Five-year follow-up after radical surgery for colorectal cancer. Results of a prospective randomized trial

Follow-up recommendations for colon cancer

Recent evidence suggests that intensive follow-up after curative resection of colorectal cancer is associated with a small but significant improvement in survival. Regimens that employ cross-sectional imaging and carcinoembryonic antigen determination appear to have the greatest benefit. A risk-adapted approach to follow-up, intensively following patients at highest risk of recurrence, increases efficacy and cost-effectiveness. Ongoing improvements in risk stratification, disease detection, and treatment will increase the benefits of postoperative surveillance. Large randomized controlled trials are needed to determine the optimal surveillance regimen and must include an analysis of survival, quality of life, and cost-effectiveness to assess efficacy properly.

Intensified surveillance after surgery for colorectal cancer significantly improves survival

Background

Postoperative surveillance after curative resection for colorectal cancer has been demostrated to improve survival. It remains unknown however, whether intensified surveillance provides a significant benefit regarding outcome and survival. This study was aimed at comparing different surveillance strategies regarding their effect on long-term outcome.

Methods

Between 1990 and 2006, all curative resections for colorectal cancer were selected from our prospective colorectal cancer database. All patients were offered to follow our institution's surveillance programm according to the ASCO guidelines. We defined surveillance as "intensive" in cases where > 70% appointments were attended and the program was completed. As "minimal" we defined surveillance with < 70% of the appointments attended and an incomplete program. As "none" we defined the group which did not take part in any surveillance.

Results

Out of 1469 patients 858 patients underwent "intensive", 297 "minimal" and 314 "none" surveillance. The three groups were well balanced regarding biographical data and tumor characteristics. The 5-year survival rates were 79% (intensive), 76% (minimal) and 54% (none) (OR 1.480, (95% CI 1.135-1.929); p < 0.0001), respectively. The 10-year survival rates were 65% (intensive), 50% (minimal) and 31% (none) (p < 0.0001), respectively. With a median follow-up of 70 months the median time of survival was 191 months (intensive), 116 months (minimal) and 66 months (none) (p < 0.0001). After recurrence, the 5-year survival rates were 32% (intensive, p = 0.034), 13% (minimal, p = 0.001) and 19% (none, p = 0.614). The median time of survival after recurrence was 31 months (intensive, p < 0.0001), 21 months (minimal, p < 0.0001) and 16 month (none, p < 0.0001) respectively.

Conclusion

Intensive surveillance after curative resection of colorectal cancer improves survival. In cases of recurrent disease, intensive surveillance has a positive impact on patients' prognosis. Large randomized, multicenter trials are needed to substantiate these results.

Intensive or not surveillance of patients with colorectal cancer after curative resection

It is common practice to follow patients with colorectal cancer for some years after resection and/or adjuvant treatment. Data are lacking about how often patients should be seen, what tests should be performed, and what surveillance strategy has a significant impact on patient outcome. Seven randomized trials have addressed this issue, but none had sufficient statistical power. Four published meta-analyses have established that overall survival is significantly improved for patients in the more intensive programs of follow-up. This improvement amounts to a risk difference of 7% (95% CI: 3%-12%, P = 0.002) in 5-year survival. This should be partly attributable to more frequent reoperation for cure of asymptomatic recurrence, or more intense follow-up, as well other factors, such increased psychosocial support and well-being, diet and lifestyle optimization, and/or improved treatment of coincidental diseases. A large-scale multicenter European study [Gruppo Italiano di Lavoro per la Diagnosi Anticipata (GILDA)] is underway to answer the question of what constitutes optimal surveillance for patients after primary therapy, based on an adequately powered study.

Randomized clinical trials in colon cancer

Surgery remains the mainstay of treatment for colon cancer and surgical resection alone results in 5-year survival in more than 60% of patients. However, the use of fluorouracil (5-FU)-based adjuvant chemotherapy for patients at high risk of recurrence further prolongs disease-free survival and has become the standard of care. New areas of research focus on decreasing the surgical trauma with minimally invasive approaches, improving the surgical staging of patients with colon cancer, and improving adjuvant treatment regimens. We review those randomized controlled trials that have most impacted the clinical management of patients with colon cancer in 2009.

Serum carcinoembryonic antigen monitoring after curative resection for colorectal cancer: clinical significance of the preoperative level

AIM

We evaluated preoperative serum carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) as a prognostic factor for colorectal cancer and determined when surveillance of this marker was useful.

METHODS

Serum CEA was measured preoperatively in 1,263 patients who underwent curative resection for colorectal cancer at 3-month intervals for the first 2 postoperative years and at 6-month intervals thereafter. Mean follow-up was 48 months (range 1-156 months).

RESULTS

The 5-year disease-free survival was less in patients with a high preoperative serum CEA level (P<0.0001). Among patients with a tumor recurrence, 38.5% had high follow-up serum CEA levels. The number of patients with high postoperative serum CEA levels exceeded the number of patients with high preoperative levels. High preoperative and follow-up serum CEA levels were independent prognostic factors for tumor recurrence (P=0.003 and P<0.001, respectively). In patients with high preoperative serum CEA levels, CEA surveillance had a 92.3% positive predictive value (PPV) and a 96.1% negative predictive value (NPV). The mean interval between postoperative serum CEA elevation and the diagnosis of a tumor recurrence [diagnostic interval (DI)] was 2.5 months (range 5-17 months). The DI was 0 in 18.8% of patients with a tumor recurrence.

CONCLUSION

High serum CEA levels preoperatively and at follow-up are prognostic factors for colorectal cancer. Postoperative serum CEA surveillance is used most effectively when patients have high preoperative serum CEA levels. Considering the DI of 0 in 18.8% of the patients, the current CEA surveillance schedule might be changed.

Carcinoembryonic Antigen in the Staging and Follow-up of Patients with Colorectal Cancer

CEA is a complex glycoprotein produced by 90% of colorectal cancers and contributes to the malignant characteristics of a tumor. It can be measured in serum quantitatively, and its level in plasma can be useful as a marker of disease. Because of its lack of sensitivity in the early stages of colorectal cancer, CEA measurement is an unsuitable modality for population screening. An elevated preoperative CEA is a poor prognostic sign and correlates with reduced overall survival after surgical resection of colorectal carcinoma. A failure of the CEA to return to normal levels after surgical resection is indicative of inadequate resection of occult systemic disease. Frequent monitoring of CEA postoperatively may allow identification of patients with metastatic disease for whom surgical resection or other localized therapy might be potentially beneficial. To identify this group, serial CEA measurement appears to be more effective than clinical evaluation or any other diagnostic modality, although its sensitivity for detecting recurrent disease is not as high for locoregional or pulmonary metastases as it is for liver metastases. Several studies have shown that a small percentage of patients followed postoperatively with CEA monitoring and who undergo CEA-directed salvage surgery for metastatic disease will be alive and disease-free 5 years after surgery. Furthermore, CEA levels after salvage surgery do appear to predict survival in patients undergoing resection of liver or pulmonary metastases. However, several authors argue that CEA surveillance is not cost-effective in terms of lives saved. In support of this argument, there is no clear difference in survival after resection of metastatic disease with curative intent between patients in whom the second-look surgery was performed on the basis of elevated CEA levels and those with other laboratory or imaging abnormalities. There is also no clear consensus on the frequency or duration of CEA monitoring, although the ASCO guidelines currently recommend every 2-3 months for at least 2 years after diagnosis. In the follow-up of patients undergoing palliative therapy, the CEA level correlates well with response, and CEA is indicative of not only response but may also identify patients with stable disease for whom there is also a demonstrated benefit in survival and symptom relief with combination chemotherapy. More recently, scintigraphic imaging after administration of radiolabeled antibodies afforded an important radionuclide technique that adds clinically significant information in assessing the extent and location of disease in patients with colorectal cancer above and beyond or complementary to conventional imaging modalities. Immunotherapy based on CEA is a rapidly advancing area of clinical research demonstrating antibody and T-cell responses.

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

BACKGROUND

Although colonoscopy plays an important role in postoperative surveillance of patients with colorectal cancer, the optimum protocol for colonoscopic surveillance has not been established.

OBJECTIVE

Our purpose was to compare the efficacy of 2 different colonoscopic surveillance strategies in terms of both survival and recurrence resectability.

DESIGN

Prospective, randomized, controlled trial.

SETTING

A teaching hospital in Sun Yat-sen University.

PATIENTS

Three hundred twenty-six consecutive patients undergoing radical surgery for colorectal cancer.

INTERVENTION

In the intensive colonoscopic surveillance group (ICS group, n = 165), colonoscopy was performed at 3-month intervals for 1 year, at 6-month intervals for the next 2 years, and once a year thereafter. In the routine colonoscopic surveillance group (RCS group, n = 161), colonoscopy was performed at 6 months, 30 months, and 60 months postoperatively.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS

The 5-year survival rate was 77% in the ICS group and 73% in the RCS group (P > .05). Postoperative colorectal cancer was detected in 13 patients (8.1%) in the ICS group and in 18 patients (11.4%) in the RCS group. In the ICS group, there were more asymptomatic postoperative colorectal cancers (P = .04), more patients had reoperation with curative intent (P = .048), and the probability of survival after postoperative colorectal cancer was higher (P = .03).

LIMITATION

Lack of detailed characterization of metachronous colorectal adenomas in these patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the patients in the ICS group had more curative operations for postoperative colorectal cancer and survived significantly longer, ICS itself did not improve overall survival.

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.

Community compliance with carcinoembryonic antigen: follow-up of patients with colorectal cancer

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to determine whether recommendations for surveillance carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) testing in stage II/III colorectal cancer (CRC) are adhered to upon discharge from our cancer center, patterns of care after CEA elevation, and whether differences in outcomes exist between patients who did and did not receive recommended CEA monitoring.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A retrospective, single-institution chart review was completed at the Cross Cancer Institute (CCI) in Edmonton, Alberta. The Alberta Cancer Registry (ACR) identified patients with CRC diagnosed between January 1 and December 31, 2001. Patients with stage II/III CRC seen and/or treated at the CCI and later discharged to the community with follow-up recommendations based on American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines were included. Carcinoembryonic antigen monitoring > or = every 4 months for > or = 2 years was deemed acceptable for study purposes.

RESULTS

The ACR identified 152 stage II/III CRC cases meeting inclusion criteria. Eleven patients (7.2%) received the minimum predefined CEA follow-up. Eighty-seven CEA follow-up tests were elevated; only 20 (23%) elevated CEAs were investigated with predefined timely intervention. Twenty-six patients (17.1%) had documentable tumor recurrence. There was no difference in overall survival or time to recurrence between the groups who received and did not receive appropriate follow-up, although small numbers limit the effectiveness of statistical analysis.

CONCLUSION

Post-therapy surveillance is important in CRC management. Our study reveals follow-up recommendations based on best available evidence for interval CEA testing are not followed in the community. These findings suggest the need for review of recommendations and change in management for monitoring discharged patients with stage II/III CRC.

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

PURPOSE

Our aims were to determine adherence to American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guidelines on colorectal cancer (CRC) surveillance and to evaluate differences in practice patterns and clinical outcomes between an academic institution (Princess Margaret Hospital [PMH]) and a community cancer hospital (Credit Valley Hospital [CVH]).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with stage II/III CRC who were diagnosed between January 1, 1999, and December 31, 2001, were identified, and their records were retrospectively reviewed.

RESULTS

A total of 244 and 97 patients were eligible at PMH and CVH, respectively. Surveillance patterns, including blood tests, imaging studies, and colonoscopies, were inconsistent with ASCO recommendations in a significant proportion of patients. Clinic visits occurred more frequently and imaging studies were more commonly ordered at PMH than at CVH (P < .001). In contrast, CVH performed a higher median number of blood count and liver function tests (P = .001) per patient than PMH. The rates of carcinoembryonic antigen monitoring and surveillance colonoscopies were not statistically different between centers (P = .67 and P = .43, respectively). There were a total of 70 CRC recurrences: 53 (75.7%) were detected by surveillance (44 at PMH and 9 at CVH) and 17 (24.3%) by patient symptoms (9 at PMH and 8 at CVH). For recurrences detected by surveillance, 38% were resectable, whereas only 18% of those detected by symptoms were resectable.

CONCLUSION

Colorectal cancer surveillance revealed noticeable departures from ASCO guidelines, with the academic institution using a more intensive surveillance strategy with imaging studies than the community cancer center. Surveillance was associated with a higher proportion of resectable tumor recurrences than was detection by patient symptoms.

[Postoperative follow-up in patients with colorectal cancers who have undergone curative resection: intensive or conventional follow-up?]

Colorectal cancer is one of the most common human malignancies. Surgical resection remains the primary treatment but cancer recurrences (locoregional or distant) are associated with a poor prognosis. Follow-up is of particular importance in the three-years after surgery and various strategies have been purposed in the surveillance of patients after curative resection for colorectal cancer. The objective is to diagnose a recurrence at the earliest possible stage, enabling a second curative treatment. Optimal strategy for follow-up remains controversial. Results from randomized trials comparing low intensity programs and intensive programs of colorectal cancer surveillance are insufficient to recommend a follow-up strategy. To update recommendations for surveillance of colorectal cancer, larger prospective randomized studies are required.

Cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening in renal transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer screening is now standard practice in most developed countries. The aim of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening, with annual fecal occult blood testing, in renal transplant recipients.

METHOD

A Markov model was developed to compare the effects of annual fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) as screening for colorectal cancer in a cohort of renal transplant recipients ages 50-70 years, versus no screening. Data on cancer risk and survival were obtained from the ANZDATA Registry. Accuracy of FOBT, cancer stage distribution of the screened and unscreened arms, and adverse effects of colonoscopy were extrapolated from general population data because of unavailability of equivalent data in renal transplant recipients.

RESULTS

When the participation rate was 50%, the average cost for annual FOBT was $5076. The estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $22,309 per life year saved. Using a series of sensitivity analyses, the choice of screening strategy was most sensitive to the prevalence of disease, test specificities, and participation rate. When the base-case analyses were tested over the worst and best-case scenarios, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio varied from $32,863 to $95,668 per life year saved.

CONCLUSION

Under the most favorable conditions, immunochemical FOBT screening in renal transplant recipients appears good value for money. Uncertainties, however, exist in the model's influential estimates. Primary research into these uncertainties is necessary to confirm whether population colorectal cancer screening is cost-effective in renal transplant population.

[Long-term follow-up of patients treated with radical surgery for rectal cancer]

In developed societies colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most frequent malignant tumor which causes more than 5000 deaths yearly in Hungary. We have attempted to answer the question how to improve the above mentioned data by the long-term follow-up of patients operated upon for rectal cancer at our department. Of the patients operated on for rectal cancer at our department between March 1990 and April 2006, we have conducted regular follow-up of 297 patients according to a protocol developed by us. We have examined the length of time between the rectum operation and the diagnosis and the number of local recurrences, distant metastases, tumor progression in more than one organ as well as second tumors (independent of the rectal cancer). During this period we found 24 local recurrences, 32 distant metastases, 43 tumor progressions in more than one organ, and 21 second tumors. In two patients, in addition to distant metastases, we found a second CRC independent of the original rectal cancer, and in one patient with tumor progression in more than one organ we also detected breast cancer. In one patient we found 3 second tumors (CR, lung and urinary bladder) independent of the original rectal cancer. Altogether we found tumors in 117 out of 297 patients. During the same period, we performed 69/117 operations and 31/117 patients were alive at the end of our study with a median survival of 60.4 (3-184) months. In summary, we can state that this work is beneficial for curing the recurrence of rectal cancer, making the patients' life longer or making the quality of life better for the patients operated on for rectal cancer.

How do gastroenterologists follow patients with colorectal cancer after curative surgical resection? A three-year population-based study

OBJECTIVES

To assess the contribution of gastroenterologists (GEs) to the surveillance of colorectal cancer after curative surgery.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This registry-based study included 407 patients residing in two French administrative areas diagnosed with newly diagnosed colorectal cancer in 1998 and free of disease six months after curative surgery. All surveillance examinations performed either in the three years after surgery or until death or recurrence were collected retrospectively.

RESULTS

One hundred nine patients (27%) had a regular clinical check-up with a GE at least once a year. Factors independently associated with GE follow-up were young age (P=0.004), use of adjuvant chemotherapy (P=0.013), and surgeon follow-up (P=0.068). GEs ordered 84% of colonoscopies, 44% of abdominal ultrasound examinations and 52% of abdominal CT scans. They detected 35% of recurrences. A significant proportion of patients (20%) had no regular follow-up, irrespective of the physicians involved.

CONCLUSIONS

GEs play a modest role in the routine follow-up of patients with colorectal cancer, but are largely involved in ordering surveillance tests. They might play an important role in the surveillance of patients who presently have poor access to health care.

Risk-stratified intensive follow up for treated colorectal cancer - realistic and cost saving?

OBJECTIVE

Intensive follow-up post surgery for colorectal cancer (CRC) is thought to improve long-term survival principally through the earlier detection of recurrent disease. This paper aims to calculate the additional resource and cost implications of intensive follow up post-CRC resection, examine the possibility of risk-stratifying this follow up to those at highest risk of recurrence and investigating the impact that population screening might have on the future cost and outcomes of follow up.

METHOD

Two follow-up regimens were constructed: the 'standard' follow-up protocol used the principles of the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) guidelines whilst the 'intensive' follow-up protocol used the most intensive arm of the follow up after colorectal surgery (FACS) trial. Using ONS data, the number of CRC diagnosed in a given year was calculated for 2003 and projected for 2016 based on the population of England and Wales. The resource requirements and costs of follow up over a 5-year period were then calculated for the two time periods. Risk stratifying entry to follow up and the introduction of population CRC screening were then considered.

RESULTS

For the 2003 cohort, an intensive follow-up program would detect 853 additional resectable recurrences over 5 years with 795 fewer subjects requiring palliative care. An additional 26 302 outpatient appointments, 181 352 CEA tests and 79 695 CT scans over 5 years would be required to achieve this. The cost of investigating subjects who would never develop detectable recurrences was pound15.6 million. The cost per additional resectable recurrence was pound18 077, a figure also found for a nonscreened population in 2016. An identical intensive follow-up policy with biennial FOBT screening in 2016 saw the cost per additional resectable recurrence rise to pound36 255.

CONCLUSION

Intensive follow up will detect considerably more resectable recurrences but at considerable cost and it is unclear if such follow up will be achievable in an already over-stretched NHS. If population-based CRC screening increases the number of Dukes A cancers this may offer the possibility of risk-stratifying future follow up to those at highest risk of recurrence; minimizing tests on those who will never have recurrent disease and better utilizing our scarce resources.

Which patients with colorectal cancer are followed up by general practitioners? A population-based study

The aim of the study was to assess the contribution of general practitioners in the surveillance of colorectal cancer, and to examine characteristics and survival of patients with routine general practitioner follow-up. This French registry-based study included 389 patients diagnosed with first colorectal cancer in 1998 and free of disease at least 6 months after curative surgery. For each physician involved, medical records were thoroughly reviewed to collect information about the clinical examinations and follow-up tests prescribed within 3 years after surgery or until death or detection of recurrence. Five-year vital status was obtained through registry records. The proportion of routine clinical examinations performed by general practitioners increased from 35% in the first year to 65% in the third year. Patients having undergone regular general practitioner routine examinations (> or =one examination every 6-month period) had significantly less advanced disease (odds ratio: 0.45; 95% confidence interval: 0.21-0.96), preoperative complications (odds ratio: 0.28; 95% confidence interval: 0.08-0.91) and routine examinations by gastroenterologists/oncologists (odds ratio: 0.37; 95% confidence interval: 0.14-0.98) compared with those without general practitioner examinations. Routine general practitioner follow-up had no influence on 3 and 5-year survival. General practitioners detected significantly more recurrences than specialists in patients over 75 and in those presenting symptoms. French general practitioners are widely involved in the surveillance of patients with early-stage colorectal cancer, without any unfavourable impact on the patient's survival. Some suggestions exist that continuing education in oncology may increase the implication of general practitioners in colorectal cancer surveillance.

Results of a national survey among Dutch surgeons treating patients with colorectal carcinoma. Current opinion about follow-up, treatment of metastasis, and reasons to revise follow-up practice

OBJECTIVE

Follow-up after curative resection of colorectal carcinoma (CRC) has been subjected to debate concerning its effectiveness to reduce cancer mortality. Current national and international guidelines advise CEA measurements every 3 months during 3 years after surgery. The common clinical practice and opinion about follow-up for colorectal carcinoma, was evaluated by means of a survey among Dutch general surgeons.

METHOD

A web-based survey of follow-up after treatment of CRC was sent to all registered Dutch general surgeons. A reply from 246 surgeons treating patients for colorectal carcinoma in 105 out of 118 hospitals was received (response rate 91%). Questions related to actual follow-up protocol, opinion about serum CEA monitoring, liver and/or lung metastasectomy, and motivation to participate in a new trial concerning follow-up.

RESULTS

For the majority of surgeons the length of follow-up was influenced by age of the patient (62%) and physical condition (76%) prohibiting hepatic metastasectomy. The generally accepted follow-up protocol consisted of CEA measurements every 3 months in the first year and six-monthly thereafter, and ultrasound examination of the liver every 6 months. Nearly all surgeons (92%) were willing to participate in a new study of follow-up protocol.

CONCLUSION

The adherence to national guidelines for the follow-up of colorectal carcinoma is low. The indistinctness about follow-up after curative treatment of colorectal carcinoma also affects clinical practice. Recent advancements in imaging techniques, liver and lung surgery have changed circumstances, which are not yet anticipated upon in current guidelines. Renewal of follow-up based upon scientific evidence is required.

Follow-up after curative resection of colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis

PURPOSE

This is a systematic review to evaluate the impact of various follow-up intensities and strategies on the outcome of patients after curative surgery for colorectal cancer.

METHODS

All randomized trials up to January 2007, comparing different follow-up intensities and strategies, were retrieved. Meta-analysis was performed by using the Forest plot review.

RESULTS

Eight randomized, clinical trials with 2,923 patients with colorectal cancer undergoing curative resection were reviewed. There was a significant reduction in overall mortality in patients having intensive follow-up (intensive vs. less intensive follow-up: 21.8 vs. 25.7 percent; P = 0.01). Regular surveillance with serum carcinoembryonic antigen (P = 0.0002) and colonoscopy (P = 0.04) demonstrated a significant impact on overall mortality. However, cancer-related mortality did not show any significant difference. There was no significant difference in all-site recurrence and in local or distant metastasis. Detection of isolated local and hepatic recurrences was similar. Intensive follow-up detected asymptomatic recurrence more frequently (18.9 vs. 6.3 percent; P < 0.00001) and 5.91 months earlier than less intensive follow-up protocol; these were demonstrated with all investigation strategies used. Intensive surveillance program detected recurrences that were significantly more amenable to surgical reresection (10.7 vs. 5.7 percent; P = 0.0002). The chance of curative reresection were significantly better with more intensive follow-up (24.3 vs. 9.9 percent; P = 0.0001), independent of the investigation strategies used.

CONCLUSIONS

Intensive follow-up after curative resection of colorectal cancer improved overall survival and reresection rate for recurrent disease. However, the cancer-related mortality was not improved and the survival benefit was not related to earlier detection and treatment of recurrent disease.

[IFCT-0302 trial: randomised study comparing two follow-up schedules in completely resected non-small cell lung cancer]

BACKGROUND

The authorities advocate a minimalist attitude towards the follow-up of resected bronchial carcinoma (clinical examination and chest x-ray). A survey showed that 70% of French respiratory physicians have chosen to use the CT scanner and often endoscopy. The published data are equivocal and are often based on retrospective studies. Lung cancer is a good model for a study of post-operative surveillance. Recurrences often occur in easily observed areas, they may be detected while still asymptomatic and are sometimes potentially curable. Second primary tumours may develop at the same site.

METHODS

The Intergroupe Francophone de Cancerologie Thoracique (IFCT) has initiated a trial comparing simple follow-up (clinical examination, chest x-ray) with a more intensive follow-up (CT scan, fibreoptic bronchoscopy). The surveillance will take place every 6 months for 2 years and then annually until 5 years.

EXPECTED RESULTS

The main aim is to determine whether intensive follow-up improves patient survival. The opposite question is equally important. If an expensive and demanding follow-up does not affect the chances of cure these results will influence our practice.

Surveillance of patients following surgery with curative intent for colorectal cancer

Surveillance after resection of colorectal cancer with curative intent is an important component of post-operative care. Clinical review, imaging, colonoscopy, and cost to the community are among significant issues to consider in planning a surveillance regime. This review aims to identify the available evidence for the use of surveillance and its individual components. The literature pertaining to follow-up of patients following potentially curative surgery for colorectal cancer was reviewed in order to formulate a summary of the wide range of clinical practice. There is evidence of improved survival of patients undergoing more intense follow-up compared with those having minimal surveillance, with an estimated overall 5-year gain of up to 10%. The efficacy of individual components of follow-up regimes remains unclear, but an overall package of ‘intensive’ follow-up including clinical review, liver imaging, and colonoscopy appears to be of benefit. It is cost-effective and can be specialist or community-based.

A small rise in CEA is sensitive for recurrence after surgery for colorectal cancer

OBJECTIVE

Rise in carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) above normal limits can indicate recurrent colorectal cancer. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether a small rise in CEA, even within normal limits was a sensitive indicator of recurrence.

METHOD

150 patients aged 22-87 years were followed up for a mean of 27 months after colorectal surgery with CEA 3 and 6 monthly computerized tomography. We analysed whether a rise in CEA > 1 ng/ml correlated with recurrence of metastases.

RESULTS

Forty-six of 139 patients in final analysis had recurrent disease. A rise in CEA > 1 had a predictive value of 74% for recurrence or metastases (sensitivity 80%, specificity 86%). These findings were similar whether or not the CEA was normal preoperatively.

CONCLUSION

If CEA is measured after surgery for colorectal cancer, a rise of >1 in the patient's postoperative value is predictive for recurrence or metastases with an overall sensitivity of 80% and specificity of 86%. Previous studies have recognized the role of large rises in CEA in predicting recurrence but this study shows that small changes in CEA may be significant even if these levels would be traditionally within 'normal' limits.

Detection of metachronous neoplasms in colorectal cancer patients: identification of risk factors

PURPOSE

Patients with colorectal cancer have a high risk of developing metachronous neoplasms. Identification of predictive factors associated with such conditions would allow individualized follow-up strategies in these patients. This study was designed to identify individual and familial factors associated with the development of metachronous colorectal neoplasms in patients with colorectal cancer.

METHODS

In the context of a prospective, multicenter, general population-based study-the EPICOLON project-all patients with colorectal cancer attended in ten Spanish hospitals during a one-year period were included. Patients with familial adenomatous polyposis or inflammatory bowel disease were excluded. All patients were monitored by colonoscopy within two years of the diagnoses. Demographic, clinical, pathologic, molecular (microsatellite instability status and immunohistochemistry for MSH2 and MLH1), and familial characteristics (fulfillment of Amsterdam I or II criteria, and revised Bethesda guidelines) were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 353 patients were included in the study. At two years of follow-up, colonoscopy revealed the presence of adenomas in 89 (25 percent) patients and colorectal cancer in 14 (3.9 percent) patients, in 7 cases restricted to anastomosis. Univariate analysis demonstrated that development of metachronous neoplasm (adenoma or colorectal cancer) was associated with personal history of previous colorectal cancer (odds ratio, 5.58; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.01-31.01), and presence of previous or synchronous adenomas (odds ratio, 1.77; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.21-3.17). Although nonstatistical significance was achieved, metachronisms were associated with gender (P<0.09) and differentiation degree (P<0.08). Multivariate analysis identified previous or synchronous adenomas (odds ratio, 1.98; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.16-3.38) as independent predictive factor. Neither presence of tumor DNA microsatellite instability nor family history correlated with the presence of metachronous neoplasms.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with previous or synchronous colorectal adenoma have an increased risk of developing metachronous colorectal neoplasms. Accordingly, this subgroup of patients may benefit from specific surveillance strategies.

[Post-treatment surveillance for potentially curable malignancies]

Through an enormous research effort over the past five decades and especially due to early screening, an increasing number of cancers are potentially curable. Patients expand immeasurable energy in adhering to treatment plans and supportive care. Unfortunately, nothing prepares them for the anxiety that often comes with completion of therapy. More importantly, physicians are not properly equipped with data from controlled trials to define appropriate post-treatment surveillance, data with which they could educate patients and allay their fears. The goal of post-treatment surveillance is to enable the early detection of relapses and thus enhance the possibility of subsequent cure. Accordingly special follow-up is appropriate only for patients who can receive a second-line therapy. Clinical trials support conservative, rather than aggressive, surveillance to detect curable local relapse of breast tumors and potentially surgically curable metastases (mainly in the liver) of colon cancer. For germ-cell tumors, second-line treatments are potentially curative in nearly all instances. Follow-up for other cancers depends on patients' anxiety levels and on the costs of surveillance.

Clinical Usefulness of Chest Radiography in Detection of Pulmonary Metastases After Curative Resection for Colorectal Cancer

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of chest radiography (CXR) and abdominal computed tomography (CT) for detecting pulmonary metastases after curative surgery for colorectal cancer.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of the records of all patients with pulmonary metastasis from colorectal cancer who underwent curative resection between 1994 and 2004 at our institution.

RESULTS

Pulmonary metastases were detected in 193 patients by either CXR or abdominal CT. They were initially detected by CXR in 87 patients (45.1%) and by abdominal CT in 106 patients (54.9%). In the CXR group, the patterns of pulmonary recurrence were as follows: solitary (n = 38, 43.7%), multiple unilateral (n = 11, 12.6%), and multiple bilateral (n = 38, 43.7%). In the CT group, there were 22 patients (20.8%) with a solitary nodule, 17 patients (16.0%) with multiple unilateral nodules, and 67 (63.2%) with multiple bilateral nodules. The overall survivals of the CXR group and abdominal CT group were 34.6% and 31.7%, respectively (p = 0.312). There was no difference in the median disease-free interval between the CXR group and the abdominal CT group (23.8 vs. 23.2 months, p = 0.428).

CONCLUSIONS

Although this study is limited by its small sample size, it can be speculated that abdominal CT with lower thorax images may replace CXR in surveillance programs.

Ultraschall in der Tumornachsorge

According to the guidelines, ultrasonography (US) is now established as the cross-sectional imaging technique of choice in postoperative care of colorectal carcinoma. Although conventional percutaneous US is inferior to computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for detecting hepatic metastases, the application of specific contrast media has significantly increased sensitivity and specificity to 87% and 88%, respectively. The combination of US and CT/MRI achieves the highest detection rates. During follow-up of rectal carcinoma, in up to 20% of locoregional recurrences are diagnosed solely by endorectal sonography and result in repeat resection with curative intention. In noncolorectal carcinoma, US is recommended in the guidelines for following up hepatocellular carcinoma and malignant thyroid disease, but the available data are insufficient to support those recommendations.

Detection of recurrent rectal cancer with CT, MRI and PET/CT

Computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and positron emission tomography (PET) all have the potential to directly visualize local and distant relapse of colorectal cancer (CRC). Nevertheless, the role of diagnostic imaging for routine follow-up of CRC patients remains controversial. Although MRI and PET have advantages over CT in the detection of local recurrence, until now only a few surveillance programs recommend the use of annual CT for routine follow-up. The objective of this review is to elucidate the current status of diagnostic imaging for the detection of recurrent rectal cancer based on the recent literature and our own experience. Furthermore, an insight into contemporary surveillance programs and an outlook concerning a novel technical approach to moving-table MRI at 1.5 Tesla for staging purposes are given.

Outcome of follow-up colon examination among a population-based cohort of colorectal cancer patients

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The benefit of colonoscopy in the follow-up of colorectal cancer survivors is uncertain, and findings of surveillance colonoscopy are not well-characterized. We sought to estimate survival among colorectal cancer patients according to receipt of a follow-up colon examination and to describe the findings of such exams.

METHODS

We studied health maintenance organization enrollees with colorectal cancer who underwent surgical resection. Mortality was estimated by using survival analysis, and findings of colon examinations were determined by review of pathology reports.

RESULTS

One thousand two patients were eligible for study; 5-year survival was higher (76.8%) for patients who had at least one follow-up exam than for patients who did not undergo follow-up (52.2%, P < .0001). In multivariate analysis, colon examination remained independently associated with improved survival (hazard ratio, 0.58; 95% confidence interval, 0.44-0.75). Twenty patients (3.1%) were diagnosed with a second colorectal cancer, including 9 cancers detected within 18 months of initial cancer diagnosis. Advanced neoplasia was more common (15.5%) among patients followed up between 36-60 months after diagnosis compared with patients followed up within 18 months (6.9%, P = .02). History of adenomas was associated with advanced neoplasia on follow-up (P = .002). Patients with advanced neoplasia on initial follow-up were at high risk for advanced neoplasia on subsequent examinations (13/16, 81%).

CONCLUSIONS

After colorectal cancer resection, patients have a high risk of interval cancers, some of which represent missed lesions at initial diagnosis. Therefore, surveillance colonoscopy within 1 year of initial diagnosis is warranted. After adjusting for key variables, endoscopic surveillance is associated with improved survival.

Guanylyl cyclase C: a molecular marker for staging and postoperative surveillance of patients with colorectal cancer

Staging patients with colorectal cancer defines their prognosis and therapeutic management. Unfortunately, histopathology, the current standard for staging, is relatively insensitive for detecting occult micrometastases and a significant fraction of patients are understaged and, consequently, undertreated. Similarly, current approaches to postoperative surveillance of patients with colorectal cancer detect disease recurrence at a point when interventions have little impact on survival. The detection of rare cells in tissue, for accurately staging patients, and in blood, for detecting disease recurrence, could be facilitated by employing sensitive and specific markers of disease. Guanylyl cyclase C (GCC), the receptor for the diarrheagenic bacterial heat-stable enterotoxin, is expressed selectively by cells derived from intestinal mucosa, including normal intestinal cells and colorectal tumor cells, but not by extragastrointestinal tissues and tumors. The nearly uniform expression of relatively high levels by metastatic colorectal tumors suggests that GCC may be a sensitive and specific molecular marker for metastatic colorectal cancer cells. Employing GCC reverse transcriptase PCR, occult colorectal cancer micrometastases were detected in lymph nodes that escaped detection by histopathology. Moreover, marker expression correlated with the risk of disease recurrence. Similarly, GCC reverse transcriptase PCR revealed the presence of tumor cells in blood of all patients examined with metastatic colorectal cancer and, in some studies, was associated with an increased risk of disease recurrence and mortality. These observations suggest that GCC reverse transcriptase PCR is a sensitive and specific technique for identifying tumor cells in extraintestinal sites and may be useful for staging and postoperative surveillance of patients with colorectal cancer.

Follow-up strategies for patients treated for non-metastatic colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

It is common clinical practice to follow patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) for several years following their definitive surgery and/or adjuvant therapy. Despite this widespread practice there is considerable controversy about how often patients should be seen, what tests should be performed and whether these varying strategies have any significant impact on patient outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

To review the available evidence concerning the benefits of intensive follow up of colorectal cancer patients with respect to survival. Secondary endpoints include time to diagnosis of recurrence, quality of life and the harms and costs of surveillance and investigations.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Relevant trials were identified by electronic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CANCERLIT, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Science Citation Index, conference proceedings, trial registers, reference lists and contact with experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Only randomised controlled trials comparing different follow-up strategies for patients with non-metastatic CRC treated with curative intent were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Trial eligibility and methodological quality were assessed independently by the three authors.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight studies were included in this update of the review. There was evidence that an overall survival benefit at five years exists for patients undergoing more intensive follow up OR was 0.73 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.91); and RD -0.06 (95% CI -0.11 to -0.02). The absolute number of recurrences was similar; OR was 0.91 (95% CI 0.75 to 1.10); and RD -0.02 (95% CI -0.06 to 0.02) and although the weighted mean difference for the time to recurrence was significantly reduced by -6.75 (95% CI -11.06 to -2.44) there was significant heterogeneity between the studies. Analyses demonstrated a mortality benefit for performing more tests versus fewer tests OR was 0.64 (95% CI 0.49 to 0.85), and RD -0.09 (95%CI -0.14 to -0.03) and liver imaging versus no liver imaging OR was 0.64 (95% CI 0.49 to 0.85), and RD -0.09 (95%CI -0.14 to -0.03). There were significantly more curative surgical procedures attempted in the intensively followed arm: OR 2.41(95% CI 1.63 to 3.54), RD 0.06 (95%CI 0.04 to 0.09). No useful data on quality of life, harms or cost-effectiveness were available for further analysis.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The results of our review suggest that there is an overall survival benefit for intensifying the follow up of patients after curative surgery for colorectal cancer. Because of the wide variation in the follow-up programmes used in the included studies it is not possible to infer from the data the best combination and frequency of clinic (or family practice) visits, blood tests, endoscopic procedures and radiological investigations to maximise the outcomes for these patients. Nor is it possible to estimate the potential harms or costs of intensifying follow up for these patients in order to adopt a cost-effective approach in this clinical area. Large clinical trials underway or about to commence are likely to contribute valuable further information to clarify these areas of clinical uncertainty.

Characteristics of recurrence and surveillance tools after curative resection for colorectal cancer: A multicenter study

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to clarify the characteristics of recurrence and the effectiveness of surveillance tools after curative resection for colorectal cancer.

METHODS

We enrolled 5230 consecutive patients (stage I, 1367; stage II, 1912; stage III, 1951) who underwent curative resection at 14 hospitals from 1991 to 1996. All patients were followed up intensively, and their outcomes were investigated retrospectively.

RESULTS

Of the 5230 patients, 906 developed recurrence. The recurrence rates of stage I, II, and III cancers were 3.7%, 13.3%, and 30.8%, respectively (P < .0001). The curves of the cumulative appearance rate of recurrence in stage II and III patients showed a rapid increase for the first 3 years. Recurrence after 5 years was less than 1% in each stage. Clinical visits combined with measurements of tumor markers detected the majority of recurrences except in the case of lung metastasis. In contrast, 43.4% of hepatic recurrences were detected by liver imaging, and 48.4% of pulmonary recurrences were noted by chest x-ray. The 5-year survival rates after primary colorectal surgery in patients who underwent resection for recurrence were better than in those without resection: 55% vs 11% in hepatic recurrence, 68% vs 13% in pulmonary recurrence, and 48% vs 22% in local recurrence (all P < .001).

CONCLUSION

It is useful to take these characteristics of recurrence into account in the management of patients after curative resection for colorectal cancer and in the setting of clinical trial for follow-up after curative resection for colorectal cancer.

An update on imaging of colorectal cancer

Screening of asymptomatic average-risk patients for presence of colon cancer and early detection in precursor stages is of great interest to general population. Comprehensive evaluation of symptomatic or high-risk patients represents another important clinical focus. Available techniques for total colon imaging, rectal cancer staging and the role of positron emission tomography are discussed.

The prognostic impact of the time interval to recurrence for the mortality in recurrent colorectal cancer

OBJECTIVE

The risk of a cancer recurrence has been correlated with the stage of the primary tumour at the time of presentation. However, once a recurrence has developed, the primary tumour stage may not be the determining prognostic factor anymore. The objective of this study was (i) to evaluate the association between the recurrence interval and the outcome of the recurrence, and (ii) to determine whether that interval was affected by the use of adjuvant radiation and/or chemotherapy.

METHOD

This retrospective study analysed 212 patients who developed recurrent colorectal cancer from 1987 to 1993. Primary parameters such as age, gender, primary tumour site and stage, and use of postoperative adjuvant treatment were correlated with the recurrence interval, the type and site of the recurrence (i.e. locoregional vs distant metastases), and the outcome. Uni- and multivariate analysis was used to compare the recurrence interval and survival between different subgroups as defined by risk factors.

RESULTS

The mean time between the primary and the recurrent tumour was 25 months (range 1-252 months) with 82% of the recurrences developing within 3 years after surgery. The recurrence interval was inversely correlated with the initial tumour stage. Poor survival was associated with a short recurrence interval (less than 12 months) and a distant recurrence site. Even after adjusting for the initial tumour stage, the use of adjuvant treatment did not prolong the interval, i.e. delay the onset of recurrent cancer.

CONCLUSION

The recurrence interval of colorectal cancer is a prognostic factor. However, the use of adjuvant therapy did not prolong that interval.

Incidence and patterns of recurrence after resection for cure of colonic cancer in a well defined population

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to determine the incidence and patterns of failure following potentially curative surgery of colonic cancer.

METHODS

Data were obtained from the cancer registry of the Côte-d'Or (France). Data on 2657 patients who had resection for cure of colonic cancer between 1976 and 2000 were analysed. Local and distant failure rates were calculated using the actuarial method and multivariable analysis was performed using a Cox model.

RESULTS

The 5-year cumulative rate was 12.8 percent for local recurrence and 25.6 percent for distant metastases. Five-year cumulative local recurrence rates were 4.9 percent for stage I, 11.0 percent for stage II and 23.5 percent for stage III tumours (P<0.001). The corresponding rates for distant metastases were 6.4, 21.4 and 48.0 percent (P<0.001). The 5-year cumulative rates for distant metastases were 31.7 percent for the period 1976-1980 and 21.1 percent for 1996-2000, and the local recurrence rates were 17.6 and 9.0 percent respectively. The decreases in rates of local recurrence and distant metastases were significant in multivariable analysis. Cancer extension and presenting features were related to patterns of failure. Tumour location was significantly associated with risk of local recurrence, whereas age and gross features were associated with risk of distant metastasis.

CONCLUSION

Recurrence following resection of colonic cancer remains a substantial problem. Follow-up is of particular importance in the 3 years after surgery.

The postoperative surveillance of patients with colon cancer and rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Colon cancer is relatively common; however, the results of treatment have marginally improved over the last half century. Though about 85% of patients have colorectal tumors resected with curative intent, a significant number of these patients will eventually die from cancer. As a result, many clinicians have advocated intensive follow-up in such patients as an attempt to increase survival.

DATA SOURCES

A review of the literature focusing on studies that have specifically addressed postoperative surveillance programs in patients with colorectal cancer was conducted. Only studies with level A evidence were included. Further references were obtained through cross-referencing the bibliography cited in each work.

CONCLUSION

One of the six prospective randomized studies demonstrated a statistically significant survival benefit. Undoubtedly, survival benefits can be shown with a well-designed evidence-based follow-up strategy. However, well-designed large prospective multi-institutional randomized studies are needed to establish a consensus for follow-up.

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.

Is routine magnetic resonance imaging justified for the early detection of resectable liver metastases from colorectal cancer?

PURPOSE

This study was designed to determine whether routine follow-up by magnetic resonance imaging improves the detection of resectable liver metastases from colorectal cancer and patients' survival.

METHODS

Patients who underwent curative surgery for colorectal cancer were included in a program of liver surveillance by routine magnetic resonance imaging, in addition to the standard follow-up protocol consisting of clinical examination and biochemical tests. The median follow-up was 41 (interquartile range, 30-53) months, with a median magnetic resonance imaging surveillance period of 20 (interquartile range, 12-27) months. Cases were analyzed for mode of diagnosis, resectability, and overall survival.

RESULTS

Liver metastases were found in 37 (13 percent) of 293 patients studied. Magnetic resonance imaging diagnosed hepatic metastases with 84 percent sensitivity and 90 percent specificity. In 28 (76 percent) patients, carcinoembryonic antigen and/or liver function tests were abnormally elevated and 5 patients (14 percent) were symptomatic. Hepatic resection was possible in only nine patients (24 percent). Magnetic resonance imaging detected all resectable cases, whereas traditional follow-up would have missed three (33 percent) cases suitable for surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Although magnetic resonance imaging surveillance increased the number of patients suitable for liver resection by 50 percent, these represented only 1 percent of the patients included in the study. Whether these results are enough to justify the allocation of expensive resources is controversial.

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

The prevalence of colorectal cancer is high in the western world and follow-up after treatment of the primary tumour is claimed to consume resources that could be used in improving screening and early diagnosis. Although some patients with recurrent disease can be treated successfully there has been a debate on whether an overall improvement in survival is achieved by follow-up. There is no agreement on a follow-up protocol of investigations. A review via a Medline search of all published studies and reports on the issue of follow-up of colorectal cancer dated from 1975-2006. We examined retrospective and prospective studies, randomised controlled trials, and meta-analyses attempting to identify the optimum follow-up protocol. There is widespread diversity of follow-up policies for colorectal cancer. Follow-up of colorectal cancer does not have a negative impact on Quality of life. There is no evidence that annual colonoscopy provides any survival advantage. It has been shown that intensive follow-up with frequent carcinoembryonic antigen measurement has a survival advantage and is cost-efficient. Similar evidence seems to be gathering about liver imaging with CT scan although it is less conclusive.

Assessment of risk-independent follow-up to detect asymptomatic recurrence after curative resection of colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Colorectal cancer is one of the leading causes of cancer death. We analyzed the value of standardized, risk-independent postoperative surveillance.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between 1995 and 2001, 564 patients with colorectal cancer underwent standardized oncologic resection. One hundred thirty-four were unable to take part in the surveillance program, while 430 patients were grouped as follows: group I (n=272, risk-independent follow-up), group II (n=113, follow-up at other departments), and group III (n=45, no follow-up).

RESULTS

The 5-year cancer-specific survival rate for UICC III and IV was significantly higher in group I (87%) as compared to group II (35%). In group I, the 5-year disease-free survival rate was 70%. Cancer recurrence occurred at mean 17 (+/-12) months after colorectal resection and yielded a 5-year survival rate of 63%. Reresection was performed in 17 (35%) patients, of whom ten remained disease-free (5-year survival rate, 91%). The money spent for one patient's 5-year follow-up was 1665.

CONCLUSIONS

A standardized, risk-independent follow-up program allows early diagnosis of asymptomatic recurrence of colorectal cancer. Reresection improves the 5-year survival rate in this setting.

Guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance after cancer resection: a consensus update by the American Cancer Society and the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer

Patients with resected colorectal cancer are at risk for recurrent cancer and metachronous neoplasms in the colon. This joint update of guidelines by the American Cancer Society and the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer addresses only the use of endoscopy in the surveillance of these patients. Patients with endoscopically resected Stage I colorectal cancer, surgically resected Stages II and III cancers, and Stage IV cancer resected for cure (isolated hepatic or pulmonary metastasis) are candidates for endoscopic surveillance. The colorectum should be carefully cleared of synchronous neoplasia in the perioperative period. In nonobstructed colons, colonoscopy should be performed preoperatively. In obstructed colons, double-contrast barium enema or computed tomography colonography should be performed preoperatively, and colonoscopy should be performed 3 to 6 months after surgery. These steps complete the process of clearing synchronous disease. After clearing for synchronous disease, another colonoscopy should be performed in 1 year to look for metachronous lesions. This recommendation is based on reports of a high incidence of apparently metachronous second cancers in the first 2 years after resection. If the examination at 1 year is normal, then the interval before the next subsequent examination should be 3 years. If that examination is normal, then the interval before the next subsequent examination should be 5 years. Shorter intervals may be indicated by associated adenoma findings (see "Guidelines for Colonoscopy Surveillance After Polypectomy: A Consensus Update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer and the American Cancer Society"). Shorter intervals also are indicated if the patient's age, family history, or tumor testing indicate definite or probable hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. Patients undergoing low anterior resection of rectal cancer generally have higher rates of local cancer recurrence compared with those with colon cancer. Although effectiveness is not proven, performance of endoscopic ultrasound or flexible sigmoidoscopy at 3- to 6-month intervals for the first 2 years after resection can be considered for the purpose of detecting a surgically curable recurrence of the original rectal cancer.

Colorectal cancer follow-up in 2005

The main goal in monitoring patients after the treatment of colorectal cancer is to improve survival through the early identification and treatment of metastatic or locally recurrent disease. Although the results of several randomized, controlled trials have identified a survival benefit associated with careful follow-up, specific testing strategies to maximize survival while minimizing cost and patient inconvenience have not been identified. There is, therefore, great variability in the types, number, and frequency of tests ordered to follow these patients. This article reviews the level-I data avail-able regarding the efficacy of follow-up, the specific tests commonly used, and issues of costs and patient satisfaction, and provides a summary of the available societal guidelines concerning colorectal cancer follow-up.

Routine follow-up by magnetic resonance imaging does not improve detection of resectable local recurrences from colorectal cancer

OBJECTIVE

To determine if routine follow-up by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) improves the detection of resectable local recurrences from colorectal cancer.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Surgical treatment offers the best prospect of survival for patients with recurrent colorectal cancer. Unfortunately, most cases are often diagnosed at an unresectable stage when traditional follow-up methods are used. The impact of MRI surveillance on the early diagnosis of local recurrences has yet to be ascertained.

METHODS

Patients who underwent curative surgery for rectal and left-sided colon tumors were included in a program of pelvic surveillance by routine MRI, in addition to the standard follow-up protocol. Cases were then analyzed for mode of diagnosis, resectability, and overall survival.

RESULTS

Pelvic recurrence was found in 30 (13%) of the 226 patients studied. MRI detected 26 of 30 (87%) and missed 4 of 30 (13%) cases with local recurrence. Of the latter, 3 were anastomotic recurrences. In 28 (14%) patients, local recurrence was suspected by an initial MR scan but cleared by subsequent MRI or CT-guided biopsy. Recurrent pelvic cancer was diagnosed by MRI with 87% sensitivity and 86% specificity. In 19 (63%) cases, CEA was abnormally elevated, and 9 patients (30%) were symptomatic. Surgical resection was possible in only 6 patients (20%). There was no difference between MRI and conventional follow-up tests in their ability to detect cases suitable for surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Pelvic surveillance by MRI is not justified as part of the routine follow-up after a curative resection for colorectal cancer and should be reserved for selectively imaging patients with clinical, colonoscopic, and/or biochemical suspicion of recurrent disease.

Imaging techniques contribute to increased surgical rescue of relapse in the follow-up of colorectal cancer

PURPOSE

This study analyzes the results of a follow-up policy in colorectal cancer at our institution and evaluates the possible benefit provided by each test performed.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Six hundred nineteen patients who had radical surgery and adjuvant treatment for colorectal cancer were followed up with a protocol that included carcinoembryonic antigen testing and clinical examination every three months for the first two years, every four months in the third year, and every six months in the fourth and fifth years. Chest X-ray and colonoscopy were performed yearly for five years and abdominal ultrasound was done every six months for the first three years and yearly afterward. Abdominopelvic computerized tomography was performed yearly for the first two years in cases with rectal cancer. If relapse was detected, all operable cases underwent surgery if possible.

RESULTS

Between 1993 and 1999, 619 patients were followed-up. Mean follow-up was 66.9 months. Two hundred eight relapses were detected, 83.6 percent in the first three years and 73 (35.1 percent) underwent surgical resection. Carcinoembryonic antigen testing detected 44.2 percent of recurrences and 31.9 percent of them were operated on. Imaging techniques detected a lower percentage of recurrences (18.7 percent) but were more often resectable: 52 percent and 60 percent of the recurrences detected by computerized tomography and chest X-ray, respectively, underwent surgery. Median overall survival of patients with resected relapse was 62 months, significantly higher than those who were not operable (12.4 months).

CONCLUSION

Imaging techniques in the surveillance of resected colorectal cancer contribute to early detection of relapse with a high proportion of operable metastatic disease.