Follow-up in colorectal cancer patients: a cost-benefit analysis

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

BACKGROUND

This is the fourth update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2002 and last updated in 2016.It is common clinical practice to follow patients with colorectal cancer for several years following their curative surgery or adjuvant therapy, or both. Despite this widespread practice, there is considerable controversy about how often patients should be seen, what tests should be performed, and whether these varying strategies have any significant impact on patient outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of follow-up programmes (follow-up versus no follow-up, follow-up strategies of varying intensity, and follow-up in different healthcare settings) on overall survival for patients with colorectal cancer treated with curative intent. Secondary objectives are to assess relapse-free survival, salvage surgery, interval recurrences, quality of life, and the harms and costs of surveillance and investigations.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, on 5 April 2109 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Science Citation Index. We also searched reference lists of articles, and handsearched the Proceedings of the American Society for Radiation Oncology. In addition, we searched the following trials registries: ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We contacted study authors. We applied no language or publication restrictions to the search strategies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only randomised controlled trials comparing different follow-up strategies for participants with non-metastatic colorectal cancer treated with curative intent.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently determined study eligibility, performed data extraction, and assessed risk of bias and methodological quality. We used GRADE to assess evidence quality.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 19 studies, which enrolled 13,216 participants (we included four new studies in this second update). Sixteen out of the 19 studies were eligible for quantitative synthesis. Although the studies varied in setting (general practitioner (GP)-led, nurse-led, or surgeon-led) and 'intensity' of follow-up, there was very little inconsistency in the results.Overall survival: we found intensive follow-up made little or no difference (hazard ratio (HR) 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 1.04: I² = 18%; high-quality evidence). There were 1453 deaths among 12,528 participants in 15 studies. In absolute terms, the average effect of intensive follow-up on overall survival was 24 fewer deaths per 1000 patients, but the true effect could lie between 60 fewer to 9 more per 1000 patients.Colorectal cancer-specific survival: we found intensive follow-up probably made little or no difference (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.07: I² = 0%; moderate-quality evidence). There were 925 colorectal cancer deaths among 11,771 participants enrolled in 11 studies. In absolute terms, the average effect of intensive follow-up on colorectal cancer-specific survival was 15 fewer colorectal cancer-specific survival deaths per 1000 patients, but the true effect could lie between 47 fewer to 12 more per 1000 patients.Relapse-free survival: we found intensive follow-up made little or no difference (HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.21; I² = 41%; high-quality evidence). There were 2254 relapses among 8047 participants enrolled in 16 studies. The average effect of intensive follow-up on relapse-free survival was 17 more relapses per 1000 patients, but the true effect could lie between 30 fewer and 66 more per 1000 patients.Salvage surgery with curative intent: this was more frequent with intensive follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 1.98, 95% CI 1.53 to 2.56; I² = 31%; high-quality evidence). There were 457 episodes of salvage surgery in 5157 participants enrolled in 13 studies. In absolute terms, the effect of intensive follow-up on salvage surgery was 60 more episodes of salvage surgery per 1000 patients, but the true effect could lie between 33 to 96 more episodes per 1000 patients.Interval (symptomatic) recurrences: these were less frequent with intensive follow-up (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.86; I² = 66%; moderate-quality evidence). There were 376 interval recurrences reported in 3933 participants enrolled in seven studies. Intensive follow-up was associated with fewer interval recurrences (52 fewer per 1000 patients); the true effect is between 18 and 75 fewer per 1000 patients.Intensive follow-up probably makes little or no difference to quality of life, anxiety, or depression (reported in 7 studies; moderate-quality evidence). The data were not available in a form that allowed analysis.Intensive follow-up may increase the complications (perforation or haemorrhage) from colonoscopies (OR 7.30, 95% CI 0.75 to 70.69; 1 study, 326 participants; very low-quality evidence). Two studies reported seven colonoscopic complications in 2292 colonoscopies, three perforations and four gastrointestinal haemorrhages requiring transfusion. We could not combine the data, as they were not reported by study arm in one study.The limited data on costs suggests that the cost of more intensive follow-up may be increased in comparison with less intense follow-up (low-quality evidence). The data were not available in a form that allowed analysis.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The results of our review suggest that there is no overall survival benefit for intensifying the follow-up of patients after curative surgery for colorectal cancer. Although more participants were treated with salvage surgery with curative intent in the intensive follow-up groups, this was not associated with improved survival. Harms related to intensive follow-up and salvage therapy were not well reported.

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.

Does finding early recurrence improve outcomes, and at what cost?

The putative goal of surveillance is the early detection of recurrence while both the cancer and patient are still treatable. To be cost and clinically effective, surveillance requires a tailored approach based on stage, tumor biology, conditional survival, and available treatment options. Although surveillance is the major component of care for cancer patients after potentially curative treatment, current guidelines for surveillance lack the high-level data seen on the treatment side of the patient care continuum. J. Surg. Oncol. 2016;114:329-335. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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.

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.

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.

Post-treatment surveillance in colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Though the post treatment surveillance of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) treated with curative intent is common practice, its value is controversial. In the absence of conclusive clinical data, various modalities for the routine follow-up of patients with CRC have been proposed. In practice, the guidelines across countries and regions differ and are influenced by different health care policies, resource availability and doubts about effectiveness of follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of metaanalyses of available clinical trials demonstrated a survival benefit of intensified monitoring, but the questions regarding the optimal frequency of visits and the examinations to be performed remain unanswered. Furthermore, intensive monitoring of CRC survivors may be difficult to be administrated, causes discomfort and morbidity to the patient and can have serious cost-implications to the healthcare system. However, as it seems from available data, a comprehensive surveillance program does not affect the quality of patients' life. Ongoing large prospective multi-institutional randomised trials might elucidate some of the crucial questions and existing dilemmas to establish adequate surveillance strategy for CRC patients.

Surveillance of patients following surgery with curative intent for colorectal cancer

Surveillance after resection of colorectal cancer with curative intent is an important component of post-operative care. Clinical review, imaging, colonoscopy, and cost to the community are among significant issues to consider in planning a surveillance regime. This review aims to identify the available evidence for the use of surveillance and its individual components. The literature pertaining to follow-up of patients following potentially curative surgery for colorectal cancer was reviewed in order to formulate a summary of the wide range of clinical practice. There is evidence of improved survival of patients undergoing more intense follow-up compared with those having minimal surveillance, with an estimated overall 5-year gain of up to 10%. The efficacy of individual components of follow-up regimes remains unclear, but an overall package of ‘intensive’ follow-up including clinical review, liver imaging, and colonoscopy appears to be of benefit. It is cost-effective and can be specialist or community-based.

Diagnostic accuracy of serum-carcinoembryonic antigen in recurrent colorectal cancer: a receiver operating characteristic curve analysis

BACKGROUND

Serial measurements of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) are frequently used in the follow-up after colorectal cancer (CRC), but its usefulness remains debatable. Choosing the appropriate cut-off point is crucial to the diagnostic accuracy (DA) of continuous test variables. Receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) analysis is the appropriate statistical method for this purpose, but has not been applied in previous studies.

METHODS

One hundred ninety-four consecutive patients surgically treated with curative intent for CRC between July 1996 and June 1999 had systematic follow-up for five years. Follow-up included imaging, coloscopy and serial CEA measurements. Complete data including CEA measurements were available from 153 patients. ROC analysis of CEA was done with regard to detection of recurrent disease.

RESULTS

Depending on the chosen cut-off value of CEA, DA varied widely within the normal range (CEA <or=10 U/ml). CEA >4 U/ml provided the highest sensitivity (0.78) and specificity (0.91), compared to a sensitivity and specificity at the upper normal range (CEA = 10 U/ml) of 0.51 and 0.99, respectively. Thirty-three patients (24%) developed recurrence. Among 11 (5%) asymptomatic patients diagnosed by elevated CEA levels, only two patients (1.5%) were amenable to secondary curative surgery. A threefold increase of CEA in an individual patient had the same DA as the best cut-off value (>4 U/ml).

CONCLUSIONS

Diagnostic accuracy of CEA in follow-up after curative surgery for CRC is influenced by the chosen cut-off value. A threefold increase of CEA may indicate recurrent disease. The value of serial measurement of CEA was limited.

Outcome of follow-up colon examination among a population-based cohort of colorectal cancer patients

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The benefit of colonoscopy in the follow-up of colorectal cancer survivors is uncertain, and findings of surveillance colonoscopy are not well-characterized. We sought to estimate survival among colorectal cancer patients according to receipt of a follow-up colon examination and to describe the findings of such exams.

METHODS

We studied health maintenance organization enrollees with colorectal cancer who underwent surgical resection. Mortality was estimated by using survival analysis, and findings of colon examinations were determined by review of pathology reports.

RESULTS

One thousand two patients were eligible for study; 5-year survival was higher (76.8%) for patients who had at least one follow-up exam than for patients who did not undergo follow-up (52.2%, P < .0001). In multivariate analysis, colon examination remained independently associated with improved survival (hazard ratio, 0.58; 95% confidence interval, 0.44-0.75). Twenty patients (3.1%) were diagnosed with a second colorectal cancer, including 9 cancers detected within 18 months of initial cancer diagnosis. Advanced neoplasia was more common (15.5%) among patients followed up between 36-60 months after diagnosis compared with patients followed up within 18 months (6.9%, P = .02). History of adenomas was associated with advanced neoplasia on follow-up (P = .002). Patients with advanced neoplasia on initial follow-up were at high risk for advanced neoplasia on subsequent examinations (13/16, 81%).

CONCLUSIONS

After colorectal cancer resection, patients have a high risk of interval cancers, some of which represent missed lesions at initial diagnosis. Therefore, surveillance colonoscopy within 1 year of initial diagnosis is warranted. After adjusting for key variables, endoscopic surveillance is associated with improved survival.

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 definitive surgery and/or adjuvant therapy. Despite this widespread practice there is considerable controversy about how often patients should be seen, what tests should be performed and whether these varying strategies have any significant impact on patient outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

To review the available evidence concerning the benefits of intensive follow up of colorectal cancer patients with respect to survival. Secondary endpoints include time to diagnosis of recurrence, quality of life and the harms and costs of surveillance and investigations.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Relevant trials were identified by electronic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CANCERLIT, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Science Citation Index, conference proceedings, trial registers, reference lists and contact with experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Only randomised controlled trials comparing different follow-up strategies for patients with non-metastatic CRC treated with curative intent were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Trial eligibility and methodological quality were assessed independently by the three authors.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight studies were included in this update of the review. There was evidence that an overall survival benefit at five years exists for patients undergoing more intensive follow up OR was 0.73 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.91); and RD -0.06 (95% CI -0.11 to -0.02). The absolute number of recurrences was similar; OR was 0.91 (95% CI 0.75 to 1.10); and RD -0.02 (95% CI -0.06 to 0.02) and although the weighted mean difference for the time to recurrence was significantly reduced by -6.75 (95% CI -11.06 to -2.44) there was significant heterogeneity between the studies. Analyses demonstrated a mortality benefit for performing more tests versus fewer tests OR was 0.64 (95% CI 0.49 to 0.85), and RD -0.09 (95%CI -0.14 to -0.03) and liver imaging versus no liver imaging OR was 0.64 (95% CI 0.49 to 0.85), and RD -0.09 (95%CI -0.14 to -0.03). There were significantly more curative surgical procedures attempted in the intensively followed arm: OR 2.41(95% CI 1.63 to 3.54), RD 0.06 (95%CI 0.04 to 0.09). No useful data on quality of life, harms or cost-effectiveness were available for further analysis.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The results of our review suggest that there is an overall survival benefit for intensifying the follow up of patients after curative surgery for colorectal cancer. Because of the wide variation in the follow-up programmes used in the included studies it is not possible to infer from the data the best combination and frequency of clinic (or family practice) visits, blood tests, endoscopic procedures and radiological investigations to maximise the outcomes for these patients. Nor is it possible to estimate the potential harms or costs of intensifying follow up for these patients in order to adopt a cost-effective approach in this clinical area. Large clinical trials underway or about to commence are likely to contribute valuable further information to clarify these areas of clinical uncertainty.

Colorectal cancer follow-up: Useful or useless?

Follow-up of surgically treated colorectal cancer patients is not supported by objectively certain data. Despite the thousands of investigations reported in the scientific literature, only six randomized prospective studies and two meta-analysis of randomized studies provide data suggesting clear conclusions. Our review of the literature revealed that intensive colorectal follow-up should be performed even if the long-term survival benefit is small. The timing and investigations conducted in follow-ups diverge. The inconsistency of follow-ups is revealed by the fact that the leading USA and European societies propose different guidelines. One datum that the literature agrees on is that pancolonoscopy performed at 3-5 year intervals in colorectal cancer surgery patients supports diagnosis of adenomatous polyps and metachronous cancers. Cost analysis have shown that intensive follow-up would certainly exceed the cut-off point level set for every additional year of good quality of life.

Small but significant survival benefit in patients who undergo routine follow-up after colorectal cancer surgery

BACKGROUND

The benefit of follow-up for patients after resection of primary colorectal cancer is unproven. The aim of this study was to evaluate the value of a standardised follow-up program considering detection of recurrent disease, eligibility for surgical treatment and survival.

METHODS

Five hundred and sixty-four patients' records were evaluated. Detection of recurrent disease was distinguished in routine follow up (RF), interval visit (IV) or accidental finding (AF).

RESULTS

One hundred and forty-nine patients (26%) had recurrent disease of which 68 were detected by routine follow-up. In 42 patients a resection was performed with curative intent (RF 18, IV 14, AF 10). In 26 patients radical resection (R(0)) was possible (RF 13, IV 5, AF 8), seven of them were long-term survivors. Routine follow-up itself had no significant influence on overall survival (P=0.08), although increased survival was observed if recurrent disease was detected by routine follow-up and resection was performed with curative intent (P=0.006). Median survival after resection was 4.2 years if recurrent disease was detected during routine follow-up and 0.5 years if detected during interval visits.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing resection with curative intent for recurrent disease survive significantly longer if the disease is detected by routine follow-up. Routine follow-up itself did not improve overall survival.

Cost and effectiveness of follow-up examinations in patients with colorectal cancer resected for cure in a French population-based study

The cost of follow-up examinations for patients having undergone potentially curative surgery for colorectal cancer is considerable. The aim of this study was to provide a thorough assessment of the cost and effectiveness of the follow-up tests used during the 5 years after surgical resection for colorectal cancer and its recurrences. We studied medical and economic data from the records of 256 patients registered in the Herault Tumor Registry who underwent potentially curative surgical resection in 1992. Recurrence, curative recurrence, survival, and the cost of follow-up tests were assessed respectively for at least 5 years. We analyzed the cost and effectiveness of follow-up tests in patients who received either follow-up with carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) monitoring as advocated by the 1998 French consensus conference recommendations (standard follow-up) or a more minimal follow-up schedule. Nine patients died in the postoperative period. The 5-year survival rates in the standard and minimal follow-up groups were 85% and 79%, respectively (p=0.25). Cost-effectiveness ratios were 2123 in Dukes' stage A patients, 4306 in Dukes' stage B patients, and 9600 in Dukes' stage C patients. Cost-effectiveness ratios for CEA monitoring and abdominal ultrasonography per patient alive in the standard follow-up group were 1238 and 2261.5, respectively. Cost-effectiveness ratios for CEA monitoring and abdominal ultrasonography per patient alive in the minimal follow-up group were 1478 and 573, respectively. There were no survivors 5 years after a recurrence when the recurrence was detected by physical examination, chest X-ray, and colonoscopy in either follow-up group. Dukes' classification is a poor indicator of patient selection. The follow-up tests should only include CEA monitoring and abdominal ultrasonography for the diagnosis of recurrence.

Follow-up of patients treated by cytoreduction and chemotherapy for peritoneal carcinomatosis of colorectal origin

AIM

The aim of this study was to determine the value of medical history and physical examination, tumour marker testing, and CT-scanning in the follow-up of patients treated for peritoneal carcinomatosis of colorectal origin.

METHODS

Between November 1995 and June 2003, 107 patients were treated by cytoreduction and hyperthermic intra-peritoneal chemotherapy. The treatment was considered effective if residual tumour after cytoreduction was no thicker than 2.5 mm. The follow-up consisted of history, physical examination, serum CEA and CA 19.9 testing three-monthly, and CT-scanning of the abdomen six-monthly. Location of the recurrence was categorized into intra-abdominal, hepatic, thoracic, and both intra-abdominal and systemic. The investigation that led to the detection of a recurrence was ranked according to its invasiveness and costs. The simplest investigation that could have led to the detection was marked.

RESULTS

A recurrence developed in 63 patients of the 74 patients effective initial treatment during the study period. Physical examination revealed the recurrence in 38 patients, at least one of the markers was raised above normal value in 39 patients and in 37 patients the CT-scan showed the recurrence. History and physical examination could have triggered the finding of a recurrence in 38 patients, tumour markers in 21 patients and CT-scanning in only three of the 74 recurrences.

CONCLUSION

Physical examination and tumour marker testing detect most recurrences. CT-scanning is not an effective tool in the follow-up, and should be reserved for on-demand use.

Follow-up after colorectal cancer surgery

Although most institutions offer some kind of follow-up to patients operated on for colorectal cancer, its value with respect to prolonged survival has been challenged. However, improved results of liver surgery and chemotherapy make it reasonable to assume that a follow-up programme leading to detection of more asymptomatic recurrences would result in improved survival. Liver metastases and extramural local recurrences are the most common secondary lesions and 5-year survival rates of about 30% are reported after radical resection. From these observations a survival benefit could be expected when follow-up is directed to these forms of recurrence. From six randomized studies, six comparative cohort studies and four meta-analyses it can be concluded that an intensive follow-up programme results in more recurrences being resected for cure and about a 10% higher 5-year survival rate compared with less intensive or no follow-up. However, the differences in the follow-up protocols make it difficult to conclude how a follow-up programme should be designed. Liver imaging and carcinoembryonic antigen assay should probably be included, while the yield of frequent colonoscopies is small. A follow-up regimen based on these principles is suggested. Future studies should focus on which tests are the most cost-effective for follow-up after colorectal cancer resection.

Follow-up strategies after curative resection of colorectal cancer

Consensus is lacking as to the best strategy for following patients who have undergone definitive surgical medical treatment for colon cancer. The goal of any surveillance program should be detection of recurrent disease at a sufficiently early time to allow subsequent curative therapy. Although periodic clinical examinations, laboratory tests, radiographic imaging, and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) testing have been utilized as a form of surveillance, such aggressive and costly intervention has not been validated through clinical studies. Four of the five randomized trials comparing such an intensive surveillance strategy to less frequent testing have not demonstrated the intensive approach to lead to an improvement in overall survival. Furthermore, intensive testing is both costly and has been shown not to improve quality of life. Further research designing appropriate postoperative testing is needed to guide physicians and patients after the curative resection of a colorectal cancer.

Prospective evaluation of a follow-up schedule in cutaneous melanoma patients: recommendations for an effective follow-up strategy

PURPOSE

To prospectively examine and evaluate the results of follow-up procedures in a large cohort of cutaneous melanoma patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This was a prospective study in 2,008 consecutive patients with stage I to IV cutaneous melanoma from 1996 to 1998 on the yield of stage-appropriate follow-up examinations according to the German guidelines. Documentation of patient and follow-up data comprised patient demography, primary tumor specifics, and any clinical and technical examinations performed. The detection of metastasis was classified as early or late, and the means of their detection and the resulting overall survival probabilities were examined.

RESULTS

A total of 3,800 clinical examinations and 12,398 imaging techniques were documented. Sixty-two second primary melanomas in 46 patients and 233 disease recurrences in 112 patients were detected during this time. In stage I to III disease, physical examination was responsible for the discovery of 50% of all recurrences. In the primary tumor stages, 21% of all recurrences were discovered by lymph node sonography, with the majority being classified as early detection. Forty-eight percent of the recurrences were classified as early detection, and these patients had a significant benefit of overall survival probability.

CONCLUSION

The results of our study suggest that an elaborated follow-up schedule in cutaneous melanoma is suitable for the early detection of second primary melanomas and early recurrences. The intensity of clinical and technical examinations can be reduced during follow-up of patients in the primary tumor stages and may be intensified in locoregional disease. Recommendations for an effective follow-up strategy are outlined.

Efficacy and cost of risk-adapted follow-up in patients after colorectal cancer surgery: a prospective, randomized and controlled trial

AIMS

This paper aims to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy and costs of follow-up tailored according to risk of recurrence compared with minimal surveillance.

METHODS

A total of 358 patients treated by surgery alone for colorectal cancer were prospectively divided into two groups of 200 and 158 patients considered at high and low risk of recurrence respectively, according to prognostic factors. They were further randomized into two subgroups: group 1, 192 patients undergoing risk-adapted follow-up, intensive and low-intensity; group 2, 145 patients undergoing minimal surveillance. Twenty-one cases dropped out. Median follow-up was 61.5 months and 42 months for cases at high risk (intensive follow-up) and at low risk (low-intensity follow-up) respectively.

RESULTS

At the end of the study, 52.6% of patients undergoing risk-adapted follow-up and 57.2% undergoing minimal follow-up had developed recurrence. In patients at high risk, a significant difference in the incidence of curative re-operations was observed between the subgroups undergoing risk-adapted follow-up and subgroups undergoing minimal surveillance (P<0.05). The actuarial 5 year survival of patients at high and at low risk of recurrence undergoing risk-adapted follow-up is significantly better than that of cases undergoing minimal follow-up. The economic costs for 34 patients in the intensive follow-up group and for the 57 patients in the low-intensity follow-up group who were free from disease after primary surgery was very similar.

CONCLUSIONS

Risk-adapted follow-up has significantly improved the targeting of curative re-operations and overall survival of patients independently of risk of recurrence and has allowed a reduction in the costs of following up of disease-free patients.

Follow-up of patients with colorectal cancer: numbers needed to test and treat

Follow-up after curative treatment of patients with colorectal cancer has as its main aims the quality assessment of the treatment given, patient support, and improved outcome by the early detection and treatment of cancer recurrence. How often, and to what extent, the final aim, improved survival, is indeed realised is so far unclear. A literature search was performed to provide quantitative estimates for the main determinants of the effectiveness of the follow-up. Data were extracted from a total of 267 articles and databases, and were aggregated using modern meta-analytic methods. In order to provide one more colorectal cancer patient with long-term survival through follow-up, 360 positive follow-up tests and 11 operations for colorectal cancer recurrence are needed. In the remaining 359 tests and 10 operations, either no gains are achieved or harm is done. As the third aim of colorectal cancer follow-up, improved survival, is realised in only few patients, follow-up should focus less on diagnosis and treatment of recurrences. It should be of limited intensity and duration (3 years), and the search for preclinical cancer recurrence should primarily be performed by carcino-embryonic antigen (CEA) testing and ultrasound (US). The focus of colorectal cancer follow-up should shift from the early detection of recurrence towards quality assessment and patient support. As support that is as good or even better can be provided by a patient's general practitioner (GP) or by specialised nursing personnel, there is no need for routine follow-up to be performed by the surgeon.

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

BACKGROUND

It is common clinical practise to follow patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) for several years following their definitive surgery and/or adjuvant therapy. Despite this widespread practice there is considerable controversy about how often patients should be seen, what tests should be performed and whether these varying strategies have any significant impact on patient outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

To review the available evidence concerning the benefits of intensive follow-up of colorectal cancer patients with respect to survival. Secondary endpoints include time to diagnosis of recurrence, quality of life and the harms and costs of surveillance and investigations.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Relevant trials were identified by electronic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CANCERLIT, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Science Citation Index, conference proceedings, trial registers, reference lists and contact with experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Only randomised controlled trials comparing different follow-up strategies for patients with non-metastatic CRC treated with curative intent were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Trial eligibility and methodological quality were assessed independently by the three reviewers.

MAIN RESULTS

Five trials were included. There was evidence that an overall survival benefit at 5 years exists for patients undergoing more intensive follow-up (OR = 0.67, 95% confidence interval 0.53 - 0.84; RD = -0.07, CI -0.12 - -0.02). The absolute number of recurrences was similar (OR = 0.91; 95% confidence interval 0.72 - 1.14; RD = 0.00, CI -0.07 - 0.07) and although the weighted mean difference for the time to recurrence was significantly reduced by 6.75 (95% confidence interval -11.06 - -2.44) there was significant heterogeneity between the studies. Analyses demonstrated a mortality benefit for performing more tests versus fewer tests (OR = 0.66; 95% confidence interval 0.46 - 0.95) and liver imaging versus no liver imaging (OR = 0.66; 95% confidence interval 0.46 - 0.95). However when both these results are expressed as a risk difference this significance is lost (RD = -0.06; CI -0.25 - 0.13). No useful data on quality of life, harms or cost-effectiveness were available for further analysis.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

The results of our review suggest that there is an overall survival benefit for intensifying the follow-up of patients after curative surgery for colorectal cancer. Because of the wide variation in the follow-up programmes used in the included studies it is not possible to infer from the data the best combination and frequency of clinic (or family practice) visits, blood tests, endoscopic procedures and radiological investigations to maximise the outcomes for these patients. Nor is it possible to estimate the potential harms or costs of intensifying follow-up for these patients in order to adopt a cost-effective approach in this clinical area. Large clinical trials underway or about to commence are likely to contribute valuable further information to clarify these areas of clinical uncertainty.

Value and cost of follow-up after adjuvant treatment of patients with Dukes' C colonic cancer

BACKGROUND

The clinical value and costs of different diagnostic tools used to identify potentially curable recurrent disease in patients treated adjuvantly for curatively resected Dukes' C colonic cancer were examined.

METHODS

The study group comprised 496 patients treated with chemotherapy over a 1-year interval. Follow-up consisted of interim history, physical examination, liver ultrasonography or computed tomography (CT), measurement of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) levels, chest radiography and colonoscopy.

RESULTS

Two hundred and thirteen patients had recurrent disease (median follow-up 43 months). Forty-two patients with recurrence (20 per cent) were treated with curative intent (median survival 38 months; 5-year survival rate 40 per cent). Recurrence was identified by liver ultrasonography or CT (n = 14), evaluation of symptoms (n = 12), colonoscopy (n = 8), CEA measurement (n = 3), chest radiography (n = 2), physical examination (n = 1) and other modalities in two patients. The mean cost of diagnostic procedures per curative resected recurrence for patients amenable to salvage surgery was US$9011. Of all treatable recurrences, 12 of 42 were identified by evaluation of symptoms only. Ultrasonography and colonoscopy identified 22 recurrences at a cost of US$11 790 per patient, while routine follow-up by CEA measurement, chest radiography and physical examination identified a further six at a cost of US$19 850 per patient.

CONCLUSION

Potentially curable recurrences were detected primarily by liver imaging and colonoscopy. The yield of CEA measurement, chest radiography and physical examination was relatively low; such methods were expensive and should not be recommended in the routine follow-up of these patients.

Can postoperative surveillance with serial CEA immunoscintigraphy detect resectable rectal cancer recurrence and potentially improve tumor-free survival?

BACKGROUND

This study was performed to determine if postoperative serial monitoring of rectal cancer patients can be performed with an immunoscintigraphic imaging test for carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA). It was also of interest to assess whether this test, in combination with standard monitoring procedures used in an intensive surveillance plan, can result in the identification of surgically salvageable patients.

STUDY DESIGN

Forty consecutive resected Dukes' B and C rectal cancer patients underwent a prospective, single-institution, surveillance trial of physical examination (including digital rectal examination), endoscopy, CT of the abdomen and pelvis, liver ultrasound, chest x-ray, blood CEA, and CEA immunoscintigraphy with arcitumomab (CEA-Scan, Immunomedics, Morris Plains, NJ) every 6 months for the first 2 years and every 12 months for the next 3 years after initial operation. Outcomes were compared with those from a similar group of 69 patients treated previously at the same institution but without CEA imaging.

RESULTS

A total of 219 CEA imaging studies were performed without any significant adverse effects or immune responses, and resulted in lesion sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and positive and negative predictive values of 94.1%, 97.5%, 97.3%, 76.2%, and 99.5%, respectively. Of the 40 patients, 16 developed 22 surgically confirmed local or distant recurrences, and CEA imaging correctly disclosed 82% of these lesions pre-operatively. All of the patients found to have recurrences had at least one tumor site by CEA imaging; only 6 of 16 had elevated blood CEA titers. On a patient-basis, there was a sensitivity of 100%, a specificity of 79.2%, an accuracy of 87.5%, and positive and negative predictive values of 76.2% and 100%, respectively. The potential therapeutic benefit of serial arcitumomab imaging is suggested by the fact that 6 of 16 patients (37.5%) with recurrence underwent potentially curative second-look operations, compared with 6 of 69 (8.7%) of a comparable population studied at this institution during an earlier 6-year period, using all of the same tests except CEA imaging. None of the patients in this historic control group survived more than 21 months, although the mean survival of the six patients resected for cure in the study population was 35 months (range 11 to 69 months). During 6 years of followup, three of the six re-resected patients eventually died of cancer recurrence, two died from other causes (and were confirmed by necropsy to be tumor-free), and one patient is still free of disease in the sixth year. CEA scanning appeared to be more predictive of recurrence than blood CEA testing or other diagnostic modalities.

CONCLUSIONS

Arcitumomab inclusion in intensive surveillance of patients with resected rectal cancer can disclose tumor recurrence at a stage that allowed surgical salvage therapy in 37.5% of the 16 patients with recurrence who had second-look surgery, and in 19% the patients were free of disease during longterm followup. This pilot study suggests that a randomized prospective trial comparing standard surveillance procedures to the use of CEA imaging added thereto should be undertaken.

Colorectal cancer follow-up: perspectives for future studies

This paper reviews some of the issues involved in the planning and execution of studies to assess the effect of different follow-up strategies for colorectal cancer patients. Mathematical models and many previous studies have failed to indicate strong support for the hypothesis that extensive follow-up leads to an increase in survival rates. In order to assess the best follow-up strategies, at present, within the different Dukes' stages, extremely large trials are required and none of the previous studies have satisfied this criterion, though recently planned studies will, if recruitment targets are met. The large number of patients required, the length of time the study must run, existing accepted follow-up practices in different countries, and the difficulty of managing patients on different follow-up strategies within the same centre all pose problems for the design of a randomized trial. These are not insurmountable, but do contribute to a possible downfall of a large multicentre randomized trial of follow-up strategies. Although such a trial will require considerable international cooperation it will have enormous benefits and implications if it is managed and completed successfully.

Influence of the surgical treatment on local recurrence of rectal cancer: a prospective study (1980-1992)

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The incidence of locoregional recurrences (LR) following radical surgery of rectal cancer varies from 5% to 30% according to the literature. The purpose of this prospective study was to compare the outcome of the Abdomino-Perineal Excision (APE) vs. the Anterior Resection (AR) in a consecutive series of 188 patients who underwent surgery for cure from 1980 to the end of 1992 (81 APE and 107 AR), followed for 5 years, evaluating their influence on the incidence of the recurrences.

METHODS

The patients were enrolled at random in the two surgical groups, provided that a radical excision of the tumour, with only two limits: the level of the lesion from the anal verge and the presence of a severe incontinence instrumentally proven. TNM, Dukes staging, grading, and tumour location were statistically evaluated. Further primary suture vs. packing of the perineal wound in APE and handsewn vs. stapled anastomosis in AR were compared in relation with the incidence of LR.

RESULTS

The overall local recurrence rate was 19.2% (32/167), in details 19.7% for APE and 18.5% for AR. Similar recurrence rates were observed following both procedures, matching the patients according to the Dukes stage and different details of techniques. A slight statistically significant difference was found as far as the tumour location is concerned in the group treated with anterior resection (p = <0.05) because of the higher recurrence observed in AR performed for tumours of the lower third of the rectum in comparison with the more proximal level.

CONCLUSIONS

The AA conclude that the choice of the right surgical procedure in the rectal carcinoma depends on the characteristics of the tumour and the conditions of the patients, provided that the oncologic indications were respected, because recurrence and survival rate are independent from the surgical approaches.

Colorectal cancer follow-up: a reassessment of empirical evidence on effectiveness

Colorectal cancer is an important cause of death in the Western world, with a propensity of cancer recurrence even after resection with curative intent. Active follow-up has been advocated as a means to detect cancer recurrence at an earlier stage and thereby improve the survival of colorectal cancer patients. The present study assesses published evidence on the effectiveness of follow-up. Articles were obtained from a 20-year Medline search and from cross-references between articles. Articles were included, scored for quality, and extracted by explicit criteria. Regression analysis and chi-squared analysis was performed to assess (1) whether detection of recurrence at earlier asymptomatic disease stage leads to better post-treatment prognosis, and (2) whether active follow-up does improve overall (quality adjusted) survival, as compared to symptom-guided care only. The relationship between disease stage of recurrence (symptoms, number and size) and survival was analysed from 42 articles, 10 of which provided adequate data. Absence of symptoms and small number of recurrence were significantly related to better survival, smaller size insignificantly so. The potential of active follow-up seemed related to a marginally better outcome, larger gains being found in lower quality studies. Available data do suggest that survival gains vary between 0.5 and 2%, 1% seeming to be a best estimate of overall survival gain. Neither the notion that earlier detection of recurrences does significantly improve outcome, nor the hope that active follow-up provides a statistically and clinically significant gain in (quality adjusted) survival, are so far supported by adequate evidence. Colorectal cancer follow-up still fails to meet the criteria for evidence based medicine.

Is intensive follow-up really able to improve prognosis of patients with local recurrence after curative surgery for rectal cancer?

BACKGROUND

Because more than 90% of local recurrences after curative surgery for rectal cancer appear within the first 36 months after surgery, an intensive and strict follow-up program during this period could improve early diagnosis and, thus, prognosis of patients.

METHODS

Of the 216 patients who underwent surgery for rectal cancer, 127 entered an intensive follow-up program (median follow-up: 42 months); the clinical outcome of the remaining 89 patients was reconstructed with the help of their general practitioners.

RESULTS

Fifty eight (26.8%) of the 216 patients who were treated with curative surgery alone developed a local recurrence; pelvic recurrences were prevalent. Eleven (30.5%) of the 36 patients who had recurrence during follow-up, and 6 of the 22 who had not undergone follow-up, had a reoperation with curative intent; the median survival was 19 months vs. 8 months, respectively (P = ns). Four (44.4%) curative reoperations were performed on the 9 asymptomatic patients and in 13 (26.5%) of the 49 cases with symptomatic local recurrences. Median survival was 15 months vs. 14 months, respectively (P = n.s). All patients except one (living after 42 months from reoperation) died within 48 months.

CONCLUSIONS

In our study, adherence to a strict follow-up program unfortunately proved to be ineffective for improving long-term survival for patients who underwent reoperation with curative intent.

Postoperative management of stage II/III colon cancer: a decision analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Two separate decisions must be made for the management of patients with resected stage II/III colon cancer: whether to begin adjuvant chemotherapy and whether patients should be included in a follow-up protocol consisting of regular monitoring of carcinoembryonic antigen level and of colonoscopy and imaging. The standard management for these patients is adjuvant chemotherapy for stage III patients and follow-up for stage II/III patients with resected colon cancer.

METHODS

Decision analysis was used to compare the effectiveness (5-year survival rate) and cost-effectiveness ratio of 7 strategies of treatment and follow-up.

RESULTS

The most cost-effective strategies were adjuvant chemotherapy for all patients with stage II/III resected colon cancer, with either no follow-up or follow-up only for patients aged less than 75 years with a seric preoperative carcinoembryonic antigen level of >5 ng/mL (5-year survival, 62.3% or 62.7%; cost per surviving patient, $8254 or $8657, respectively). The order of efficacy of the strategies was insensitive to changes in the values of the studied variables. The method of follow-up does little to improve 5-year survival but adds substantial cost.

CONCLUSIONS

The current standard strategy may not be the most cost-effective strategy for the management of patients with resected colon cancer.

Active specific immunotherapy for stage II and stage III human colon cancer: a randomised trial

BACKGROUND

Colon cancer is curable by surgery, but cure rate depends on the extent of disease. We investigated whether adjuvant active specific immunotherapy (ASI) with an autologous tumour cell-BCG vaccine with surgical resection was more beneficial than resection alone in stage II and III colon cancer.

METHODS

In a prospective randomised trial, 254 patients with colon cancer were randomly assigned postoperative ASI or no adjuvant treatment. ASI was three weekly vaccinations starting 4 weeks after surgery, with a booster vaccination at 6 months with 10(7) irradiated autologous tumour cells. The first vaccinations contained 10(7) BCG organisms. We followed up patients for time to recurrence, and recurrence-free and overall survival. Analysis was by intention to treat.

FINDINGS

The 5.3 year median follow-up (range 8 months to 8 years 11 months) showed 44% (95% CI 7-66) risk reduction for recurrence in the recurrence-free period in all patients receiving ASI (p=0.023). Overall, there were 40 recurrences in the control group and 25 in the ASI group. Analysis by stage showed no significant benefit of ASI in stage III disease. The major impact of ASI was seen in patients with stage II disease, with a significantly longer recurrence-free period (p=0.011) and 61% (18-81) risk reduction for recurrences. Recurrence-free survival was significantly longer with ASI (42% risk reduction for recurrence or death [0-68], p=0.032) and there was a trend towards improved overall survival.

INTERPRETATION

ASI gave significant clinical benefit in surgically resected patients with stage II colon cancer. ASI has minimal adverse reactions and should be considered in the management of stage II colon cancer.

Follow-up of colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The value of intensive follow-up for patients after resection of colorectal cancer remains controversial. This study reviews all randomized and prospective cohort studies to assess the value of aggressive follow-up.

METHODS

The literature was searched from the years 1972 to 1996 for studies reporting on the follow-up of patients with colorectal cancer. Randomized and comparative-cohort studies that included history, physical examination, and carcinoembrionic antigen values at least three times a year for at least two years were included in a meta-analysis. Single-cohort studies with intensive follow-up and traditional follow-up were also included in a two-group comparative analysis for each outcome indicator. Outcome indicators were 1) curative resection rates after recurrent cancer, 2) survival rates of curative re-resections, 3) length of survival after recurrence, and 4) cumulative five-year survival.

RESULTS

Two randomized and three comparative-cohort studies met these criteria and included 2,005 patients, which were evaluated in the meta-analysis. The cumulative five-year survival was 1.16 times higher in the intensively followed group (P = 0.003). Two and one-half times more curative re-resections were performed for recurrent cancer in those patients undergoing intensive follow-up (P = 0.0001). Those patients in the intensive follow-up group with a recurrence had a 3.62-times higher survival rate than the control (P = 0.0004). Fourteen single-cohort studies were also included in the comparative analysis of 6,641 patients. The findings from these aggregated studies support the results of the meta-analysis.

CONCLUSION

Our study concludes that intensive follow-up detects more recurrent cancers at a stage amenable to curative resection, resulting in an improvement in survival of recurrences and an increased overall five-year cumulative rate of survival.

A comparison of adrenalectomy with other resections for metastatic cancers

BACKGROUND

Although adrenal metastases were once considered incurable, recent anecdotal reports recommend adrenalectomy for isolated metastases.

METHODS

Computerized files of all US Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) hospital admissions and deaths from 1988 to 1994 identified patients undergoing isolated adrenal resections, and hospitalization records were obtained. Patients without a death record were assumed to be alive.

RESULTS

In 47 patients with adrenalectomy for metastases, only 5 patients did not die within 3 years: 2 each had metachronous renal or colorectal metastases, and 1 had a pulmonary primary. Thirteen patients with other primary sites all expired within 3 years. Operative mortality was 4% in these 47 patients and also in 706 other adrenalectomies without metastases.

CONCLUSIONS

Adrenalectomy for metastatic carcinoma in the DVA was safe, with a projected 5-year survival rate (13%) that is significantly inferior (P < or = 0.05) to resections for colorectal metastases to lung (36%) or liver (26%), but superior to brain (none).

Molecular detection of circulating solid carcinoma cells in the peripheral blood: the concept of early systemic disease

Detection of the mRNA of selected genes by reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) is a sensitive and powerful tool for detecting cancer cells in bone-marrow or peripheral-blood samples. In this study, we determined whether carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) mRNA is detectable in the peripheral blood of patients with gastrointestinal or breast cancer. In addition, we studied selected patients undergoing surgical procedures to assess whether tumor manipulation during operation enhances cancer-cell dissemination. Peripheral blood from 55 patients with gastrointestinal or breast cancer and from 22 control cases was analysed for CEA mRNA using RT-PCR. For 15 selected cases undergoing curative surgery for cancer, samples were also obtained during and after surgery. The lower limit of detection was 1 to 10 CEA-positive cells diluted among 1 x 10(7) blood mononuclear cells. The test was positive for 20 of the 55 patients with cancer (36%). None of the 22 control samples were positive. An increase in positivity was observed with increasing stage of disease; however, even some patients with early-stage cancer showed positive results. In addition, CEA mRNA could be detected in the peripheral blood during operation in 3 of 13 patients whose pre-operative CEA mRNA in the peripheral blood had been negative. These findings suggest that, (1) RT-PCR amplification of CEA mRNA is an efficient means of detecting circulating solid cancer cells in the peripheral blood, although long-term clinical studies should be done to evaluate its usefulness; (2) not only breast cancer but also gastrointestinal cancer might be better regarded as a systemic disease even in early stages of carcinoma; and (3) surgical manipulation can provoke cancer-cell dissemination.

Molecular detection of circulating solid carcinoma cells in the peripheral blood: the concept of early systemic disease

Detection of the mRNA of selected genes by reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) is a sensitive and powerful tool for detecting cancer cells in bone-marrow or peripheral-blood samples. In this study, we determined whether carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) mRNA is detectable in the peripheral blood of patients with gastrointestinal or breast cancer. In addition, we studied selected patients undergoing surgical procedures to assess whether tumor manipulation during operation enhances cancer-cell dissemination. Peripheral blood from 55 patients with gastrointestinal or breast cancer and from 22 control cases was analysed for CEA mRNA using RT-PCR. For 15 selected cases undergoing curative surgery for cancer, samples were also obtained during and after surgery. The lower limit of detection was 1 to 10 CEA-positive cells diluted among 1 x 10(7) blood mononuclear cells. The test was positive for 20 of the 55 patients with cancer (36%). None of the 22 control samples were positive. An increase in positivity was observed with increasing stage of disease; however, even some patients with early-stage cancer showed positive results. In addition, CEA mRNA could be detected in the peripheral blood during operation in 3 of 13 patients whose pre-operative CEA mRNA in the peripheral blood had been negative. These findings suggest that, (1) RT-PCR amplification of CEA mRNA is an efficient means of detecting circulating solid cancer cells in the peripheral blood, although long-term clinical studies should be done to evaluate its usefulness; (2) not only breast cancer but also gastrointestinal cancer might be better regarded as a systemic disease even in early stages of carcinoma; and (3) surgical manipulation can provoke cancer-cell dissemination.