Treatment of local recurrence after primary restorative resection or Hartmann's operation for carcinoma of the colon and the rectum

Routine compared with nonscheduled follow-up of patients with "curative" surgery for colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

The main rationale for follow-up of colorectal cancer patients resected for "cure" is that early detection and treatment of recurrence and metachronous disease should result in improved survival. Our purpose was to assess in a prospective fashion the impact on survival of a follow-up program versus that of undergoing nonscheduled visits.

METHODS

Within the 14-year period from 1975 through 1988, a prospective study was carried out on 800 patients with colorectal adenocarcinoma radically resected with no evidence of synchronous cancers of the colon and rectum or in other organs, of whom 322 patients were to attend a 5-year follow-up, and 478 patients were free to make nonscheduled visits on account of symptoms.

RESULTS

Asymptomatic recurrence was found at follow-up in 92 (28%) of 322 patients, whereas 175 (36%) of 478 patients had a symptomatic recurrence detected at a nonscheduled visit. Diagnosis of resectable recurrence was established within a median time of 21.5 months. Surgical resection of recurrence was performed in 30 (32%) of 92 and in 13 (7%) of 175 patients (32 vs. 7%; p < 0.001). Resection was curative in 13 (14%) of 92 and in two (1%) of 175. Five-year survival of resected recurrence was 10% in 30 of 92 patients and 0.8% in 13 of 175 (10 vs. 0.8%; p < 0.01). Two patients are alive with no evidence of disease or two (2%) of 92. Metachronous colorectal lesions were treated for cure in 63 (19.5%) of 322 patients. The effectiveness of scheduled follow-up was 4% (13 of 322 patients).

CONCLUSIONS

These results underline the rationale for a follow-up program in early detection and surgical treatment of recurrent disease in patients operated on for colorectal cancer.

Curative reoperations for locally recurrent rectal cancer

PURPOSE

Our aims were to determine the morbidity, survival and its influencing factors, and patterns of failure for patients who underwent further surgery with the hope of cure for locally recurrent rectal cancer.

METHODS

Between January 1981 and December 1988, 224 patients with a preoperative diagnosis of recurrent rectal cancer underwent additional surgery at Mayo Medical Center in Rochester, Minnesota. Of these, 65 underwent further surgery with the hope of cure, i.e., no gross/microscopic residual disease at tumor margins after reoperation. Factors assessed included type of original operation, time interval between operation for primary tumor and initial operation for recurrence, symptom status, degree of fixation, types of reoperations for recurrence, and adjuvant therapy.

RESULTS

None of the patients died within 30 days of reoperation. Seventeen complications requiring hospitalization and/or surgical procedure were observed in 14 patients. Extended operations (involving partial or complete removal of surrounding organs/structures) required more time to perform, a greater number of transfusions, and a longer hospital stay than more limited operations. Three-year, five-year, and median survival were 57, 34, and 44.7 months, respectively. Survival was greater after curative than after palliative resection (P < 0.001). Survival tended to be greater in females (P < 0.075) and in patients without pain (P < 0.065). Cumulative probability of local failure was 24, 41, and 47 percent at 1, 3, and 5 years, respectively. Cumulative risk of distant metastasis was 30, 51, and 62 percent at 1, 3, and 5 years, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results indicate that complete excision of locally recurrent rectal cancer can provide a significant number of patients with long-term survival and can be accomplished safely in select patients.

Is follow-up of colorectal cancer patients worthwhile?

Between 1978 and 1989, 1,045 of 1,399 patients (580 male and 474 female) underwent curative surgery for colorectal carcinoma. Of these patients, 350 (33 percent) had recurrences, another 16 (1.5 percent) developed a metachronous colorectal cancer, and 23 (2 percent) had cancers of other organs. An isolated locoregional recurrence was found in 75/350 (21 percent). The remaining 275/350 patients (79 percent) showed systemic dissemination of the carcinoma. Reoperations with curative intent were performed on 56/350 patients (16 percent). Only 21 of the 56 resected patients (38 percent), i.e., 21/350 (6 percent), were without recurrence at the end of the follow-up period on December 31, 1990. Despite a curative reoperation, 62 percent of the patients again developed recurrent growths. There is an imbalance between the efforts invested in tumor follow-up and the benefits gained. Further follow-up programs should be investigated in a controlled, prospective fashion.

The value of a follow-up programme after radical surgery for colorectal carcinoma

To evaluate the effectiveness of a follow-up programme after curative surgery for colorectal carcinoma, a 10-year series of 402 patients was surveyed for the detection rate of potentially curative recurrences and metachronous neoplasms. There were 120 recurrences (30%), and 100 of them (83%) were detected at scheduled check ups. Initial suspicion of recurrence was most often based on physical examination, carcinoembryonic antigen assay, or sigmoidoscopy. Reoperation was undertaken in 62 patients, in 26 cases (22%) for cure. The 5-year survival was 48% after curative reoperations. Metachronous adenomas and carcinomas occurred in 38 and 11 patients, respectively, giving corresponding cumulative 5-year incidences of 13% and 3.8%. Altogether, 37 patients (9.2%) had a curative reoperation for recurrent or metachronous carcinoma, and a further 38 patients (9.5%) had adenomas removed by polypectomy. It is concluded that regular follow-up is useful for the patients, and the follow-up schedule must be planned to detect both early recurrences and metachronous neoplasms.