Role of follow-up in management of local recurrences of colorectal cancer: a prospective, randomized study

Intensive follow-up vs conventional follow-up for patients with non-metastatic colorectal cancer treated with curative intent: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The frequency and content of follow-up strategies remain controversial for colorectal cancer (CRC), and scheduled follow-ups have limited value.

AIM

To compare intensive and conventional follow-up strategies for the prognosis of non-metastatic CRC treated with curative intent using a meta-analysis.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched for potentially eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from inception until April 2023. The Cochrane risk of bias was used to assess the methodological quality of the included studies. The hazard ratio, relative risk, and 95% confidence interval were used to calculate survival and categorical data, and pooled analyses were performed using the random-effects model. Additional exploratory analyses were performed for sensitivity, subgroups, and publication bias.

RESULTS

Eighteen RCTs involving 8533 patients with CRC were selected for the final analysis. Intensive follow-up may be superior to conventional follow-up in improving overall survival, but this difference was not statistically significant. Moreover, intensive follow-up was associated with an increased incidence of salvage surgery compared to conventional follow-up. In addition, there was no significant difference in the risk of recurrence between intensive and conventional follow-up strategies, whereas intensive follow-up was associated with a reduced risk of interval recurrence compared to conventional follow-up. Finally, the effects of intensive and conventional follow-up strategies differed when stratified by tumor location and follow-up duration.

CONCLUSION

Intensive follow-up may have a beneficial effect on the overall survival of patients with non-metastatic CRC treated with curative intent.

Survivorship in Early-Stage Rectal Cancer Patients Who Have Received Combined Modality Therapy

Survival rates in early-stage rectal cancer patients have increased over the past few decades. Societies such as the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), American Cancer Society (ACS), American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), and European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) have proposed guidelines related to cancer survivorship care including formal recommendations to address the needs in early-stage rectal cancer survivors. These guidelines, in addition to new clinical research findings in survivorship will be reviewed, specifically looking at physical, psychosocial, and financial concerns in rectal cancer survivorship.

Endoscopic surveillance after surgery for colorectal cancer

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common cancers worldwide and its global incidence is rapidly increasing among adults younger than 50 years, especially in the 20-39 age group. Once a curative resection is achieved, surveillance is mandatory. Colonoscopy has a pivotal role aimed at resecting premalignant neoplasms and detecting cancer at a curable stage. In the current review, an update on the role of surveillance colonoscopy after CRC is provided, considered the most recent international guidelines and evidence published on this issue. In particular, several questions have been answered, why, how and how often colonoscopy should be performed, whether intensive surveillance is more effective than standard surveillance, how endoscopically resected T1 cancer should be followed, the different management existing between colon and rectal cancer, and, finally, how to improve the endoscopic surveillance. In a period of resource constraints, appropriateness will be mandatory, thus understanding how to optimize the role of colonoscopy in the surveillance of patients with a history of CRC is of crucial importance. Improving the quality of colonoscopy and identifying risk factors for recurrent and new-onset CRC, will allow us to individualize the surveillance program while sparing health care cost.

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.

Detection of asymptomatic recurrence following curative surgery improves survival in patients with gastric cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

To date, there is no evidence that intensive follow-up provides survival benefit in gastric cancer patients undergoing curative gastrectomy. The aim of this study is to investigate the efficacy of detection of asymptomatic recurrence using intensive surveillance strategy in long-term survival after curative gastric cancer surgery.

Methods

A systematic review of electronic databases including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library and China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Clinical Trials Registry and Google Scholar was performed up to April 2022. The primary outcomes were survival outcomes: overall survival, recurrence-free survival and post-recurrence survival. The secondary endpoints were clinicopathological features, recurrence patterns and treatment after recurrence. The registration number of this protocol is PROSPERO CRD42022327370.

Results

A total of 11 studies including 1898 participants were included. In the pooled analysis, the detection of asymptomatic recurrence was significantly associated with an improved overall survival compared to patients showing symptoms of recurrence (HR=0.67; 95%CI: 0.57-0.79; P<0.001), which was primarily driven by the prolongation of post-recurrence survival (HR=0.51; 95%CI: 0.42-0.61; P<0.001), since there was no significant difference observed in recurrence-free survival (HR=1.12; 95%CI: 0.81-1.55; P=0.48) between the two groups. Meanwhile, male sex and advanced T stage were more frequently observed in the symptomatic recurrence group. Furthermore, patients in the symptomatic recurrence group had a higher proportion of peritoneal relapse but lower proportion of distant lymph node metastasis. Additionally, patients in the symptomatic recurrence group were less likely to receive surgery treatment and post-recurrence chemotherapy.

Conclusion

The detection of asymptomatic recurrence using intensive follow-up was associated with an appreciable improvement in overall survival. However, more robust data from high-quality studies are still required to verify this issue.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=327370, identifier CRD42022327370.

A two-phase approach to re-calibrating expensive computer simulation for sex-specific colorectal neoplasia development modeling

BACKGROUND

Medical evidence from more recent observational studies may significantly alter our understanding of disease incidence and progression, and would require recalibration of existing computational and predictive disease models. However, it is often challenging to perform recalibration when there are a large number of model parameters to be estimated. Moreover, comparing the fitting performances of candidate parameter designs can be difficult due to significant variation in simulated outcomes under limited computational budget and long runtime, even for one simulation replication.

METHODS

We developed a two-phase recalibration procedure. As a proof-of-the-concept study, we verified the procedure in the context of sex-specific colorectal neoplasia development. We considered two individual-based state-transition stochastic simulation models, estimating model parameters that govern colorectal adenoma occurrence and its growth through three preclinical states: non-advanced precancerous polyp, advanced precancerous polyp, and cancerous polyp. For the calibration, we used a weighted-sum-squared error between three prevalence values reported in the literature and the corresponding simulation outcomes. In phase 1 of the calibration procedure, we first extracted the baseline parameter design from relevant studies on the same model. We then performed sampling-based searches within a proper range around the baseline design to identify the initial set of good candidate designs. In phase 2, we performed local search (e.g., the Nelder-Mead algorithm), starting from the candidate designs identified at the end of phase 1. Further, we investigated the efficiency of exploring dimensions of the parameter space sequentially based on our prior knowledge of the system dynamics.

RESULTS

The efficiency of our two-phase re-calibration procedure was first investigated with CMOST, a relatively inexpensive computational model. It was then further verified with the V/NCS model, which is much more expensive. Overall, our two-phase procedure showed a better goodness-of-fit than the straightforward employment of the Nelder-Mead algorithm, when only a limited number of simulation replications were allowed. In addition, in phase 2, performing local search along parameter space dimensions sequentially was more efficient than performing the search over all dimensions concurrently.

CONCLUSION

The proposed two-phase re-calibration procedure is efficient at estimating parameters of computationally expensive stochastic dynamic disease models.

Follow-up strategy and survival for five common cancers: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of intensive follow-up after curative intent treatment for five common solid tumours, in terms of survival and treatment of recurrences.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted, identifying comparative studies on follow-up for colorectal, lung, breast, upper gastro-intestinal and prostate cancer. Outcomes of interest were overall survival (OS), cancer specific survival (CSS), and treatment of recurrences. Random effects meta-analyses were conducted, with particular focus on studies at low risk of bias.

RESULTS

Fourteen out of 63 studies were considered to be at low risk of bias (8 colorectal, 4 breast, 0 lung, 1 upper gastro-intestinal, 1 prostate). These studies showed no significant impact of intensive follow-up on OS (hazard ratio, 95% confidence interval) for colorectal (0.99; 0.92-1.06), breast 1.06 (0.92-1.23), upper gastro-intestinal (0.78; 0.51-1.19) and prostate cancer (1.00; 0.86-1.16). No impact on CSS (hazard ratio, 95% confidence interval) was found for colorectal cancer (0.94; 0.77-1.16). CSS was not reported for other cancer types. Intensive follow-up increased the rate of curative treatment (relative risk; 95% confidence interval) for colorectal cancer recurrences (1.30; 1.05-1.61), but not for upper gastro-intestinal cancer recurrences (0.92; 0.47-1.81). For the other cancer types, no data on treatment of recurrences was available in low risk studies.

CONCLUSION

For colorectal and breast cancer, high quality studies do not suggest an impact of intensive follow-up strategies on survival. Colorectal cancer recurrences are more often treated locally after intensive follow-up. For other cancer types evaluated, limited high quality research on follow-up is available.

Role of Serum Carcinoembryonic Antigen in Predicting Recurrent Disease following Curative Resection of Rectal Cancer

Introduction Surveillance of patients following definitive treatment of rectal malignancy is based on the predicament that early detection of recurrence may provide an opportunity for cure. Available methods for monitoring include clinical, radiological, and serum tests. The purpose of this study was to determine the effectiveness of CEA in detecting recurrences.

Materials and Methods Retrospective analysis of patients with adenocarcinoma rectum treated with curative intent between 2012 to 2020 at our institute was performed. Postoperatively, patients were followed with CEA measurements according to our institution protocol and elevation of serum CEA above 5 ng/dL was considered as suspicious of recurrence.

Results One hundred ninety patients who received curative treatment were deemed eligible for the analysis. Among these 61 patients had recurrences during the follow-up period and postoperative CEA measurements at the time of recurrence were analyzed in all the patients. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of postoperative CEA to detect recurrences are 81.9, 92.2, 83.3, and 91.5%, respectively.

Conclusion CEA surveillance following definitive management of rectal cancer detects recurrences in majority of the patients and hence strongly recommended.

Intraoperative adverse events as a risk factor for local recurrence of rectal cancer after resection surgery

AIM

Failure to achieve a radical resection as well as intraoperative rectal perforation are important risk factors for local recurrence after rectal cancer surgery, but the importance of other intraoperative adverse events for the prognosis is unknown. The aim of this study was to assess the occurrence of intraoperative adverse events during rectal cancer surgery, and to determine whether these were associated with an increased risk of local recurrence.

METHODS

A retrospective population-based cohort study was undertaken, including all patients in Region Västra Götaland, Sweden, who had undergone primary resection surgery for rectal cancer diagnosed between 2010 and 2014, registered in the Swedish Colorectal Cancer Registry. Data were retrieved from the registry and through review of the medical records.

RESULTS

In total, 1208 patients were included in the study of whom 78 (6%) developed local recurrence during the follow-up period of at least 5 years. Intraoperative adverse events were common and occurred in 62/78 (79%) of patients with local recurrence compared to 604/1130 (53%) of patients without local recurrence. In multivariate analysis intraoperative adverse events were found to be an independent risk factor for local recurrence of rectal cancer, as were nonradical resection, a high pathological T stage, the presence of lymph node metastases, type of surgery and refraining from rectal washout during anterior resection and Hartmann's procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

Intraoperative adverse events were found to be an independent risk factor for local recurrence of rectal cancer and could possibly be used together with other known risk factors to select patients for intensified postoperative surveillance.

Evaluation of Comparative Surveillance Strategies of Circulating Tumor DNA, Imaging, and Carcinoembryonic Antigen Levels in Patients With Resected Colorectal Cancer

IMPORTANCE

A circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) assay (Signatera; Natera) has been marketed for use in the surveillance of resected colorectal cancer despite limited data supporting such practice.

OBJECTIVE

To compare a ctDNA assay with standard radiographic imaging and measurement of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) levels, per National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines, in the surveillance of resected colorectal cancer.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This retrospective, single-center cohort study evaluated surveillance strategies of ctDNA, imaging, and measurement of CEA levels in patients with resected colorectal cancer from September 1, 2019, to November 30, 2021.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The sensitivity and specificity of ctDNA, imaging, measurement of CEA levels, and combination of imaging plus measurement of CEA levels in detecting a confirmed recurrence of colorectal disease. A confirmed recurrence was defined as a positive ctDNA finding or a finding on imaging confirmed by biopsy, CEA level elevation, or subsequent tumor radiographic dynamics.

RESULTS

A total of 48 patients with curatively resected colorectal cancer satisfied the inclusion criteria for this study (28 men [58.3%]; median age, 60 [IQR, 34-85] years) and underwent surveillance by ctDNA, imaging, and measurement of CEA levels. Fifteen patients had disease recurrence during surveillance. Positive ctDNA findings confirmed disease recurrence in 8 patients; imaging, in 9 patients; CEA levels, in 3 patients; and combined imaging plus CEA levels, in 11 patients. Numerically, ctDNA did not perform better than imaging in detecting recurrence, with sensitivities of 53.3% (95% CI, 27.4%-77.7%) and 60.0% (95% CI, 32.9%-82.5%), respectively (P > .99). The combination of imaging plus measurement of CEA levels (sensitivity, 73.3% [95% CI, 44.8%-91.1%]) had a numerical advantage compared with ctDNA in identifying recurrence (P = .55). In addition, no significant difference was noted among ctDNA (median, 14.3 months), imaging (median, 15.0 months), or imaging plus measurement of CEA levels (median, 15.0 months) in the time to identify disease recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The findings of this cohort study suggest that ctDNA assay may not provide advantages as a surveillance strategy compared with standard imaging combined with CEA levels when performed per National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines.

Evaluation of Comparative Surveillance Strategies of Circulating Tumor DNA, Imaging, and Carcinoembryonic Antigen Levels in Patients With Resected Colorectal Cancer

IMPORTANCE

A circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) assay (Signatera; Natera) has been marketed for use in the surveillance of resected colorectal cancer despite limited data supporting such practice.

OBJECTIVE

To compare a ctDNA assay with standard radiographic imaging and measurement of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) levels, per National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines, in the surveillance of resected colorectal cancer.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This retrospective, single-center cohort study evaluated surveillance strategies of ctDNA, imaging, and measurement of CEA levels in patients with resected colorectal cancer from September 1, 2019, to November 30, 2021.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The sensitivity and specificity of ctDNA, imaging, measurement of CEA levels, and combination of imaging plus measurement of CEA levels in detecting a confirmed recurrence of colorectal disease. A confirmed recurrence was defined as a positive ctDNA finding or a finding on imaging confirmed by biopsy, CEA level elevation, or subsequent tumor radiographic dynamics.

RESULTS

A total of 48 patients with curatively resected colorectal cancer satisfied the inclusion criteria for this study (28 men [58.3%]; median age, 60 [IQR, 34-85] years) and underwent surveillance by ctDNA, imaging, and measurement of CEA levels. Fifteen patients had disease recurrence during surveillance. Positive ctDNA findings confirmed disease recurrence in 8 patients; imaging, in 9 patients; CEA levels, in 3 patients; and combined imaging plus CEA levels, in 11 patients. Numerically, ctDNA did not perform better than imaging in detecting recurrence, with sensitivities of 53.3% (95% CI, 27.4%-77.7%) and 60.0% (95% CI, 32.9%-82.5%), respectively (P > .99). The combination of imaging plus measurement of CEA levels (sensitivity, 73.3% [95% CI, 44.8%-91.1%]) had a numerical advantage compared with ctDNA in identifying recurrence (P = .55). In addition, no significant difference was noted among ctDNA (median, 14.3 months), imaging (median, 15.0 months), or imaging plus measurement of CEA levels (median, 15.0 months) in the time to identify disease recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The findings of this cohort study suggest that ctDNA assay may not provide advantages as a surveillance strategy compared with standard imaging combined with CEA levels when performed per National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines.

The utility of surveillance CT scans in a cohort of survivors of colorectal cancer

PURPOSE

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer worldwide. After curative intent treatment, international guidelines recommend surveillance protocols which include annual CT chest, abdomen and pelvis (CAP) and serum carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) monitoring which aim to improve overall survival by early detection of recurrence. Despite the widespread recommendations, robust evidence of an overall survival benefit is lacking. Our study aimed to quantify the utility of annual CT CAP as a surveillance modality in comparison to the rate of potentially harmful false-positive and incidental findings.

METHODS

High-risk stage II and stage III CRC patients were retrospectively identified from the Sydney Cancer Survivorship Centre database. Findings on surveillance CT were classified into confirmed recurrence or the potentially harmful findings of (a) false-positive or (b) clinically significant incidental finding.

RESULTS

A total of 376 surveillance CT CAPs were performed in 174 survivors between 12 September 2013 and 30 June 2020. The recurrence rate during the study period was 23/174 (13.2%) with the majority of recurrences detected by abnormal CEA (14/23, 60.9%) versus surveillance CT (4/23, 17.4%), with the remainder identified on non-surveillance CT (5/23, 21.7%). Curative intent surgery was performed in 12/23 people with CRC recurrence. Surveillance CT was shown to result in high levels of false-positive (31/174, 17.8% of patients) or clinically significant incidental findings (30/174, 17.2% of patients). The risk of identifying these potentially harmful findings was ongoing with each year of surveillance CT.

CONCLUSION

Surveillance CT was associated with low detection rates and high rates of potentially harmful findings bringing this surveillance modality under further scrutiny.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

An increased emphasis should be placed on educating survivors on the benefits of surveillance CT weighed against the risk of potentially harmful findings.

Optimal Postoperative Surveillance Strategies for Colorectal Cancer: A Retrospective Observational Study

This study aimed to assess whether surveillance intensity is associated with recurrence and survival in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients. Overall, 3794 patients with pathologic stage I-III CRC who underwent radical surgery between January 2012 and December 2014 were examined. Surveillance comprised abdominopelvic computed tomography (CT) every 6 months and chest CT annually for 5 years. Patients who underwent more than and less than an average of three imaging examinations annually were assigned to the high-intensity (HI) and low-intensity (LI) groups, respectively. Demographics were similar in both groups. T and N stages were higher and perineural and lymphovascular invasion were more frequent in the HI group (p < 0.001 each). The mean overall survival (OS) was similar for both groups; however, recurrence-free survival (RFS) was longer (p < 0.001) and post-recurrence survival (PRS) was shorter (p = 0.024) in the LI group. In the multivariate analysis, surveillance intensity was associated with RFS (p < 0.001) in contrast to PRS (p = 0.731). In patients with high recurrence risk predicted using the nomogram, OS was longer in the HI group (p < 0.001). A higher imaging frequency in patients at high risk of recurrence could be expected to lead to a slight increase in PRS but does not improve OS. Therefore, rather than increasing the number of CT scans in high-risk patients, other imaging modalities or innovative approaches, such as liquid biopsy, are required.

Tumor regression and immunity in combination therapy with anti-CEA chimeric antigen receptor T cells and anti-CEA-IL2 immunocytokine

Targeted immunotherapy of solid cancers with chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells and immunocytokines are attractive options in that they both rely on the specificity of tumor-targeted antibodies. Since carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) expression in both colon and breast cancers is correlated with poor prognosis, it was chosen as a model tumor target in immunocompetent CEA transgenic (CEATg) mice. A second-generation anti-CEA CAR derived from CEA-specific antibody T84.66 was used to treat murine MC38 colon or E0771 breast carcinomas transfected with CEA. Anti-CEA CAR vs. mock transduced T cells exhibited a CEA-specific cytotoxic and IFNγ dose response to both CEA transfected cell lines vs. their CEA-negative controls. Anti-CEA CAR vs. mock transduced T cells delayed the median survival of CEA transfected s.c. MC38 or orthotopic E0771 tumor-bearing CEATg mice by 2 days. With the addition of one-day prior cyclophosphamide (CY) lymphodepletion, anti-CEA CAR T cell treatment delayed the median survival of MC38/CEA and E0771/CEA tumor-bearing CEATg mice by ten and 3 days, respectively. Since CAR T cells require IL2 for survival and expansion, anti-CEA-IL2 immunocytokine (ICK) treatment was performed post CAR T cell therapy. Single ICK treatment 1 day after CY plus anti-CEA CAR T cell therapy in the MC38/CEA model, and two ICK treatments every 3 days after CY plus anti-CEA CAR T cell therapy in the E0771/CEA model were ineffective, while four ICK treatments every 3 days after CY plus anti-CEA CAR T cell therapy completely eradicated MC38/CEA tumor growth and induced tumor immunity when the mice were re-challenged with tumor. These studies show the therapeutic potential of anti-CEA CAR T cells combined with ICK to treat CEA-positive tumors.

Abbreviations: CAR: Chimeric antigen receptor, CEA: Carcinoembryonic antigen, CEACAM5, ICK: Immunocytokine, CY: Cyclophosphamide, CEATg mouse: transgenic CEA mouse, TDLN: Tumor-draining lymph node

Published randomized controlled trials of surveillance in cancer patients - a systematic review

With solid tumor cancer survivorship increasing, the number of patients requiring post-treatment surveillance also continues to increase. This highlights the need for evidence-based cancer surveillance guidelines. Ideally, these guidelines would be based on combined high-quality data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We present a systematic review of published cancer surveillance RCTs in which we sought to determine the feasibility of data pooling for guideline development. We carried out a systematic search of medical databases for RCTs in which adult patients with solid tumors that had undergone surgical resection with curative intent and had no metastatic disease at presentation, were randomized to different surveillance regimens that assessed effectiveness on overall survival (OS). We extracted study characteristics and primary and secondary outcomes, and assessed risk of bias and validity of evidence with standardized checklist tools. Our search yielded 32,216 articles for review and 18 distinct RCTs were included in the systematic review. The 18 trials resulted in 23 comparisons of surveillance regimens. There was a highlevel of variation between RCTs, including the study populations evaluated, interventions assessed and follow-up periods for the primary outcome. Most studies evaluated colorectal cancer patients (11/18, [61%]). The risk of bias and validity of evidence were variable and inconsistent across studies. This review demonstrated that there is tremendous heterogeneity among RCTs that evaluate effectiveness of different postoperative surveillance regimens in cancer patients, rendering the consolidation of data to inform high-quality cancer surveillance guidelines unfeasible. Future RCTs in the field should focus on consistent methodology and primary outcome definition.

Comparison of 18FDG-PET/CT and conventional follow-up methods in colorectal cancer: A randomised prospective study

BACKGROUND

A surveillance program was performed in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients after surgery, to diagnose asymptomatic recurrence.

AIMS

To assess whether 18-FDG positron emission tomography/CT (PET/CT) improved the detection of recurrence during a 3-year follow-up.

METHODS

A multicentre, two-arm randomised prospective trial comparing different 36-month follow-up strategies. Complete colonoscopy was performed at baseline and after 3 years and clinical exams with imaging every 3 months. The conventional arm (A) received carcinoembryonic antigen, liver echography, and alternated between lung radiography and computed tomography (CT) scans. The experimental arm (B) received PET/CT.

RESULTS

A total of 365 patients with colon (79.4%) or rectal cancer (20.6%), stages II (48.2%) or III (50.8%), were enroled in this study. At 36 months, intention-to-treat analysis revealed recurrence in 31 (17.2%) patients in arm A and 47 (25.4%) in arm B (p = 0.063). At 3 years, 7 of 31 relapses (22.5%) in arm A were surgically treated with curative intent, compared to 17 of 47 (36.2%) in arm B (p = 0.25). The rates of recurrence and new cancers were higher in arm B than arm A (p = 0.038).

CONCLUSIONS

PET/CT follow-up every 6 months did not increase the rate of recurrence at 3 years or the rate of surgically treated recurrence compared with conventional follow-up.

Characteristics Associated With Nonreceipt of Surveillance Testing and the Relationship With Survival in Stage II and III Colon Cancer

We investigated characteristics of patients with colon cancer that predicted nonreceipt of posttreatment surveillance testing and the subsequent associations between surveillance status and survival outcomes. This was a retrospective cohort study of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database combined with Medicare claims. Patients diagnosed between 2002 and 2009 with disease stages II and III and who were between 66 and 84 years of age were eligible. A minimum of 3 years' follow-up was required, and patients were categorized as having received any surveillance testing (any testing) versus none (no testing). Poisson regression was used to obtain risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals for the relative likelihood of No Testing. Cox models were used to obtain subdistribution hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals for 5- and 10-year cancer-specific and noncancer deaths. There were 16,009 colon cancer cases analyzed. Patient characteristics that predicted No Testing included older age, Black race, stage III disease, and chemotherapy. Patients in the No Testing group had an increased rate of 10-year cancer death that was greater for patients with stage III disease (subdistribution hazard ratio = 1.79, 95% confidence interval: 1.48, 2.17) than those with stage II disease (subdistribution hazard ratio = 1.41, 95% confidence interval: 1.19, 1.66). Greater efforts are needed to ensure all patients receive the highest quality medical care after diagnosis of colon cancer.

Recurrence Risk after Radical Colorectal Cancer Surgery-Less Than before, But How High Is It?

Simple Summary

Evidence indicates that recurrence risk after colon cancer today is less than it was when trials performed decades ago showed that adjuvant chemotherapy reduces the risk and prolong disease-free and overall survival. After rectal cancer surgery, local recurrence rates have decreased but it is unclear if systemic recurrences have. After a systematic review of available literature reporting recurrence risks after curative colorectal cancer surgery we report that the risks are lower today than they were in the past and that this risk reduction is not solely ascribed to the use of adjuvant therapy. Adjuvant therapy always means overtreatment of many patients, already cured by the surgery. Fewer recurrences mean that progress in the care of these patients has happened but also that the present guidelines giving recommendations based upon old data must be adjusted. The relative gains from adding chemotherapy are not altered, but the absolute number of patients gaining is less.

Abstract

Adjuvant chemotherapy aims at eradicating tumour cells sometimes present after radical surgery for a colorectal cancer (CRC) and thereby diminish the recurrence rate and prolong time to recurrence (TTR). Remaining tumour cells will lead to recurrent disease that is usually fatal. Adjuvant therapy is administered based upon the estimated recurrence risk, which in turn defines the need for this treatment. This systematic overview aims at describing whether the need has decreased since trials showing that adjuvant chemotherapy provides benefits in colon cancer were performed decades ago. Thanks to other improvements than the administration of adjuvant chemotherapy, such as better staging, improved surgery, the use of radiotherapy and more careful pathology, recurrence risks have decreased. Methodological difficulties including intertrial comparisons decades apart and the present selective use of adjuvant therapy prevent an accurate estimate of the magnitude of the decreased need. Furthermore, most trials do not report recurrence rates or TTR, only disease-free and overall survival (DFS/OS). Fewer colon cancer patients, particularly in stage II but also in stage III, today display a sufficient need for adjuvant treatment considering the burden of treatment, especially when oxaliplatin is added. In rectal cancer, neo-adjuvant treatment will be increasingly used, diminishing the need for adjuvant treatment.

Unexplained neoplastic anastomotic recurrence after right hemicolectomy: a case report

BACKGROUND

Anastomotic recurrences of the colon are postulated to arise due to inadequate margins, tumor implantation by exfoliated cells, altered biological properties of bowel anastomosis, and missed synchronous lesions. In this paper, a case of unexpected early local recurrence after surgery for colon cancer is presented.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 68-year-old Caucasian man underwent right hemicolectomy for invasive G2 adenocarcinoma. Two months later, endoscopy revealed a wide and well-functioning anastomosis with a hyperemic, hard, and thickened mucosal area of about 2 cm in diameter. Biopsies showed the presence of an adenocarcinoma with the same grading of the previous lesion. Ten days later, the patient underwent a new intervention; the last 10 cm of the ileum and half of the remaining transverse colon were resected, and the patient started adjuvant therapy. Specimen examination confirmed the presence of an adenocarcinoma (G2) penetrating the muscular layer of the wall; also, in this case, resection edges were free from tumoral invasion, and the removed lymph nodes were exempt from neoplastic colonization. The patient was seen in follow-up for about 5 years, and he did not show local or systemic manifestations.

CONCLUSIONS

Whenever a neoplastic recurrence on the anastomotic line occurs, in the presence of negative intestinal margins, as usual in right colectomies, the implantation of neoplastic cells could be the possible cause.

Surveillance Colonoscopy in Older Stage I Colon Cancer Patients and the Association With Colon Cancer-Specific Mortality

OBJECTIVES

Guideline-issuing groups differ regarding the recommendation that patients with stage I colon cancer receive surveillance colonoscopy after cancer-directed surgery. This observational comparative effectiveness study was conducted to evaluate the association between surveillance colonoscopy and colon cancer-specific mortality in early stage patients.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database combined with Medicare claims. Surveillance colonoscopy was assessed as a time-varying exposure up to 5 years after cancer-directed surgery with the following groups: no colonoscopy, one colonoscopy, and ≥ 2 colonoscopies. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to balance covariates. The time-dependent Cox regression model was used to obtain inverse probability of treatment weighting-adjusted hazard ratios (HRs), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for 5- and 10-year colon cancer, other cancer, and noncancer causes of death.

RESULTS

There were 8,783 colon cancer cases available for analysis. Overall, compared with patients who received one colonoscopy, the no colonoscopy group experienced an increased rate of 10-year colon cancer-specific mortality (HR = 1.63; 95% CI 1.31-2.04) and noncancer death (HR = 1.36; 95% CI 1.25-1.49). Receipt of ≥ 2 colonoscopies was associated with a decreased rate of 10-year colon cancer-specific death (HR = 0.60; 95% CI 0.45-0.79), other cancer death (HR = 0.68; 95% CI 0.53-0.88), and noncancer death (HR = 0.69; 95% CI 0.62-0.76). Five-year cause-specific HRs were similar to 10-year estimates.

DISCUSSION

These results support efforts to ensure that stage I patients undergo surveillance colonoscopy after cancer-directed surgery to facilitate early detection of new and recurrent neoplastic lesions.

Prognostic impact of preoperatively elevated and postoperatively normalized carcinoembryonic antigen levels following curative resection of stage I-III rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Preoperative and early postoperative serum carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) levels are known prognostic factors in rectal cancer. Recently, a large-scale study on colon cancer revealed that "preoperatively elevated and postoperatively normalized CEA levels" is not an indicator of poor prognosis. However, whether this hold true in rectal cancer patients is unknown. This study aimed to investigate the prognostic significance of preoperatively elevated and postoperatively normalized CEA levels in rectal cancer patients undergoing curative resection.

METHODS

Subjects were consecutive stage I-III rectal cancer patients who underwent curative resection without preoperative treatment at National Cancer Center Hospital between 2000 and 2015. Overall survival (OS) and the hazard function of recurrence or death were analyzed according to the CEA levels, as follows: normal preoperative CEA (normal group), preoperatively elevated but postoperatively normalized CEA (normalized group), and preoperatively and postoperatively elevated CEA (elevated group).

RESULTS

The normalized group (n =235) had worse OS (HR 1.49, 95% CI 1.08-2.04; P = .0142) compared to the normal group (n = 1208), and better OS compared to the elevated group (n = 47) (HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.31-0.91; P = .0208). The elevated group had the highest and earliest peak in hazard function, followed by the normalized group and the normal group, with median times to recurrence of 8.8, 15.5, and 18.5 months, respectively (P = .0223).

CONCLUSIONS

Prognosis after resection of rectal cancer was worse in patients with preoperatively elevated and postoperatively normalized CEA compared to those with normal preoperative CEA. Patients with elevated preoperative CEA might require intensive follow-up even if levels normalize after resection, especially in earlier periods, for early detection of recurrence.

A Review of the Role of Carcinoembryonic Antigen in Clinical Practice

Carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) is not normally produced in significant quantities after birth but is elevated in colorectal cancer. The aim of this review was to define the current role of CEA and how best to investigate patients with elevated CEA levels. A systematic review of CEA was performed, in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Studies were identified from PubMed, Cochrane library, and controlled trials registers. We identified 2,712 papers of which 34 were relevant. Analysis of these papers found higher preoperative CEA levels were associated with advanced or metastatic disease and thus poorer prognosis. Postoperatively, failure of CEA to return to normal was found to be indicative of residual or recurrent disease. However, measurement of CEA levels alone was not sufficient to improve survival rates. Two algorithms are proposed to guide investigation of patients with elevated CEA: one for patients with elevated CEA after CRC resection, and another for patients with de novo elevated CEA. CEA measurement has an important role in the investigation, management and follow-up of patients with colorectal cancer.

Follow-up strategies following completion of primary cancer treatment in adult cancer survivors

BACKGROUND

Most cancer survivors receive follow-up care after completion of treatment with the primary aim of detecting recurrence. Traditional follow-up consisting of fixed visits to a cancer specialist for examinations and tests are expensive and may be burdensome for the patient. Follow-up strategies involving non-specialist care providers, different intensity of procedures, or addition of survivorship care packages have been developed and tested, however their effectiveness remains unclear.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review is to compare the effect of different follow-up strategies in adult cancer survivors, following completion of primary cancer treatment, on the primary outcomes of overall survival and time to detection of recurrence. Secondary outcomes are health-related quality of life, anxiety (including fear of recurrence), depression and cost.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, four other databases and two trials registries on 11 December 2018 together with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised trials comparing different follow-up strategies for adult cancer survivors following completion of curatively-intended primary cancer treatment, which included at least one of the outcomes listed above. We compared the effectiveness of: 1) non-specialist-led follow-up (i.e. general practitioner (GP)-led, nurse-led, patient-initiated or shared care) versus specialist-led follow-up; 2) less intensive versus more intensive follow-up (based on clinical visits, examinations and diagnostic procedures) and 3) follow-up integrating additional care components relevant for detection of recurrence (e.g. patient symptom education or monitoring, or survivorship care plans) versus usual care.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological guidelines by Cochrane and Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. For each comparison, we present synthesised findings for overall survival and time to detection of recurrence as hazard ratios (HR) and for health-related quality of life, anxiety and depression as mean differences (MD), with 95% confidence intervals (CI). When meta-analysis was not possible, we reported the results from individual studies. For survival and recurrence, we used meta-regression analysis where possible to investigate whether the effects varied with regards to cancer site, publication year and study quality.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 53 trials involving 20,832 participants across 12 cancer sites and 15 countries, mainly in Europe, North America and Australia. All the studies were carried out in either a hospital or general practice setting. Seventeen studies compared non-specialist-led follow-up with specialist-led follow-up, 24 studies compared intensity of follow-up and 12 studies compared patient symptom education or monitoring, or survivorship care plans with usual care. Risk of bias was generally low or unclear in most of the studies, with a higher risk of bias in the smaller trials. Non-specialist-led follow-up compared with specialist-led follow-up It is uncertain how this strategy affects overall survival (HR 1.21, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.15; 2 studies; 603 participants), time to detection of recurrence (4 studies, 1691 participants) or cost (8 studies, 1756 participants) because the certainty of the evidence is very low. Non-specialist- versus specialist-led follow up may make little or no difference to health-related quality of life at 12 months (MD 1.06, 95% CI -1.83 to 3.95; 4 studies; 605 participants; low-certainty evidence); and probably makes little or no difference to anxiety at 12 months (MD -0.03, 95% CI -0.73 to 0.67; 5 studies; 1266 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We are more certain that it has little or no effect on depression at 12 months (MD 0.03, 95% CI -0.35 to 0.42; 5 studies; 1266 participants; high-certainty evidence). Less intensive follow-up compared with more intensive follow-up Less intensive versus more intensive follow-up may make little or no difference to overall survival (HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.14; 13 studies; 10,726 participants; low-certainty evidence) and probably increases time to detection of recurrence (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.92; 12 studies; 11,276 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Meta-regression analysis showed little or no difference in the intervention effects by cancer site, publication year or study quality. It is uncertain whether this strategy has an effect on health-related quality of life (3 studies, 2742 participants), anxiety (1 study, 180 participants) or cost (6 studies, 1412 participants) because the certainty of evidence is very low. None of the studies reported on depression. Follow-up strategies integrating additional patient symptom education or monitoring, or survivorship care plans compared with usual care: None of the studies reported on overall survival or time to detection of recurrence. It is uncertain whether this strategy makes a difference to health-related quality of life (12 studies, 2846 participants), anxiety (1 study, 470 participants), depression (8 studies, 2351 participants) or cost (1 studies, 408 participants), as the certainty of evidence is very low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence regarding the effectiveness of the different follow-up strategies varies substantially. Less intensive follow-up may make little or no difference to overall survival but probably delays detection of recurrence. However, as we did not analyse the two outcomes together, we cannot make direct conclusions about the effect of interventions on survival after detection of recurrence. The effects of non-specialist-led follow-up on survival and detection of recurrence, and how intensity of follow-up affects health-related quality of life, anxiety and depression, are uncertain. There was little evidence for the effects of follow-up integrating additional patient symptom education/monitoring and survivorship care plans.

[Rational staging and follow-up of colorectal cancer : Do guidelines provide further help?]

CLINICAL/METHODICAL ISSUE

Colorectal cancer is one of the most common malignant tumors. Preoperative imaging is crucial in rectal cancer as patients can only receive optimal treatment when accurate staging is performed. The N‑staging is often difficult with the available options and must be called into question as a staging parameter.

STANDARD RADIOLOGICAL METHODS

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are particularly suitable for local staging. Multiparametric MRI with diffusion imaging is indispensable for tumor follow-up.

METHODICAL INNOVATIONS

The assessment of infiltration of the mesorectal fascia is best accomplished using high-resolution MRI. In addition, extramural vascular infiltration (EMVI) has become established as another important prognostic factor. After neoadjuvant therapy and restaging of locally advanced rectal cancer, the identification and validation of prognostically relevant image parameters are prioritized. Multiparametric MRI of the rectum including diffusion imaging as well as the application of radiological and pathological scores (MR-TRG) are becoming increasingly more important in this context.

ASSESSMENT

For the radiologist it is important to become familiar with indicators of the resectability of rectal cancer and to be able to reliably read prognostically relevant imaging parameters in the tumor follow-up.

PRACTICAL RECOMMENDATIONS

For the practical application, the establishment of a fixed MRI protocol is essential. In addition to a guideline-compliant TNM classification, the radiologist must provide the clinician with information on infiltration of the mesorectal fascia and extramural vascular infiltration. The MR-TRGs are becoming increasingly more important in tumor follow-up.

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

BACKGROUND

This is the fourth update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2002 and last updated in 2016.It is common clinical practice to follow patients with colorectal cancer for several years following their curative surgery or adjuvant therapy, or both. 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 assess the effect of follow-up programmes (follow-up versus no follow-up, follow-up strategies of varying intensity, and follow-up in different healthcare settings) on overall survival for patients with colorectal cancer treated with curative intent. Secondary objectives are to assess relapse-free survival, salvage surgery, interval recurrences, quality of life, and the harms and costs of surveillance and investigations.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, on 5 April 2109 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Science Citation Index. We also searched reference lists of articles, and handsearched the Proceedings of the American Society for Radiation Oncology. In addition, we searched the following trials registries: ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We contacted study authors. We applied no language or publication restrictions to the search strategies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only randomised controlled trials comparing different follow-up strategies for participants with non-metastatic colorectal cancer treated with curative intent.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently determined study eligibility, performed data extraction, and assessed risk of bias and methodological quality. We used GRADE to assess evidence quality.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 19 studies, which enrolled 13,216 participants (we included four new studies in this second update). Sixteen out of the 19 studies were eligible for quantitative synthesis. Although the studies varied in setting (general practitioner (GP)-led, nurse-led, or surgeon-led) and 'intensity' of follow-up, there was very little inconsistency in the results.Overall survival: we found intensive follow-up made little or no difference (hazard ratio (HR) 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 1.04: I² = 18%; high-quality evidence). There were 1453 deaths among 12,528 participants in 15 studies. In absolute terms, the average effect of intensive follow-up on overall survival was 24 fewer deaths per 1000 patients, but the true effect could lie between 60 fewer to 9 more per 1000 patients.Colorectal cancer-specific survival: we found intensive follow-up probably made little or no difference (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.07: I² = 0%; moderate-quality evidence). There were 925 colorectal cancer deaths among 11,771 participants enrolled in 11 studies. In absolute terms, the average effect of intensive follow-up on colorectal cancer-specific survival was 15 fewer colorectal cancer-specific survival deaths per 1000 patients, but the true effect could lie between 47 fewer to 12 more per 1000 patients.Relapse-free survival: we found intensive follow-up made little or no difference (HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.21; I² = 41%; high-quality evidence). There were 2254 relapses among 8047 participants enrolled in 16 studies. The average effect of intensive follow-up on relapse-free survival was 17 more relapses per 1000 patients, but the true effect could lie between 30 fewer and 66 more per 1000 patients.Salvage surgery with curative intent: this was more frequent with intensive follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 1.98, 95% CI 1.53 to 2.56; I² = 31%; high-quality evidence). There were 457 episodes of salvage surgery in 5157 participants enrolled in 13 studies. In absolute terms, the effect of intensive follow-up on salvage surgery was 60 more episodes of salvage surgery per 1000 patients, but the true effect could lie between 33 to 96 more episodes per 1000 patients.Interval (symptomatic) recurrences: these were less frequent with intensive follow-up (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.86; I² = 66%; moderate-quality evidence). There were 376 interval recurrences reported in 3933 participants enrolled in seven studies. Intensive follow-up was associated with fewer interval recurrences (52 fewer per 1000 patients); the true effect is between 18 and 75 fewer per 1000 patients.Intensive follow-up probably makes little or no difference to quality of life, anxiety, or depression (reported in 7 studies; moderate-quality evidence). The data were not available in a form that allowed analysis.Intensive follow-up may increase the complications (perforation or haemorrhage) from colonoscopies (OR 7.30, 95% CI 0.75 to 70.69; 1 study, 326 participants; very low-quality evidence). Two studies reported seven colonoscopic complications in 2292 colonoscopies, three perforations and four gastrointestinal haemorrhages requiring transfusion. We could not combine the data, as they were not reported by study arm in one study.The limited data on costs suggests that the cost of more intensive follow-up may be increased in comparison with less intense follow-up (low-quality evidence). The data were not available in a form that allowed analysis.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The results of our review suggest that there is no overall survival benefit for intensifying the follow-up of patients after curative surgery for colorectal cancer. Although more participants were treated with salvage surgery with curative intent in the intensive follow-up groups, this was not associated with improved survival. Harms related to intensive follow-up and salvage therapy were not well reported.

Intensive follow-up strategies after radical surgery for nonmetastatic colorectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Intensive follow-up after surgery for colorectal cancers is common in clinical practice, but evidence of a survival benefit is limited.

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis on the effects of follow-up strategies for nonmetastatic colorectal cancer.

DATA SOURCES

We searched Medline, Embase, and CENTRAL databases through May 30, 2018.

STUDY SELECTION

We included randomized clinical trials evaluating intensive follow-up versus less follow-up in patients with nonmetastatic colorectal cancer.

INTERVENTIONS

Intensive follow-up.

MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES

Overall survival.

RESULTS

The analyses included 17 trials with a total of 8039 patients. Compared with less follow-up, intensive follow-up significantly improved overall survival in patients with nonmetastatic colorectal cancer after radical surgery (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.74-0.97, P = 0.01; I2 = 30%; high quality). Subgroup analyses showed that differences between intensive-frequency and intensive-test follow-up (P = 0.04) and between short interval and long interval of follow-up (P = 0.02) in favor of the former one.

LIMITATIONS

Clinical heterogeneity of interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with nonmetastatic colorectal cancer after curative resection, intensive follow-up strategy was associated with an improvement in overall survival compared with less follow-up strategy. Intensive-frequency follow-up strategy was associated with a greater reduction in mortality compared with intensive-test follow-up strategy.

Optimal Surveillance Frequency After CRS/HIPEC for Appendiceal and Colorectal Neoplasms: A Multi-institutional Analysis of the US HIPEC Collaborative

BACKGROUND

No guidelines exist for surveillance following cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS/HIPEC) for appendiceal and colorectal cancer. The primary objective was to define the optimal surveillance frequency after CRS/HIPEC.

METHODS

The U.S. HIPEC Collaborative database (2000-2017) was reviewed for patients who underwent a CCR0/1 CRS/HIPEC for appendiceal or colorectal cancer. Radiologic surveillance frequency was divided into two categories: low-frequency surveillance (LFS) at q6-12mos or high-frequency surveillance (HFS) at q2-4mos. Primary outcome was overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

Among 975 patients, the median age was 55 year, 41% were male: 31% had non-invasive appendiceal (n = 301), 45% invasive appendiceal (n = 435), and 24% colorectal cancer (CRC; n = 239). With a median follow-up time of 25 mos, the median time to recurrence was 12 mos. Despite less surveillance, LFS patients had no decrease in median OS (non-invasive appendiceal: 106 vs. 65 mos, p < 0.01; invasive appendiceal: 120 vs. 73 mos, p = 0.02; colorectal cancer [CRC]: 35 vs. 30 mos, p = 0.8). LFS patients had lower median PCI scores compared with HFS (non-invasive appendiceal: 10 vs. 19; invasive appendiceal: 10 vs. 14; CRC: 8 vs. 11; all p < 0.01). However, on multivariable analysis, accounting for PCI score, LFS was still not associated with decreased OS for any histologic type (non-invasive appendiceal: hazard ratio [HR]: 0.28, p = 0.1; invasive appendiceal: HR: 0.73, p = 0.42; CRC: HR: 1.14, p = 0.59). When estimating annual incident cases of CRS/HIPEC at 375 for non-invasive appendiceal, 375 invasive appendiceal and 4410 colorectal, LFS compared with HFS for the initial two post-operative years would potentially save $13-19 M/year to the U.S. healthcare system.

CONCLUSIONS

Low-frequency surveillance after CRS/HIPEC for appendiceal or colorectal cancer is not associated with decreased survival, and when considering decreased costs, may optimize resource utilization.

The association between post-treatment surveillance testing and survival in stage II and III colon cancer patients: An observational comparative effectiveness study

BACKGROUND

The best strategy for surveillance testing in stage II and III colon cancer patients following curative treatment is unknown. Previous randomized controlled trials have suffered from design limitations and yielded conflicting evidence. This observational comparative effectiveness research study was conducted to provide new evidence on the relationship between post-treatment surveillance testing and survival by overcoming the limitations of previous clinical trials.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database combined with Medicare claims (SEER-Medicare). Stage II and III colon cancer patients diagnosed from 2002 to 2009 and between 66 to 84 years of age were eligible. Adherence to surveillance testing guidelines-including carcinoembryonic antigen, computed tomography, and colonoscopy-was assessed for each year of follow-up and overall for up to three years post-treatment. Patients were categorized as More Adherent and Less Adherent according to testing guidelines. Patients who received no surveillance testing were excluded. The primary outcome was 5-year cancer-specific survival; 5-year overall survival was the secondary outcome. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) using generalized boosted models was employed to balance covariates between the two surveillance groups. IPTW-adjusted survival curves comparing the two groups were performed by the Kaplan-Meier method. Weighted Cox regression was used to obtain hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the relative risk of death for the Less Adherent group versus the More Adherent group.

RESULTS

There were 17,860 stage II and III colon cancer cases available for analysis. Compared to More Adherent patients, Less Adherent patients experienced slightly better 5-year cancer-specific survival (HR = 0.83, 95% CI 0.76-0.90) and worse 5-year noncancer-specific survival (HR = 1.61, 95% CI 1.43-1.82) for years 2 to 5 of follow-up. There was no difference between the groups in overall survival (HR = 1.04, 95% CI 0.98-1.10).

CONCLUSIONS

More surveillance testing did not improve 5-year cancer-specific survival compared to less testing and there was no difference between the groups in overall survival. The results of this study support a risk-stratified, shared decision-making surveillance strategy to optimize clinical and patient-centered outcomes for colon cancer patients in the survivorship phase of care.

Consensus and controversies regarding follow-up after treatment with curative intent of nonmetastatic colorectal cancer: a synopsis of guidelines used in countries represented in the European Society of Coloproctology

AIM

It is common clinical practice to follow patients for a period of years after treatment with curative intent of nonmetastatic colorectal cancer, but follow-up strategies vary widely. The aim of this systematic review was to provide an overview of recommendations on this topic in guidelines from member countries of the European Society of Coloproctology, with supporting evidence.

METHOD

A systematic search of Medline, Embase and the guideline databases Trip database, BMJ Best Practice and Guidelines International Network was performed. Quality assessment included use of the AGREE-II tool. All topics with recommendations from included guidelines were identified and categorized. For each subtopic, a conclusion was made followed by the degree of consensus and the highest level of evidence.

RESULTS

Twenty-one guidelines were included. The majority recommended that structured follow-up should be offered, except for patients in whom treatment of recurrence would be inappropriate. It was generally agreed that clinical visits, measurement of carcinoembryoinc antigen and liver imaging should be part of follow-up, based on a high level of evidence, although the frequency is controversial. There was also consensus on imaging of the chest and pelvis in rectal cancer, as well as endoscopy, based on lower levels of evidence and with a level of intensity that was contradictory.

CONCLUSION

In available guidelines, multimodal follow-up after treatment with curative intent of colorectal cancer is widely recommended, but the exact content and intensity are highly controversial. International agreement on the optimal follow-up schedule is unlikely to be achieved on current evidence, and further research should refocus on individualized 'patient-driven' follow-up and new biomarkers.

Adherence to postresection colorectal cancer surveillance at National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers

Guidelines recommend surveillance after resection of colorectal cancer (CRC), but rates of adherence to surveillance are variable and have not been studied at National Cancer Institute (NCI)‐designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers. The aim of this study was to determine rates of adherence to standard postresection CRC surveillance recommendations including physician visits, carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), computed tomography (CT), and colonoscopy after CRC resection at three NCI‐designated centers.

Data on patients with resected CRC from 2010 to 2017 were reviewed. Adherence to physician visits was defined as having at least two visits within 14 months after surgical resection. CEA adherence was defined as having at least four CEA levels drawn within 14 months. CT and colonoscopy adherence were defined as completing each between 10 and 14 months from surgical resection. Chi‐square test and logistic regression analyses were performed for overall adherence and adherence to individual components.

A total of 241 CRC patients were included. Overall adherence was 23%. While adherence to physician visits was over 98%, adherence to CEA levels, CT, and colonoscopy were each less than 50%. Center was an independent predictor of adherence to CEA, CT, and/or colonoscopy. Stage III disease predicted CT adherence, while distance traveled of 40 miles or less predicted colonoscopy adherence.

Overall adherence to postresection CRC guideline‐recommended care is low at NCI‐designated centers. Adherence rates to surveillance vary by center, stage, and distance traveled for care. Understanding factors associated with adherence is critical to ensure CRC patients benefit from postresection surveillance.

Imaging of the Postoperative Colon

Recognition of postoperative complications is important for the immediate diagnosis and treatment needed for appropriate patient care. Identification of postoperative complications from colon surgery requires not only knowledge of the type of procedure, but also the expected normal postoperative appearance. The purpose of this article is to discuss and review the expected anatomic changes after colorectal surgery, and the appearance of the most common postoperative complications.

Actionable Locoregional Relapses after Therapy of Localized Esophageal Cancer: Insights from a Large Cohort

OBJECTIVE

The goal of surveillance after therapy of localized esophageal cancer (LEC) is to identify actionable relapses amenable to salvage; however, the current surveillance algorithms are not optimized. We report on a large cohort of LEC patients with actionable locoregional relapses (LRRs).

METHODS

Between 2000 and 2013, 127 (denominator = 752) patients with actionable LRR were identified. Histologic/cytologic confirmation was the gold standard. All surveillance tools (imaging, endoscopy, fine needle aspiration) were assessed.

RESULTS

Most patients were men (89%), had adenocarcinoma (79%), and had no new symptoms (72%) when diagnosed with LRR. In trimodality patients, endoscopic confirmation of positron emission tomography-computed tomography-suspected LRR occurred in only 44%, and 56% required additional tools (e.g., fine needle aspiration). Alternatively, in bimodality patients, endoscopy confirmed LRRs in 81%. Trimodality patients had a higher risk of subsequent LRR/distant metastases after the first LRR than the bimodality patients (p = 0.03). In all patients, 78% of the subsequent relapses were distant. For patients who were salvaged, survival was significantly prolonged (50.6 vs. 25.1 months, p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients live longer after successful salvage of the LRR than if salvage is not possible. After LRR, patients have a high risk of subsequent distant metastasis and whether the second relapse is local or distant, survival is uniformly poor.

Emergency resection surgery for colorectal cancer: Patterns of recurrent disease and survival

AIM

To evaluate prognostic pathological factors associated with early metachronous disease and adverse long-term survival in these patients.

METHODS

Clinical and histological features were analysed retrospectively over an eight-year period for prognostic impact on recurrent disease and overall survival in patients undergoing curative resection of a primary colorectal cancer.

RESULTS

A total of 266 patients underwent curative surgery during the study period. The median age of the study cohort was 68 year (range 26 to 91) with a follow-up of 7.9 years (range 4.6 to 12.6). Resection was undertaken electively in 225 (84.6%) patients and emergency resection in 35 (13.2%). Data on timing of surgery was missing in 6 patients. Recurrence was noted in 67 (25.2%) during the study period and was predominantly early within 3 years (82.1%) and involved hepatic metastasis in 73.1%. Emergency resection (OR = 3.60, P = 0.001), T4 stage (OR = 4.33, P < 0.001) and lymphovascular invasion (LVI) (OR = 2.37, P = 0.032) were associated with higher risk of recurrent disease. Emergency resection, T4 disease and a high lymph node ratio (LNR) were strong independent predictors of adverse long-term survival.

CONCLUSION

Emergency surgery is associated with adverse disease free and long-term survival. T4 disease, LVI and LNR provide strong independent predictive value of long-term outcome and can inform surveillance strategies to improve outcomes.

A randomised controlled trial to assess the cost-effectiveness of intensive versus no scheduled follow-up in patients who have undergone resection for colorectal cancer with curative intent

BACKGROUND

Intensive follow-up after surgery for colorectal cancer is common practice but lacks a firm evidence base.

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether or not augmenting symptomatic follow-up in primary care with two intensive methods of follow-up [monitoring of blood carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) levels and scheduled imaging] is effective and cost-effective in detecting the recurrence of colorectal cancer treatable surgically with curative intent.

DESIGN

Randomised controlled open-label trial. Participants were randomly assigned to one of four groups: (1) minimum follow-up (n = 301), (2) CEA testing only (n = 300), (3) computerised tomography (CT) only (n = 299) or (4) CEA testing and CT (n = 302). Blood CEA was measured every 3 months for 2 years and then every 6 months for 3 years; CT scans of the chest, abdomen and pelvis were performed every 6 months for 2 years and then annually for 3 years. Those in the minimum and CEA testing-only arms had a single CT scan at 12-18 months. The groups were minimised on adjuvant chemotherapy, gender and age group (three strata).

SETTING

Thirty-nine NHS hospitals in England with access to high-volume services offering surgical treatment of metastatic recurrence.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 1202 participants who had undergone curative treatment for Dukes' stage A to C colorectal cancer with no residual disease. Adjuvant treatment was completed if indicated. There was no evidence of metastatic disease on axial imaging and the post-operative blood CEA level was ≤ 10 µg/l.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome Surgical treatment of recurrence with curative intent. Secondary outcomes Time to detection of recurrence, survival after treatment of recurrence, overall survival and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained.

RESULTS

Detection of recurrence During 5 years of scheduled follow-up, cancer recurrence was detected in 203 (16.9%) participants. The proportion of participants with recurrence surgically treated with curative intent was 6.3% (76/1202), with little difference according to Dukes' staging (stage A, 5.1%; stage B, 7.4%; stage C, 5.6%; p = 0.56). The proportion was two to three times higher in each of the three more intensive arms (7.5% overall) than in the minimum follow-up arm (2.7%) (difference 4.8%; p = 0.003). Surgical treatment of recurrence with curative intent was 2.7% (8/301) in the minimum follow-up group, 6.3% (19/300) in the CEA testing group, 9.4% (28/299) in the CT group and 7.0% (21/302) in the CEA testing and CT group. Surgical treatment of recurrence with curative intent was two to three times higher in each of the three more intensive follow-up groups than in the minimum follow-up group; adjusted odds ratios (ORs) compared with minimum follow-up were as follows: CEA testing group, OR 2.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02 to 5.65; CT group, OR 3.69, 95% CI 1.63 to 8.38; and CEA testing and CT group, OR 2.78, 95% CI 1.19 to 6.49. Survival A Kaplan-Meier survival analysis confirmed no significant difference between arms (log-rank p = 0.45). The baseline-adjusted Cox proportional hazards ratio comparing the minimum and intensive arms was 0.87 (95% CI 0.67 to 1.15). These CIs suggest a maximum survival benefit from intensive follow-up of 3.8%. Cost-effectiveness The incremental cost per patient treated surgically with curative intent compared with minimum follow-up was £40,131 with CEA testing, £43,392 with CT and £85,151 with CEA testing and CT. The lack of differential impact on survival resulted in little difference in QALYs saved between arms. The additional cost per QALY gained of moving from minimum follow-up to CEA testing was £25,951 and for CT was £246,107. When compared with minimum follow-up, combined CEA testing and CT was more costly and generated fewer QALYs, resulting in a negative incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (-£208,347) and a dominated policy.

LIMITATIONS

Although this is the largest trial undertaken at the time of writing, it has insufficient power to assess whether or not the improvement in detecting treatable recurrence achieved by intensive follow-up leads to a reduction in overall mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Rigorous staging to detect residual disease is important before embarking on follow-up. The benefit of intensive follow-up in detecting surgically treatable recurrence is independent of stage. The survival benefit from intensive follow-up is unlikely to exceed 4% in absolute terms and harm cannot be absolutely excluded. A longer time horizon is required to ascertain whether or not intensive follow-up is an efficient use of scarce health-care resources. Translational analyses are under way, utilising tumour tissue collected from Follow-up After Colorectal Surgery trial participants, with the aim of identifying potentially prognostic biomarkers that may guide follow-up in the future.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN41458548.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 32. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Colorectal Cancer: Postoperative Follow-up and Surveillance

Follow-up and surveillance form an important aspect of care in patients with colorectal cancers (CRC). Most recurrences will occur within 2 years of surgery and 90% by 5 years. Follow up protocols have not been well defined in stage I disease and the approach should be individualized. As 40% of patients with stages II and III will develop recurrences, intensive postoperative follow-up strategy is recommended for them. It includes visit to the clinician for clinical examination, serum carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), computed tomography (CT) of the chest and abdomen, colonoscopy, and flexible proctosigmoidoscopy in rectal cancers. Surveillance should be undertaken in those who are medically fit for repeat surgical procedures or for chemoradiotherapy. The concept of intensive post operative surveillance is based on the fact that some of these patients can have resectable/curable recurrence.

Patterns of computed tomography surveillance in survivors of colorectal cancer at Veterans Health Administration facilities

BACKGROUND

Annual computed tomography (CT) scans are a component of the current standard of care for the posttreatment surveillance of survivors of colorectal cancer (CRC) after curative-intent resection. The authors conducted a retrospective study with the primary aim of assessing patient, physician, and organizational characteristics associated with the receipt of CT surveillance among veterans.

METHODS

The Department of Veterans Affairs Central Cancer Registry was used to identify patients diagnosed with AJCC collaborative stage I to III CRC between 2001 and 2009. Patient sociodemographic and clinical (ie, CRC stage and comorbidity) characteristics, provider specialty, and organizational characteristics were measured. Hierarchical multivariable logistic regression models were used to assess the association between patient, provider, and organizational characteristics on receipt of 1) consistently guideline-concordant care (at least 1 CT every 12 months for both of the first 2 years of CRC surveillance) versus no CT receipt and 2) potential overuse (>1 CT every 12 months during the first 2 years of CRC surveillance) of CRC surveillance using CT. The authors also analyzed the impact of the 2005 American Society of Clinical Oncology update in CRC surveillance guidelines on care received over time.

RESULTS

For 2263 survivors of stage II/III CRC who were diagnosed after 2005, 19.4% of patients received no surveillance CT, whereas potential overuse occurred in both surveillance years for 14.9% of patients. Guideline-concordant care was associated with younger age, higher stage of disease (stage III vs stage II), and geographic region. In adjusted analyses, younger age and higher stage of disease (stage III vs stage II) were found to be associated with overuse. There was no significant difference in the annual rate of CT scanning noted across time periods (year ≤ 2005 vs year > 2005).

CONCLUSIONS

Among a minority of veteran survivors of CRC, both underuse and potential overuse of CT surveillance were present. Patient factors, but no provider or organizational characteristics, were found to be significantly associated with patterns of care. The 2005 change in American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines did not appear to have an impact on rates of surveillance CT. Cancer 2017;123:2338-2351. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Feasibility of CYFRA 21-1 as a serum biomarker for the detection of colorectal adenoma and advanced colorectal adenoma in people over the age of 45

BACKGROUND

Colon adenoma (CA) is a premalignant lesion of colorectal cancer, and its early removal is closely associated with more prolonged survival in the general population. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the relationship between diverse biologic markers and a newly diagnosed CA and to predict the clinical possibility of cytokeratin-19 soluble in serum fragment (CYFRA 21-1) as a screening tool in asymptomatic adults aged over 45 years.

METHODS

Four hundred and seventy-nine patients with a histologically confirmed CA or benign colon polyp (BCP), 76 patients with only benign colorectal diseases and 223 negative controls with no CA or BCP detected on colonofibroscopy were investigated. Multiple tumor markers and biochemical markers were simultaneously checked by radioimmunoassay and enzyme immunoassay.

RESULTS

The CYFRA 21-1 alone showed significant stepwise contrastive potential among the three groups (P<.001). Based on the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, Area under the curve (AUC) for CYFRA 21-1, with a value of 0.732 (95% confidence interval, 0.656-0.809, P<.001) for differentiating between negative controls and patients with advanced colon adenoma, was comparatively the highest among all analyzed factors. The sensitivity of CYFRA 21-1 was significantly higher than that of the other tumor markers in the diagnosis of CA and advanced CA, respectively (P<.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Considering the results of our study, CYFRA 21-1 showed a significant diagnostic performance and significant stepwise comparative potential in differentiating patients with CA from benign controls. CYFRA 21-1 could be a simple and effective screening test for the diagnosis of CA.

Surgical treatment of liver tumors - own experience and literature review

Despite advances, the treatment of focal liver lesions is still challenging. It requires the experience of a surgeon, improvement of existing and the development of new techniques. The aim of this article is to present a literature review and summarize our experience in liver surgery. Twenty-one patients with various liver tumors were treated in 2015 at the Department of Surgical Oncology of Bialystok Center for Oncology. Mostly patients were diagnosed with colorectal cancer liver metastases or hepatocellular carcinoma. Nine anatomical, 6 non-anatomical resections and 6 radiofrequency ablations were performed. Among 9 resections, 6 bisegmentectomies, resection of the 4b segment, and left-side and right-side hemihepatectomy were performed. Resections were associated only with minor postoperative complications. No perioperative mortality was noted. Preliminary outcomes of resections and radiofrequency ablations of liver lesions even in a low volume surgical center are promising and are associated with a relatively low rate of complications.

Surveillance after endoscopic and surgical resection of colorectal cancer

With the increase in colorectal cancer burden, surveillance following endoscopic and surgical resection is an essential issue. The aim of surveillance programs is improvement of patient survival by early detection of residual tumor tissue or local recurrence, metachronous colorectal tumors, and metastases. Appropriate surveillance should be determined according to this risk of factors. In current guidelines, only surveillance colonoscopy is recommended after endoscopic resection of polyps with high-grade dysplasia, whereas intensive, multimodality surveillance using colonoscopy, radiological imaging and tumor marker measurements is recommended following surgical resection of invasive colorectal cancer. Detailed recommendations, including the timing of surveillance, are described based on high-quality evidence. However, there are still many unresolved issues for which more high-quality evidence is required.

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 curative surgery or adjuvant therapy, or both. 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. This is the second update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2002 and first updated in 2007.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of intensive follow-up for patients with non-metastatic colorectal cancer treated with curative intent.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched CENTRAL (2016, Issue 3), MEDLINE (1950 to May 20th, 2016), Embase (1974 to May 20th, 2016), CINAHL (1981 to May 20th, 2016), and Science Citation Index (1900 to May 20th, 2016). We also searched reference lists of articles, and handsearched the Proceedings of the American Society for Radiation Oncology (2011 to 2014). In addition, we searched the following trials registries (May 20th, 2016): ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We further contacted study authors. No language or publication restrictions were applied to the search strategies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only randomised controlled trials comparing different follow-up strategies for participants with non-metastatic CRC treated with curative intent.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently determined trial eligibility, performed data extraction, and assessed methodological quality.

MAIN RESULTS

We studied 5403 participants enrolled in 15 studies. (We included two new studies in this second update.) Although the studies varied in setting (general practitioner (GP)-led, nurse-led, or surgeon-led) and "intensity" of follow-up, there was very little inconsistency in the results.Overall survival: we found no evidence of a statistical effect with intensive follow-up (hazard ratio (HR) 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 1.02; I² = 4%; P = 0.41; high-quality evidence). There were 1098 deaths among 4786 participants enrolled in 12 studies.Colorectal cancer-specific survival: this did not differ with intensive follow-up (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.12; I² = 0%; P = 0.45; moderate-quality evidence). There were 432 colorectal cancer deaths among 3769 participants enrolled in seven studies.Relapse-free survival: we found no statistical evidence of effect with intensive follow-up (HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.18; I² = 5%; P = 0.39; moderate-quality evidence). There were 1416 relapses among 5253 participants enrolled in 14 studies.Salvage surgery with curative intent: this was more frequent with intensive follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 1.98, 95% CI 1.53 to 2.56; I² = 31%; P = 0.14; high-quality evidence). There were 457 episodes of salvage surgery in 5157 participants enrolled in 13 studies.Interval (symptomatic) recurrences: these were less frequent with intensive follow-up (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.86; I² = 66%; P = 0.007; moderate-quality evidence). Three hundred and seventy-six interval recurrences were reported in 3933 participants enrolled in seven studies.Intensive follow-up did not appear to affect quality of life, anxiety, nor depression (reported in three studies).Harms from colonoscopies did not differ with intensive follow-up (RR 2.08, 95% CI 0.11 to 40.17; moderate-quality evidence). In two studies, there were seven colonoscopic complications in 2112 colonoscopies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The results of our review suggest that there is no overall survival benefit for intensifying the follow-up of patients after curative surgery for colorectal cancer. Although more participants were treated with salvage surgery with curative intent in the intensive follow-up group, this was not associated with improved survival. Harms related to intensive follow-up and salvage therapy were not well reported.

Meta-analysis of colorectal cancer follow-up after potentially curative resection

Background

After potentially curative resection of primary colorectal cancer, patients may be monitored by measurement of carcinoembryonic antigen and/or CT to detect asymptomatic metastatic disease earlier.

Methods

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to find evidence for the clinical effectiveness of monitoring in advancing the diagnosis of recurrence and its effect on survival. MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science and other databases were searched for randomized comparisons of increased intensity monitoring compared with a contemporary standard policy after resection of primary colorectal cancer.

Results

There were 16 randomized comparisons, 11 with published survival data. More intensive monitoring advanced the diagnosis of recurrence by a median of 10 (i.q.r. 5–24) months. In ten of 11 studies the authors reported no demonstrable difference in overall survival. Seven RCTs, published from 1995 to 2016, randomly assigned 3325 patients to a monitoring protocol made more intensive by introducing new methods or increasing the frequency of existing follow-up protocols versus less invasive monitoring. No detectable difference in overall survival was associated with more intensive monitoring protocols (hazard ratio 0·98, 95 per cent c.i. 0·87 to 1·11).

Conclusion

Based on pooled data from randomized trials published from 1995 to 2016, the anticipated survival benefit from surgical treatment resulting from earlier detection of metastases has not been achieved.

Anastomotic recurrence of colon cancer: Genetic analysis challenges the widely held theories of cancerous cells' intraluminal implantation and metachronous carcinogenesis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Anastomotic recurrence (AR), whose etiopathogenesis is attributed to intraluminal implantation of cancerous cells or metachronous carcinogenesis, is a major issue for patients undergoing colon cancer (CC) resection. The objective of the study is to throw some light on AR etiopathogenesis and to identify risk factors of AR in selecting patients to undergo early endoscopy.

METHODS

An analysis of clinical and histopathological parameters, including MSI and LOH of seven sites (Myc-L, BAT26, BAT40, D5S346, D18S452, D18S64, D16S402) was performed in primary CC and AR of 18 patients. They were then compared to 36 controls not developing AR.

RESULTS

A genetic instability was present in 16/18 patients, with distinct genetic patterns between primaries and ARs. LOH at 5q21 and/or 18p11.23 were found in both primary and AR in >50% of cases, but this rate was no different from control population. CEA resulted as associated with AR (P = 0.03), whereas N status presented a borderline result (P = 0.08).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings challenge present theories about AR development. No "genetic marker" has been found. CEA and, to a lesser extent, N status, appear associated with AR. Rectal washout is seemingly meaningless. Iterative resection should be recommended since a long survival may be expected. J. Surg. Oncol. 2016;114:228-236. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Staple-line recurrence arising 10 years after functional end-to-end anastomosis for colon cancer: a case report

We report a rare case of late staple-line recurrence arising 10 years after functional end-to-end anastomosis for splenic flexure colon cancer. An 80-year-old man, who underwent partial colectomy with functional end-to-end anastomosis for splenic flexure colon cancer 10 years earlier, presented with a chief complaint of anorexia. Complete blood count showed anemia, and the fecal occult blood test was positive. Lower gastrointestinal series showed an irregular defect of the splenic flexure, and colonoscopy showed an ulcerated tumor on the staple line of the primary surgery. Partial colectomy was performed, and the tumor was pathologically diagnosed as moderately differentiated tubular adenocarcinoma, resembling the pathology of primary colon cancer. This case suggests the importance of considering staple-line recurrence after functional end-to-end anastomosis for colon cancer even more than 5 years after primary surgery.

Cost-effectiveness of a carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) based follow-up programme for colorectal cancer (the CEA Watch trial)

AIM

The study CEA Watch (Netherlands Trial Register 2182) has shown that an intensified follow-up schedule with more frequent carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) measurements but fewer outpatient visits detects more curable recurrences compared with the usual follow-up protocol in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients. The aim of the study was to compare the cost and cost-effectiveness between various follow-up programmes.

METHOD

In total, 3223 patients with stage I-III CRC were followed between October 2010 and October 2012. Direct medical costs were calculated per patient adding the costs for all visits, CEA measurements and imaging. Productivity losses and travel expenses were calculated using answers from questionnaires. The cost-effectiveness displayed the additional costs per additional patient with recurrent disease and used an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) to compare them.

RESULTS

The mean yearly cost per patient was €548 in the intensified protocol and €497 in the control protocol. The ICER was €94 (95% CI €76-€157) per cent; to detect one additional patient with a recurrence in the intervention protocol compared with the control protocol would require an additional €9400. For curable recurrences, the ICER was €607 (95% CI €5695-€5728). Annual patient-reported costs were €509 per year in the intervention protocol and €488 in the control protocol.

CONCLUSION

The current study demonstrates that the direct medical and patient-reported cost of a newly introduced, safe and effective way of CRC follow-up was comparable to that of standard care. The ICER per curable recurrence was considered acceptably low.