Colonoscopic follow-up of colorectal carcinoma

Surveillance strategies following curative resection and non-operative approach of rectal cancer: How and how long? Review of current recommendations

Different follow-up strategies are available for patients with rectal cancer following curative treatment. A combination of biochemical testing and imaging investigation, associated with physical examination are commonly used. However, there is currently no consensus about the types of tests to perform, the timing of the testing, and even the need for follow-up at all has been questioned. The aim of this study was to review the evidence of the impact of different follow-up tests and programs in patients with non-metastatic disease after definitive treatment of the primary. A literature review was performed of studies published on MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and Web of Science up to November 2022. Current published guidelines from the most authoritative specialty societies were also reviewed. According to the follow-up strategies available, the office visit is not efficient but represents the only way to maintain direct contact with the patient and is recommended by all authoritative specialty societies. In colorectal cancer surveillance, carcinoembryonic antigen represents the only established tumor marker. Abdominal and chest computed tomography scan is recommended considering that the liver and lungs are the most common sites of recurrence. Since local relapse in rectal cancer is higher than in colon cancer, endoscopic surveillance is mandatory. Different follow-up regimens have been published but randomized comparisons and meta-analyses do not allow to determine whether intensive or less intensive follow-up had any significant influence on survival and recurrence detection rate. The available data do not allow the drawing of final conclusions on the ideal surveillance methods and the frequency with which they should be applied. It is very useful and urgent for clinicians to identify a cost-effective strategy that allows early identification of recurrence with a special focus for high-risk patients and patients undergoing a “watch and wait” approach.

New and Recurrent Colorectal Cancers After Resection: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Endoscopic Surveillance Studies

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Outcomes of endoscopic surveillance after surgery for colorectal cancer (CRC) vary with the incidence and timing of CRC detection at anastomoses or non-anastomoses in the colorectum. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the incidence of CRCs identified during surveillance colonoscopies of patients who have already undergone surgery for this cancer.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, and the Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials through January 1, 2018 to identify studies investigating rates of CRCs at anastomoses or other locations in the colorectum after curative surgery for primary CRC. We collected data from published randomized controlled, prospective, and retrospective cohort studies. Data were analyzed by multivariate meta-analytic models.

RESULTS

From 2373 citations, we selected 27 studies with data on 15,803 index CRCs for analysis (89% of patients with stage I-III CRC). Overall, 296 CRCs at non-anastomotic locations were reported over time periods of more than 16 years (cumulative incidence, 2.2% of CRCs; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.8%-2.9%). The risk of CRC at a non-anastomotic location was significantly reduced more than 36 months after resection compared with before this time point (odds ratio for non-anastomotic CRCs at 36-48 months vs 6-12 months after surgery, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.37-0.98; P = .031); 53.7% of all non-anastomotic CRCs were detected within 36 months of surgery. One hundred and fifty-eight CRCs were detected at anastomoses (cumulative incidence of 2.7%; 95% CI, 1.9%-3.9%). The risk of CRCs at anastomoses was significantly lower 24 months after resection than before (odds ratio for CRCs at anastomoses at 25-36 months after surgery vs 6-12 months, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.32-0.98; P = .036); 90.8% of all CRCs at anastomoses were detected within 36 months of surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

After surgery for CRC, the highest risk of CRCs at anastomoses and at other locations in the colorectum is highest during 36 months after surgery-risk decreases thereafter. Patients who have undergone CRC resection should be evaluated by colonoscopy more closely during this time period. Longer intervals may be considered thereafter.

Risk factors for metachronous colorectal cancer or polyp: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify personal, lifestyle, and tumor-related risk factors for metachronous colorectal cancer (CRC) and polyp.

METHODS

Relevant studies were identified by searching MEDLINE, Web of Science and Cochrane Central Register through 15 May 2016. Estimates for associations were summarized using random effects models.

RESULTS

Fifty-five studies were included in the review. For individuals who had a CRC resection, having a synchronous polyp was a risk factor for metachronous CRC or polyp (relative risk [RR], 2.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.48-2.82) and having a synchronous CRC (RR, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.25-2.91) and proximally located CRC (RR, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.24-3.64) were risk factors for metachronous CRC. For individuals who had a polypectomy, larger size (RR, 4.26; 95% CI, 2.11-8.57) or severe dysplasia of the initial polyp (RR, 5.15; 95% CI, 2.02-13.14), and having a synchronous polyp (RR, 2.52; 95% CI, 1.35-4.73) were risk factors for metachronous CRC; and a family history of CRC (RR, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.26-2.87), having a synchronous polyp (RR, 2.47; 95% CI, 1.74-3.50) and a larger size (RR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.03-2.15) and proximal location of the initial polyp (RR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.02-1.40) were risk factors for metachronous polyp. Meta-regression showed duration of follow-up was not a source of heterogeneity for most associations. There was no evidence that lifestyle factors were associated with metachronous CRC or polyp risk.

CONCLUSION

A comprehensive list of risk factors identified for metachronous CRC or polyp may have important clinical implications.

Colonoscopy Surveillance After Colorectal Cancer Resection: Recommendations of the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer

The US Multi-Society Task Force has developed updated recommendations to guide health care providers with the surveillance of patients after colorectal cancer (CRC) resection with curative intent. This document is based on a critical review of the literature regarding the role of colonoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy, endoscopic ultrasound, fecal testing and CT colonography in this setting. The document addresses the effect of surveillance, with focus on colonoscopy, on patient survival after CRC resection, the appropriate use and timing of colonoscopy for perioperative clearing and for postoperative prevention of metachronous CRC, specific considerations for the detection of local recurrence in the case of rectal cancer, as well as the place of CT colonography and fecal tests in post-CRC surveillance.

Colonoscopy Surveillance after Colorectal Cancer Resection: Recommendations of the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer

The US Multi-Society Task Force has developed updated recommendations to guide health care providers with the surveillance of patients after colorectal cancer (CRC) resection with curative intent. This document is based on a critical review of the literature regarding the role of colonoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy, endoscopic ultrasound, fecal testing and CT colonography in this setting. The document addresses the effect of surveillance, with focus on colonoscopy, on patient survival after CRC resection, the appropriate use and timing of colonoscopy for perioperative clearing and for postoperative prevention of metachronous CRC, specific considerations for the detection of local recurrence in the case of rectal cancer, as well as the place of CT colonography and fecal tests in post-CRC surveillance.

Colonoscopic surveillance after colorectal cancer resection: who needs more intensive follow-up?

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Although there are guidelines for colonoscopic surveillance after colorectal cancer (CRC) surgery, the data evaluating the effectiveness of these guidelines are limited. We determined the risk factors for metachronous neoplasia (MN) by performing annual colonoscopy examinations after curative resection.

METHODS

We performed annual colonoscopic surveillance on stage I-III CRC patients after curative resection. We stratified the patients based on the advanced neoplasia risk during the surveillance.

RESULTS

Advanced MN detected was in 59 (13.1%) of 451 patients. Overall, the cumulative incidence of advanced MN was 17.3% at 5 years. By the multivariate analysis, the risk factors for advanced MN were male gender, age >65, left-sided index cancer and being in the high-risk group. The cumulative incidence of advanced MN was 38.9% at 5 years in the high-risk group. Among the patients who had advanced MN, secondary advanced MN was detected in 13 patients (22.0%) with a subsequent colonoscopy. The 2-year cumulative incidence of secondary advanced MN was 16.9%. Four (0.88%) patients had metachronous CRC during the surveillance and the interval from the index CRC was a median of 58.5 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the current follow-up guidelines for colonoscopic surveillance after CRC are well established, the high-risk group calls for more meticulous follow-up, which should be continued for a sufficient time.

Incidence and risk factors of metachronous colorectal neoplasm after curative resection of colorectal cancer in Korean patients

OBJECTIVE

Early detection and endoscopic removal of metachronous neoplasms are important preventive strategies for patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) after curative tumor resection. We aimed to determine the incidence of and the risk factors for metachronous colorectal neoplasms after curative resection for CRC.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed clinical data of patients who underwent curative resection for CRC at the National Cancer Center, Korea, from July 2004 to July 2007 and were followed up for a mean duration of 40.7 months. The incidence of and the risk factors for developing metachronous neoplasms were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 1049 patients were included in this study. A follow-up colonoscopy showed that 454 (43.3%) patients developed metachronous neoplasms, including 46 (4.4%) with advanced adenoma or cancer. Univariate analyses revealed that age ≥ 60 years, male gender, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, synchronous adenoma, synchronous multiple adenoma and synchronous advanced adenoma were associated with the development of metachronous neoplasms. Baseline risk factors associated with metachronous advanced neoplasm were age ≥ 60 years, synchronous multiple adenoma and synchronous advanced adenoma. Multivariate analysis showed that age ≥ 60 years, synchronous adenoma and diabetes mellitus were risk factors for the development of metachronous neoplasms. The cumulative incidence of metachronous neoplasms was higher in patients with these risk factors than in those without.

CONCLUSIONS

Elder age, synchronous adenoma and diabetes mellitus are risk factors for developing metachronous neoplasia. Therefore, careful surveillance colonoscopy are necessary for these patients.

Natural history and long-term outcomes of patients treated for early stage colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

The long-term natural history of early stage colon cancer and the outcome of long-term colonoscopic surveillance in routine specialist clinical practice after removal of the incident cancers have not been fully defined. In the present long-term evaluation up to 25 years, metachronous neoplasia, including both advanced adenomas and carcinomas, was defined.

METHODS

All early stage colorectal cancer patients evaluated consecutively from a single clinical practice underwent follow-up colonoscopic evaluations after removal of the incident cancer and clearing of neoplastic disease. Colonoscopic surveillance was planned for two phases - initially on an annual basis for five years, followed by continued surveillance every three years up to 25 years with removal of any metachronous neoplastic lesion.

RESULTS

A total of 128 patients (66 men and 62 women) with 129 incident early stage colorectal cancers were evaluated. Virtually all patients were symptomatic, usually with clinical evidence of blood loss. Incident early cancers were located throughout the colon, especially in the rectosigmoid, and showed no pathological evidence of nodal or other metastases. All patients evaluated during the first five years did not experience recurrent disease or have metachronous cancer detected. After five years, a total of 94 patients were evaluated up to 25 years; six of these patients were found to have seven metachronous colon cancers. All developed cancer more than seven years after removal of the incident colorectal cancer, including six asymptomatic adenocarcinomas, of which only one had evidence of single node involvement. Another patient in this cohort developed a poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinoma of the colon. In addition, 45% of patients had a total of 217 adenomas removed, including 11% of patients with 33 advanced adenomas. Among 14 patients with advanced adenomas, seven (50%) developed ≥1 late metachronous cancers.

CONCLUSIONS

Following removal of an incident symptomatic early stage colorectal cancer, the risk of later metachronous neoplasia persists for an extended period more than five years after removal of the incident colorectal cancer. Moreover, risk for late metachronous cancer appears to be predicted by the presence of multiple adenomas or advanced adenomas; most metachronous cancers in this cohort were detected using colonoscopy before onset of symptoms and at an early stage.

Risk of second primary colorectal cancer among colorectal cancer cases: a population-based analysis

BACKGROUND

Patients with history of colorectal cancer (CRC) are at increased risk for developing a second primary colorectal cancer (SPCRC) as compared to the general population. However, the degree of risk is uncertain. Here, we attempt to quantify the risk, using data from the large population-based California Cancer Registry (CCR).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We analyzed the CCR data for cases with surgically-treated colon and rectal cancer diagnosed during the period 1990-2005 and followed through up to January 2008. We excluded those patients diagnosed with metastatic disease and those in whom SPCRC was diagnosed within 6 months of the diagnosis of the primary CRC. Standardized incidence ratios (SIR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated to evaluate risk as compared to the underlying population after taking into account age, sex, ethnicity, and time at risk.

RESULTS

The study cohort consisted of 69809 cases with colon cancer and 34448 with rectal cancer. Among these patients there were 1443 cases of SPCRCs. The SIR for developing SPCRC was higher in colon cancer survivors (SIR=1.4; 95% CI: 1.3 to 1.5) as compared to the underlying population. The incidence of SPCRC was also higher in females (SIR=1.5; 95% CI: 1.3 to 1.6) and Hispanics (SIR=2.0; 95% CI: 1.7 to 2.4) with primary colon cancer. The SIR for developing an SPCRC was higher only among those whose initial tumor was located in the descending colon (SIR=1.6; 95% CI: 1.3 to 2.0) and proximal colon (SIR=1.4; 95% CI: 1.3 to 1.6).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results confirm that CRC patients, especially females and Hispanics, are at a higher risk of developing SPCRC than the general population. Differential SPCRC risk by colorectal tumor subsite is dependent on gender and ethnicity, underscoring the heterogeneous nature of CRC.

Advanced synchronous adenoma but not simple adenoma predicts the future development of metachronous neoplasia in patients with resected colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Patients with resected colorectal cancer remain at a high risk for developing metachronous neoplasia in the remnant colorectum. The aim of this study was to identify baseline clinical and colonoscopic features predictive of metachronous neoplasia after curative resection of colorectal cancer.

METHODS

The baseline clinical and colonoscopic data and follow-up details of 503 patients who had colonoscopic surveillance after curative colorectal resection between January 2000 and October 2005 in a single tertiary institution were analyzed. Univariate and multivariate analyses were done to identify risk factors for metachronous adenoma.

RESULTS

Metachronous adenomas were diagnosed in 176 patients (35.0%) and advanced adenomas in 39 (7.8%) during the follow-up period (35.7+/-20.9 mo). Among the clinical and colonoscopic factors at baseline, advanced age (> or = 60 y) (odds ratio (OR)=3.64; 95% confidence intervals (CI), 1.55-8.52), the presence of advanced synchronous adenoma (OR=4.38; 95% CI, 1.77-10.85), and longer total follow-up period (OR=1.03; 95% CI, 1.01-1.04) were independently correlated with developing advanced metachronous adenoma. Patients who had synchronous tubular adenoma without advanced features at baseline were not found to have an increased risk for future development of advanced metachronous adenoma compared with those in the synchronous adenoma-free group (OR=1.75; 95% CI, 0.69-4.43, P=0.650).

CONCLUSIONS

Our data showed that patients with advanced synchronous adenoma at baseline were identified to have an increased risk of advanced metachronous neoplasia during a longer follow-up period but those with tubular adenoma without advanced features at baseline were not.

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.

Prospective observation of small adenomas in patients after colorectal cancer surgery through magnification chromocolonoscopy

PURPOSE

This study was designed to confirm the safety of not removing small adenoma in patients who undergo colorectal cancer surgery.

METHODS

Patients who underwent surveillance colonoscopy after surgery were enrolled. The study was approved by our institutional review board. Colonoscopy was performed with magnification chromocolonoscopy. Benign adenomas of 6 mm or less in size, diagnosed based on both nonmagnified and magnified observation, were left unresected with a maximum of three polyps per patient. The sites of the polyps were marked by tattooing. Interval colonoscopy was performed predominantly yearly or biennially. Increase in size by 2 mm or larger was defined as significant. In follow-up, polyps were removed if they grew larger than 6 mm, were suspicious for high-grade dysplasia, or the patients requested to have polyps removal.

RESULTS

Five hundred polyps in 284 patients met the above criteria and were not resected, and 412 polyps were followed by repeat colonoscopy. The mean observation period was 3.6+/-2.2 years and the mean number of repeat colonoscopy was 3.6+/-1.6. At the final colonoscopy, 71 percent of 412 polyps showed no change in size, 15 percent increased, 3 percent decreased, and 11 percent could not be identified. Eighty-eight polyps were resected endoscopically, and histology showed neither cancer nor adenomas with high-grade dysplasia. Two hundred fifty-five polyps detected in the same patient cohort during index/repeat colonoscopy were removed, including four adenomas with high-grade dysplasia and two T1 cancers.

CONCLUSIONS

Leaving small polyps is safe even in patients who have undergone colorectal cancer surgery, provided that careful observation is guaranteed.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Clinical features, diagnosis, treatment and prognosis of multiple primary colorectal carcinoma

AIM: To investigate the clinical features, diagnosis, treatment and prognosis of multiple primary colorectal carcinomas (MPCC).

METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 37 patients with MPCC from 1974 to 1998 was carried out.

RESULTS: The incidence of MPCC was 2.74% (37/1348) in patients with primary colorectal carcinomas, 15 cases of them were patients with synchronous carcinomas (SC) and 22 cases were diagnosed as metachronous carcinomas (MC). Most tumors were located in the right colon and rectum. Fifty-five percent (12/22) of MC were diagnosed within 3 years after tumor resection and 41% (9/22) of MC occurred after 8 years. Radical resections were performed in all patients except for 1 case. The 5-year survival rate of SC was 72.7% (8/11) and that of MC after the first cancer and second cancer was 71.4% (15/21) and 38.9% (7/18), respectively.

CONCLUSION: The results indicate the importance of complete preoperative examination, careful intraoperative exploration and periodic postoperative surveillance. Early diagnosis and radical resection can increase survival rate of MPCC.

Clinical and sociodemographic factors associated with colon surveillance among patients with a history of colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Substantial variability in the use of colon surveillance among colorectal cancer survivors has been reported. This study sought to examine trends in the use of colon surveillance among patients who have had colorectal cancer and to investigate factors associated with utilization.

METHODS

Health maintenance organization enrollees with a diagnosis of local or regional colon or rectal cancer between January 1993 and December 1999 were studied. Receipt of a colon examination by colonoscopy or by flexible sigmoidoscopy, together with barium contrast radiography of the colon was determined from automated clinical records, and rates of colon surveillance were estimated by using survival analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 1002 patients with a diagnosis of colorectal cancer met inclusion criteria for the study. Colon examinations were performed in 61% of patients within 18 months of diagnosis and in 80% of patients within 5 years of diagnosis. The median time from diagnosis to first colon surveillance examination (14 months) was unchanged over the study period, but the interval between first and second surveillance examinations increased by 17 months (p<0.001). Patients over 80 years of age (relative risk=0.32; 95% CI[0.22, 0.45]) and those with rectal cancer (relative risk=0.80; 95% CI[0.66, 0.97]) were less likely to undergo surveillance. Higher socioeconomic status (relative risk=1.29; 95% CI[1.03, 1.61]) and being married (relative risk=1.27; 95% CI[1.05, 1.53]) were associated with greater utilization. There was lower utilization among African American patients (relative risk=0.70; p=0.14) and increased utilization among other minorities (relative risk=1.47; p=0.06).

CONCLUSIONS

There is substantial variability in the use of colon examination for surveillance in patients with a history of colorectal cancer, and clinical and sociodemographic factors appear to influence the likelihood of surveillance.

Follow-up strategies after curative resection of colorectal cancer

Consensus is lacking as to the best strategy for following patients who have undergone definitive surgical medical treatment for colon cancer. The goal of any surveillance program should be detection of recurrent disease at a sufficiently early time to allow subsequent curative therapy. Although periodic clinical examinations, laboratory tests, radiographic imaging, and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) testing have been utilized as a form of surveillance, such aggressive and costly intervention has not been validated through clinical studies. Four of the five randomized trials comparing such an intensive surveillance strategy to less frequent testing have not demonstrated the intensive approach to lead to an improvement in overall survival. Furthermore, intensive testing is both costly and has been shown not to improve quality of life. Further research designing appropriate postoperative testing is needed to guide physicians and patients after the curative resection of a colorectal cancer.

Colonoscopic surveillance after curative colorectal resection: results of an empirical surveillance programme

INTRODUCTION

Colonoscopic surveillance after colorectal cancer resection is widely practised despite little evidence that it improves survival. The optimum protocol for colonoscopic follow-up after colorectal cancer resection has not yet been elucidated. We audited the outcome of an empirical colonoscopic follow-up programme in a cohort of patients who underwent colorectal resection with a minimum of five years follow-up to establish patterns of metachronous neoplasia and suitable surveillance intervals.

METHODS

The colonoscopic records, biopsy results and follow-up details of patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer between June 1990 and June 1996 were reviewed. The number and type of metachronous neoplastic lesions diagnosed was recorded. Rates of development of new neoplasms were estimated by calculating the time from operation to their first discovery. Factors predictive of further development of polyps or cancer were sought. Results were compared to published reports of intensive follow-up programmes.

RESULTS

Seven hundred and ninety-eight patients underwent colorectal resection with curative intent during the study period. 226 patients had one or more follow-up colonoscopies (mean time post resection 48.8 months). In total 352 colonoscopies, encompassing 1437 patient years of surveillance, were performed. Nine metachronous cancers in eight patients, five of which were asymptomatic were diagnosed by colonoscopy at a mean of 63 months. Three asymptomatic recurrences were diagnosed but all were inoperable. 70 (31%) patients had adenomatous polyps diagnosed after a mean time from operation of 34 months for simple adenomatous polyps and 21 months for those with advanced features. Patients with multiple polyps or advanced polyps at the initial colonoscopy were more likely to form subsequent polyps. Only 5.8% of patients with a single adenoma or a normal colon formed an advanced adenoma over the next 36 months of surveillance.

CONCLUSION

The results of an empirical colonoscopic follow-up programme compared favourably to the results of the intensive programmes reported in the literature. Most patients are at very low risk of developing significant colonic pathology over the first five years after resection. Colonoscopic surveillance intervals need not be less than five years unless the patient has multiple adenomas or advanced adenomas at the first colonoscopy. Three yearly surveillance intervals are most probably adequate in these individuals.

Mortality and follow-up colonoscopy after colorectal cancer

OBJECTIVE

There have been no studies that demonstrate surveillance colonoscopy decreases mortality in patients with a history of colorectal cancer. The purpose of this study was to compare the mortality of patients with colorectal cancer who received at least one colonoscopy after their diagnosis with patients who had no further procedures after adjusting for age, race, chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and comorbidity using the national Veterans Affairs (VA) databases.

METHODS

We studied a cohort of 3546 patients within the VA national databases with a new diagnosis of colorectal cancer during fiscal year 1995-1996. Patients with inflammatory bowel disease, metastatic disease at presentation, or who died within 1 yr of initial diagnosis were excluded. We collected data for demographics, comorbidities, colonoscopies, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy. The primary outcome was adjusted 5-yr mortality.

RESULTS

In the adjusted analysis, the risk of death was decreased by 43% (hazard ratio = 0.57, 95% CI = 0.51-0.64) in the group who had at least one follow-up colonoscopy compared with patients who had no follow-up colonoscopies.

CONCLUSIONS

This study strongly supports a mortality benefit for follow-up colonoscopy in patients with a history of nonmetastatic colorectal cancer.

[Colonoscopic follow-up of patients undergoing curative resection of colorectal cancer]

AIM

To investigate the role of colonoscopy in the follow-up of patients undergoing curative resection of colorectal cancer.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A prospective study was performed of 102 patients with colorectal cancer who underwent surgery with curative intention. Postoperative colonoscopic follow-up was a minimum of 5 years.

RESULTS

There were 62 males and 40 females. The mean duration of follow-up was 73.4 months. Synchronous polyps were found in 44.1% (114 in 45 patients) and metachronous polyps in 33.4% (64 in 34 patients). Synchronous carcinoma was detected in 7.8% (9 in 8 patients), metachronous carcinoma in 1.9% (2 in 2 patients) and suture recurrence in 4.9% (5 in 5 patients). Metachronous polyps developed in 55.5% of the patients with synchronous polyps and in only 15.8% of those with no synchronous polyps (p < 0.00005); the odds ratio was 6.67. Colonoscopy diagnosed 92 synchronous polyps and 64 metachronous polyps; of these, 34 were found to be significant(in 22 patients). Colonoscopy diagnosed 5 synchronous carcinomas; in 3 of these (polyps with non-invasive carcinoma) polypectomy constituted definitive therapy and in the remaining 2, curative resection was achieved. Colonoscopy diagnosed 2 stage C2 metachronous carcinomas at 63 and 94 months. Curative resection was achieved in both cases. Colonoscopic follow-up diagnosed 2 suture recurrences and resection was potentially curative.

CONCLUSIONS

Colonoscopy was found to play an essential role in 30% of the patients. The technique allowed the early diagnosis of synchronous carcinomas and curative treatment of metachronous carcinomas and demonstrated that the presence of synchronous polyps increases the risk of developing metachronous polyps.

Predictive factors for detecting colorectal carcinomas in surveillance colonoscopy after colorectal cancer surgery

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to identify the high-risk groups for metachronous colorectal carcinoma among patients who undergo colorectal cancer surgery.

METHODS

Three hundred forty-one patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery who had undergone surveillance colonoscopy at least twice during a period of more than three years were analyzed. A metachronous colorectal carcinoma was defined as a new colorectal carcinoma detected by surveillance colonoscopy after surgery.

RESULTS

Surveillance colonoscopy was performed 4.6 times per patient during an average of 6.2 years. Twenty-two metachronous colorectal carcinomas in 19 patients were detected, and 14 (64 percent) of 22 were detected within five years of surgery. The cumulative incidence of developing colorectal carcinomas during a five-year period was 5.3 percent. Seventeen (77 percent) of 22 carcinomas were 10 mm or less in size. Ten (71 percent) of the 14 carcinomas in early stages showed a flat appearance. Univariate analysis showed that extracolonic malignancy, coexistence of adenoma, and synchronous multiple colorectal carcinoma were significant predictive factors for detecting colorectal carcinomas in surveillance colonoscopy and that family history of colorectal carcinoma was a possible predictive factor. Multivariate analysis performed with Cox proportional hazards regression model showed that extracolonic malignancy and the coexistence of adenoma were significant predictive factors.

CONCLUSION

We recommend that patients with the above predictive factors receive surveillance colonoscopy meticulously and regularly.

Patterns of endoscopic follow-up after surgery for nonmetastatic colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic examinations of the colon are often recommended for surveillance following colorectal cancer resection. The actual use and outcome of this testing are not known.

METHODS

Five thousand seven hundred sixteen patients 65 years of age or older with local or regional stage colorectal cancer diagnosed in 1991 were identified through the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results registry. All inpatient and outpatient Medicare claims from 6 months after diagnosis through the end of 1994 were examined to determine use of endoscopic procedures.

RESULTS

One or more colonoscopies were performed in 51%, with an average of 2.9 procedures performed among those tested; sigmoidoscopy was performed in 17%. The rate of colonoscopy was highest during the initial 18 months. Polypectomy was performed in 21% of all patients, and subsequent primary colorectal tumors were diagnosed in 1.3%. Factors associated with colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy use included younger age, survival through follow-up, and geographic region; sigmoidoscopy was also more common in relation to rectal cancers.

CONCLUSIONS

There is variability in the use of endoscopic procedures following potentially curative resection for colorectal cancer, with patient-related factors and local practice patterns accounting for the variation. Further studies are needed to elicit the reasons for lack of follow-up and adherence to practice guidelines.

What is the risk factor for metachronous colorectal carcinoma?

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to determine the risk factors for developing metachronous colorectal carcinoma and to determine an adequate postoperative colonoscopic surveillance.

METHODS

Two hundred eighty-four patients, examined by routine colonoscopy after resection for colorectal carcinoma, were reviewed. Clinical and pathologic factors were assessed by multiple logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

One hundred eighty-three patients with synchronous adenoma or carcinoma at the initial operation had a significantly higher incidence of both metachronous adenoma and carcinoma than the 101 patients without a synchronous lesion. Other clinical factors including age, gender, tumor stage, tumor site, and tumor grade were not significant for an increased incidence of metachronous carcinoma. The presence of synchronous lesions proved to be the only risk factor (relative risk, 3.293; P = 0.0155) for developing metachronous carcinoma. Metachronous carcinoma was detected in 30 patients (10.6 percent) and completely removed from all patients. Mucosal carcinoma was found in 25 patients (8.8 percent) and invasive carcinoma in 5 patients (1.8 percent). All five invasive carcinomas were detected in asymptomatic patients having synchronous lesion. Four patients required a second operation for metachronous carcinoma more than 13 months following the first.

CONCLUSION

The risk factor for developing metachronous carcinoma is the presence of synchronous adenoma or carcinoma at the initial operation. To detect metachronous carcinoma at a curable stage, annual colonoscopic surveillance should be performed for high-risk patients.

Ileal pouch-anal anastomosis for ulcerative colitis and polyposis coli: is the risk of carcinoma formation conclusively averted?

We took biopsies from the ileal pouch mucosa of 26 patients (13 with ulcerative colitis, 13 with polyposis coli) at least 1 year after the newly formed pouch was finally linked to the faecal flow. Histochemical mucin differentiation was carried out in addition to the ordinary stains. All patients underwent colonization of pouch mucosa with goblet cell multiplication, reduction or loss of villi, and formation of crypts. Only 19 patients could be classified morphologically as bearing large bowel mucosa in the ilea] pouch. Patients with one incidence of ulcerative colitis developed one criterion, those with two incidences two criteria, and those with seven incidences three criteria of the original colitic disease. Patients with two incidences of colitis and those with 10 incidences of polyposis coli developed an excess of sialomucine formation, which is known as an obligate pre-cancerosis. These findings prove, that in ileal pouches, even when affected by systemic diseases with extraintestinal manifestations, a new kind of mucosa develops, which is also prediposed to carcinoma formation. Papers reporting adenocarcinoma arising in ileostomy areas as well as in ileoanal anastomosis, and ileal reservoirs, confirm this presumption. Assuming this conclusion, restorative proctocolectomy cannot hinder malignant transformation of intestinal mucosa, but only delay the onset of cancer, thereby making lifelong follow-ups necessary.

Colon surveillance after colorectal cancer surgery

PURPOSE

This study was performed to determine cost-effective colonoscopy guidelines for patients with prior colorectal adenocarcinoma.

METHOD

A retrospective review was performed of patients who had been treated for colorectal adenocarcinoma and later underwent follow-up colonoscopy from 1984 to 1994.

RESULTS

During this study period, 389 patients previously treated for colorectal adenocarcinoma underwent follow-up colonoscopy. All patients had perioperative colon evaluation for other neoplasms. Ages ranged from 26 to 89 (mean, 65.8) years, and 46.8 percent were female. Recurrent or metachronous cancer or a neoplastic polyp constituted a positive examination. Results of 389 first follow-up colonoscopies were compared with 259 second (66.6 percent), 165 third (42.4 percent), and 83 fourth (21.3 percent) follow-up examinations. Median interval between all colonoscopies was 13 months. Positive examination rates for the first two yearly examinations were 18.3 and 18.5 percent, respectively. Slightly lower, third-year and fourth-year positive examination rates were 16.4 and 14.5 percent, respectively. Four-year examinations yielded the following: first year--1 carcinoid, a new adenocarcinoma, and 100 polyps; second year--1 anastomotic recurrence and 68 polyps; third year --55 polyps; and fourth year--1 recurrent cancer and 17 polyps.

CONCLUSIONS

These data suggest that 1) annual follow-up colonoscopy for two years after colorectal cancer surgery is beneficial for detecting recurrent and metachronous neoplasms and 2) the interval between subsequent examinations may be increased depending on the result of the most recent examination.