Clinical follow-up and treatment of locally recurrent colorectal cancer

Thoracic recurrence in patients with curatively-resected colorectal cancer: incidence, risk factors, and value of chest CT as a postoperative surveillance tool

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the incidence of thoracic recurrence and the diagnostic value of chest CT for postoperative surveillance in curatively-resected colorectal cancer (CRC) patients.

METHODS

This retrospective study consisted of 648 CRC patients (M:F, 393:255; mean age, 66.2 years) treated with curative surgery between January 2010 and December 2012. The presence of CRC recurrence over follow-ups was analysed and recurrence-free survival and risk factors of recurrence were assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis with log-rank test and Cox-regression analysis, respectively.

RESULTS

Over a median follow-up of 57 months, thoracic recurrence occurred in 8.0% (52/648) of patients with a median recurrence-free survival rate of 19.5 months. Among the 52 patients with thoracic recurrence, 18 (2.7%) had isolated thoracic recurrence, and only five (0.8%) were diagnosed through chest CT. Risk factors of overall thoracic recurrence included age, positive resection margin, presence of venous invasion, positive pathologic N-class, and presence of abdominal recurrence (odds ratio [OR] = 1.78, 19.691, 2.993, 2.502, and 31.137; p = 0.045, 0.004, 0.001, 0.005, and p < 0.001, respectively). As for isolated thoracic recurrence, serum carcinoembryonic antigen level ≥ 5 ng/mL during postoperative follow-up (OR = 9.112; p < 0.001) was demonstrated to be the only predictive factor. There were no thoracic recurrences in patients with CRC stages 0 and I.

CONCLUSION

In patients with curatively-resected CRCs, routine surveillance using chest CT may be of limited value, particularly in those with CRC stages 0 or I, as recurrence only detectable through chest CT was shown to be rare.

KEY POINTS

• Postoperative thoracic recurrence only detectable through chest CT was shown to be rare. • There were no thoracic recurrences in colorectal cancers stage 0 and I. • Postoperative surveillance chest CT is of limited value in patients with curatively resected colorectal cancers.

Descriptive characteristics of colon and rectal cancer recurrence in a Danish population-based study

BACKGROUND

Recurrence is a common outcome among patients that have undergone an intended curative resection for colorectal cancer. However, data on factors that influence colorectal cancer recurrence are sparse. We report descriptive characteristics of both colon and rectal cancer recurrence in an unselected population.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We identified 21,152 patients with colorectal cancer diagnosed between May 2001 and December 2011 and registered with the Danish Colorectal Cancer Group. Recurrences were identified in 3198 colon and 1838 rectal cancer patients during follow-up. We calculated the frequency, proportion, and incidence rates of colon and rectal cancer recurrence within descriptive categories, and the cumulative five- and ten-year incidences of recurrence, treating death as a competing risk. We used a Cox proportional hazard model to calculate hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI).

RESULTS

Recurrence risk was highest in the first three years of follow-up. Patients <55 years old at initial diagnosis (incidence rate for colon: 7.2 per 100 person-years; 95% CI: 6.5-7.9; rectum: 8.1 per 100 person-years; 95% CI: 7.2-9.0) and patients diagnosed with stage III cancer (colon HR: 5.70; 95% CI: 4.61-7.06; rectal HR: 7.02; 95% CI: 5.58-8.82) had increased risk of recurrence. Patients diagnosed with stage III cancer from 2009 to 2011 had a lower incidence of recurrence than those diagnosed with stage III cancer in the years before. Cumulative incidences of colon and rectal cancer recurrence were similar for both cancer types among each descriptive category.

CONCLUSIONS

In this population, increases in colorectal cancer recurrence risk were associated with younger age and increasing stage at diagnosis. Cumulative incidence of recurrence did not differ by cancer type. Descriptive characteristics of colon and rectal cancer recurrence may help to inform patient-physician decision-making, and could be used to determine adjuvant therapies or tailor surveillance strategies so that recurrence may be identified early, particularly within the first 3 years of follow-up.

Major postoperative complications following elective resection for colorectal cancer decrease long-term survival but not the time to recurrence

AIM

The aim of the study was to determine the effect of major complications after colorectal cancer surgery on survival and time to recurrence.

METHOD

Patients having a curative colorectal cancer resection and a follow-up of at least 3 years were identified from a prospective database. Major complications were defined as Clavien-Dindo Grades 3b or 4 and their impact on time to recurrence and mortality was analysed by univariate and multivariable analysis. Postoperative death within 30 days or during the initial hospitalization (Clavien-Dindo Grade 5) was a priori excluded.

RESULTS

From 2003 to 2012, 868 colorectal cancer resections resulting in 63 (7%) major postoperative complications including deaths (Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3b) were identified. After exclusion of Grade 5 complications (postoperative or in-hospital deaths), 844 resections with 39 (5%) major complications remained for analysis. Median follow-up time was 5.7 years. Using the Kaplan-Meier method, the estimated crude 5-year overall survival probability was 78% (95% CI 75-81) in the group without and 65% (95% CI 51-83) in the group with major complications (P = 0.009, log-rank test). Major complications were a significant negative predictor for overall survival (hazard ratio 2.42, 95% CI 1.41-4.14) when adjusted for sex, age, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, tumour site (colon vs rectum), R stage and tumour stage. However, in both univariate and multivariable analysis, major complications were not a significant predictor for time to recurrence (hazard ratio 1.29, 95% CI 0.56-2.99).

CONCLUSION

Non-lethal major postoperative complications seem to have a negative long-term impact on survival but not on time to recurrence.

Robotic versus laparoscopic intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer: comparison of the operative, oncological, and functional outcomes

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery was developed to overcome the limitations of laparoscopic surgery and is increasingly used to treat low rectal cancer. In this study, we compared the operative, oncological, and functional outcomes of low rectal cancer patients who underwent robotic or laparoscopic intersphincteric resection (ISR).

METHODS

Prospectively collected data from low rectal cancer patients who underwent laparoscopic or robotic ISR between September 2006 and August 2011 were retrospectively compared. The functional outcomes of patients followed up for ≥ 12 months after ileostomy closure were evaluated via questionnaire.

RESULTS

Forty-four and 26 patients underwent robotic and laparoscopic ISR, respectively. The robotic group patients had a higher body mass index (BMI; 21.42 ± 3.13 vs. 24.13 ± 3.33 kg/m(2); p = 0.001), more advanced clinical N stage (p = 0.029), lower cancer location (3.71 ± 0.89 vs. 3.24 ± 0.78 cm; p = 0.023), more frequent chemoradiotherapy (26.9 vs. 54.5 %; p = 0.025), and longer operation time (286.77 ± 51.46 vs. 316.43 ± 65.11 min; p = 0.038). However, no intergroup differences were observed in the pathological details (except the number of retrieved lymph nodes), postoperative morbidity, 3-year overall survival, recurrence-free survival (RFS), local RFS, and functional outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic and laparoscopic ISR yielded similar operative, oncological, and functional outcomes in patients with low rectal cancer, despite differences in unfavorable outcome-affecting factors, including BMI, clinical N stage, cancer location, and chemoradiotherapy frequency. A randomized trial will provide more solid methodology for investigating the potential benefits of robotic ISR.

Robotic versus open total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: comparative study of short and long-term outcomes

BACKGROUND

Despite the several series in which the short-term outcomes of robotic-assisted surgery were investigated, data concerning the long-term outcomes are still scarce.

METHODS

The prospectively collected records of 65 consecutive patients with extraperitoneal rectal cancer who underwent robotic total mesorectal excision (RTME) were compared with those of 109 consecutive patients treated with open surgery (OTME). Patient characteristics, pathological findings, local and systemic recurrence rates and 5-year survival rates were compared.

RESULTS

There were no statistically significant differences in postoperative complications, reoperation and 30-day mortality. There were significant differences comparing groups: number of lymph nodes harvested (RTME: 20.1 vs. OTME: 14.1, P < 0.001), estimated blood loss (RTME: 0 vs. OTME: 150 ml, P = 0.003), operation time (RTME: 299.0 vs. OTME: 207.5 min, P < 0.001) and length of postoperative stay (RTME: 6 vs. OTME: 9 days, P < 0.001). The rate of circumferential resection margin involvement and distal resection margin were not statistically different between groups. There were no statistically significant differences at the 5-year follow-up: overall survival, disease-free survival and cancer-specific survival. The cumulative local recurrence rate was statistically lower in the robotic group (RTME: 3.4% vs. OTME: 16.1%, P = 0.024).

CONCLUSION

RTME showed a significant reduction in local recurrence rate and a higher, although not statistically significant, long-term cancer-specific survival with respect to OTME. Prospective randomized studies are needed to confirm or deny significantly better local control rates with robotic surgery.

Reoperation for recurrent colorectal cancer

Recurrence of colorectal carcinoma represents a significant challenge. As the majority of recurrences involve more than just the anastomosis, surgical resection is ordinarily a major undertaking. Curative resection may require resection of other organs and structures, resulting in complex reconstructive procedures and substantial morbidity. In addition, carefully selected patients with distant metastases to sites such as the liver and lungs may also undergo potentially curative resection. Long-term survival following curative surgery for recurrence, however, ranges from only 15 to 40%. In addition to resection for curative intent, some patients may benefit from palliative procedures designed to relieve symptoms. Surgery alone is not usually sufficient therapy in these patients. Chemotherapy and radiation therapy play a vital adjunctive role in the management of recurrent disease. This article strives to review the risk factors and patterns of recurrence, selection of individuals for resection of recurrent disease, and outcomes of surgical procedures.

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.

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.

[Curative treatment of local and regional rectal cancer recurrences]

How to select patients likely to benefit from reoperation? When a neoadjuvant treatment is still feasible, is it useful to perform preoperative radiation or chemoradiation? What can be expected after resection of local recurrences in terms of survival and quality of life? Does surveillance of patients operated for rectal carcinoma influence resectability of local recurrences and results? These are the main questions concerning the management of local recurrences after resection of a rectal carcinoma.

Role of follow-up in management of local recurrences of colorectal cancer: a prospective, randomized study

PURPOSE

This prospective, randomized, single-center study was designed to evaluate the influence of follow-up on detection and resectability of local recurrences and on survival after radical surgery for colorectal cancer.

METHODS

Between 1987 and 1990, 207 consecutive patients who underwent curative resections for primary untreated large-bowel carcinoma were randomly assigned to a conventional follow-up group (Group A; n = 103) and to an intense follow-up group (Group B; n = 104). All the patients were followed up prospectively, and the outcome was known for all of them at five years. Patients in Group A were seen at six-month intervals for one year, and once a year thereafter. Patients in Group B were checked every three months during the first two years, at six-month intervals for the next three years, and once a year thereafter.

RESULTS

Of the 103 patients in Group A, local recurrence was detected in 20; 9 (13 percent) of these patients had colon cancer, and 11 (29 percent) had rectal cancer. Of the 104 patients in Group B, local recurrence was detected in 26; 12 (16 percent) of these patients had colon cancer, and 14 (45 percent) had rectal cancer. Twelve cases (60 percent) of local recurrence in Group A and 24 cases (92 percent) in Group B were detected at scheduled visits (P < 0.05). Local recurrences were detected earlier in patients of Group B (10.3 +/- 2.7 vs. 20.2 +/- 6.1 months; P < 0.0003). Curative re-resection was possible in 2 patients (10 percent) in Group A, 1 with colon cancer and 1 with rectal cancer, and in 17 patients (65 percent) in Group B, 6 with colon cancer and 11 with rectal cancer (P < 0.01). Of the Group B patients who had curative re-resections of local recurrence, 8 (47 percent) were disease-free and long-term survivors as of the last follow-up, and 2 (11.7 percent) were alive, but with a new recurrence. The 2 patients in Group A who had curative re-resections died as a result of cancer. The five-year survival rate in Group A was 58.3 percent and in Group B was 73.1 percent. The difference is statistically significant (P < 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Our data support use of an intense follow-up plan after primary resection of large-bowel cancer, at least in patients with rectal cancer.

Surgical resection of locally recurrent colorectal adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

Recurrence rates after curative resection of colorectal adenocarcinoma remain steady at 50 per cent. Thirty per cent of the deaths are linked to locoregional recurrence. The aim of this study was to evaluate the results of resection for locoregional recurrence.

METHODS

This retrospective review analyzed a series of 120 patients who underwent resection of colonic (56) or rectal (64) locoregional recurrence. Sixty-nine resections were considered as curative. Sixty-one recurrences required extended resection. There were nine synchronous hepatic resections.

RESULTS

The hospital mortality rate was 7 per cent and the morbidity rate was 40 per cent. The overall 5-year survival rate was 27 per cent. Survival was significantly higher: (1) after curative resection (44 versus 0 per cent after palliative resection, P < 0.0001); (2) in women (44 versus 11 per cent for men, P = 0.0036); and (3) after resection for intramural recurrence (45 versus 19 per cent for extramural recurrence, P = 0.0024). Multifactorial analysis showed that curability of the resection was the most important prognostic parameter.

CONCLUSION

The results in this highly selected group seem to justify an attempt at reresection whenever possible. Long-term results may be improved by using adjuvant treatment.

Current follow-up strategies after resection of colon cancer. Results of a survey of members of the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons

The follow-up of patients after potentially curative resection of colon cancer has important clinical and financial implications for patients and society, yet the ideal surveillance strategy is unknown.

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to determine the current follow-up practice pattern of a large, diverse group of experts.

METHODS

The 1,663 members of The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons were asked, via a detailed questionnaire, how often they request nine discrete follow-up evaluations in their patients treated for cure with TNM Stage I, II, or III colon cancer over the first five posttreatment years. These evaluations were clinic visit, complete blood count, liver function tests, serum carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) level, chest x-ray, bone scan, computerized tomographic scan, colonoscopy, and sigmoidoscopy.

RESULTS

Forty-six percent (757/1663) completed the survey and 39 percent (646/1663) provided evaluable data. The results indicate that members of The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons generally conduct follow-up on their patients personally after performing colon cancer surgery (rather than sending them back to their referral source). Routine clinic visits and CEA levels are the most frequently performed items for each of the five years. The large majority (> 75 percent) of surgeons see their patients every 3 to 6 months for years 1 and 2, then every 6 to 12 months for years 3, 4, and 5. Approximately 80 percent of respondents obtain CEA levels every 3 to 6 months for years 1, 2, and 3, and every 6 to 12 months for years 4 and 5. Colonoscopy is performed annually by 46 to 70 percent of respondents, depending on year. A chest x-ray is obtained yearly by 46 to 56 percent, depending on year. The majority of the members of The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons do not routinely request computerized tomographic scan or bone scan at any time. There is great variation in the pattern of use of complete blood count and liver function tests. Members of The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons from the United States tend to follow their patients more closely than do those living in other countries. The intensity of follow-up does not markedly vary across TNM Stages I to III.

CONCLUSION

The surveillance strategies reported here rely most heavily on clinic visits and CEA level determinations, generally reflecting guidelines previously proposed in the current literature.

Surgical management of nonhepatic intra-abdominal recurrence of carcinoma of the colon

The role of surgery in the management of intra-abdominal recurrence of colon cancer has not been clearly determined. We reviewed the charts of 28 patients operated upon at our institution for nonhepatic intra-abdominal recurrence of carcinoma of the colon and followed for a median of 10.5 months after reoperation. Total resection of gross disease was possible in 15 patients, who had a median overall actuarial survival of 25.5 months and a disease-free survival of 13 months. Within this group, disease-free survival was significantly prolonged when time to first recurrence was greater than 16 months and when patients had not had a prior operation for recurrent disease (P < 0.05). Six patients having a partial resection and seven patients having only a bypass or ostomy had significantly shorter survivals than those in the totally resected group, with median survivals of 8 and 3.5 months, respectively (P < 0.05). Operative management of recurrent colon cancer may prolong survival when disease can be eradicated, and palliative operations appear more successful when tumor is resected rather than bypassed.

Impact of computed tomography vs. intrarectal ultrasound on the diagnosis, resectability, and prognosis of locally recurrent rectal cancer

The use of modern techniques of imaging in the postoperative follow-up is reported to allow an earlier diagnosis of local recurrence in patients operated on with anterior resection for rectal cancer and, consequently, to allow a higher percentage of local recurrence resection to be performed. Although intrarectal ultrasound (IU) has proved highly reliable in preoperative staging, its value in relapse detection has been investigated only in retrospective studies and rarely compared with that of computed tomography (CT). The present prospective study aims at evaluating the role of IU vs. CT in the diagnosis of local recurrence and at verifying whether an earlier diagnosis and a higher resectability rate of recurrence result in an acceptable long-term survival. Thirty-seven patients who had undergone low and ultralow anterior resection for rectal cancer (anastomosis within 10 cm of the anal verge) were investigated prospectively. All the patients have been followed up by IU and CT at predetermined intervals. Six local recurrences were detected. CT correctly identified all the local recurrences (sensitivity = 100 percent, specificity = 93 percent, and accuracy = 94.5 percent); IU correctly identified only four of six local recurrences (sensitivity = 66.6 percent, specificity = 93 percent, and accuracy = 89 percent). Four patients with local recurrence underwent surgical treatment (resectability rate = 66.6 percent). Abdominoperineal resection in three patients and Hartmann's procedure in one patient were performed. In the other two patients, extensive metastatic liver involvements contraindicated surgery. All the resected patients were alive after one year; two of them are disease free, and the other two experienced recurrent disease. In conclusion, CT seems to have a higher sensitivity and accuracy in relapse detection. The increase in the local recurrence resectability rate does not result in a significant improvement in long-term survival. However, the good quality of life justifies the high cost of an intensive follow-up and a more aggressive surgical approach.

Radioimmuno-guided endoscopy (RIGE) in the detection of primary and recurrent rectal tumor

The usefulness of radioimmunoguided endoscopy in the detection of primary and recurrent rectal cancer was investigated. Of the 15 patients included in our study, 4 with suspected primary rectal cancer were examined preoperatively, while the remaining 11 were studied after radical resection of rectal carcinoma with the aim of detecting local recurrence. Radioimmunoguided endoscopy was performed employing a hand-held gamma-detecting probe (mod. 2 Oris, France), after the administration of a 111In labeled monoclonal antibody to CEA. Radioimmuno-guided endoscopy results detected the presence of primary or recurrent periluminal cancer in seven cases. In four it modified the preoperative stage based on the findings of conventional investigation and it influenced the surgical decision in five cases. No toxicity was noted and none of the patients developed HAMAs.