Surveillance after colorectal cancer surgery

Prognostic Significance of Preoperative and Postoperative Evaluation of Combined Tumor Markers for Patients With Colon Cancer

BACKGROUND

The combined value of the tumor markers carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9) in patients with colon cancer (CC) is unclear. This study aimed to investigate the role of composite tumor markers in the prognosis of CC.

METHODS

Patients who underwent curative resection of colon adenocarcinoma were enrolled. The tumor marker status before and after the operation was used to divide the patients into groups according to the number of tumor markers with abnormal expression, and recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) of different groups were compared. The impact of changes in composite tumor markers in the perioperative period on outcomes was further explored.

RESULTS

Ultimately, 531 patients were enrolled in the study. As the number of preoperative and postoperative elevated tumor markers increased, both RFS and OS rates became lower (both P<0.05). Further analysis revealed that the number of elevated tumor markers after resection can significantly affect the outcomes (both P<0.05). In patients with abnormal preoperative tumor markers, normalization of markers after surgery was a protective factor for prognosis (both P<0.05), and patients with postoperative elevated levels of both tumor markers had a 5.5-fold and 6-fold increase in the risk of recurrence and death. In addition, patients with elevated markers after surgery had a high risk of recurrence within 5 years after colectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

Postoperative tumor markers had a better ability to differentiate postoperative outcomes in patients with CC than preoperative tumor markers. Patients whose tumor markers normalized after surgery had a better prognosis.

The chemopreventive effect of thymol against dimethylhydrazine and/or high fat diet-induced colon cancer in rats: Relevance to NF-κB

AIM

Evaluating the possible protective effect of thymol as an approach against 1,2 N,N-dimethylhydrazine and/or high-fat diet (HFD)-induced colon cancer.

MAIN METHODS

Adult male Wistar rats were divided into 7 groups, namely a normal control group, colon cancer groups received DMH (40 mg/kg i.p., twice weekly), 20% HFD and DMH/HFD, thymol (20 mg/kg/day, p.o.), thymol/DMH and thymol/DMH/HFD (treatment of all groups continued for 16 weeks).

KEY FINDINGS

Thymol significantly reduced the elevated serum levels of colon related tumor markers carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA 19-9) and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) as well as the apoptotic marker, caspase-3 compared with the colon cancer group. In addition, it mitigated colonic tissue oxidative stress markers and inflammatory mediators. Moreover, the histopathological study revealed reduction of mucous secretion with elongated nuclei, frequent mitotic figures, focal nuclear stratification, mild interstitial edema, and markedly dilated congested blood vessels, aberrant crypt foci (ACF); adenoma with moderate to severe dysplasia of colon corrected by thymol treatment.

SIGNIFICANCE

The administration of thymol had a promising preclinical protective efficacy and could be considered as a new strategy for the prophylaxis from colon cancer in clinical practices.

A Prospective Study of Comparing Multi-Gene Biomarker Chip and Serum Carcinoembryonic Antigen in the Postoperative Surveillance for Patients with Stage I-III Colorectal Cancer

Background

Circulating biomarkers can predict clinical outcomes in colorectal cancer patients. The aim of the study was to evaluate the feasibility of our multigene biomarker chip for detecting circulating tumor cells for postoperative surveillance of stage I–III colorectal cancer patients.

Materials and Methods

In total, 298 stage I–III colorectal cancer patients were analyzed after curative resection between June 2010 and October 2014. During each follow-up, a postoperative surveillance strategy, including ESMO Guidelines Working Group recommendations and the biochip, was used.

Results

After a 28.4-month median follow-up, 48 (16.1%) patients had postoperative relapse. Univariate analysis revealed that the postoperative relapse risk factors were rectal tumor, perineural invasion, elevated preoperative and postoperative serum carcinoembryonic antigen levels, and positive biochip results (all P < 0.05). Multivariate analyses revealed that postoperative relapse correlated significantly with elevated postoperative serum carcinoembryonic antigen levels (odds ratio = 4.136, P = 0.008) and positive biochip results (odds ratio = 66.878, P < 0.001). However, the sensitivity (P = 0.003), specificity (P = 0.003), positive (P = 0.002) and negative (P = 0.006) predictive values, and accuracy (P < 0.001) of the biochip for predicting postoperative relapse were significantly higher than those of elevated postoperative serum carcinoembryonic antigen levels. Moreover, the median lead time between positive biochip result and postoperative relapse detection was significantly earlier than that between elevated postoperative serum carcinoembryonic antigen level and postoperative relapse detection (10.7 vs. 2.8 months, P < 0.001). Furthermore, positive biochip results correlated strongly with lower disease-free survival and overall survival of colorectal cancer patients (both P < 0.001).

Conclusion

Compared with conventional serum carcinoembryonic antigen detection, our multigene chip aided more accurate and earlier prediction of postoperative relapse during stage I–III colorectal cancer patient surveillance. In clinical practice, this biochip may facilitate early postoperative relapse diagnosis in colorectal cancer patients.

Blood CEA levels for detecting recurrent colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Testing for carcino-embryonic antigen (CEA) in the blood is a recommended part of follow-up to detect recurrence of colorectal cancer following primary curative treatment. There is substantial clinical variation in the cut-off level applied to trigger further investigation.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the diagnostic performance of different blood CEA levels in identifying people with colorectal cancer recurrence in order to inform clinical practice.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted all searches to January 29 2014. We applied no language limits to the searches, and translated non-English manuscripts. We searched for relevant reviews in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, MEDION and DARE databases. We searched for primary studies (including conference abstracts) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Science Citation Index & Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science. We identified ongoing studies by searching WHO ICTRP and the ASCO meeting library.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included cross-sectional diagnostic test accuracy studies, cohort studies, and randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of post-resection colorectal cancer follow-up that compared CEA to a reference standard. We included studies only if we could extract 2 x 2 accuracy data. We excluded case-control studies, as the ratio of cases to controls is determined by the study design, making the data unsuitable for assessing test accuracy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors (BDN, IP) assessed the quality of all articles independently, discussing any disagreements. Where we could not reach consensus, a third author (BS) acted as moderator. We assessed methodological quality against QUADAS-2 criteria. We extracted binary diagnostic accuracy data from all included studies as 2 x 2 tables. We conducted a bivariate meta-analysis. We used the xtmelogit command in Stata to produce the pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity and we also produced hierarchical summary ROC plots.

MAIN RESULTS

In the 52 included studies, sensitivity ranged from 41% to 97% and specificity from 52% to 100%. In the seven studies reporting the impact of applying a threshold of 2.5 µg/L, pooled sensitivity was 82% (95% confidence interval (CI) 78% to 86%) and pooled specificity 80% (95% CI 59% to 92%). In the 23 studies reporting the impact of applying a threshold of 5 µg/L, pooled sensitivity was 71% (95% CI 64% to 76%) and pooled specificity 88% (95% CI 84% to 92%). In the seven studies reporting the impact of applying a threshold of 10 µg/L, pooled sensitivity was 68% (95% CI 53% to 79%) and pooled specificity 97% (95% CI 90% to 99%).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

CEA is insufficiently sensitive to be used alone, even with a low threshold. It is therefore essential to augment CEA monitoring with another diagnostic modality in order to avoid missed cases. Trying to improve sensitivity by adopting a low threshold is a poor strategy because of the high numbers of false alarms generated. We therefore recommend monitoring for colorectal cancer recurrence with more than one diagnostic modality but applying the highest CEA cut-off assessed (10 µg/L).

Current and emerging surveillance strategies to expand the window of opportunity for curative treatment after surgery in colorectal cancer

Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer globally. At diagnosis, more than 70% of patients have nonmetastatic disease. Cure rates for early-stage colorectal cancer have improved with primary screening, improvements in surgical techniques and advances in adjuvant chemotherapy. Despite optimal primary treatment, 30-50% of these patients will still relapse. While death will result from widespread metastatic disease, patients with small volume oligometastatic disease are still considered curable with aggressive multimodality therapy. Hence, early detection of relapsed cancer when it is still amenable to resection expands the window of opportunity for cure. Here, the authors review the modalities currently employed in clinical practice and the evidence supporting intensive surveillance strategies. The authors also discuss ongoing clinical trials examining specific surveillance programs and emerging modalities that may be deployed in the future for early detection of metastatic disease.

Accuracy of monitoring serum carcinoembryonic antigen levels in postoperative stage III colorectal cancer patients is limited to only the first postoperative year

PURPOSE

The aim of the present study was to determine the accuracy of yearly postoperative monitoring of serum tumor markers to either detect or rule out recurrence in colorectal cancer patients.

METHODS

A total of 127 colorectal cancer patients who underwent curative surgery were enrolled. The serum carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9) levels were assayed, and radiological examinations were performed routinely for 5 years after surgery or until recurrence was detected. Yearly recurrence rates (number of recurrences/number of patients assessed in a given year), sensitivities, specificities, and likelihood ratios were calculated. Post-test probabilities were calculated from these values.

RESULTS

Recurrences tended to show almost the same frequencies in the first and second year after surgery (20 of 127 patients and 18 of 107 patients, respectively). However, the post-test probability of recurrence in patients with positive and negative serum CEA levels was significantly lower in the second year than in the first year (test positive: 40.0% and 76.0%; test negative: 9.3% and 0.5%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Measuring CEA can help to identify patients likely to demonstrate recurrence with high accuracy only within the first year after surgery. Another examination, such as imaging, is therefore necessary for monitoring patients at 2 or more years after surgery.

Does serum carcinoembryonic antigen elevation in patients with postoperative stage II colorectal cancer indicate recurrence? Comparison with stage III

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to determine the accuracy of postoperative monitoring of serum carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) to detect or rule out recurrence in patients with stage II colorectal cancer (CRC) by comparing results with stage III.

METHODS

A total of 303 patients with CRC who underwent curative surgery were enrolled. Serum CEA was assayed, and radiological examination was performed routinely for 5 years after surgery. Yearly recurrence rates, sensitivities, specificities, likelihood ratios, and posttest probabilities were calculated.

RESULTS

Sensitivity and specificity of CEA monitoring in stage II patients are almost same as those in stage III. Whereas recurrences occurred early in stage III, they occurred almost as frequently in both early and late stage II. The obtained posttest probability of recurrence in stage II patients with CEA elevation was significantly lower (only 30% or less) than those in stage III (approximately 80%).

CONCLUSION

Elevation of CEA in patients with stage II CRC does not represent recurrence with high probability. One of the reasons for the unreliability of CEA monitoring was its high false-positive rate. Another tumor marker with a lower false-positive rate is necessary to follow-up stage II CRC patients.

Negative serum carcinoembryonic antigen has insufficient accuracy for excluding recurrence from patients with Dukes C colorectal cancer: analysis with likelihood ratio and posttest probability in a follow-up study

PURPOSE

This study was designed to determine the efficacy of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) monitoring for screening patients with colorectal cancer by using posttest probability of recurrence.

METHODS

For this study, 348 (preoperative serum CEA level elevated: CEA+, n = 119; or normal: CEA-, n = 229) patients who had undergone potentially curative surgery for colorectal cancer were enrolled. After five-year follow-up with measurements of serum CEA levels and imaging workup, posttest probabilities of recurrence were calculated.

RESULTS

Recurrence was observed in 39 percent of CEA+ patients and 30 percent in CEA- patients, and CEA levels were elevated in 33.3 percent of CEA+ patients and 17.5 percent of CEA- patients. With obtained sensitivity (68.4 percent, CEA+; 41 percent, CEA-), specificity (83 percent, CEA+; 91 percent, CEA-) and likelihood ratio (test positive: 4.0, CEA+; 4.4, CEA-; and test negative: 0.38, CEA+; 0.66, CEA-), posttest probability given the presence of CEA elevation in the CEA+ and CEA- was 72.2 and 65.5 percent, respectively, and that given the absence of CEA elevation was 20 and 22.2 percent, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Whereas postoperative CEA elevation indicates recurrence with high probability, a normal postoperative CEA is not useful for excluding the probability of recurrence.

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.

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 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.

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.

Staging of colorectal cancer

CT, MR, and TRUS play complementary roles in staging CRC. Further improvements in these techniques will improve the accuracy of preoperative staging and thereby help optimize patient treatment and outcome.

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.

Current treatment for colorectal cancer metastatic to the liver

Surgery is currently the only available treatment option which offers the potential for cure for patients with liver metastases from colorectal cancer. Of those who undergo a potentially curative operation for their primary tumour but subsequently recur, almost 80% will develop evidence of metastatic disease within the liver. Greater experience and improvements in technique in liver surgery, with an increasingly aggressive surgical approach to metastatic colorectal cancer to the liver, has resulted in prolonged disease-free survival with 5-year rates varying from 21% to 48%. In order to increase these numbers further and to treat patients not eligible for surgical therapy, new treatment modalities and strategies have been developed. This review presents an update of the current treatment for colorectal disease metastatic to the liver.