Surveillance after curative colon cancer resection: practice patterns of surgical subspecialists

Prolonged surveillance of colorectal cancer patients after curative surgeries beyond five years of follow-up

Background

Local or distant recurrence may develop beyond 5 years after radical resection for colorectal cancer (CRC). There is little evidence of a pattern of recurrence after the routinely recommended 5 years of follow-up. We aimed to investigate the efficacy of the prolonged follow-up beyond 5 years.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed clinical and survival data of 1,054 CRC patients who underwent radical resections from 1980 to 1996 in our center. The prolonged surveillance was recommended for each patient with a duration of over 20 years.

Results

The follow-up rates of 5, 10, 15, and 20 years were 92.6%, 86.9%, 82.3% and 76.8%, respectively. Overall survival (OS) rates of 5, 10, 15, and 20 years were 68.4%, 57.7%, 52.6% and 45.0%, respectively. Totally, 112 (10.6%) patients developed local recurrences and 174 (16.5%) patients developed distant metastases. The 99.2% postoperative local recurrences and distant metastases occurred within the first 15 years of surveillance. Survival differed between four age groups. Local recurrence was mainly diagnosed among rectal cancer patients, especially in those with lower-third rectal cancer. Metastases were commonly found in the liver and lungs. Patients with colon cancer and stage I/II manifested significantly longer OS than patients with rectal cancer and stage III/IV (both P<0.001).

Conclusions

In this study, postoperative local recurrences and distant metastases was rarely found after 15 years of enhanced surveillance, which indicated a "true cure" if the patient did not develop recurrences and metastases after 15 years.

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.

Surveillance patterns after curative-intent colorectal cancer surgery in Ontario

BACKGROUND

Postoperative surveillance following curative-intent resection of colorectal cancer (CRC) is variably performed due to existing guideline differences and to the limited data supporting different strategies.

OBJECTIVES

To examine population-based rates of surveillance imaging and endoscopy in patients in Ontario following curative-intent resection of CRC with no evidence of recurrence, as well as patient or disease factors that may predispose certain groups to more frequent versus less frequent surveillance; to provide insight to the care patients receive in the presence of conflicting guidelines, in efforts to help improve care of CRC survivors by identifying any potential underuse or overuse of particular surveillance modalities, or inequalities in access to surveillance.

METHOD

A retrospective cohort study was conducted using data from the Ontario Cancer Registry and several linked databases. Ontario patients undergoing curative-intent CRC resection from 2003 to 2007 were identified, excluding patients with probable disease relapse. In the five-year period following surgery, the number of imaging and endoscopic examinations was determined.

RESULTS

There were 4960 patients included in the study. Over the five-year postoperative period, the highest proportion of patients who underwent postoperative surveillance received the following number of tests for each modality examined: one to three abdominopelvic computed tomography (CT) scans (n=2073 [41.8%]); one to three abdominal ultrasounds (n=2443 [49.3%]); no chest CTs, one to three chest x-rays (n=2385 [48.1%]); and two endoscopies (n=1845 [37.2%]). Odds of not receiving any abdominopelvic imaging (CT or abdominal ultrasound) were higher in those who did not receive adjuvant chemotherapy (OR 6.99 [95% CI 5.26 to 9.35]) or those living in certain geographical areas, but were independent of age, sex and income. Nearly all patients (n=4473 [90.2%]) underwent ≥1 endoscopy at some point during the follow-up period.

CONCLUSION

In contrast to findings from similar studies in other jurisdictions, most Ontario CRC survivors receive postoperative surveillance with imaging and endoscopy, and care is equitable across sociodemographic groups, although unexplained geographical variation in practice exists and warrants further investigation.

Intensified surveillance after surgery for colorectal cancer significantly improves survival

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Receipt of guideline-recommended follow-up in older colorectal cancer survivors : a population-based analysis

BACKGROUND

After curative resection for colorectal cancer, routine follow-up with office visits, carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), and colonoscopy is recommended. The actual adherence to these guidelines as well as the potential overuse of testing in routine practice has not been well studied.

METHODS

The authors identified 9426 eligible patients aged > or = 66 years in a linked tumor registry-claims database who were diagnosed with adenocarcinoma of the colon or rectum from 2000 to 2001. Patients were observed to 3 years after diagnosis. Receipt of > or = 2 office visits per year, > or = 2 CEA tests per year (years 1 and 2), and > or = 1 colonoscopy within 3 years constituted guideline fulfillment.

RESULTS

Guidelines for office visits, colonoscopy, and CEA testing were met in 92.3%, 73.6%, and 46.7% of patients, respectively. In addition, receipt of 2 nonrecommended procedures, abdominal/pelvic computed tomography scans and positron emission tomography scans, was documented in 47.7% and 6.8%, respectively. Overall, 60.2% received testing below recommended levels, 17.1% at recommended frequency, and 22.7% above guideline recommendations. In a multivariate analysis, factors associated with meeting guidelines included younger age group, white race, regional stage cancers, and poorly differentiated tumors. Considerable geographic variation in meeting guidelines was also observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Many older colorectal cancer survivors in this population-based cohort underwent testing below a minimum frequency specified by clinical practice guidelines, especially with regard to CEA. Further studies should ascertain the reasons for poor compliance and the effect on patient outcome.

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

PURPOSE

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

PATIENTS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Should the surgeon or the general practitioner (GP) follow up patients after surgery for colon cancer? A randomized controlled trial protocol focusing on quality of life, cost-effectiveness and serious clinical events

BACKGROUND

All patients who undergo surgery for colon cancer are followed up according to the guidelines of the Norwegian Gastrointestinal Cancer Group (NGICG). These guidelines state that the aims of follow-up after surgery are to perform quality assessment, provide support and improve survival. In Norway, most of these patients are followed up in a hospital setting. We describe a multi-centre randomized controlled trial to test whether these patients can be followed up by their general practitioner (GP) without altering quality of life, cost effectiveness and/or the incidence of serious clinical events.

METHODS AND DESIGN

Patients undergoing surgery for colon cancer with histological grade Dukes's Stage A, B or C and below 75 years of age are eligible for inclusion. They will be randomized after surgery to follow-up at the surgical outpatient clinic (control group) or follow-up by the district GP (intervention group). Both study arms comply with the national NGICG guidelines. The primary endpoints will be quality of life (QoL) (measured by the EORTC QLQ C-30 and the EQ-5D instruments), serious clinical events (SCEs), and costs. The follow-up period will be two years after surgery, and quality of life will be measured every three months. SCEs and costs will be estimated prospectively. The sample size was 170 patients.

DISCUSSION

There is an ongoing debate on the best method of follow-up for patients with CRC. Due to a wide range of follow-up programmes and paucity of randomized trials, it is impossible to draw conclusions about the best combination and frequency of clinic (or family practice) visits, blood tests, endoscopic procedures and radiological examinations that maximize the clinical outcome, quality of life and costs. Most studies on follow-up of CRC patients have been performed in a hospital outpatient setting. We hypothesize that postoperative follow-up of colon cancer patients (according to national guidelines) by GPs will not have any impact on patients' quality of life. Furthermore, we hypothesize that there will be no increase in SCEs and that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio will improve.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov. The trial registration number is: NCT00572143.

Surveillance of patients following surgery with curative intent for colorectal cancer

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

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

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

The postoperative surveillance of patients with colon cancer and rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

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

DATA SOURCES

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

CONCLUSION

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

Colorectal cancer follow-up: Useful or useless?

Follow-up of surgically treated colorectal cancer patients is not supported by objectively certain data. Despite the thousands of investigations reported in the scientific literature, only six randomized prospective studies and two meta-analysis of randomized studies provide data suggesting clear conclusions. Our review of the literature revealed that intensive colorectal follow-up should be performed even if the long-term survival benefit is small. The timing and investigations conducted in follow-ups diverge. The inconsistency of follow-ups is revealed by the fact that the leading USA and European societies propose different guidelines. One datum that the literature agrees on is that pancolonoscopy performed at 3-5 year intervals in colorectal cancer surgery patients supports diagnosis of adenomatous polyps and metachronous cancers. Cost analysis have shown that intensive follow-up would certainly exceed the cut-off point level set for every additional year of good quality of life.

Colorectal cancer follow-up in 2005

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

A retrospective study on the use of post-operative colonoscopy following potentially curative surgery for colorectal cancer in a Canadian province

Background

Surveillance colonoscopy is commonly recommended following potentially curative surgery for colorectal cancer. We determined factors associated with patients undergoing a least one colonoscopy within five years of surgery.

Methods

In this historical cohort study, data on 3918 patients age 30 years or older residing in Alberta, Canada, who had undergone a potentially curative surgical resection for local or regional stage colorectal cancer between 1983 and 1995 were obtained from the provincial cancer registry, ministry of health and cancer clinic charts. Kaplan-Meier estimates of the probability of undergoing a post-operative colonoscopy were calculated for patient, tumor and treatment-related variables of interest.

Results

A colonoscopy was performed within five years of surgery in 1979 patients. The probability of undergoing a colonoscopy for those diagnosed in the 1990s was greater than for those diagnosed earlier (0.65 vs 0.55, P < 0.0001). The majority of the difference was seen at one-year following surgery, consistent with changes in surveillance practices. Those most likely to undergo a colonoscopy were those under age 70 (0.74 vs 0.50 for those age 70 – 79, P < 0.0001), who underwent a pre-operative colonoscopy (0.69 vs 0.54, P < 0.0001), and who underwent a resection with reanastomosis (0.62 vs 0.47 for abdominoperineal resection, P < 0.0001) by a surgeon who performs colonoscopies (0.68 vs 0.54, P < 0.0001).

Conclusions

The majority of patients undergo colonoscopy following colorectal cancer surgery. However, there are important variations in surveillance practices across different patient and treatment characteristics.

Racial differences in the receipt of bowel surveillance following potentially curative colorectal cancer surgery

OBJECTIVE

To investigate racial differences in posttreatment bowel surveillance after colorectal cancer surgery in a large population of Medicare patients.

DATA SOURCES

We used a large population-based dataset: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) linked to Medicare data.

STUDY DESIGN

This is a retrospective cohort study. We analyzed data from 44,768 non-Hispanic white, 2,921 black, and 4,416 patients from other racial/ethnic groups, aged 65 and older at diagnosis, who had a diagnosis of local or regional colorectal cancer between 1986 and 1996, and were followed through December 31, 1998. Cox Proportional Hazards models were used to investigate the relation of race and receipt of posttreatment bowel surveillance.

DATA COLLECTION

Sociodemographic, hospital, and clinical characteristics were collected at the time of diagnosis for all members of the cohort. Surgery and bowel surveillance with colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, and barium enema were obtained from Medicare claims using ICD-9-CM and CPT-4 codes.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

The chance of surveillance within 18 months of surgery was 57 percent, 48 percent, and 45 percent for non-Hispanic whites, blacks, and others, respectively. After adjusting for sociodemographic, hospital, and clinical characteristics, blacks were 25 percent less likely than whites to receive surveillance if diagnosed between 1991 and 1996 (RR = 0.75, 95 percent CI = 0.70-0.81).

CONCLUSIONS

Elderly blacks were less likely than non-Hispanic whites to receive posttreatment bowel surveillance and this result was not explained by measured racial differences in sociodemographic, hospital, and clinical characteristics. More research is needed to explore the influences of patient- and provider-level factors on racial differences in posttreatment bowel surveillance.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Cost effectiveness analysis of intensive versus conventional follow up after curative resection for colorectal cancer

OBJECTIVE

To determine the cost effectiveness of intensive follow up compared with conventional follow up in patients with colorectal cancer.

DESIGN

Incremental cost effectiveness analysis recognising differences in follow up strategies, based on effectiveness data from a meta-analysis of five randomised trials.

SETTING

United Kingdom.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Taking a health service perspective, estimated incremental costs effectiveness ratios for each life year gained for five trials and four trials designed for early detection of extramural recurrences (targeted surveillance).

RESULTS

Based on five year follow up, the numbers of life years gained by intensive follow up were 0.73 for the five trial model and 0.82 for the four trial model. For the five trials, the adjusted net (extra) cost for each patient was 2479 pounds sterling (3550 euros; 4288 dollars) and for each life year gained was 3402 pounds sterling, substantially lower than the current threshold of NHS cost acceptability (30 000 pounds sterling). The corresponding values for the four trial model were 2529 pounds sterling and 3077 pounds sterling, suggesting that targeted surveillance is more cost effective. The main predictor of incremental cost effectiveness ratios was surveillance costs rather than treatment costs. Judged against the NHS threshold of cost acceptability, the predicted incremental cost threshold was ninefold and the effectiveness threshold was 3%.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the available data and current costs, intensive follow up after curative resection for colorectal cancer is economically justified and should be normal practice. There is a continuing need to evaluate the efficacy of specific surveillance tools: this study forms the basis for economic evaluations in such trials.

Follow-up strategies after curative resection of colorectal cancer

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

Cancer physicians' attitudes toward colorectal cancer follow-up

BACKGROUND

The optimal follow-up strategy for colorectal cancer is unknown.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We surveyed all Canadian radiation oncologists, medical oncologists and surgeons specializing in colorectal cancer to assess their recommendations for follow-up after potentially curative treatment, the beliefs and attitudes underlying these practices, and the cost implications of different follow-up strategies.

RESULTS

One hundred and sixty practitioners (58%) returned completed surveys. Most recommended clinical assessments every 3-4 months in the first 2 years including carcino-embryonic antigen testing, gradually decreasing in frequency over 5 years. Ninety per cent recommend a surveillance colonoscopy in the first year. The majority felt that specialist involvement in follow-up was important because of the increased opportunities for patients to contribute to research (76%) and teaching (73%). About half felt that specialists were more efficient at providing follow-up than primary care physicians, but these same physicians recommended significantly longer and more expensive follow-up routines on average than others. Primary care physicians were felt to be important allies, especially in managing the psychosocial concerns of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Surveillance practices are generally in keeping with published recommendations. Most specialists feel that they should remain involved in follow-up, but this may result in increased resource utilization.

Management of colorectal liver metastases

Hepatic metastases occur in 60% of patients following resection for colorectal cancer. Liver resection is the only curative option, with one third of resected patients alive at five years. In those developing recurrence in the liver following resection, further liver surgery may be curative, with similar 5 years survival rates of about 30%. Until recently surgery was feasible in only 15-25% of patients with colorectal liver metastases. New strategies, such as downstaging chemotherapy, portal vein embolization and two-stage hepatectomy, may increase the resectability rate by 15%. Earlier detection of liver metastases would increase resectability, although good follow-up trials are lacking. Once suspected, colorectal liver metastases are staged by spiral CT, CT portography and MRI, which have similar overall accuracies. Mortality following liver resection is less than 5% in major centres, with a morbidity rate of 20% to 50%. Prognostic scoring systems can be used to predict the likely cure rate with resection. Pulmonary metastases occur in 10-25% of patients with resected colorectal cancer, but are limited to the lung in only 2% of cases. In these selected cases surgery provides long-term survival in 20-40%, and repeat lung resection has shown similar rates. For patients with unresectable disease, chemotherapy and ablation techniques have been demonstrated to prolong survival, although chemotherapy alone has been shown to improve quality of life.

How surgeon age affects surveillance strategies for extremity soft tissue sarcoma patients after potentially curative treatment

BACKGROUND

The optimal strategy for follow-up of extremity soft tissue sarcoma patients after potentially curative treatment remains unknown. We investigated whether the date of completion of formal surgical training affects choice of surveillance strategy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The 1,592 members of the Society of Surgical Oncology were asked how often they use 12 separate surveillance modalities during years 1-5 and 10 postsurgery. The motivation underlying follow-up was assessed separately. Repeated-measures analysis of variance was used to compare practice patterns by the year in which the surgeon's formal surgery training was completed, controlling for tumor grade, tumor size, and year postsurgery.

RESULTS

Of the 716 respondents, 318 performed surgery and also provided long-term postoperative surveillance for their patients. These respondents were considered evaluable. Erythrocyte sedimentation rate, extremity X ray, and bone scan were the follow-up tests which differed significantly among physician age groups. Surgeons who completed training more than 30 years ago ordered erythrocyte sedimentation rate more frequently (P < 0.001). Surgeons in the 21-30 year category ordered extremity X ray and bone scan more frequently (P < 0.05), but the absolute differences among age groups were quite small. Older surgeons were also significantly more likely to believe that follow-up is clinically worthwhile.

CONCLUSIONS

The posttreatment surveillance practice patterns of the members of the Society of Surgical Oncology caring for extremity soft tissue sarcoma patients vary only marginally with the length of time since completion of training. Postgraduate education may be one factor homogenizing surgeon behavior in this important aspect of cancer patient care.

The preoperative assessment and postoperative surveillance of patients with colon and rectal cancer

Many advances have been made in the field of colorectal cancer follow-up since the pioneering efforts of Wangensteen and others with second-look operations in the 1950s. The understanding of the biology and natural history of colorectal malignancy has been advanced. Diagnostic methods for detection of recurrent disease have also advanced tremendously with CEA monitoring, immunoscintigraphy. CT, MRI, and PET imaging. As has been discussed in this article, however, no strategy of postoperative follow-up has been shown unequivocally to produce improved survival benefit or cure rate. It is quite possible that benefit will be shown, but well-controlled trials will be required. Cost considerations will likely prove important, because the rate of detection of curable disease will likely.be low. Quality of life issues will also be important in such trials. Better treatment and outcome ol recurrent disease would provide a strong rationale for vigorous postoperative surveillance. New recommendations are currently evolving [54]. Early diagnosis seems likely to enhance the curability of both local and distant relapses and second primary tumors. Furthermore, there may be a survival and quality of life advantage that results from the early institution of chemotherapy, even for those tumors found to be inoperable [55]. In devising a plan for follow-up in patients, it is important to recognize the anatomic and temporal patterns of recurrence as well as their relationships to the initial tumor staging. Although there is little proof that the identification of recurrent disease in follow-up programs increases the likelihood of resectability, cure, or prolonged survival, many physicians have witnessed successful treatment of recurrent colorectal cancer. These anecdotal experiences, the unproven belief that follow-up is beneficial, and traditions imparted during training are among the likely motivating factors for most physicians caring for colorectal cancer patients.

Updates in surgical oncology for elderly patients

Elderly patients affected by solid tumours are frequently encountered on the surgical ward. Prejudice regarding operative risks and long term outcomes may alter their surgical management. Large series of elderly cancer subjects have been analysed and conclusive data are now available, to better tailor their management. Specific epidemiological data are presented in this review, screening programs critically considered, treatment procedures discussed, and the effectiveness of follow-up protocols is analysed together with cost effectiveness issues. Quality of life issues should not be neglected, and a continuous educational endeavour targeted at specialists and general practitioners is desirable.

Impact on survival of intensive follow up after curative resection for colorectal cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials

OBJECTIVE

To review the evidence from clinical trials of follow up of patients after curative resection for colorectal cancer.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials of intensive compared with control follow up.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

All cause mortality at five years (primary outcome). Rates of recurrence of intraluminal, local, and metastatic disease and metachronous (second colorectal primary) cancers (secondary outcomes).

RESULTS

Five trials, which included 1342 patients, met the inclusion criteria. Intensive follow up was associated with a reduction in all cause mortality (combined risk ratio 0.81, 95% confidence interval 0.70 to 0.94, P=0.007). The effect was most pronounced in the four extramural detection trials that used computed tomography and frequent measurements of serum carcinoembryonic antigen (risk ratio 0.73, 0.60 to 0.89, P=0.002). Intensive follow up was associated with significantly earlier detection of all recurrences (difference in means 8.5 months, 7.6 to 9.4 months, P<0.001) and an increased detection rate for isolated local recurrences (risk ratio 1.61, 1.12 to 2.32, P=0.011).

CONCLUSIONS

Intensive follow up after curative resection for colorectal cancer improves survival. Large trials are required to identify which components of intensive follow up are most beneficial.

Contrast-enhanced CT colonography in recurrent colorectal carcinoma: feasibility of simultaneous evaluation for metastatic disease, local recurrence, and metachronous neoplasia in colorectal carcinoma

OBJECTIVE

Contrast-enhanced CT colonography has the potential to detect local recurrence, metachronous disease, and distant metastases in patients with a history of invasive colorectal cancer. The purpose of our study was to determine whether colonic anastomoses prohibit adequate colonic distention on contrast-enhanced CT colonography and to estimate the performance of contrast-enhanced CT colonography in detecting recurrent colorectal carcinoma.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Fifty patients with a history of resected invasive colorectal carcinoma underwent contrast-enhanced CT colonography and colonoscopy. Colonic distention was graded for different colonic segments. Two radiologists evaluated for the presence of local recurrence, metachronous disease, and metastatic disease. Results were compared with colonoscopy, histology, and clinical follow-up.

RESULTS

Most patients had adequate colonic inflation (37/50, 74%). Eleven of 13 patients with inadequate distention had collapse in the sigmoid colon, usually associated with ileocolic anastomoses. Contrast-enhanced CT colonography detected local recurrences with an accuracy of 94% (95% confidence interval, 83-99%). The accuracy of contrast-enhanced CT colonography for metachronous lesions greater than or equal to 1 cm was 92% (95% confidence interval, 80-98%), but there was only one such lesion, which was missed on initial colonoscopy. Stool, granulation tissue, and inflammation can mimic the CT appearance of local recurrence or metachronous disease and account for false-positive examinations. Contrast-enhanced CT colonography identified five patients with metastatic disease.

CONCLUSION

Suboptimal sigmoid distention can be seen on contrast-enhanced CT colonography, predominantly in patients with right hemicolectomies. Contrast-enhanced CT colonography is a promising method for detecting local recurrence, metachronous disease, and distant metastases in patients with prior invasive colorectal carcinoma. The technique can also serve as a useful adjunct to colonoscopy by detecting local recurrences or metachronous disease that are endoscopically obscure or by serving as a full structural colonic examination when endoscopy is incomplete.

Bowel surveillance patterns after a diagnosis of colorectal cancer in Medicare beneficiaries

BACKGROUND

Postoperative colon surveillance has been recommended for patients with a diagnosis of local/regional colorectal cancer. The extent to which these recommendations are followed in practice is poorly characterized. Patterns of surveillance after surgery for colorectal cancer were determined by using a large population-based database.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study with cancer registry data linked to Medicare claims. Identified were 52,283 patients treated for local/regional colorectal cancer between 1986 and 1996, and surveillance patterns through 1998 were determined. Surveillance patterns were analyzed by using survival analysis and by computing the proportion of surviving patients who underwent procedures during 4 time periods after treatment: 2 to 14 months, 15 to 50 months, 51 to 86 months and more than 87 months.

RESULTS

Median times to first through fifth surveillance events were 20, 14, 15, 15, and 15 months, respectively. For 17% of the cohort there was no surveillance event. Younger patients were more likely to undergo surveillance. Surveillance patterns were not affected by stage. The proportions of the cohort that underwent no surveillance during the 4 respective time periods were 54%, 52%, 60%, and 69%. The percentages of patients who underwent surveillance annually or more frequently in the latter 3 time periods, respectively, were 19%, 10%, and 5%, or 11% overall, treating the data for the 3 events as a whole. Over the period from 1986 to 1998, the proportion of patients who had no surveillance procedures gradually decreased, whereas the proportion of those who underwent procedures annually or more frequently remained relatively constant.

CONCLUSIONS

During the period from 1986 to 1998 there was low utilization of postdiagnosis colon surveillance in a substantial proportion of elderly patients with a diagnosis of local/regional colorectal cancer. Over time there was a trend toward increasing receipt of any surveillance procedures. The percentages of patients undergoing surveillance annually or more frequently did not change between earlier and later periods.

Impact of patient and provider characteristics on the treatment and outcomes of colorectal cancer

While the management and prognosis of colorectal cancer are largely dependent on clinical features such as tumor stage, there is considerable variation in treatment and outcome not explained by traditional prognostic factors. To guide efforts by researchers and health-care providers to improve quality of care, we review studies of variation in treatment and outcome by patient and provider characteristics. Surgeon expertise and case volume are associated with improved tumor control, although surgeon and hospital factors are not associated consistently with perioperative mortality or long-term survival. Some studies indicate that patients are less likely to undergo permanent colostomy if they are treated by high-volume surgeons and hospitals. Differences in treatment and outcome of patients managed by health maintenance organizations or fee-for-service providers have not generally been found. Older patients are less likely to receive adjuvant therapy after surgery, even after adjustment for comorbid illness. In the United States, black patients with colorectal cancer receive less aggressive therapy and are more likely to die of this disease than white patients, but cancer-specific survival differences are reduced or eliminated when black patients receive comparable treatment. Patients of low socioeconomic status (SES) have worse survival than those of higher SES, although the reasons for this discrepancy are not well understood. Variations in treatment may arise from inadequate physician knowledge of practice guidelines, treatment decisions based on unmeasured clinical factors, or patient preferences. To improve quality of care for colorectal cancer, a better understanding of mechanisms underlying associations between patient and provider characteristics and outcomes is required.

Sociodemographic differences in the receipt of colorectal cancer surveillance care following treatment with curative intent

BACKGROUND

Despite limited evidence of its effectiveness, most guidelines recommend colorectal cancer survivors undergo posttreatment surveillance care. This article describes the posttreatment use of colon examinations, carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) testing, and metastatic disease testing among a managed care population.

METHODS

Two hundred fifty-one patients with colorectal cancer enrolled in a managed care organization at diagnosis (1/1/90-12/31/95) and treated with curative intent. Patients were identified via a Cancer Registry maintained by a large group practice. Cumulative incidences of service receipt were estimated using actuarial (Kaplan-Meier) survival analyses. Co- Proportional Hazard Models were used to evaluate the relation of patient sociodemographic and clinical characteristics to service receipt. Average 8-year medical care expenditures were calculated.

RESULTS

Within 18 months of treatment, 55% of the cohort received a colon examination, 71% received CEA testing, and 59% received metastatic disease testing. Whites were more likely than minorities to receive CEA testing (RR = 1.47, P = 0.04) and tended to be more likely to receive a colon examination (RR = 1.43, P = 0.09). As the median household income of a patient's zip code of residence increased, so too did the likelihood of colon examination and metastatic disease testing receipt (RR = 1.09, P = 0.03 and RR = 1.12, P <0.01, respectively). Average 8-year medical care expenditures among the cohort were $30,247.

CONCLUSIONS

Among a population with financial access to care, differences were found in the receipt of colorectal cancer surveillance care by race and income. Additional investigations are needed to understand why minorities and those residing in low-income areas are less likely to receive surveillance care.

Colorectal cancer follow-up: perspectives for future studies

This paper reviews some of the issues involved in the planning and execution of studies to assess the effect of different follow-up strategies for colorectal cancer patients. Mathematical models and many previous studies have failed to indicate strong support for the hypothesis that extensive follow-up leads to an increase in survival rates. In order to assess the best follow-up strategies, at present, within the different Dukes' stages, extremely large trials are required and none of the previous studies have satisfied this criterion, though recently planned studies will, if recruitment targets are met. The large number of patients required, the length of time the study must run, existing accepted follow-up practices in different countries, and the difficulty of managing patients on different follow-up strategies within the same centre all pose problems for the design of a randomized trial. These are not insurmountable, but do contribute to a possible downfall of a large multicentre randomized trial of follow-up strategies. Although such a trial will require considerable international cooperation it will have enormous benefits and implications if it is managed and completed successfully.

Colorectal cancer follow-up: a reassessment of empirical evidence on effectiveness

Colorectal cancer is an important cause of death in the Western world, with a propensity of cancer recurrence even after resection with curative intent. Active follow-up has been advocated as a means to detect cancer recurrence at an earlier stage and thereby improve the survival of colorectal cancer patients. The present study assesses published evidence on the effectiveness of follow-up. Articles were obtained from a 20-year Medline search and from cross-references between articles. Articles were included, scored for quality, and extracted by explicit criteria. Regression analysis and chi-squared analysis was performed to assess (1) whether detection of recurrence at earlier asymptomatic disease stage leads to better post-treatment prognosis, and (2) whether active follow-up does improve overall (quality adjusted) survival, as compared to symptom-guided care only. The relationship between disease stage of recurrence (symptoms, number and size) and survival was analysed from 42 articles, 10 of which provided adequate data. Absence of symptoms and small number of recurrence were significantly related to better survival, smaller size insignificantly so. The potential of active follow-up seemed related to a marginally better outcome, larger gains being found in lower quality studies. Available data do suggest that survival gains vary between 0.5 and 2%, 1% seeming to be a best estimate of overall survival gain. Neither the notion that earlier detection of recurrences does significantly improve outcome, nor the hope that active follow-up provides a statistically and clinically significant gain in (quality adjusted) survival, are so far supported by adequate evidence. Colorectal cancer follow-up still fails to meet the criteria for evidence based medicine.

Recommended colorectal cancer surveillance guidelines by the American Society of Clinical Oncology

OBJECTIVE

To determine the most effective, evidence-based, postoperative surveillance strategy for the detection of recurrent colon and rectal cancer. Tests are to be recommended only if they have an impact on the outcomes listed below.

POTENTIAL INTERVENTION

All tests described in the literature for postoperative monitoring were considered. In addition, the data were critically evaluated to determine the optimal frequency of monitoring.

OUTCOMES

Outcomes of interest included overall and disease-free survival, quality of life, toxicity reduction, and cost-effectiveness. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Colorectal Cancer Surveillance Expert Panel was guided by the principle of cost minimization, ie, when two strategies were believed to be equally effective, the least expensive test was recommended.

EVIDENCE

A complete MEDLINE search was performed of the past 20 years of the medical literature. Keywords included colorectal cancer, follow-up, and carcinoembryonic antigen, as well as the names of the specific tests. The search was broadened by articles from the tumor marker ASCO panel literature search, as well as from bibliographies of selected articles.

VALUES

Levels of evidence and guideline grades were rated by a standard process. More weight was given to studies that tested a hypothesis directly relating testing to one of the primary outcomes in a randomized design. BENEFITS/HARMS/COSTS: The possible consequences of false-positive and false-negative tests were considered in evaluating a preference for one of two tests that provide similar information. Cost alone was not a determining factor.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The expert panel's recommended postoperative monitoring schema is discussed in this article.

VALIDATION

Five outside reviewers, the ASCO Health Services Research Committee, and the ASCO Board of Directors examined this document.

SPONSOR

American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Colorectal cancer screening and follow-up

Cancer of the colon and rectum is a significant health problem in the United States. Nearly 50% of the 186,000 patients diagnosed annually with colorectal cancer will eventually die of their disease. Because development of a colorectal carcinoma is most frequently preceded by the development of a well-recognized pre-malignant lesion, screening modalities can significantly impact the incidence and mortality rate of this disease. Population screening employing digital rectal examination, fecal occult blood testing and endoscopic examination of the rectum and colon has been demonstrated to reduce the risk of death from colorectal cancer. Screening regimens should be instituted at an earlier age and with increased frequency for patients in the highest risk categories. Patients who have been treated for a cancer of the colon or rectum should undergo surveillance at regular intervals in an attempt to identify recurrences of disease both in the residual colon and rectum and at distant sites. Most physicians and patients believe that intensive follow-up strategies will afford improved survival and quality of life, however few randomized studies examining the utility of intensive follow-up programs have been performed and the quality of cancer-related follow-up literature is generally poor. Good-quality clinical trials are needed to sort out which tests make a difference in the patient's long-term outcome. The algorithm for surveillance for recurrence in the future may be altered as newer testing modalities are developed.

A comparison of adrenalectomy with other resections for metastatic cancers

BACKGROUND

Although adrenal metastases were once considered incurable, recent anecdotal reports recommend adrenalectomy for isolated metastases.

METHODS

Computerized files of all US Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) hospital admissions and deaths from 1988 to 1994 identified patients undergoing isolated adrenal resections, and hospitalization records were obtained. Patients without a death record were assumed to be alive.

RESULTS

In 47 patients with adrenalectomy for metastases, only 5 patients did not die within 3 years: 2 each had metachronous renal or colorectal metastases, and 1 had a pulmonary primary. Thirteen patients with other primary sites all expired within 3 years. Operative mortality was 4% in these 47 patients and also in 706 other adrenalectomies without metastases.

CONCLUSIONS

Adrenalectomy for metastatic carcinoma in the DVA was safe, with a projected 5-year survival rate (13%) that is significantly inferior (P < or = 0.05) to resections for colorectal metastases to lung (36%) or liver (26%), but superior to brain (none).

Surveillance in the management of the cancer patient with special reference to breast and colon cancer

Senior surgeons of the Society of Surgical Oncology were surveyed concerning their followup practices for patients with colon and breast cancer and compared them with the recommendations in the current literature. Intensive followup is not indicated for patients with breast cancer patients and all surgeons agree by using physical examination and mammograms predominantly. Colon cancer followup was variable and the literature indicates a small survival advantage for intensive followup.

How practice patterns in colon cancer patient follow-up are affected by surgeon age

BACKGROUND

Strategies for the follow-up of colon cancer patients after potentially curative treatment are known to vary widely. The optimal regimen remains unknown. We investigated whether the date of completion of formal surgical training affects choice of surveillance strategy.

METHODS

The 1070 members of the Society of Surgical Oncology (SSO) and the 1663 members of the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ASCRS) were surveyed using a detailed questionnaire to measure how these surgical experts deal with colon cancer follow-up. Subjects were asked how they use nine specific follow-up modalities during years 1-5 following primary treatment for patients with colon cancer (TNM Stages I-III). Repeated-measures analysis of variance was used to compare practice patterns by TNM stage and year post-surgery, as well as by the year in which the surgeon's formal surgery training was completed.

RESULTS

Evaluable responses were received from 349 SSO members (33%) and 646 ASCRS members (39%). Few significant differences in follow-up practices were noted by training period, but follow-up for most of the nine modalities was highly correlated with TNM stage and year post-surgery, as expected.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis indicates that the post-treatment surveillance practice patterns of surgeons caring for patients with colon cancer do not vary substantially with practitioner age. The data provide credible evidence that postgraduate education is effective in homogenizing practitioner behaviour.