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

Follow-up strategy and survival for five common cancers: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of intensive follow-up after curative intent treatment for five common solid tumours, in terms of survival and treatment of recurrences.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted, identifying comparative studies on follow-up for colorectal, lung, breast, upper gastro-intestinal and prostate cancer. Outcomes of interest were overall survival (OS), cancer specific survival (CSS), and treatment of recurrences. Random effects meta-analyses were conducted, with particular focus on studies at low risk of bias.

RESULTS

Fourteen out of 63 studies were considered to be at low risk of bias (8 colorectal, 4 breast, 0 lung, 1 upper gastro-intestinal, 1 prostate). These studies showed no significant impact of intensive follow-up on OS (hazard ratio, 95% confidence interval) for colorectal (0.99; 0.92-1.06), breast 1.06 (0.92-1.23), upper gastro-intestinal (0.78; 0.51-1.19) and prostate cancer (1.00; 0.86-1.16). No impact on CSS (hazard ratio, 95% confidence interval) was found for colorectal cancer (0.94; 0.77-1.16). CSS was not reported for other cancer types. Intensive follow-up increased the rate of curative treatment (relative risk; 95% confidence interval) for colorectal cancer recurrences (1.30; 1.05-1.61), but not for upper gastro-intestinal cancer recurrences (0.92; 0.47-1.81). For the other cancer types, no data on treatment of recurrences was available in low risk studies.

CONCLUSION

For colorectal and breast cancer, high quality studies do not suggest an impact of intensive follow-up strategies on survival. Colorectal cancer recurrences are more often treated locally after intensive follow-up. For other cancer types evaluated, limited high quality research on follow-up is available.

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.

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

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

Laparoscopic versus open colectomy for TNM stage III colon cancer: results of a prospective multicenter study in Italy

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

There is still debate about the practicality of performing laparoscopic colectomy instead of open colectomy for patients with curable cancer, although laparoscopic surgery is now being performed even for patients with advanced colon cancer. We compared the long-term results of laparoscopic versus open colectomy for TNM stage III carcinoma of the colon in a large series of patients followed up for at least 3 years.

METHODS

The subjects of this prospective non-randomized multicentric study were 290 consecutive patients, who underwent open surgery (OS group; n = 164) or laparoscopic surgery (LS group; n = 126) between 1994 and 2005, at one of the four surgical centers. The same surgical techniques were used for the laparoscopic and open approaches to right and left colectomy. The distribution of TNM substages (III A, III B, IIIC) as well as the grading of carcinomas (G1, G2, G3) were similar in each arm of the study. The median follow-up periods were 76.9 and 58.0 months after OS and LS, respectively.

RESULTS

There were 10 (6.1 %) versus 9 (7.1 %) deaths unrelated to cancer, 15 (9.1 %) versus 5 (4 %) cases of local recurrence, 7 (4.2 %) versus 5 (4 %) cases of peritoneal carcinosis, and 37 (22.5 %) versus 14 (11.1 %) cases of metastases in the OS and LS groups, respectively. There was also one case of port-site recurrence after LS (0.8 %). The OS group had a significantly higher probability of local recurrence and metastases (p < 0.001) with a significant higher probability of cancer-related death (p = 0.001) than the LS group.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings support that LS is safe and effective for advanced carcinoma of the colon. Although the LS group in this study had a significantly better long-term outcome than the OS group, further investigations are needed to draw a definitive conclusion.

Intensified surveillance after surgery for colorectal cancer significantly improves survival

Background

Postoperative surveillance after curative resection for colorectal cancer has been demostrated to improve survival. It remains unknown however, whether intensified surveillance provides a significant benefit regarding outcome and survival. This study was aimed at comparing different surveillance strategies regarding their effect on long-term outcome.

Methods

Between 1990 and 2006, all curative resections for colorectal cancer were selected from our prospective colorectal cancer database. All patients were offered to follow our institution's surveillance programm according to the ASCO guidelines. We defined surveillance as "intensive" in cases where > 70% appointments were attended and the program was completed. As "minimal" we defined surveillance with < 70% of the appointments attended and an incomplete program. As "none" we defined the group which did not take part in any surveillance.

Results

Out of 1469 patients 858 patients underwent "intensive", 297 "minimal" and 314 "none" surveillance. The three groups were well balanced regarding biographical data and tumor characteristics. The 5-year survival rates were 79% (intensive), 76% (minimal) and 54% (none) (OR 1.480, (95% CI 1.135-1.929); p < 0.0001), respectively. The 10-year survival rates were 65% (intensive), 50% (minimal) and 31% (none) (p < 0.0001), respectively. With a median follow-up of 70 months the median time of survival was 191 months (intensive), 116 months (minimal) and 66 months (none) (p < 0.0001). After recurrence, the 5-year survival rates were 32% (intensive, p = 0.034), 13% (minimal, p = 0.001) and 19% (none, p = 0.614). The median time of survival after recurrence was 31 months (intensive, p < 0.0001), 21 months (minimal, p < 0.0001) and 16 month (none, p < 0.0001) respectively.

Conclusion

Intensive surveillance after curative resection of colorectal cancer improves survival. In cases of recurrent disease, intensive surveillance has a positive impact on patients' prognosis. Large randomized, multicenter trials are needed to substantiate these results.

A small rise in CEA is sensitive for recurrence after surgery for colorectal cancer

OBJECTIVE

Rise in carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) above normal limits can indicate recurrent colorectal cancer. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether a small rise in CEA, even within normal limits was a sensitive indicator of recurrence.

METHOD

150 patients aged 22-87 years were followed up for a mean of 27 months after colorectal surgery with CEA 3 and 6 monthly computerized tomography. We analysed whether a rise in CEA > 1 ng/ml correlated with recurrence of metastases.

RESULTS

Forty-six of 139 patients in final analysis had recurrent disease. A rise in CEA > 1 had a predictive value of 74% for recurrence or metastases (sensitivity 80%, specificity 86%). These findings were similar whether or not the CEA was normal preoperatively.

CONCLUSION

If CEA is measured after surgery for colorectal cancer, a rise of >1 in the patient's postoperative value is predictive for recurrence or metastases with an overall sensitivity of 80% and specificity of 86%. Previous studies have recognized the role of large rises in CEA in predicting recurrence but this study shows that small changes in CEA may be significant even if these levels would be traditionally within 'normal' limits.

The prognostic impact of the time interval to recurrence for the mortality in recurrent colorectal cancer

OBJECTIVE

The risk of a cancer recurrence has been correlated with the stage of the primary tumour at the time of presentation. However, once a recurrence has developed, the primary tumour stage may not be the determining prognostic factor anymore. The objective of this study was (i) to evaluate the association between the recurrence interval and the outcome of the recurrence, and (ii) to determine whether that interval was affected by the use of adjuvant radiation and/or chemotherapy.

METHOD

This retrospective study analysed 212 patients who developed recurrent colorectal cancer from 1987 to 1993. Primary parameters such as age, gender, primary tumour site and stage, and use of postoperative adjuvant treatment were correlated with the recurrence interval, the type and site of the recurrence (i.e. locoregional vs distant metastases), and the outcome. Uni- and multivariate analysis was used to compare the recurrence interval and survival between different subgroups as defined by risk factors.

RESULTS

The mean time between the primary and the recurrent tumour was 25 months (range 1-252 months) with 82% of the recurrences developing within 3 years after surgery. The recurrence interval was inversely correlated with the initial tumour stage. Poor survival was associated with a short recurrence interval (less than 12 months) and a distant recurrence site. Even after adjusting for the initial tumour stage, the use of adjuvant treatment did not prolong the interval, i.e. delay the onset of recurrent cancer.

CONCLUSION

The recurrence interval of colorectal cancer is a prognostic factor. However, the use of adjuvant therapy did not prolong that interval.

Follow-up result afters negative findings on unenhanced hepatic MR imaging for hepatic metastasis from rectal cancer

OBJECTIVE

To assess the follow-up results after negative findings on unenhanced hepatic MR imaging in rectal cancer patients who have undergone locally curative surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From all pertinent imaging reports and medical records, we selected 255 patients who had negative results on unenhanced hepatic MR imaging. When selecting patients who had undergone curative resection, the following patients were excluded from the study: 1) patients in whom extrahepatic metastases were detected on preoperative staging work-ups, 2) patients in whom the surgery was judged to be non-curative due to peritoneal seeding or local aggressiveness. Cases with follow-up periods of less than 18 months were also excluded, as these cases were considered insufficient to confirm the negative outcomes. Thus, a total of 149 patients were ultimately enrolled in our study. The follow-up results of unenhanced MR imagings were assessed according to the assumption that the newly developed hepatic metastases had been false-negative lesions on preoperative MR image.

RESULTS

During a median follow-up period of 29.3 months, 25 hepatic metastases were detected in 13 patients (8.7%), which indicated a negative predictive value of 91.3%.

CONCLUSION

Unenhanced hepatic MR imaging provides a high negative predictive value with regard to the detection of hepatic metastasis in the preoperative evaluation of rectal cancer.

Follow-up of patients with colorectal cancer: the evidence is in favour but we are still in need of a protocol

The prevalence of colorectal cancer is high in the western world and follow-up after treatment of the primary tumour is claimed to consume resources that could be used in improving screening and early diagnosis. Although some patients with recurrent disease can be treated successfully there has been a debate on whether an overall improvement in survival is achieved by follow-up. There is no agreement on a follow-up protocol of investigations. A review via a Medline search of all published studies and reports on the issue of follow-up of colorectal cancer dated from 1975-2006. We examined retrospective and prospective studies, randomised controlled trials, and meta-analyses attempting to identify the optimum follow-up protocol. There is widespread diversity of follow-up policies for colorectal cancer. Follow-up of colorectal cancer does not have a negative impact on Quality of life. There is no evidence that annual colonoscopy provides any survival advantage. It has been shown that intensive follow-up with frequent carcinoembryonic antigen measurement has a survival advantage and is cost-efficient. Similar evidence seems to be gathering about liver imaging with CT scan although it is less conclusive.

Patterns of surveillance practices after curative surgery for colorectal cancer in a French population

PURPOSE

Despite controversies, postoperative surveillance of colorectal cancer is generally recommended. This registry-based study was designed to assess the adherence of surveillance practices to French guidelines and identify three-year surveillance patterns and their demographic and clinical determinants.

METHODS

All patients (N = 409) diagnosed with first colorectal cancer in 1998 and alive without recurrence at least six months after curative surgery were identified from a population-based registry. Medical charts from multiple sources were reviewed to collect exhaustive information on follow-up procedures used during a three-year period. Multiple correspondence and cluster analyses were used to identify surveillance patterns.

RESULTS

The proportion of patients with a lower surveillance than that recommended was 35 percent for clinical examination, 65 percent for abdominal ultrasound, 52 percent for chest x-ray, and 20 percent for colonoscopy. Cluster analysis identified three patterns called minimal, moderate, and intensive surveillance patterns, which included 47, 24, and 29 percent of the patients respectively. The main independent predictors of both moderate and intensive surveillance patterns vs. minimal pattern were advanced tumor stage, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy. Younger age also was strongly associated with the intensive surveillance pattern, and the presence of symptoms with the moderate surveillance pattern.

CONCLUSIONS

Adherence of surveillance practices to French guidelines seems relatively poor. Surveillance patterns are mainly explained by patient age, tumor stage, and treatment modalities.

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.

Molecular prognostics in colorectal cancer

Conventional staging of colorectal cancer does not account for the marked variability in outcome that exists within each stage. Certain populations of patients with early recurrence, resistance to chemotherapy and decreased survival cannot be predicted utilizing common histopathologic criteria. As the molecular mechanisms underlying colorectal carcinogenesis are elucidated, putative molecular prognostic factors are identified. A comprehensive review of various molecular markers and their roles as prognostic factors in colorectal cancer is presented.

Follow-up of patients with curatively resected colorectal cancer: a practice guideline

BACKGROUND

A systematic review was conducted to evaluate the literature regarding the impact of follow-up on colorectal cancer patient survival and, in a second phase, recommendations were developed.

METHODS

The MEDLINE, CANCERLIT, and Cochrane Library databases, and abstracts published in the 1997 to 2002 proceedings of the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology were systematically searched for evidence. Study selection was limited to randomized trials and meta-analyses that examined different programs of follow-up after curative resection of colorectal cancer where five-year overall survival was reported. External review by Ontario practitioners was obtained through a mailed survey. Final approval of the practice guideline report was obtained from the Practice Guidelines Coordinating Committee.

RESULTS

Six randomized trials and two published meta-analyses of follow-up were obtained. Of six randomized trials comparing one follow-up program to a more intense program, only two individual trials detected a statistically significant survival benefit favouring the more intense follow-up program. Pooling of all six randomized trials demonstrated a significant improvement in survival favouring more intense follow-up (Relative Risk Ratio 0.80 (95%CI, 0.70 to 0.91; p = 0.0008). Although the rate of recurrence was similar in both of the follow-up groups compared, asymptomatic recurrences and re-operations for cure of recurrences were more common in patients with more intensive follow-up. Trials including CEA monitoring and liver imaging also had significant results, whereas trials not including these tests did not.

CONCLUSION

Follow-up programs for patients with curatively resected colorectal cancer do improve survival. These follow-up programs include frequent visits and performance of blood CEA, chest x-rays, liver imaging and colonoscopy, however, it is not clear which tests or frequency of visits is optimal. There is a suggestion that improved survival is due to diagnosis of recurrence at an earlier, asymptomatic stage which allows for more curative resection of recurrence. Based on this evidence and consideration of the biology of colorectal cancer and present practices, a guideline was developed. Patients should be made aware of the risk of disease recurrence or second bowel cancer, the potential benefits of follow-up and the uncertainties requiring further clinical trials. For patients at high-risk of recurrence (stages IIb and III) clinical assessment is recommended when symptoms occur or at least every 6 months the first 3 years and yearly for at least 5 years. At the time of those visits, patients may have blood CEA, chest x-ray and liver imaging. For patients at lower risk of recurrence (stages I and Ia) or those with co-morbidities impairing future surgery, only visits yearly or when symptoms occur. All patients should have a colonoscopy before or within 6 months of initial surgery, and repeated yearly if villous or tubular adenomas >1 cm are found; otherwise repeat every 3 to 5 years. All patients having recurrences should be assessed by a multidisciplinary team in a cancer centre.

Results of long-term follow-up after curative resection of Dukes A colorectal cancer

Patients with Dukes A (UICC I) colorectal cancer have a good prognosis after curative resection. It is not known, however, if the outcome is significantly different for UICC Ia and Ib patients or if patients with reduced risks of recurrences can be identified early after surgery. This is of interest, as it would permit a more cost-effective, patient-oriented, and tumor stage-oriented follow-up program. To study these questions, a prospective follow-up database, including 1375 patients after curative resection of colorectal cancer, was analyzed. A total of 296 patients with Dukes A colorectal cancer with a median follow-up of 44 months were studied. Perioperative and follow-up mortality rates were 3% and 14%, respectively. Recurrent disease developed in 10% of Dukes A patients after a disease-free interval of 16 months. Significantly more patients suffering from pT2 (UICC Ib) cancer had recurrent disease than patients with pT1 (UICC Ia) cancer (13% vs. 4%; p <0.05). Preoperative CEA levels in patients with recurrent disease were significantly higher than in long-term disease-free patients (5.3 +/- 1.8 vs. 3.5 +/- 0.6 ng/ml; p <0.05). Curative resection of recurrent disease was achieved in 38% of the patients with recurrences (4% of all patients). Survival analysis showed significantly better survival in patients with Dukes A cancer than in those at higher tumor stages (log rank, <0.0001), and only 39% of all Dukes A patients who died during follow-up had recurrent disease. Dukes A (UICC Ia and Ib) colorectal cancer was diagnosed in 22% of our patients treated for cure, and long-term survival was 86%. There were significantly fewer cases of recurrent disease after curative resection of UICC Ia (pT1N0M0) cancer, so we propose a novel, less intensive follow-up regimen for these patients, leading to a more cost-effective, patient-oriented, and tumor stage-oriented follow-up program.

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.

Gender differences in long-term survival of patients with colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Significant differences exist in the immunological response to surgery. This raises the possibility that gender differences exist concerning the outcome after curative colorectal cancer resection.

METHODS

To study this hypothesis, a database of patients with colorectal cancer was analysed prospectively.

RESULTS

Some 894 patients were included, 500 (55.9 per cent) were men and 394 (44.1 per cent) were women. Median follow-up was 54.5 months for the entire group and 63.3 months for survivors. The mean(s.e.m.) patient age was 65.3(0.4) years (women 66.1(0.6), men 64.7(0.5) years; P < 0.05). Women lived significantly longer after cancer resection than men (57.8(1.5) versus 52.0(1.3) months; P < 0.05, log rank 0.009). Disease-free survival was significantly longer in women than in men (51.6(1.7) versus 46.0(1.4) months; P < 0.05). Subgroup analysis revealed significant gender differences in Union Internacional Contra la Cancrum (UICC) stages I (n = 195, log rank 0.01) and UICC IV (n = 38, log rank 0.021). Survival analysis after rectal cancer resection revealed significant advantages for women (log rank 0.02), while no gender differences were detected when comparing patients after resection for colonic cancer. Moreover, patients older than 50 years (n = 635) showed significant gender-related survival differences (log rank 0.015).

CONCLUSION

Significant gender differences following curative rectal cancer resection were observed. In women disease-free and overall survival were significantly longer. Whether or not these gender differences are related to gender-specific immune functions or to other gender-related local or systemic factors remains to be determined.

Clinical value of whole-body emission tomography in potentially curable colorectal liver metastases

AIMS

In selected patients with colorectal liver metastases, hepatic resection offers an opportunity for cure, with a 25-38% 5-year survival rate. The aim of this prospective study was to evaluate whether patient selection could be improved with pre-operative whole-body 18-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose-positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) scan.

METHODS

Ninety-one consecutive patients were considered to be eligible for liver resection after investigation with conventional diagnostic methods (CDM). In all these patients a whole-body PET scan with FDG was performed prior to surgery. Follow-up was complete with a mean of 23 months (2 weeks-92 months). All PET images were reviewed blinded to intraoperative and follow-up data.

RESULTS

PET confirmed liver metastases in 90 (99%) patients, while it provided additional information in 10 (11%) patients, i.e., seven intra-abdominal, and three extra-abdominal. PET falsely upstaged six (6.6%) patients in whom malignancy was excluded by additional investigation, at the time of surgery, or during follow-up. PET falsely understaged seven (7.7%) patients with small intra-abdominal lesions.

CONCLUSION

In patients with potentially curable colorectal liver metastases according to conventional diagnostic methods, whole-body FDG-PET can be considered as a complementary examination in order to further select patients for potentially curative liver resection, and to optimize therapeutic strategy.

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.

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.

Rationale for bladder-sparing surgery in patients with locally advanced colorectal carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Total pelvic exenteration (TPE) with urinary diversion is a standard surgical approach for patients with locally advanced rectal carcinoma. Because only approximately 50% of patients undergoing TPE have tumor involving the bladder, the authors evaluated the feasibility of bladder salvage in this setting. The current study presents the results of a retrospective study of patients with advanced colorectal carcinoma (classification of >/= T3) to formulate criteria for selecting patients for bladder-sparing procedures.

METHODS

The charts of 81 patients with rectal carcinoma classified as >/= T3 were reviewed for age, gender, computed tomography (CT) findings, results of intraoperative examination under anesthesia, final pathologic evaluation, urologic complications, local recurrence, and patient survival.

RESULTS

Among the 46 patients who underwent TPE, final pathologic evaluation demonstrated tumor involvement of the bladder in 58% of patients. Preoperative identification of a bladder mucosal abnormality accurately predicted bladder involvement in only 57% of the 30 patients who underwent cystoscopy. CT and intraoperative palpation of the bladder individually predicted the final pathologic findings in 69% and 70% of patients, respectively; of the 21 patients in whom both were positive, 90% had bladder involvement. Of the 35 patients (26 females and 9 males) who underwent bladder-sparing procedures, 22 had complete sparing of the bladder, 9 underwent partial cystectomy (5 with ureteroneocystostomy), 4 underwent ureteroneocystostomy alone, and 2 underwent prostatectomy alone. Ninety-four percent of these 35 patients had negative histologic margins. There was no difference in the incidence rate of urinary complications between patients who underwent TPE and those who underwent a bladder-sparing surgery (17% each). The incidence rates of local recurrence (14% vs. 17%) and the 3-year survival rates (49% vs. 39%) did not differ significantly between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Bladder-sparing surgery to treat patients with locally invasive colorectal carcinoma provides good local control without sacrificing survival. Women, whose reproductive organs act as a natural barrier, and selected men in whom CT and intraoperative evaluation identify only localized involvement of the prostate or bladder appear to be reasonable candidates for bladder-sparing procedures.

Tumor markers--prognostic and therapeutic implications for colorectal carcinoma

Molecular prognostic markers are molecules produced by either the tumor or the host (patient) whose expression is associated with the clinical outcome. Three types of molecular markers exist that characterize different aspects of the tumor : host relationship: (1) tumor biology, (2) tumor burden and (3) host response. The first type of marker is measured within the primary or metastatic tumor mass and defines the aggressiveness of the cancer and its ability to respond to therapy. The other two types of markers are usually measured in the blood and assess concentrations of circulating tumor products or cytokines that may be involved in host resistance to the cancer. In this brief review we will define each type of marker, provide examples of their current utility and then describe how these markers may be useful.

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.