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

Clinical Value of Combined Detection of Serum sTim-3 and CEA or CA19-9 for Postoperative Recurrence of Colorectal Cancer Diagnosis

Purpose

The present study aimed to evaluate the clinical value of Combined Detection of serum soluble T-cell immunoglobulin 3 (sTim-3) with carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) or glycotype antigen 19-9 (CA19-9) for Postoperative Recurrence of Colorectal Cancer (CRC) Diagnosis.

Patients and Methods

The serum sTim-3 was measured by highly sensitivity TRFIA, and serum CEA and CA19-9 were obtained through the collection of clinical data. Quantitative detection of serum sTim-3, CEA, CA19-9 in 90 patients after the CRC surgery (52 postoperative recurrence and 38 no-postoperative recurrence), 21 patients with colorectal benign tumors, and 67 healthy controls. To analyze the clinical diagnostic value of combined detection of sTim-3 with CEA or CA19-9 to test whether patients have recurrence after CRC surgery.

Results

The sTim-3 (15.94±11.24ng/mL) in patients after CRC surgery was significantly higher than in healthy controls (8.95±3.34ng/mL) and colorectal benign tumors (8.39±2.28ng/mL) (P < 0.05), and sTim-3 (20.33±13.04ng/mL) in CRC postoperative recurrent group was significantly higher than in the group without recurrence after CRC surgery (9.94±2.36ng/mL) (P < 0.05). In terms of detecting postoperative recurrence after CRC surgery, combined detection of sTim-3 and CEA (AUC: 0.819, sensitivity: 80.77%, specificity: 65.79%), sTim-3 and CA19-9 test (AUC: 0.813, sensitivity: 69.23%, specificity: 97.30%) was significantly better than the CEA single test (AUC: 0.547, sensitivity: 63.16%, specificity: 48.08%) and CA19-9 single test (AUC: 0.675 sensitivity: 65.38%, specificity: 67.57%), Delong test P < 0.05.

Conclusion

The efficacy of CEA and CA19-9 single test was not optimal, and the combination of sTim-3 in serum could significantly improve the sensitivity and specificity of detecting patient recurrence after CRC surgery.

Circulating Tumor DNA, Imaging, and Carcinoembryonic Antigen: Comparison of Surveillance Strategies Among Patients Who Underwent Resection of Colorectal Cancer-A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Almost one-third of colorectal cancer (CRC) patients experience recurrence after resection; nevertheless, follow-up strategies remain controversial. We sought to systematically assess and compare the accuracy of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), imaging [positron emission tomography (PET) and computed tomography (CT) scans], and circulating tumor DNA (CtDNA) as surveillance strategies.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

PubMed, Medline, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane, Web of Science, and CINAHL were systematically searched. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) was used to assess methodological quality. We performed a bivariate random-effects meta-analysis and reported pooled sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) values for each surveillance strategy.

RESULTS

Thirty studies were included in the analysis. PET scans had the highest sensitivity to detect recurrence (0.95; 95%CI 0.91-0.97), followed by CT scans (0.77; 95%CI 0.67-0.85). CtDNA positivity had the highest specificity to detect recurrence (0.95; 95%CI 0.91-0.97), followed by increased CEA levels (0.88; 95%CI 0.82-0.92). Furthermore, PET scans had the highest DOR to detect recurrence (DOR 120.7; 95%CI 48.9-297.9) followed by CtDNA (DOR 37.6; 95%CI 20.8-68.0).

CONCLUSION

PET scans had the highest sensitivity and DOR to detect recurrence, while CtDNA had the highest specificity and second highest DOR. Combinations of traditional cross-sectional/functional imaging and newer platforms such as CtDNA may result in optimized surveillance of patients following resection of CRC.

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

We investigated characteristics of patients with colon cancer that predicted nonreceipt of posttreatment surveillance testing and the subsequent associations between surveillance status and survival outcomes. This was a retrospective cohort study of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database combined with Medicare claims. Patients diagnosed between 2002 and 2009 with disease stages II and III and who were between 66 and 84 years of age were eligible. A minimum of 3 years' follow-up was required, and patients were categorized as having received any surveillance testing (any testing) versus none (no testing). Poisson regression was used to obtain risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals for the relative likelihood of No Testing. Cox models were used to obtain subdistribution hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals for 5- and 10-year cancer-specific and noncancer deaths. There were 16,009 colon cancer cases analyzed. Patient characteristics that predicted No Testing included older age, Black race, stage III disease, and chemotherapy. Patients in the No Testing group had an increased rate of 10-year cancer death that was greater for patients with stage III disease (subdistribution hazard ratio = 1.79, 95% confidence interval: 1.48, 2.17) than those with stage II disease (subdistribution hazard ratio = 1.41, 95% confidence interval: 1.19, 1.66). Greater efforts are needed to ensure all patients receive the highest quality medical care after diagnosis of colon cancer.

Intensive follow-up strategies after radical surgery for nonmetastatic colorectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Intensive follow-up after surgery for colorectal cancers is common in clinical practice, but evidence of a survival benefit is limited.

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis on the effects of follow-up strategies for nonmetastatic colorectal cancer.

DATA SOURCES

We searched Medline, Embase, and CENTRAL databases through May 30, 2018.

STUDY SELECTION

We included randomized clinical trials evaluating intensive follow-up versus less follow-up in patients with nonmetastatic colorectal cancer.

INTERVENTIONS

Intensive follow-up.

MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES

Overall survival.

RESULTS

The analyses included 17 trials with a total of 8039 patients. Compared with less follow-up, intensive follow-up significantly improved overall survival in patients with nonmetastatic colorectal cancer after radical surgery (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.74-0.97, P = 0.01; I2 = 30%; high quality). Subgroup analyses showed that differences between intensive-frequency and intensive-test follow-up (P = 0.04) and between short interval and long interval of follow-up (P = 0.02) in favor of the former one.

LIMITATIONS

Clinical heterogeneity of interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with nonmetastatic colorectal cancer after curative resection, intensive follow-up strategy was associated with an improvement in overall survival compared with less follow-up strategy. Intensive-frequency follow-up strategy was associated with a greater reduction in mortality compared with intensive-test follow-up strategy.

The association between post-treatment surveillance testing and survival in stage II and III colon cancer patients: An observational comparative effectiveness study

BACKGROUND

The best strategy for surveillance testing in stage II and III colon cancer patients following curative treatment is unknown. Previous randomized controlled trials have suffered from design limitations and yielded conflicting evidence. This observational comparative effectiveness research study was conducted to provide new evidence on the relationship between post-treatment surveillance testing and survival by overcoming the limitations of previous clinical trials.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database combined with Medicare claims (SEER-Medicare). Stage II and III colon cancer patients diagnosed from 2002 to 2009 and between 66 to 84 years of age were eligible. Adherence to surveillance testing guidelines-including carcinoembryonic antigen, computed tomography, and colonoscopy-was assessed for each year of follow-up and overall for up to three years post-treatment. Patients were categorized as More Adherent and Less Adherent according to testing guidelines. Patients who received no surveillance testing were excluded. The primary outcome was 5-year cancer-specific survival; 5-year overall survival was the secondary outcome. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) using generalized boosted models was employed to balance covariates between the two surveillance groups. IPTW-adjusted survival curves comparing the two groups were performed by the Kaplan-Meier method. Weighted Cox regression was used to obtain hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the relative risk of death for the Less Adherent group versus the More Adherent group.

RESULTS

There were 17,860 stage II and III colon cancer cases available for analysis. Compared to More Adherent patients, Less Adherent patients experienced slightly better 5-year cancer-specific survival (HR = 0.83, 95% CI 0.76-0.90) and worse 5-year noncancer-specific survival (HR = 1.61, 95% CI 1.43-1.82) for years 2 to 5 of follow-up. There was no difference between the groups in overall survival (HR = 1.04, 95% CI 0.98-1.10).

CONCLUSIONS

More surveillance testing did not improve 5-year cancer-specific survival compared to less testing and there was no difference between the groups in overall survival. The results of this study support a risk-stratified, shared decision-making surveillance strategy to optimize clinical and patient-centered outcomes for colon cancer patients in the survivorship phase of care.

Follow-up patterns of cancer survivors: a survey of Canadian radiation oncologists

PURPOSE

With continual advancements in cancer care, improved outcomes, and increasing survivors, survivorship has become an important area of research. This project seeks to determine the current status of follow-up care in oncology.

METHODS

An electronic survey was sent to the Canadian Association of Radiation Oncology members. Based on brief clinical scenarios pertaining to various survivor populations, questions were posed to determine routine follow-up practices.

RESULTS

One hundred eleven radiation oncologists (RO) responded (44% response rate); 29% were female, 43% were in practice <10 years, and most of Canada was represented. Most worked in centers with >10 oncologists (69%) and saw >200 new consults per year (78%). Only 10% reported not following their patients routinely, mainly in those with breast cancer. Most would follow their central nervous system, gastrointestinal, head and neck, gynecologic, and genitourinary patients. Lack of resources and a belief that follow-up by family physicians (FPs) is equally effective were the top reasons for not following. Treatment toxicity and possibility of further treatment were the most common reasons for routine follow-up. The majority (55%) would follow patients for <5 years, with 36% for 5-10 years, and a minority (9%) for longer than 10 years; 54% would not change the frequency of follow-up, but 39% would decrease and only 7% would increase follow-up. Some felt transferring more care to other health professionals would require additional training and more guidelines. Survivorship care plans are underutilized.

CONCLUSIONS

Transfer of follow-up care to FPs is desired and feasible. This would allow for more comprehensive medical care and improve access to care for newly diagnosed patients. The development and usage of survivorship care plans would improve this care.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Survivors may be increasingly followed by family physicians. Better coordination between oncologists and family physicians, including the use of survivorship care plans, may facilitate this transition.

An exploratory randomized controlled trial comparing telephone and hospital follow-up after treatment for colorectal cancer

AIM

Following treatment for colorectal cancer it is common practice for patients to attend hospital clinics at regular intervals for routine monitoring, although debate persists on the benefits of this approach. Nurse-led telephone follow-up is effective in meeting information and psycho-social needs in other patient groups. We explored the potential benefits of nurse-led telephone follow-up for colorectal cancer patients.

METHOD

Sixty-five patients were randomized to either telephone or hospital follow-up in an exploratory randomized trial.

RESULTS

The telephone intervention was deliverable in clinical practice and acceptable to patients and health professionals. Seventy-five per cent of eligible patients agreed to randomization. High levels of satisfaction were evident in both study groups. Appointments in the hospital group were shorter (median 14.0 min, range 2.3-58.0) than appointments in the telephone group (median 28.9 min, range 6.1-48.3). Patients in the telephone arm were more likely to raise concerns during consultations.

CONCLUSION

Historical approaches to follow-up unsupported by evidence of effectiveness and efficiency are not sustainable. Telephone follow-up by specialist nurses may be a feasible option. A main trial comparing hospital and telephone follow-up is justified, although consideration needs to be given to trial design and practical issues related to the availability of specialist nurses at study locations.

First indicators of relapse in breast cancer: evaluation of the follow-up program at our hospital

BACKGROUND

Guidelines for breast cancer patient follow-up have not been widely adopted in Japan. To assess our intensive follow-up program, we evaluated first relapse and its indicators in patients with breast cancer.

PATIENTS

Of 964 patients, 126 relapsed and 43 died in the median follow-up term of 45 months. Follow-ups were scheduled every 6-12 months for imaging and tumor marker (TM) evaluation.

RESULTS

Of 126 relapsed patients, 30 (23.8%) had symptoms of relapse. First indicators of relapse in 96 asymptomatic patients were physical examination in 24 patients (19%); imaging, 57 patients (45.3%); and TMs, 15 patients (11.9%). The most sensitive indicators were physical examination for local relapse, ultrasonography for regional lymph nodes, scintigraphy for bone, computed tomography for lung, and TMs for liver metastasis. During intensive follow-up, 43% of relapsed patients were identified by symptoms or physical examination. These patients had poor prognosis compare to patients identified by imaging or TMs in overall survival and post-relapse survival (p = 0.009 and 0.019, respectively). In all 964 patients, the relapse rates for stage I, IIA, IIB, and III tumors were 7.4, 7.9, 19.9, and 43.5%, respectively. The percentage of first relapse detected by imaging or TMs for stage I, IIA, IIB, and III were 4.7, 5.1, 11.8, and 19.8%, respectively. The cost of our follow-up program for 10 years was approximately 290,000 yen per patient.

CONCLUSION

A routine intensive follow-up program involving imaging and evaluation of TMs in all patients has low efficacy and high expenditure.

Adherence to national guidelines for surveillance after curative resection of nonmetastatic colon and rectum cancer: a survey among Norwegian gastrointestinal surgeons

AIM

National guidelines recommend enrollment of patients in surveillance programmes following curative resection of colorectal carcinoma (CRC) in order to detect recurrence or distant metastasis at an asymptomatic/early stage when secondary curative treatment can be offered. Little is known about surgeons' adherence to such guidelines. In this national survey we analyse adherence and attitudes to postoperative follow up among Norwegian gastrointestinal surgeons involved in the care of patients with CRC.

METHOD

We performed a nationwide survey of all hospitals performing surgery for colon and/or rectum cancer. The presence of a surveillance programme, the type of programme, adherence to national guidelines or report on any deviation thereof, location of follow up at the hospital or with a general practitioner (GPs) and the estimated annual volume of surgery were queried through mail and telephone.

RESULTS

All hospitals (n=41) performing colorectal surgery responded, of which 25 (61%) conducted postoperative follow up by surgeons in the hospital outpatient clinics, four (10%) carried out follow up with a combination of hospital outpatient visits and visits to GPs, and 12 (29%) referred surveillance to the GP alone. For total reported patient numbers, almost two-thirds (60%) received surveillance according to national recommendations through outpatient visits with the surgeon or GP, while one-third (37%) were subject to other alternative routines. A small number (2%) received informal 'ad hoc' surveillance only. More liberal use of imaging outside guideline recommendations was reported for rectal cancer patients, while colon cancer patients treated in larger hospitals were more likely to be referred for GP surveillance.

CONCLUSION

All hospitals reported having a strategy for surveillance after surgery for colon and rectal cancer, but there was considerable variance in strategy. A scientific audit of the true level of compliance, effectiveness and cost-benefit is warranted at a national level.

Quality of life after esophagectomy for cancer

Esophageal cancer is an aggressive and physically and emotionally devastating disease. It has one of the poorest survival rates among all malignant tumors, mainly due to late symptom presentation and early metastatic dissemination. Cure is possible through extensive surgery, typically followed by a long recovery period, affecting general well-being, as well as basic aspects of life, such as eating, drinking and socializing. Health-related quality of life (HRQL) is a multidimensional concept assessing symptoms and functions related to a disease or its treatment from the patient's perspective. HRQL is a fundamental part of treatment in surgical oncology, particularly in esophageal cancer. This review assesses the scientific data regarding some HRQL aspects after esophageal cancer surgery, for example, postoperative recovery time, determinants of postoperative HRQL and long-term HRQL.

Proposed follow up programme after curative resection for lower third oesophageal cancer

The incidence of oesophageal adenocarcinoma has risen throughout the Western world over the last three decades. The prognosis remains poor as many patients are elderly and present with advanced disease. Those patients who are suitable for resection remain at high risk of disease recurrence. It is important that cancer patients take part in a follow up protocol to detect disease recurrence, offer psychological support, manage nutritional disorders and facilitate audit of surgical outcomes. Despite the recognition that regular postoperative follow up plays a key role in ongoing care of cancer patients, there is little consensus on the nature of the process. This paper reviews the published literature to determine the optimal timing and type of patient follow up for those after curative oesophageal resection.

A diagnostic paradigm for resectable liver lesions: to biopsy or not to biopsy?

BACKGROUND

Despite a growing body of evidence reporting the deleterious mechanical and oncological complications of biopsy of hepatic malignancy, a small but significant number of patients undergo the procedure prior to specialist surgical referral. Biopsy has been shown to result in poorer longterm survival following resection and advances in modern imaging modalities provide equivalent, or better, diagnostic accuracy.

METHODS

The literature relating to needle-tract seeding of primary and secondary liver cancers was reviewed. MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library were searched for case reports and series relating to the oncological complications of biopsy of liver malignancies. Current non-invasive diagnostic modalities are reviewed and their diagnostic accuracy presented.

RESULTS

Biopsy of malignant liver lesions has been shown to result in poorer longterm survival following resection and does not confer any diagnostic advantage over a combination of non-invasive imaging techniques and serum tumour markers.

CONCLUSIONS

Given that chemotherapeutic advances now often permit downstaging and subsequent resection of 'unresectable' disease, the time has come to abandon biopsy of solid lesions outside the setting of a specialist multi-disciplinary team meeting (MDT).

Application of the BSG guidelines to a colonoscopy waiting list

Abstract Objective Currently priority for colonoscopy is given to diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. Surveillance colonoscopies place a significant demand on the service. These are held on a separate waiting list in our institution, which is currently several years behind. The purpose of this study was to apply the BSG guidelines to this waiting list in our institution in order to ascertain whether patients are appropriately listed. Method This was a retrospective review. The patients on the waiting list whose procedures were due in 2004 and 2005 formed the study group. Information on demographics, previous colonoscopies, and indication was taken from the case notes. Results were analysed using Microsoft Excel. Results A total of 172 patients were overdue their colonoscopies. If the BSG guidelines were strictly adhered to, 49% of these patients were inappropriately listed. If applied less rigidly, 42% of patients should not have been on the list. The reasons for removal from the list were as follows: Thirty-nine patients were older than the upper age limit, 23 had had clear colonoscopies after adenomatous polyp follow up, four were listed for diverticular disease follow up, four for metaplastic polyps, one for constipation and one for per rectum (PR) bleed follow up. Conclusion With strict application of the BSG guidelines to a surveillance colonoscopy waiting list, 49% of the patients on the list do not need the procedure. It is recommended that consultant led education and control of the waiting list be used to reduce unnecessary investigations.

Primary care physicians' views of routine follow-up care of cancer survivors

PURPOSE

Routine follow-up of adult cancer survivors is an important clinical and health service issue. Because of a lack of evidence supporting advantages of long-term follow-up care in oncology clinics, there is increasing interest for the locus of this care to be provided by primary care physicians (PCPs). However, current Canadian PCP views on this issue have been largely unknown.

METHODS

A mail survey of a random sample of PCPs across Canada, stratified by region and proximity to urban centers, was conducted. Views on routine follow-up of adult cancer survivors and modalities to facilitate PCPs in providing this care were determined.

RESULTS

A total of 330 PCPs responded (adjusted response rate, 51.7%). After completion of active treatment, PCPs were willing to assume exclusive responsibility for routine follow-up care after 2.4 +/- 2.3 years had elapsed for prostate cancer, 2.6 +/- 2.6 years for colorectal cancer, 2.8 +/- 2.5 years for breast cancer, and 3.2 +/- 2.7 years for lymphoma. PCPs already providing this care were willing to provide exclusive care sooner. The most useful modalities PCPs felt would assist them in assuming exclusive responsibility for follow-up cancer care were (1) a patient-specific letter from the specialist, (2) printed guidelines, (3) expedited routes of rereferral, and (4) expedited access to investigations for suspected recurrence.

CONCLUSION

With appropriate information and support in place, PCPs reported being willing to assume exclusive responsibility for the follow-up care of adult cancer survivors. Insights gained from this survey may ultimately help guide strategies in providing optimal care to these patients.

Patient satisfaction with colorectal cancer follow-up system: an audit

Although there have been studies into intensive follow-up versus non-intensive follow-up of patients following colorectal surgery, the evidence has not demonstrated sufficient benefit in the intensive follow-up regimen to warrant change in practice nationally, and there are no national guidelines for this. Currently at the authors' hospital the follow-up is non-intensive, and consists of an initial nurse-led surgical follow-up, dedicated patient hotline telephone number, surveillance, symptom list and open access to the nurse-led clinic as required. An audit was carried out to determine patient satisfaction with the current method of follow-up and to identify areas for improvement. The majority of patients (95%) were 'very or fairly' happy with the current service. Areas for improvement were identified. The key point from the survey was that patients would like a follow-up phone call post-diagnosis and 48 hours post-discharge from hospital. This has been implemented since the audit.