Patterns of surveillance following curative intent therapy for gastroesophageal cancer

Single-center experience in implementation of endoscopic surveillance protocol after esophagectomy

Esophageal cancer has a notably high recurrence rate with a paucity of robust evidence in defining the optimal surveillance strategy. The surveillance protocol at our institution comprises of annual esophagogastroduodenoscopy (OGD) from years 1 to 5 postoperatively. This study aims to evaluate the implementation of the endoscopic surveillance at our center and ascertain the value of endoscopy in detecting local recurrence after esophagectomy. A retrospective cohort review of all patients (320 patients) who underwent esophagectomy between 2013 and 2018 was conducted. The local esophageal cancer database and corresponding OGD reports were accessed to obtain data on demographics, operation details, local recurrence, and endoscopy performed. 1086 OGDs were performed between 2014 and 2020, broadly categorized to surveillance and symptomatic OGDs; 555 and 531, respectively. Surveillance OGDs detected four asymptomatic local recurrences, of which only one was treated with curative intent. Symptomatic OGDs resulted in a higher yield for the detection of local recurrence compared with surveillance endoscopy; 5% versus 0.7%, with overall median time-to-recurrence of 11.5 months (95% confidence interval 9-17). Of local recurrences, 85.7% occurred within the first 2 years postoperatively. The proportion of endoscopic findings differed between intensive and ad hoc surveillance cohorts for strictures, esophagitis, Barrett's esophagus, and sloughing. Thirteen patients were diagnosed with histologically confirmed Barrett's with no subsequent local recurrences. Surveillance endoscopy had a low positive yield rate with subsequent minimal survival benefits. Therefore, it is prudent to consider an alternative protocol that focuses on the period with the highest risk of recurrence and symptom presentation.

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.

Evaluation of post-operative surveillance strategies for esophageal and gastric cancers: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There is no consensus or guidelines internationally to inform clinicians of how patients should be monitored for recurrence after esophagogastric resections.

AIM

This systematic review and meta-analysis summarizes the latest evidence investigating the usefulness of surveillance protocols in patients who underwent esophagectomy or gastrectomy.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Review and Scopus databases. Articles were evaluated for the use of surveillance strategies including history-taking, physical examination, imaging modalities and endoscopy for monitoring patients post-gastrectomy or esophagectomy. Studies that compared surveillance strategies and reported detection of recurrence and post-recurrence survival were also included in the meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies that described a surveillance protocol for post-operative patients were included in the review. Seven studies were used in the meta-analysis. Random-effects analysis demonstrated a statistically significant higher post-recurrence survival (standardized mean difference [SMD] 14.15, 95% CI 1.40-27.26, p = 0.03) with imaging-based planned surveillance post-esophagectomy. However, the detection of recurrence (OR 1.76, 95% CI 0.78-3.97, p = 0.17) for esophageal cancers as well as detection of recurrence (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.11-5.12, p = 0.76) and post-recurrence survival (SMD 6.42, 95% CI -2.16-18.42, p = 0.14) for gastric cancers were not significantly different with planned surveillance.

CONCLUSION

There is no consensus on whether surveillance carries prognostic survival benefit or how surveillance should be carried out. Surveillance may carry prognostic benefit for patients who underwent surgery for esophageal cancer. Randomized controlled trials are required to evaluate the survival benefits of intensive surveillance strategies, determine the ideal surveillance protocol and tailor it to the appropriate population.

Prospective multicentre randomised clinical trial comparing survival rates, quality of life and nutritional status between advanced gastric cancer patients with different follow-up intensities: study protocol for the STOFOLUP trial

INTRODUCTION

Patients who underwent curative gastrectomy for gastric cancer are regularly followed-up for the early detection of recurrence and postoperative symptom management. However, there is a lack of evidence with regard to proper surveillance intervals and diagnostic tools. This study aims to evaluate whether frequent surveillance tests have a survival benefit or improve the quality of life in patients who underwent curative resection for advanced gastric cancer.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The STOFOLUP trial is an investigator-initiated, parallel-assigned, multicentre randomised controlled trial involving 16 hospitals in the Republic of Korea. Patients (n=886) diagnosed with pathological stage II or III gastric adenocarcinoma will be randomised to either the 3-month or the 6-month group at a 1:1 ratio, stratified by trial site and tumour stage. Patients allocated to the 3-month group will undergo an abdominal CT scan every 3 months postoperatively and those allocated to the 6-month group will undergo CT every 6 months. The primary endpoint is 3-year overall survival and the secondary endpoints are quality of life, as assessed using KOrean QUality of life in Stomach cancer patients Study group-40, the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 and the stomach cancer-specific module (STO22), and nutritional outcomes. Other survival data including data concerning 3-year disease-free survival, recurrence-free survival, gastric cancer-specific survival and postrecurrence survival will also be estimated. The first patient was enrolled on July 2021 and active patient enrolment is currently underway.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study has been approved by the Institutional Review Board of eight of the participating hospitals (NCC 2021-0085, KBSMC2021-01-059, SMC 2021-01-140, KC21OEDE0082, 4-2021-0281, AJIRB-MED-INT-20-608, 2021-0515 and H-2102-093-1198). This study will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, national or international conferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04740346.

Symptomatic Recurrence and Survival Outcomes After Curative Treatment of Gastric Cancer: Does Intensive Follow-up Evaluation Improve Survival?

BACKGROUND

Intensive surveillance after treatment of gastric cancer patients with curative intent may lead to an earlier diagnosis of disease recurrence, but its impact on survival is uncertain. This study aimed to evaluate whether early diagnosis of disease recurrence among asymptomatic patients was associated with long-term survival.

METHODS

This retrospective study analyzed patients with stages 1 to 3C gastric adenocarcinoma treated between 1999 and 2018. All recurrence events were classified as symptomatic or asymptomatic (detected by follow-up tests), and their clinicopathologic characteristics, patterns of recurrence, and survival were analyzed.

RESULTS

The cohort consisted of 669 patients treated with a total gastrectomy in 48.6% and a D2-lymphadenectomy in 88.8% of the cases. Most of the tumors were pT3-4 (46.5%), with 45.5% involving lymph node metastases and 42.3% manifesting a diffuse histology. During a median follow-up period of 80.1 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 75.3-84.8 months), 166 patients had recurrences (24.8%), 65.7% of which were symptomatic. The peritoneum was the main site of recurrence (37.2%), and peritoneal recurrence was associated with worse overall survival (OS) (hazard ratio, 1.69; 95%CI, 1.2-2.37). The median disease-free, post-recurrence survival, and OS periods in the asymptomatic and symptomatic groups were respectively 13.4 versus 17.2 months (p = 0.04), 11.9 versus 4.7 months (p < 0.001), and 29.9 versus 26.4 months (p = 0.21). When OS was analyzed among the patients with non-peritoneal recurrence, no difference was observed between the two groups (31.3 vs 31.1 months; p = 0.46).

CONCLUSION

Early diagnosis of asymptomatic disease recurrence did not affect the OS of the gastric cancer patients treated with curative intent. The use of intensive surveillance strategies in this scenario still requires further evidence.

Predictive Role of Endoscopic Surveillance after Total Gastrectomy with R0 Resection for Gastric Cancer

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic surveillance after total gastrectomy (TG) for gastric cancer is routinely performed to detect tumor recurrence and postoperative adverse events. However, the reports on the clinical benefits of endoscopic surveillance are ambiguous. We investigated the clinical benefit of endoscopic surveillance after TG for gastric cancer.

METHODS

We analyzed 848 patients who underwent TG with R0 resection for gastric cancer between 2011 and 2012 (380 early gastric cancer and 468 advanced gastric cancer) and underwent regular postoperative surveillance with endoscopy and abdominopelvic computed tomography (CT) with contrast.

RESULTS

Median follow-up periods were 58 months for both endoscopy (range, 3-96) and abdominopelvic CT (range, 1-96). Tumor recurrence occurred in 167 patients (19.7%), of whom seven (4.2%) were locoregional recurrences in the peri-anastomotic area (n = 5) or regional gastric lymph nodes (n = 2). Whereas the peri-anastomotic recurrences were detected by both endoscopy and abdominopelvic CT, regional lymph node recurrences were only detected by abdominopelvic CT. Out of the 23 events of postoperative adverse events, the majority (87%) were detected by radiologic examinations; three events of benign strictures in the anastomotic site were detected only by endoscopy.

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic surveillance did not have a significant role in detecting locoregional tumor recurrence and postoperative adverse events after TG with R0 resection for gastric cancer. Routine endoscopic surveillance after TG may be considered optional and performed according to the capacities of each clinical setting.

Survivorship care for cancer patients in primary versus secondary care: a systematic review

Background

Cancer survivorship care is traditionally performed in secondary care. Primary care is often involved in cancer management and could therefore play a more prominent role.

Purpose

To assess outcomes of cancer survivorship care in primary versus secondary care.

Methods

A systematic search of MEDLINE and EMBASE was performed. All original studies on cancer survivorship care in primary versus secondary care were included. A narrative synthesis was used for three distinctive outcomes: (1) clinical, (2) patient-reported, and (3) costs.

Results

Sixteen studies were included: 7 randomized trials and 9 observational studies. Meta-analyses were not feasible due to heterogeneity. Most studies reported on solid tumors, like breast (N = 7) and colorectal cancers (N = 3). Clinical outcomes were reported by 10 studies, patient-reported by 11, and costs by 4. No important differences were found on clinical and patient-reported outcomes when comparing primary- with secondary-based care. Some differences were seen relating to the content and quality of survivorship care, such as guideline adherence and follow-up tests, but there was no favorite strategy. Survivorship care in primary care was associated with lower societal costs.

Conclusions

Overall, cancer survivorship care in primary care had similar effects on clinical and patient-reported outcomes compared with secondary care, while resulting in lower costs.

Implications for cancer survivors

Survivorship care in primary care seems feasible. However, since the design and outcomes of studies differed, conclusive evidence for the equivalence of survivorship care in primary care is still lacking. Ongoing studies will help provide better insights.

Newly developed primary malignancies in long-term survivors who underwent curative esophagectomy for squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus

PURPOSE

We evaluated the efficacy of the long-term follow-up of patients who underwent radical esophagectomy for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) to screen for recurrence and new primary malignancies.

METHODS

We retrospectively collected 448 ESCC patients who underwent radical esophagectomy. Esophagogastroduodenoscopy, computed tomography, a stool test and the assessment of the serum concentration of squamous cell carcinoma antigen and carcinoembryonic antigen were performed annually, even over 5 years after esophagectomy. The incidence of ESCC recurrence and new primary malignancies was investigated.

RESULTS

We enrolled 222 patients who survived at least 5 years after esophagectomy. A total of 104 new primary malignancies occurred in 82 patients (36.9%) after esophagectomy. Twenty-one malignancies were in the head and neck region, 14 in the residual esophagus, 13 in the prostate and 11 in the gastric tube and lung. Patients who developed new primary malignancies after esophagectomy had a significantly higher Brinkman index than those without new malignancies. An endoscopic approach successfully treated 92.9% of carcinomas in the residual esophagus, 90.9% of cancers in the gastric tube and 42.9% of carcinomas in the head and neck region.

CONCLUSION

The incidence of new primary malignancies was higher than the age-standardized incidence. Long-term follow-up and systemic screening may increase the probability of an early diagnosis and subsequent low-invasive treatment.

Surveillance and outcomes after curative resection for gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma

Background

The goal of surveillance testing is to enable curative salvage therapy through early disease detection, however supporting evidence in gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma is limited. We evaluated frequency of successful salvage therapy and outcomes in patients who underwent surveillance.

Methods

A single‐site, retrospective cohort study was conducted to identify all patients who received curative resection for gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma. Surveillance testing were those investigations not triggered by abnormal symptoms, physical examination, or blood tests. Successful salvage therapy was any potentially curative therapy for disease recurrence which resulted in postrecurrence disease‐free survival ≥2 years. Time‐to‐event data were analyzed using the Kaplan‐Meier method and log rank tests.

Results

Between 2011 and 2016, 210 consecutive patients were reviewed. Esophageal (14%), gastroesophageal junction (40%), and gastric adenocarcinomas (45%) were treated with surgery alone (29%) or multimodality therapy (71%). Adjuvant therapy was administered in 35%. At median follow‐up of 38.3 months, 5‐year overall survival (OS) rate was 56%. Among 97 recurrences, 53% were surveillance‐detected, and 46% were symptomatic. None was detected by surveillance endoscopy. Median time‐to‐recurrence (TTR) was 14.8 months. Recurrences included locoregional only (4%), distant (86%), and both (10%). Salvage therapy was attempted in 15 patients, 4 were successful. Compared to symptomatic recurrences, patients with surveillance‐detected recurrences had longer median OS (36.2 vs 23.7 months, P = .004) and postrecurrence survival (PRS, 16.5 vs 4.6 months, P < .001), but similar TTR (16.2 vs 13.3 months, P = .40) and duration of palliative chemotherapy (3.9 vs 3.3 months, P = .64).

Conclusions

Among patients surveyed, 96% of recurrences were distant, and salvage therapy was successful in only 1.9% of patients. Longer OS in patients with surveillance‐detected compared to symptomatic recurrences was not associated with significant earlier disease detection, and may be contributed by differences in disease biology. Further prospective data are warranted to establish the benefit of surveillance testing in gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma.

A Proposal of a Personalized Surveillance Strategy for Gastric Cancer: A Retrospective Analysis of 9191 Patients

Background

In gastric cancer, various surveillance strategies are suggested in international guidelines. The current study is intended to evaluate the current strategies and provide more personalized proposals for personalized cancer medicine.

Materials and Methods

In the aggregate, 9191 patients with gastric cancer after gastrectomy from 1998 to 2009 were selected from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database. Disease-specific survival was analyzed by Kaplan-Meier method and the log-rank test. Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used to confirm the independent prognostic factors. As well, hazard ratio (HR) curves were used to compare the risk of death over time. Conditional survival (CS) was applied to dynamically assess the prognosis after each follow-up.

Results

Comparisons from HR curves on different stages showed that earlier stages had distinctly lower HR than advanced stages. The curve of stage IIA was flat and more likely the same as that of stage I while that of stage IIB is like that of stage III with an obvious peak. After estimating CS at intervals of three months, six months, and 12 months in different periods, stages I and IIA had high levels of CS all along, while there were visible differences among CS levels of stages IIB and III.

Conclusions

The frequency of follow-up for early stages, like stages I and IIA, could be every six months or longer in the first three years and annually thereafter. And those with unfavorable conditions, such as stages IIB and III, could be followed up much more frequently and sufficiently than usual.

Primary Care Versus Oncology-Based Surveillance Following Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Resected Pancreatic Cancer

INTRODUCTION

High level evidence to guide surveillance following curative intent treatment for pancreatic cancer is lacking and this has likely resulted in wide variations in practice. We aim to describe patterns of surveillance and evaluate their impact on outcomes.

METHODS

A total of 147 adult patients who received at least one cycle of adjuvant gemcitabine or 5-fluorouracil-based chemotherapy at any one of five British Columbia Cancer Agency centers between 2001 and 2015 were included. Surveillance strategies were classified into two categories: discharged to primary care physicians (PCPs) or follow-up at cancer centers (CC) that included regular clinical assessments, laboratory testing, and/or diagnostic imaging.

RESULTS

Median age at diagnosis was 64 (range 38-85) years and 48% were men. More patients were followed by CC than by PCPs (66 vs. 44%). Among the measured prognostic factors, only patients with advanced tumor stage (T3/4) were more likely to be followed by cancer specialists (78 vs. 62%, P = 0.03), while other patient and disease characteristics were balanced between the two groups. In the entire cohort, 100 (68%) patients had a documented recurrence. Patients followed by CC were more likely to receive palliative chemotherapy at recurrence than those followed by PCPs (58 vs. 34%, respectively, P = 0.03). The median overall survival (OS) was 2.82 (95% CI 2.17-3.32) years in the CC group and 3.35 (95% CI 2.85-5.06) years in the PCP group while the median relapse-free survival (RFS) was 1.4 (95% CI 1.37-1.77) and 2.4 (95% CI 2.07-4.59) years, respectively. On multivariate analysis, there was no significant difference in OS between CC and PCP-based surveillance (HR 1.23; 95% CI 0.74-2.04, P = 0.40); however, RFS favored the PCP group (HR 1.62; 95% CI 1.01-2.56, P = 0.04, for the CC group).

CONCLUSION

In this population-based analysis, surveillance tests and imaging performed by CC detected recurrences earlier when compared to follow-up by PCPs, but this did not result in OS differences. Patients with more advanced tumors were more likely to be seen at CC. PCPs may play a larger role in the follow-up care of selected low risk patients with resected pancreatic cancer.

Postoperative follow-up programs improve survival in curatively resected gastric and junctional cancer patients: a propensity score matched analysis

BACKGROUND

To date there is no evidence that more intensive follow-up after surgery for esophagogastric adenocarcinoma translates into improved survival. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of standardized surveillance by a specialized center after resection on survival.

METHODS

Data of 587 patients were analyzed who underwent curative surgery for esophagogastric adenocarcinoma in our institution. Based on their postoperative surveillance, patients were assigned to either standardized follow-up (SFU) by the National Center for Tumor Diseases (SFU group) or individual follow-up by other physicians (non-SFU group). Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to compensate for heterogeneity between groups. Groups were compared regarding clinicopathological findings, recurrence, and impact on survival before and after PSM.

RESULTS

Of 587 patients, 32.7% were in the SFU and 67.3% in the non-SFU group. Recurrence occurred in 39.4% of patients and 92.6% within the first 3 years; 73.6% were treated, and of those 17.1% underwent resection. In recurrent patients overall and post-recurrence survival (OS/PRS) was influenced by diagnostic tools (p < 0.05), treatment (p ≤ 0.001), and resection of recurrence (p ≤ 0.001). Standardized follow-up significantly improved OS (84.9 vs. 38.4 months, p = 0.040) in matched analysis and was an independent positive predictor of OS before and after PSM (p = 0.034/0.013, respectively).

CONCLUSION

After PSM, standardized follow-up by a specialized center significantly improved OS. Cross-sectional imaging and treatment of recurrence were associated with better outcome. Regular follow-up by cross-sectional imaging especially during the first 3 years should be recommended by national guidelines, since early detection might help select patients for treatment of recurrence and even resection in few designated cases.

Follow-Up Practices of Surgeons and Medical Oncologists in Australia and New Zealand Following Resection of Esophagogastric Cancers

PURPOSE

Follow-up practices for patients who have undergone surgical resection of esophagogastric malignancies are variable and poorly documented. To better understand practice, a questionnaire was used to survey surgeons and medical oncologists to determine whether any consensus exists.

METHODS

An opt-in online questionnaire was sent to esophagogastric surgeons and medical oncologists via the membership lists for the Australian and New Zealand Gastric and Oesophageal Surgery Association (ANZGOSA), the Australian Gastro-Intestinal Trials Groups (AGITG), and the Medical Oncology Group of Australia (MOGA). The questionnaire proposed five clinical scenarios and provided a range of follow-up options for each scenario. Clinicians were asked to indicate which best matched their clinical practice.

RESULTS

Most clinicians follow patients for at least 3-5 years following resection of gastric or esophageal cancer. In total, 52% perform routine surveillance imaging, with individual scenarios not altering this. Tumor markers are infrequently used. Endoscopy and routine blood tests are used by around half the respondents.

CONCLUSION

There was little consensus about the use of investigations to monitor patients following esophagogastric cancer surgery. Choices do not follow guidelines or evidence. The identified patterns of postoperative surveillance practice appear not to be evidence based, and generally do not match recently published Australian guidelines.

Surveillance for Gastric Cancer

This article discusses the current National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines and other available Western and Eastern guidelines for the surveillance of gastric cancer following surgical resection. It reviews the literature assessing the utility of intensive surveillance strategies for gastric cancer, which fails to show an improvement in survival. The unique issues relating to follow-up of early gastric cancer and after endoscopic resection of early gastric cancer are discussed. This article also reviews the available modalities for follow-up. In addition, it briefly discusses the advancements in treatment of recurrent and metastatic disease and the implications for gastric cancer survival and surveillance strategies.

Postgastrectomy follow-up in the West: evidence base, guidelines, and daily practice

Follow-up after gastrectomy for gastric cancer has several purposes, including management of side effects of surgery, oncological recurrence surveillance, psychological support, and data collection for research. How follow-up after gastrectomy, and especially recurrence surveillance, is performed differs immensely between different Western countries, despite guidelines from Western oncological organizations quite unanimously advocating symptom-driven surveillance, without scheduled cross-sectional imaging, endoscopies, or analysis of tumor markers. Given a complete lack of randomized data, the available body of observational data does not support intensive routine surveillance for recurrent disease. Moreover, studies of other cancers have shown a negative emotional impact of routine surveillance. There is an apparent need for randomized controlled trials to address the issue of optimized strategies for postgastrectomy recurrence surveillance.