Adherence to surveillance guidelines after curative resection for stage II/III colorectal cancer

Trends in adoption of total neoadjuvant therapy for locally advanced rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Total neoadjuvant chemoradiation (TNT), an accepted strategy for the treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC), was first included in guidelines in 2018. We aimed to describe trends in, and factors associated with TNT receipt.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study of adult patients with LARC was performed using the national cancer database (2012-2020). TNT status was determined, and temporal trends analyzed. Factors associated with TNT receipt were identified by stage.

RESULTS

A total of 51,407 patients were identified; 57.3 ​% received TNT. Increasing age and comorbidities were associated with higher rates of TNT receipt. Patients with stage III disease were more likely to receive TNT (stage II OR 0.92, 95%CI 0.88-0.96). Patients were 38 ​% more likely to get TNT after guideline inclusion (OR1.38, 95%CI 1.31-1.46).

CONCLUSION

Rates of TNT were consistently above 50 ​% and rose after inclusion in the NCCN guidelines. This study establishes baseline patterns in rates of TNT for future benchmarking.

Colonoscopy, imaging, and carcinoembryonic antigen: Comparison of guideline adherence to surveillance strategies in patients who underwent resection of colorectal cancer - A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Almost one-third of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) experience recurrence after resection. Adherence to surveillance guidelines largely dictates efficacy in early detection of recurrence. We sought to assess and compare adherence to postoperative surveillance guidelines for colonoscopy, imaging, and Carcinoembryonic Antigen (CEA).

METHODS

PubMed, Medline, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane, Web of Science, and CINAHL were systematically searched. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed and pooled adherence to each surveillance strategy was assessed for CEA, imaging, and colonoscopy.

RESULTS

Overall 14 studies (55,895 patients) met the inclusion criteria. Adherence to colonoscopy guidelines was the highest (70%, 95%CI 67-73), followed by imaging (63%, 95%CI 47-80), and CEA (54%; 95%CI 42-66). Among 7 (50%) studies that examined adherence to the American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines, compliance with colonoscopy was the highest (73%; 95% CI 70-76), followed by imaging (58%; 95% CI 37-78), and CEA (45%; 95%CI 37-52). Of note, guideline adherence to CEA testing was much lower than colonoscopy among patients with colon (OR 0.21; 95%CI 0.20-0.22) and rectal cancer (OR 0.25; 95%CI 0.23-0.28) (both p < 0.05). This was also noted when compared with imaging recommendations among older patients (OR = 0.62; 95%CI 0.42-0.93) and patients with stage II, (OR = 0.80; 95%CI 0.76-0.84) and stage III disease (OR = 0.88; 95%CI 0.82-0.94) (all p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

While guideline adherence to postoperative surveillance with colonoscopy was high, adherence to CEA testing and imaging surveillance strategies was markedly lower following CRC resection. Future studies should investigate avenues to improve compliance with surveillance guidelines among health care providers and patients to optimize postoperative follow-up for CRC.

Are Community Hospitals Meeting the Same Standards as Academic Hospitals for the Multimodal Management of Rectal Cancer?

Although multimodal treatment (surgery, chemotherapy ± radiation) has improved survival in patients with rectal cancer, there are inconsistent treatment patterns in hospitals in the United States. The objective of the study was to evaluate whether treatment paradigms have changed for patients with Stage II and III rectal cancer in community hospitals compared with academic research hospitals, i.e., teaching or comprehensive hospitals engaged in research. The National Cancer Database was queried to identify all patients diagnosed with Stage II or III rectal adenocarcinoma between 2000 and 2008. The first course of treatment and patient clinicodemographic factors were evaluated. Of 70,409 patients in the study cohort, 7,235 (62.9%) at community hospitals, 24,465 (66.9%) at comprehensive hospitals, and 14,868 (66.6%) at teaching hospitals received multimodal therapy. Community hospitals were more likely to treat individuals who were older, white, and with lower income compared with the other facility types. Teaching hospitals treated a higher proportion of uninsured patients. Despite differences in patient demographics, community hospitals have increased the use of multimodal treatment for rectal cancer but continue to remain below academic research hospital standards.

Role of surveillance imaging and endoscopy in colorectal cancer follow-up: Quality over quantity?

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a prevalent disease and represents a major cause of morbidity and mortality in the developed world. Intensive post-treatment surveillance is routinely recommended by major expert groups for early stage (II and III) CRC survivors because previous meta-analyses showed a modest, but significant survival benefit. This practice has been recently challenged based on data emerging from several large phase III randomized trials that demonstrated a lack of survival benefit from intensive surveillance strategies. In addition, findings from cost-effectiveness analyses of such an approach are inconsistent. Data on real-world practice, specifically adherence to these follow-up guidelines, are also limited. The debate is especially controversial in resected stage IV patients where there are currently no clear guidelines for follow-up. In an era of personalized medicine, there may be a shift towards a more risk-adapted approach to better define the optimal follow-up strategy. In this article, we review the evidence and highlight the role of surveillance in CRC survivors.

Adherence to surveillance guidelines in resected NSCLC: Physician compliance and impact on outcomes

BACKGROUND

Resected NSCLC guidelines have varying recommendations on appropriate post-operative surveillance. There is general consensus that patients require follow-up with clinic visits and/or CT scans every 6 months for the first 2 years. This study evaluated compliance with surveillance guidelines and the impact on outcomes.

METHODS

The BC Cancer Agency (BCCA) provides cancer control for 4.6 million individuals. Inclusion criteria included referred patients from 2005 to 2010, resected stage Ib/II NSCLC, minimum 2 years follow-up at the BCCA, no prior cancer within 5 years. Retrospective chart review collected baseline parameters, follow up visits, CT imaging, recurrence and death.

RESULTS

479 were referred and 263 were eligible. Baseline characteristics: median age 68, male 52%, current/former/never smoker 38/52/10%, stage Ib/II 51/49%, squamous/non 30%/70%. Adherence to visits and/or CT scans every 6 months in 2 years: clinic visits 77%, CT scans 35%, visit and/or CT 80%. Recurrence rate was 46% at 2 years. Surveillance below vs per/above guidelines; metastatic recurrence 57% vs 79% (p=0.28), curative intent treatment at recurrence 14% vs 9% (p=0.50), palliative systemic treatment given 14% vs 34% (p=0.42), DFS 66.6m vs 37.6m (p<0.001), OS 76.5m vs 37.7m (p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Compliance with follow up recommendations for resected NSCLC was 80%. Guideline conformity did not increase the rate of curative treatment at recurrence nor did it increase the proportion of patients treated with palliative chemotherapy. Better adjuvant treatment and surveillance options are needed for resected NSCLC.

Examining colorectal cancer survivors' surveillance patterns and experiences of care: a SEER-CAHPS study

PURPOSE

We examined associations between experiences of care and adherence to surveillance guidelines among Medicare Fee-For-Service beneficiaries with colorectal cancer (CRC).

METHODS

Using linked data from the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End results (SEER) cancer registry program and the Medicare Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS^®) patient experience surveys (SEER-CAHPS), we identified local/regional CRC survivors diagnosed in 1999-2009 aged 65+, who underwent surgical resection and completed a CAHPS survey <36 months of diagnosis. Adherence for a 3-year observation period was defined as receiving a colonoscopy; ≥2 carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) tests; and each year had ≥2 office visits and ≥1 computerized tomography test.

RESULTS

Many of the 314 participants reported ratings of a 9 or 10 out of 10 for overall care (55.4%), personal doctor (58.6%), health plan (59.6%), and specialist doctor (47.0%). Adherence to post-resection surveillance was 76.1% for office visits, 36.9% for CEA testing, 48.1% for colonoscopy, and 10.3% for CT Imaging. Overall, 37.9% of the sample were categorized as non-adherent (adhering to ≤1 surveillance guideline). In multivariable models, ratings of personal doctor and specialist doctor were positively associated with adherence to office visits, and ratings of personal doctor were associated with adherence overall.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings point to the potentially important role of patient-provider relationships in adherence to office visits for CRC surveillance. As adherence may increase survival among CRC survivors, further investigation is needed to identify specific components of this relationship that impact office visit adherence, and other potentially modifiable drivers of surveillance guidelines.

Survey of American and Canadian general surgeons' perceptions of margin status and practice patterns for breast conserving surgery

Although breast conservation surgery (BCS) is commonly performed, several aspects of the procedure remain controversial. We undertook a cross-sectional survey to compare Canadian (CDN) and American (AM) general surgeons' reported BCS practice patterns to better understand the cross-border differences in early-stage breast cancer surgery care. A modified Dillman Method survey was mailed to 1,447 AM and 1,443 CDN surgeons. Factors evaluated included preoperative assessment, margin definition, surgical techniques, and re-excision practices. The response rate was 26% and 51% for AM and CDN surgeons, respectively. There was variation in use of preoperative core biopsies. American surgeons required wider margins for invasive cancer and ductal carcinoma in situ, and more often recommend re-excision for invasive cancer with 1 and 2 mm margins (p < 0.05). There was also variability in surgical techniques used for intraoperative margin assessment. Wide variation in BCS practice was observed, with some of this variability related to surgeon country.

Early detection of colorectal cancer recurrence in patients undergoing surgery with curative intent: current status and challenges

Despite advances in neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy, attention to proper surgical technique, and improved pathological staging for both the primary and metastatic lesions, almost half of all colorectal cancer patients will develop recurrent disease. More concerning, this includes ~25% of patients with theoretically curable node-negative, non-metastatic Stage I and II disease. Given the annual incidence of colorectal cancer, approximately 150,000 new patients are candidates each year for follow-up surveillance. When combined with the greater population already enrolled in a surveillance protocol, this translates to a tremendous number of patients at risk for recurrence. It is therefore imperative that strategies aim for detection of recurrence as early as possible to allow initiation of treatment that may still result in cure. Yet, controversy exists regarding the optimal surveillance strategy (high-intensity vs. traditional), ideal testing regimen, and overall effectiveness. While benefits may involve earlier detection of recurrence, psychological welfare improvement, and greater overall survival, this must be weighed against the potential disadvantages including more invasive tests, higher rates of reoperation, and increased costs. In this review, we will examine the current options available and challenges surrounding colorectal cancer surveillance and early detection of recurrence.

Patterns of colorectal cancer care in the United States and Canada: a systematic review

Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer in the United States and Canada. Given the high incidence and increased survival of colorectal cancer patients, prevalence is increasing over time in both countries. Using MEDLINE, we conducted a systematic review of the literature published between 2000 and 2010 to describe patterns of colorectal cancer care. Specifically we examined data sources used to obtain treatment information and compared patterns of cancer-directed initial care, post-diagnostic surveillance care, and end-of-life care among colorectal cancer patients diagnosed in the United States and Canada. Receipt of initial treatment for colorectal cancer was associated with the anatomical position of the tumor and extent of disease at diagnosis, in accordance with consensus-based guidelines. Overall, care trends were similar between the United States and Canada; however, we observed differences with respect to data sources used to measure treatment receipt. Differences were also present between study populations within country, further limiting direct comparisons. Findings from this review will allow researchers, clinicians, and policy makers to evaluate treatment receipt by patient, clinical, or system characteristics and identify emerging trends over time. Furthermore, comparisons between health-care systems in the United States and Canada can identify disparities in care, allow the evaluation of different models of care, and highlight issues regarding the utility of existing data sources to estimate national patterns of care.

Current opinions on medical radiation: a survey of oncologists regarding radiation exposure and dose reduction in oncology patients

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to evaluate oncologists' opinions about the use of ionizing radiation in medical imaging of oncology patients.

METHODS

An electronic survey was e-mailed to 2,725 oncologists at the top 50 National Cancer Institute-funded cancer centers. The survey focused on opinions on CT dose reduction in oncology patients and current philosophies behind long-term imaging in these patients.

RESULTS

The response rate was 15% (415 of 2,725). Eighty-two percent of respondents stated that their patients or families have expressed anxiety regarding radiation dose from medical imaging. Although fewer than half of oncologists (48%) did not know whether CT dose reduction techniques were used at their institutions, only 25% were concerned that small lesions may be missed with low-dose CT techniques. The majority of oncologists (63%) follow National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for imaging follow-up, while the remainder follow other national guidelines such as those of the Children's Oncology Group, the American Society of Clinical Oncology, or clinical trials. Ninety percent of respondents believe that long-term surveillance in oncology patients is warranted, particularly in patients with breast cancer, melanoma, sarcoma, and pediatric malignancies. The majority of oncologists would consider the use of low-dose CT imaging in specific patient populations: (1) children and young women, (2) those with malignancies that do not routinely metastasize to the liver, and (3) patients undergoing surveillance imaging.

CONCLUSIONS

Cumulative radiation exposure is a concern for patients and oncologists. Among oncologists, there is support for long-term imaging surveillance despite lack of national guidelines.

Trends in hepatitis B virus screening at the onset of chemotherapy in a large US cancer center

Background

National organizations recommend screening for hepatitis B virus (HBV) before chemotherapy but differ regarding which patients should be screened. We aimed to determine contemporary screening rates at a cancer center and the possible influence on these rates of publication of national recommendations.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of HBV screening in cancer patients registered during the period from January 2004 through April 2011. Screening was defined as HBsAg and anti-HBc tests ordered around the time of initial chemotherapy. We compared screening rates for 3 periods: January 1, 2004, through December 18, 2008 (Food and Drug Administration and American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases 2007 recommendations); December 19, 2008, through September 30, 2010 (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Comprehensive Cancer Network, American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases 2009, Institute of Medicine, and American Society of Clinical Oncology recommendations); and October 1, 2010, through April 30, 2011. Logistic regression models were used to identify predictors of screening.

Results

Of 141,877 new patients, 18,688 received chemotherapy, and 3020 (16.2%) were screened. HBV screening rates increased over the 3 time periods (14.8%, 18.2%, 19.9%; P < 0.0001), but <19% of patients with HBV risk factors were screened. Among patients with hematologic malignancies, over 66% were screened, and odds of screening nearly doubled after publication of the recommendations (P < 0.0001). Less than 4% of patients with solid tumors were screened, although odds of screening increased 70% after publication of the recommendations (P = 0.003). Other predictors of screening included younger age, planned rituximab therapy, and known risk factors for HBV infection.

Conclusions

Most patients with solid tumors or HBV risk factors remained unscreened, although screening rates increased after publication of national recommendations. Efforts are needed to increase awareness of the importance of HBV screening before chemotherapy to identify patients who should start antiviral prophylaxis.

Receipt of recommended surveillance among colorectal cancer survivors: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Regular surveillance decreases the risk of recurrent cancer in colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors. However, studies suggest that receipt of follow-up tests is not consistent with guidelines. This systematic review aimed to: (1) examine receipt of recommended post-treatment surveillance tests and procedures among CRC survivors, including adherence to established guidelines, and (2) identify correlates of CRC surveillance.

METHODS

Systematic searches of Medline, PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL Plus, and Scopus databases were conducted using terms adapted for each database's keywords and subject headings. Studies were screened for inclusion using a three-step process: (1) lead author reviewed abstracts of all eligible studies; (2) coauthors reviewed random 5 % samples of abstracts; and (3) two sets of coauthors reviewed all "maybe" abstracts. Discrepancies were adjudicated through discussion.

RESULTS

Thirty-four studies are included in the review. Overall adherence ranged from 12 to 87 %. Within the initial 12 to 18 months post-treatment, adherence to recommended office visits was 93 %. Adherence ranged from 78 to 98 % for physical exams, 18-61 % for colonoscopy, and 17-71 % for carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) testing. By 2 to 3 years post-treatment, cumulative adherence ranged from 70 to 88 % for office visits, 89-93 % for physical exams, 49-94 % for colonoscopy, and 7-79 % for CEA testing. Between 18 and 28 % of CRC survivors received greater than recommended overall surveillance; overuse of physical exams (42 %), colonoscopy (24-76 %), and metastatic disease testing (1-29 %) was also prevalent. Studies of correlates of CRC surveillance focused on sociodemographic and disease/treatment characteristics, and patterns of association were inconsistent across studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Deviation from surveillance recommendations includes both under- and overuse. Examination of modifiable determinants is needed to inform interventions targeting appropriate and timely receipt of recommended surveillance.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Among CRC survivors, it remains unclear what modifiable psychosocial factors are associated with the observed under- and overuse of surveillance. Understanding and intervening with these psychosocial factors is critical to improving adherence to guideline-recommended surveillance and thereby reducing mortality among this group of survivors.

Provider perceptions and expectations of breast cancer posttreatment care: a University of California Athena Breast Health Network project

PURPOSE

The Athena Breast Health Network collaboration is a University of California system-wide project initiated with the intent to drive innovation in breast cancer prevention, screening, and treatment. This qualitative research examines provider perceptions and expectations of posttreatment breast cancer care across five network sites with the goal of better understanding provider behavior during the posttreatment phase of the cancer care trajectory.

METHODS

Investigators at each site conducted semi-structured interviews with oncology specialists and primary care providers (PCPs). Interviews used case study examples and open- and closed-ended questions on the delivery of posttreatment breast cancer care. Informant responses were manually recorded by the interviewer, compiled in a database, then coded and analyzed using NVivo 9 software.

RESULTS

There were 39 key informants across the sites: 14 medical oncologists, 7 radiation oncologists, 11 surgeons, 3 oncology nurses, and 4 PCPs. Care coordination was a major unprompted theme identified in the interviews. There was a perceived need for greater care coordination across institutions in order to improve delivery of posttreatment health care services and a need for greater care coordination within oncology, particularly to help avoid duplication of follow-up care and services. Participants expect frequent follow-up visits and to use biomarker tests and advanced imaging services as part of routine surveillance care. Implementing survivorship care programs was perceived as a way to improve care delivery.

CONCLUSIONS

These results identify a need for increased focus on care coordination during the posttreatment phase of breast cancer care within the University of California system and the potential for system and provider-level interventions that could help increase coordination of posttreatment care.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Breast cancer survivors do not always receive evidence-based care. This research helps to better understand what motivates provider behavior during the posttreatment phase and lays a foundation for targeted interventions to increase adherence to evidence-based recommendations.

What interval between colorectal cancer resection and first surveillance colonoscopy? An audit of practice and yield

AIM

Colonoscopic follow-up after colorectal cancer resection (CRC) is recommended to screen for anastomotic recurrence and metachronous neoplasia, although guidelines vary in the timings of the first investigation. We aimed to quantify current practice and yield of neoplasia at first colonoscopy in relation to time from original resection.

METHOD

We conducted a retrospective case note study of all CRCs treated with curative intent within our hospital between two time periods: 2001-2003 and 2006-2007. Variables collected were the extent of preoperative luminal imaging, tumour site, procedure, timing and findings of initial colonoscopy, postoperative CT findings and mortality. The first follow-up colonoscopy findings including neoplasia formation and recurrence rates were matched with rates of complete preoperative luminal imaging. Two-year and 5-year outcomes were sought.

RESULTS

A total of 863 patients underwent CRC with curative intent within these two time periods (518 vs 345). Colonoscopic follow-up rates by 2 years were 32.8%vs 54.1%. Within the first cohort 63.5% of patients underwent colonoscopy by 5 years. Significant volumes of neoplasia and resectable recurrences were found before 2 years within these groups. Earlier detection of recurrent malignancy was associated with an improved patient outcome. Complete preoperative screening of the bowel was not associated with a lower incidence of neoplasia at first postoperative colonoscopy.

CONCLUSION

Our study demonstrates significant colonoscopic detection rates of neoplasia within 2 years of CRC. Patient outcomes were improved with earlier detection. We would therefore suggest an interval of no more than 2 years between resection and first surveillance colonoscopy.

Impact of a dedicated cancer center surveillance program on guideline adherence for patients with stage II and III colorectal cancer

Surveillance after curative treatment for stage II/III colorectal cancer identifies surgically resectable disease and improves survival. We evaluated adherence to guidelines and outcomes for 408 patients enrolled in an innovative follow-up program at our cancer center. We found that a dedicated intensive surveillance program can impact adherence to guidelines for patients with colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND

Our aims were to evaluate adherence to guidelines on colorectal cancer surveillance and outcomes for patients enrolled in an innovative follow-up program at our cancer center.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A retrospective chart review was conducted at the Cross Cancer Institute in Edmonton, Canada. Patients with stage II/III colorectal cancer who completed treatment and who entered into the program from December 1, 2007, to December 31, 2009, were identified. The minimum standard of care follow-up was defined as (1) carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) testing every 120 days for 3 years; (2) computed tomography of chest, abdomen, and pelvis at 10 to 14 months and 22 to 26 months after surgery; and (3) colonoscopy within 14 months of surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 408 patients met inclusion criteria. Two hundred (49.0%) patients were adherent to all 3 components of surveillance. Among all patients, 57 (14.0%) were nonadherent to computed tomography imaging, 135 (33.1%) were nonadherent to colonoscopy, and 96 (23.5%) were nonadherent to CEA testing. Determinants of nonadherence are described. In total, 192 (47.2%) patients had an abnormal surveillance investigation that led to 307 follow-up events. After a median of 1.6 years, 69 (16.9%) patients had documented tumor recurrence. Sixty-one (88.4%) of these 69 patients had recurrence diagnosed via surveillance, and 31 (44.9%) patients were considered potentially resectable.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study demonstrated an improvement in CEA testing since the program began; however, adherence rates for all components are not yet optimal. Alterations to surveillance program management are outlined. Further investigation will determine whether intense follow-up improves patient survival locally.

Patients with colorectal and renal cell carcinoma diagnoses appear to be at risk for additional malignancies

Patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) and renal cell carcinoma (RCC) may be at risk for additional primary malignancies. A review of 101 patients with these concurrent diagnoses was performed. Forty-two percent of patients had 1 or more additional malignancies; none appeared to be associated with Lynch syndrome (LS). This suggests the need for careful follow-up in these patients and further study.

BACKGROUND

Small studies have demonstrated that patients who have both colorectal and renal cell carcinoma may be at increased risk for the development of additional malignancies. A possible genetic basis has been suggested. Our study describes the clinicopathologic features of these patients and clarifies the relationship of this cohort with Lynch syndrome (LS).

METHODS

Patients with primary CRC and RCC treated at our institution were identified. Medical records were reviewed for demographic and clinical information. Immunohistochemical staining for mismatch repair (MMR) proteins was performed on tumor tissue when possible.

RESULTS

During the study period, 24,642 patients were treated for CRC and 7,366 were treated for RCC at our institution. One hundred seventy-nine patients had both diagnoses, with 101 patients eligible for inclusion in our cohort. Tumors were typically early stage. The 2 cancers presented as synchronous lesions in 42% of patients. Thirty-two patients had 1 additional primary malignancy, 7 patients had 2 additional primary malignancies, and 3 patients had 3 additional primary malignancies. No patient had a family history that met the Amsterdam II criteria (AC) for LS, but 50% had family members with 1 malignancy. One of 10 colorectal tumors analyzed for the absence of MMR protein expression demonstrated the absence of MSH6, but the corresponding RCC demonstrated intact expression of all 4 MMR proteins.

CONCLUSION

It is rare for patients to be diagnosed with both CRC and RCC. The clinicopathologic features of this cohort and the results of immunohistochemical analysis performed on a sample of these patients do not suggest LS. However, the high rate of additional carcinomas suggests a need for careful follow-up. Multicenter longitudinal studies are warranted to further understand the natural history and possible genetic basis for this entity.

Population-based longitudinal study of follow-up care for patients with colorectal cancer in Nova Scotia

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to examine colorectal cancer (CRC) follow-up care in Nova Scotia, Canada. More specifically, the objectives were to describe adherence to two elements of follow-up guidelines (colonoscopies and physician visits) and to identify factors associated with receiving at least guideline-recommended care.

METHODS

All patients with stage II or III CRC undergoing curative-intent surgery in Nova Scotia, Canada, were identified through the provincial cancer registry and anonymously linked to additional administrative health databases. For a 3-year follow-up period, beginning 1 year after the diagnosis date, descriptive statistics were calculated for physician visits and colonoscopies. Factors associated with receiving at least guideline-recommended care were identified using logistic regression.

RESULTS

Most patients received follow-up care from multiple physician specialties. In year 3, 58.1% of patients received oncologist follow-up care. Guideline adherence for colonoscopies was 52.4%, whereas guideline adherence for physician visits decreased from 41.9% to 25.4%. Receipt of at least guideline-recommended care was inversely associated with age and comorbidity for colonoscopy and inversely associated with age for physician visits.

CONCLUSION

Receipt of follow-up care from oncologists and primary care physicians, prolonged oncologist care, and receipt of care inconsistent with guideline recommendations suggest there may be potential issues with inefficient use of cancer system resources and integration of guidelines into follow-up care practices in Nova Scotia. Transitioning routine follow-up to primary care could potentially increase guideline adherence by improving access to and continuity of care. CRC may be well suited to targeted knowledge translation strategies to improve guideline adherence.

Concordance with ASCO guidelines for surveillance after colorectal cancer treatment: a population-based analysis

PURPOSE

Intensive surveillance after curative treatment of colorectal cancer (CRC) is associated with improved overall survival. This study examined concordance with the 2005 ASCO surveillance guidelines at the population level.

METHODS

A cohort of 250 patients diagnosed with stage II or III CRC in 2004 and alive 42 months after diagnosis was identified from health administrative data in Manitoba, Canada. Colonoscopy, liver imaging, and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) testing were assessed over 3 years. Guidelines were met if patients had at least one colonoscopy in 3 years and at least one liver imaging test and three CEA tests annually. Multivariate logistic regression assessed the effect of patient and physician characteristics and disease and treatment factors on guideline concordance.

RESULTS

Guidelines for colonoscopy, liver imaging, and CEA were met by 80.4%, 47.2%, and 22% of patients, respectively. Guideline concordance for colonoscopy was predicted by annual contact with a surgeon, higher income, and the diagnosis of colon (rather than rectal) cancer. Adherence was lower in those older than 70 years and with higher comorbidity. For liver imaging, significant predictors were annual contact with an oncologist, receipt of chemotherapy, and diagnosis of colon cancer. Concordance with CEA guidelines was higher with annual contact with an oncologist and high levels of family physician contact, and lower in urban residents, in those older than 70, and in those with stage II disease.

CONCLUSION

Completion of recommended liver imaging and CEA testing fall well below guidelines in Manitoba, whereas colonoscopy is better provided. Addressing this gap should improve outcomes for CRC survivors.

Surveillance after curative resection of colorectal cancer

Surgical resection is the primary treatment modality for patients with localized colorectal cancer, but unfortunately one-third to one-half of these patients will develop a recurrence. If detected early, recurrent disease may be amenable to surgical resection and this provides the rationale for a follow-up strategy in patients with resected colorectal cancer. Despite eight published randomized controlled trials and six published systematic reviews evaluating different follow-up strategies, there is still no consensus as to the appropriateness of follow-up in colorectal cancer patients. In the present article the authors explore the reasons behind the controversy and the arguments used to support each side. They outline the current published guidelines and the data to support these recommendations, including the use of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) levels, liver imaging, and colonoscopy. Finally, they speculate on the future developments that may impact on this debate.

Prereferral head and neck cancer treatment: compliance with national comprehensive cancer network treatment guidelines

OBJECTIVE

to evaluate the prereferral treatment of patients referred to our tertiary care center with recurrent or persistent head and neck cancer for compliance with National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines.

DESIGN

a prospective recruitment and retrospective chart review.

PATIENTS

the study included new patients identified at multidisciplinary treatment planning conference from October 1, 2008, to February 1, 2009, who had received prior treatment at an outside institution and presented to our department with recurrent or persistent disease.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

all facets of prior care were examined, including the time from initial symptoms to diagnosis and whether their prereferral treatment was compliant with or deviated from NCCN guidelines for head and neck cancer.

RESULTS

a total of 566 consecutive new patients were identified, of whom 107 (18.9%) had persistent or recurrent disease. The average time from first presentation with initial symptoms to diagnosis among patients who presented with persistent disease was 23.8 weeks. Nearly half of the patients who presented with persistent or recurrent disease had either endocrine (21.5%) or cutaneous (24.2%) primary cancers, with the rest of the cases being distributed among 10 other sites. Of the patients who presented with recurrent or persistent disease, 43.0% had prereferral care that was noncompliant with NCCN guidelines. Of these patients, 58.7% had inadequate surgical management, 15.2% were treated for the wrong diagnosis, 10.9% received inadequate adjuvant therapy, 4.4% received inadequate radiotherapy, and 10.9% refused indicated recommended treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

significant deviation from NCCN guidelines for head and neck cancer treatment was observed in the cohort of study patients. The failure to administer adjuvant therapy when indicated by NCCN guidelines is particularly concerning. Economic and noneconomic costs, including lost wages, cost of "do-over" therapy, and potentially diminished survival, are substantial. Measures to ensure that patients receive therapy according to guidelines should be a national priority.

International preoperative rectal cancer management: staging, neoadjuvant treatment, and impact of multidisciplinary teams

BACKGROUND

Little is known regarding variations in preoperative treatment and practice for rectal cancer (RC) on an international level, yet practice variation may result in differences in recurrence and survival rates.

METHODS

One hundred seventy-three international colorectal centers were invited to participate in a survey of preoperative management of rectal cancer.

RESULTS

One hundred twenty-three (71%) responded, with a majority of respondents from North America, Europe, and Asia. Ninety-three percent have more than 5 years' experience with rectal cancer surgery. Fifty-five percent use CT scan, 35% MRI, 29% ERUS, 12% digital rectal examination and 1% PET scan in all RC cases. Seventy-four percent consider threatened circumferential margin (CRM) an indication for neoadjuvant treatment. Ninety-two percent prefer 5-FU-based long-course neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy (CRT). A significant difference in practice exists between the US and non-US surgeons: poor histological differentiation as an indication for CRT (25% vs. 7.0%, p = 0.008), CRT for stage II and III rectal cancer (92% vs. 43%, p = 0.0001), MRI for all RC patients (20% vs. 42%, p = 0.03), and ERUS for all RC patients (43% vs. 21%, p = 0.01). Multidisciplinary team meetings significantly influence decisions for MRI (RR = 3.62), neoadjuvant treatment (threatened CRM, RR = 5.67, stage II + III RR = 2.98), quality of pathology report (RR = 4.85), and sphincter-saving surgery (RR = 3.81).

CONCLUSIONS

There was little consensus on staging, neoadjuvant treatment, and preoperative management of rectal cancer. Regular multidisciplinary team meetings influence decisions about neoadjuvant treatment and staging methods.

Estimating the cost related to surveillance of colorectal cancer in a French population

Little is known about costs related to the surveillance of patients that have undergone curative resection of colorectal cancer. The aim of this study was to calculate the observed surveillance costs for 385 patients followed-up over a 3-year period, to estimate surveillance costs if French guidelines are respected, and to identify the determinants related to surveillance costs to derive a global estimation for France, using a linear mixed model. The observed mean surveillance cost was <euro> 713. If French recommendations were strictly applied, the estimated mean cost would vary between <euro> 680 and <euro> 1,069 according to the frequency of abdominal ultrasound. The predicted determinants of cost were: age, recurrence, duration of surveillance since diagnosis, and adjuvant treatments. For France, the surveillance cost represented 4.4% of the cost of colorectal cancer management. The cost of surveillance should now be balanced with its effectiveness and compared with surveillance alternatives.