The role of postoperative colonoscopic surveillance after radical surgery for colorectal cancer: a prospective, randomized clinical study

Follow-up routines in gynecological cancer - time for a change?

OBJECTIVE

To determine current practice of follow-up of Norwegian gynecological cancer patients, and to review available randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in gynecologic, breast and colorectal cancer patients in order to discuss whether such studies are feasible in gynecological cancer patients.

DESIGN

A combined questionnaire study and a systematic review of RCTs in follow-up of gynecological, breast, and colorectal cancers.

POPULATION

Gynecological, breast, and colorectal cancer patients.

METHODS

A questionnaire regarding follow-up routines was mailed to 31 gynecological departments in Norway. A systematic search on MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library databases was conducted to identify RCTs in follow-up of breast, colorectal, and gynecological cancers.

RESULTS

The questionnaire study showed that the number of controls varied from eight to 16 during the first five years' post-treatment. Routine investigations such as chest X-ray and cytology were frequently used in endometrial and cervical cancer. All departments used CA-125 in follow-up of ovarian cancer patients. Reviewing the literature, 19 RCTs of varying methodological quality were identified for colorectal and breast cancers, and none for gynecologic cancer. Different follow-up models were compared, and most studies concluded that there were no significant differences in the detection of recurrence, overall survival, and quality of life between the studied groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Follow-up routines after gynecological cancer vary in Norway. The optimal approach is unknown and RCTs comparing follow-up protocols are missing. Studies of breast and colorectal cancer patients show that studies on follow-up strategies are feasible but sufficient sample size and observation time are important.

Endoscopic surveillance after curative surgery for sporadic colorectal cancer: patient-tailored, tumor-targeted or biology-driven?

OBJECTIVE

Endoscopy has been endorsed and introduced in most surveillance programs following curative surgery for colorectal cancer (CRC), yet little data are available to support its use in terms of patient selection, efficacy and frequency of surveillance.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A literature search in the English language using the PubMed/Medline database for the MeSH terms "colorectal cancer", "surveillance", and "endoscopy", with focus on sporadic CRC, excluding CRC developed on a hereditary or inflammatory bowel disease background. Focus on results from the past 5 years was applied.

RESULTS

Recent systematic reviews, meta-analyses, randomized trials and prospective studies made the backbone of the article, supported by population-based findings and recent reports on tumor biology. Hard evidence to support a survival benefit from endoscopy alone is lacking. Definitions of "synchronous", "interval", and "metachronous" cancers are not uniform and hampers comparison of studies. The number of metachronous cancers (usually 2-4%) that develop after curative CRC surgery is small, and better patient-tailored surveillance could improve the diagnostic yield. Compliance with endoscopy is low compared to other modalities. Age and socio-demographic factors influence on the surveillance coverage and need to be addressed in any given program. The majority of local recurrences occur within the first 3 years after surgery independent of stage, and microsatellite instable (MSI) tumors appear to be at higher risk.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopy in surveillance after curative surgery for CRC is a resource demanding procedure. A tailored approach according to factors associated with an increased risk for metachronous cancer/local recurrence would increase efficiency.