivors comprised the study population, 34 of whom (71%) attended the recommended two to four follow-up visits in their first year. Visit notes documented new symptoms (96%), physical changes (85%), physical examination (63%), and investigations (56%–90%); none had documented discussions of screening for other primary cancers, or regular health checks and/or screening. Each survivor had at least one outpatient letter that was sent to their primary care physician, but responsibilities were not adequately defined (31%). Although survivors had regular follow-up in their first year, documentation did not consistently address aspects of wider survivorship care.

Factors Influencing Adherence to Recommended Colorectal Cancer Surveillance: Experiences and Behaviors of Colorectal Cancer Survivors

The number of colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors in the USA is increasing and factors associated with CRC surveillance require attention. This study examined the role of personal, provider, and practice-level factors on CRC survivor care surveillance experiences and outcomes. A telephone survey, informed by the Chronic Care Model, was conducted over a 1-year period with 150 CRC survivors identified via the South Carolina Central Cancer Registry. Participants were ages ≥ 21 years and diagnosed with stages I-III CRC within 1.5 years of study enrollment. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and logistic regression. Adherence was defined as receipt of surveillance colonoscopy at 13 months post-CRC surgery, as recommended by evidence-based guidelines. The majority of participants were male (55%) and white (86%), with a median age of 65 years (range 25-89). Almost half (43%) had attained a high school degree or less. Cancer stage was fairly evenly distributed, and 58% had received treatment by surgery alone (provider-level factor). Few participants (56%) received a survivorship care plan (practice-level factor), and adherence to surveillance colonoscopy was lowest (36%) among participants with more than one comorbidity (personal-level factor). Logistic regression models showed that the only significant effect of personal, provider, or practice-level factors on CRC surveillance adherence was related to type of health insurance coverage (private/HMO vs. other; p = 0.04). This is one of the first studies to evaluate CRC surveillance in a socioeconomically diverse sample. The only associations found among the examined factors and adherence were related to type of health insurance coverage. Participants with private/HMO health insurance were significantly more likely than participants with "other" health insurance coverage types (i.e., none, Medicare without supplement, Medicare with supplement) to be adherent to the 13-month colonoscopy. Therefore, future education strategies and patient navigation interventions could focus on identifying and overcoming multi-level barriers to CRC surveillance services.

Health and Economic Impact of Intensive Surveillance for Distant Recurrence After Curative Treatment of Colon Cancer: A Mathematical Modeling Study

BACKGROUND

Intensive surveillance strategies are currently recommended for patients after curative treatment of colon cancer, with the aim of secondary prevention of recurrence. Yet, intensive surveillance has not yielded improvements in overall patient survival compared with minimal follow-up, and more intensive surveillance may be costlier.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to estimate the quality-adjusted life-years, economic costs, and cost-effectiveness of various surveillance strategies after curative treatment of colon cancer.

DESIGN

A Markov model was calibrated to reflect the natural history of colon cancer recurrence and used to estimate surveillance costs and outcomes.

SETTINGS

This was a decision-analytic model.

PATIENTS

Individuals entered the model at age 60 years after curative treatment for stage I, II, or III colon cancer. Other initial age groups were assessed in secondary analyses.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

We estimated the gains in quality-adjusted life-years achieved by early detection and treatment of recurrence, as well as the economic costs of surveillance under various strategies.

RESULTS

Cost-effective strategies for patients with stage I colon cancer improved quality-adjusted life-expectancy by 0.02 to 0.06 quality-adjusted life-years at an incremental cost of $1702 to $13,019. For stage II, they improved quality-adjusted life expectancy by 0.03 to 0.09 quality-adjusted life-years at a cost of $2300 to $14,363. For stage III, they improved quality-adjusted life expectancy by 0.03 to 0.17 quality-adjusted life-years for a cost of $1416 to $17,631. At a commonly cited willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, the most cost-effective strategy for patients with a history of stage I or II colon cancer was liver ultrasound and chest x-ray annually. For those with a history of stage III colon cancer, the optimal strategy was liver ultrasound and chest x-ray every 6 months with CEA measurement every 6 months.

LIMITATIONS

The study was limited by model structure assumptions and uncertainty around the values of the model's parameters.

CONCLUSIONS

Given currently available data and within the limitations of a model-based decision-analytic approach, the effectiveness of routine intensive surveillance for patients after treatment of colon cancer appears, on average, to be small. Compared with testing using lower cost imaging, currently recommended strategies are associated with cost-effectiveness ratios that indicate low value according to well-accepted willingness-to-pay thresholds in the United States. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A921.

Patient preferences on the use of technology in cancer surveillance after curative surgery: A cross-sectional analysis

BACKGROUND

Advances in communication technology have enabled new methods of delivering test results to cancer survivors. We sought to determine patient preferences regarding the use of newer technology in delivering test results during cancer surveillance.

METHODS

A single institutional, cross-sectional analysis of the preferences of adult cancer survivors regarding the means (secure digital communication versus phone call or office visit) to receive surveillance test results was undertaken.

RESULTS

Among 257 respondents, the average age was 59.1 years (SD 13.5) and 61.8% were female. Common malignancies included melanoma/sarcoma (29.5%), thyroid (25.7%), breast (22.8%), and gastrointestinal (22.0%) cancer. Although patients expressed a relative preference to receive normal surveillance results via MyChart or secure e-mail, the majority preferred abnormal imaging (87.2%) or blood results (85.9%) to be communicated by in-office appointments or phone calls irrespective of age or cancer type. Patients with a college degree or higher were more likely to prefer electronic means of communication of abnormal blood results compared with a telephone call or in-person visit (odds ratio 2.18, 95% confidence interval: 1.01-4.73, P < .05). In contrast, patients >65 years were more likely to express a preference for telephone or in-person communication of normal imaging results (odds ratio: 2.03, 95% CI: 1.16-3.56, P < .05) versus patients ≤65 years. Preference also varied according to malignancy type.

CONCLUSION

Although many cancer patients preferred to receive "normal" surveillance results electronically, the majority preferred receiving abnormal results via direct conversation with their provider. Shifting routine communication of normal surveillance results to technology-based applications may improve patient satisfaction and decrease health care system costs.

Translating IDEA to Practice and Beyond: Managing Stage II and III Colon Cancer

Adjuvant fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy has been the standard of care for resected stage III colon cancer since the 1990s; the evolution from 12 to 6 months of fluoropyrimidine therapy and the addition of oxaliplatin to fluoropyrimidine therapy have led to the current accepted standard. However, controversies remain. What is the benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy in stage II disease, and in whom? What is the optimal duration of adjuvant chemotherapy? How should patients with early-stage colon cancer be followed after surgery and adjuvant treatment? Recent evidence has emerged to help inform these important questions, including the International Duration Evaluation of Adjuvant therapy (IDEA) collaboration, which is the largest, prospective study in colon cancer with 12,834 patients. This review discusses current and future risk stratification strategies in stage II disease: the optimal duration of adjuvant oxaliplatin-containing chemotherapy in stage II and III disease according to the IDEA study, and the recent evidence and updated recommendations for surveillance of early-stage colon cancer after resection.

Health care use during cancer survivorship: Review of 5 years of evidence

Improvements in treatment strategies have resulted in increasing survival rates among patients diagnosed with cancer but also result in a growing population of individuals who have greater health care needs. These needs will persist from diagnosis throughout the continuing phase of care, or the survivorship phase. To better define models of survivorship care, there must be a strong evidence base in survivor health care use patterns. The objective of this review, which covers studies from 2012 to January 2018, was to evaluate the available evidence on patterns of health care visits among survivors of adult cancers and to understand what is known about the rate of health care visits, the physician specialties associated with these visits, and/or the types health care settings (eg, outpatient, emergency room). The findings underscore the importance of primary care, with the majority of studies reporting that >90% of survivors visited a primary care provider in the prior year. Visits to oncologists and/or other physician specialties were positively associated with receiving cancer screenings and obtaining quality care for noncancer-related conditions. High care density/low care fragmentation between physician specialties had lower costs and a lower likelihood of redundant health care utilization. The follow-up in almost all studies was 3 years, providing short-term evidence; however, as the survivorship period lengthens with improved treatments, longer follow-up will be required. The long-term patterns with which survivors of cancer engage the health care system are critical to designing long-term follow-up care plans that are effective in addressing the complex morbidity that survivors experience.

Examining colorectal cancer survivors' surveillance patterns and experiences of care: a SEER-CAHPS study

PURPOSE

We examined associations between experiences of care and adherence to surveillance guidelines among Medicare Fee-For-Service beneficiaries with colorectal cancer (CRC).

METHODS

Using linked data from the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End results (SEER) cancer registry program and the Medicare Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS^®) patient experience surveys (SEER-CAHPS), we identified local/regional CRC survivors diagnosed in 1999-2009 aged 65+, who underwent surgical resection and completed a CAHPS survey <36 months of diagnosis. Adherence for a 3-year observation period was defined as receiving a colonoscopy; ≥2 carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) tests; and each year had ≥2 office visits and ≥1 computerized tomography test.

RESULTS

Many of the 314 participants reported ratings of a 9 or 10 out of 10 for overall care (55.4%), personal doctor (58.6%), health plan (59.6%), and specialist doctor (47.0%). Adherence to post-resection surveillance was 76.1% for office visits, 36.9% for CEA testing, 48.1% for colonoscopy, and 10.3% for CT Imaging. Overall, 37.9% of the sample were categorized as non-adherent (adhering to ≤1 surveillance guideline). In multivariable models, ratings of personal doctor and specialist doctor were positively associated with adherence to office visits, and ratings of personal doctor were associated with adherence overall.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings point to the potentially important role of patient-provider relationships in adherence to office visits for CRC surveillance. As adherence may increase survival among CRC survivors, further investigation is needed to identify specific components of this relationship that impact office visit adherence, and other potentially modifiable drivers of surveillance guidelines.

Overuse of Health Care Services in the Management of Cancer: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Overuse, the provision of health services for which harms outweigh the benefits, results in suboptimal patient care and may contribute to the rising costs of cancer care. We performed a systematic review of the evidence on overuse in oncology.

METHODS

We searched Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, SCOPUS databases, and 2 grey literature sources, for articles published between December 1, 2011 and March 10, 2017. We included publications from December 2011 to evaluate the literature since the inception of the ABIM Foundation's Choosing Wisely initiative in 2012. We included original research articles quantifying overuse of any medical service in patients with a cancer diagnosis when utilizing an acceptable standard to define care appropriateness, excluding studies of cancer screening. One of 4 investigator reviewed titles and abstracts and 2 of 4 reviewed each full-text article and extracted data. Methodology used PRISMA guidelines.

RESULTS

We identified 59 articles measuring overuse of 154 services related to imaging, procedures, and therapeutics in cancer management. The majority of studies addressed adult or geriatric patients (98%) and focused on US populations (76%); the most studied services were diagnostic imaging in low-risk prostate and breast cancer. Few studies evaluated active cancer therapeutics or interventions aimed at reducing overuse. Rates of overuse varied widely among services and among studies of the same service.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite recent attention to overuse in cancer, evidence identifying areas of overuse remains limited. Broader investigation, including assessment of active cancer treatment, is critical for identifying improvement targets to optimize value in cancer care.

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.

The care of the colorectal cancer survivor

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The gastroenterology literature emphasizes factors that increase colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence but presents little about management after initial CRC treatments. The purpose of this review is to describe the remarkably increasing numbers of CRC survivors in whom surveillance guidelines are often not followed and patient care is fragmented. The gastroenterologist can play an important role in this care to improve prognosis and overall health.

RECENT FINDINGS

Existing surveillance recommendations by specialty societies for CRC survivors are fairly consistent but implementation occurs in less than half. The gastroenterologist can help to coordinate care to ensure appropriate surveillance and also can help to diagnose and treat chemotherapy and radiotherapy complications in survivors which can affect the quality of life long after the initial treatment. The gastroenterologist also can focus on host factors, including management of obesity, exercise programs, and the diet and can introduce potential chemopreventive agents such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs when positive prospective studies are forthcoming. Interested gastroenterologists also have a role in participating in such prospective studies.

SUMMARY

The gastroenterologist should enhance her/his role for coordinated management of CRC survivors to improve patient surveillance care, to treat posttherapy complications and encourage preventive measures to improve prognosis and quality of life.