Intensified follow-up in colorectal cancer patients using frequent Carcino-Embryonic Antigen (CEA) measurements and CEA-triggered imaging: Results of the randomized "CEAwatch" trial

SEOM-GEMCAD-TTD clinical guidelines for the adjuvant treatment of colon cancer (2023)

Colorectal cancer (CRC) has a 5-year overall survival rate of over 60%. The decrease in the rate of metastatic disease is due to screening programs and the population's awareness of healthy lifestyle. Similarly, advancements in surgical methods and the use of adjuvant chemotherapy have contributed to a decrease in the recurrence of resected disease. Before evaluating a patient's treatment, it is recommended to be discussed in a multidisciplinary tumor board. In stage II tumors, the pathologic characteristics of poor prognosis must be known (T4, number of lymph nodes analyzed less than 12, lymphovascular or perineural invasion, obstruction or perforation, poor histologic grade, presence of tumor budding) and it is mandatory to determine the MSI/MMR status for avoiding administering fluoropyridimidines in monotherapy to patients with MSI-H/dMMR tumors. In stage III tumors, the standard treatment consists of a combination of fluoropyrimidine (oral or intravenous) with oxaliplatin for 6 months although the administration of CAPOX can be considered for 3 months in low-risk tumors. Neoadjuvant treatment is not consolidated yet although immunotherapy is achieving very good preliminary results in MSI-H patients. The use of ctDNA to define the treatment and monitoring of resected tumors is only recommended within studies. These guidelines are intended to help decision-making to offer the best management of patients with non-metastatic colon cancer.

Imaging in the era of risk-adapted treatment in colon cancer

The treatment landscape for patients with colon cancer is continuously evolving. Risk-adapted treatment strategies, including neoadjuvant chemotherapy and immunotherapy, are slowly finding their way into clinical practice and guidelines. Radiologists are pivotal in guiding clinicians toward the most optimal treatment for each colon cancer patient. This review provides an overview of recent and upcoming advances in the diagnostic management of colon cancer and the radiologist's role in the multidisciplinary approach to treating colon cancer.

Non-metastatic colon cancer: French Intergroup Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatments, and follow-up (TNCD, SNFGE, FFCD, GERCOR, UNICANCER, SFCD, SFED, SFRO, ACHBT, SFP, AFEF, and SFR)

INTRODUCTION

This article is a summary of the French intergroup guidelines regarding the management of non-metastatic colon cancer (CC), revised in November 2022.

METHODS

These guidelines represent collaborative work of all French medical and surgical societies involved in the management of CC. Recommendations were graded in three categories (A, B, and C) according to the level of evidence found in the literature published up to November 2022.

RESULTS

Initial evaluation of CC is based on clinical examination, colonoscopy, chest-abdomen-pelvis computed tomography (CT) scan, and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) assay. CC is usually managed by surgery and adjuvant treatment depending on the pathological findings. The use of adjuvant therapy remains a challenging question in stage II disease. For high-risk stage II CC, adjuvant chemotherapy must be discussed and fluoropyrimidine monotherapy or oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy proposed according to the type and number of poor prognostic features. Oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy (FOLFOX or CAPOX) is the current standard for adjuvant therapy of patients with stage III CC. However, these regimens are associated with significant oxaliplatin-induced neurotoxicity. The results of the recent IDEA study provide evidence that 3 months of treatment with CAPOX is as effective as 6 months of oxaliplatin-based therapy in patients with low-risk stage III CC (T1-3 and N1). A 6-month oxaliplatin-based therapy remains the standard of care for high-risk stage III CC (T4 and/or N2). For patients unfit for oxaliplatin, fluoropyrimidine monotherapy is recommended.

CONCLUSION

French guidelines for non-metastatic CC management help to offer the best personalized therapeutic strategy in daily clinical practice. Each individual case must be discussed within a multidisciplinary tumor board and then the treatment option decided with the patient.

Patient experiences with patient-led, home-based follow-up after curative treatment for colorectal cancer: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVES

The number of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) in need of oncological follow-up is growing. As a response, patient-led, home-based follow-up (PHFU) was developed, implemented and assessed. The aim of this study was to investigate how patients experienced PHFU.

DESIGN

A qualitative study with individual semistructured interviews. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, and thematically analysed through an inductive, double-coding approach.

SETTING

A university medical centre in the Netherlands.

PARTICIPANTS

12 curatively treated patients with CRC who received PHFU were included after purposive sampling.

RESULTS

Overall, participants (N=12) were satisfied with PHFU. The time and cost-saving aspects for patient and hospital were evidently valued. PHFU was experienced as a shared effort, but patients felt like the primary responsibility remained in the hospital. Patients mentioned a decreased personal interaction with their healthcare provider (HCP) and felt a higher threshold to ask for help. However, all major questions were still addressed. Patients felt sufficiently competent to interpret their individual test results but experienced difficulty in interpreting repeated increases in carcinoembryonic antigen levels within the normal range. Educational status, age and a complicated disease course were seen as factors limiting the applicability of PHFU, and it was expressed that PHFU should be offered as an alternative instead of a novel standard of care.

CONCLUSIONS

According to patients, PHFU has great potential. However, PHFU may not be suitable for every CRC patient, and factors such as educational status, age and disease course should be taken into consideration. Patient and HCP have a shared responsibility to help successfully organise PHFU in practice.

A critical appraisal of the potential benefit of post-operative structured follow-up after resection for biliary tract cancer

BACKGROUND

There is currently no evidence to support structured use of imaging or biomarkers during follow-up of patients after curative resection of biliary tract cancer (BTC). Besides, the influence of early detection of recurrence and subsequent start of palliative chemotherapy on overall survival remains unknown. The aim of this study is to describe and compare the results of two follow-up strategies.

METHODS

This retrospective multicenter cohort study compared patients from the Amsterdam UMC undergoing pragmatic clinical follow-up, to patients from the observational cohort of the BILCAP study undergoing structured follow-up. Primary outcome was overall survival.

RESULTS

A total of 315 patients were included n=91 pragmatic, n=224 structured follow-up). At median follow-up of 56.9 months, 189 (60%) patients were diagnosed with recurrence. After recurrence, more patients received palliative (chemo) therapy in the structured group (43% vs 75%, P<0.001). Median overall survival was lower in the pragmatic group (27.7 vs 39.1 months, P=0.003). Median overall survival of patients who actually received chemotherapy was comparable (27.2 vs 27.7 months, P=0.574).

CONCLUSION

This study describes the results of two follow-up strategies. Although these groups are biased, it is noted that after pragmatic follow-up fewer patients received palliative chemotherapy but that those who actually received chemotherapy had similar overall survival compared to patients undergoing structured follow-up.

Metachronous colorectal cancer metastasis: Who, what, when and what to do about it

Metachronous colorectal cancer (CRC) metastasis occurs due to micrometastatic disease, in up to 23% of patients who have undergone curative-intent treatment. Metachronous metastasis tends to occur within 2 years of initial treatment. Diagnosis relies on posttreatment surveillance strategies. Care for patients with metachronous CRC metastasis is complex and requires careful multidisciplinary consideration. Those with isolated and technically resectable diseases are recommended to undergo metastasectomy with adjunct chemotherapy, however, survival, even after curative-intent resection, is poor.

Tumor Marker Trajectories and Survival Analysis in Patients With Normal Carcinoembryonic Antigen Ranges After Colorectal Cancer Resection

BACKGROUND

Evidence regarding postoperative CEA for predicting long-term outcomes of colorectal cancer remains controversial, especially in patients with normal postoperative CEA.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the risk difference among different postoperative CEA trajectories in patients with normal postoperative CEA after curative colorectal cancer resection.

DESIGN

This cohort study was conducted at a comprehensive cancer center and included data retrieved from a prospectively collected database between January 2006 and December 2018.

SETTINGS

Retrospective cohort study.

PATIENTS

Patients with colorectal cancer who underwent surgery for primary stage I to III colorectal adenocarcinoma were included and those with postoperative CEA >5 ng/mL were excluded.

INTERVENTIONS

Standard curative radical resection was performed.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Ten-year overall survival and disease-free survival were analyzed.

RESULTS

The study population (n = 8156) was categorized into 6 trajectories: persistent-ultralow (n = 2351), persistent-low (n = 2474), gradually decrease (n = 401), persistent-medium (n = 1727), slightly increase (n = 909), and around-upper-limit (n = 394). The median follow-up time was 7.8 years, and the median time frame in which CEA was measured to determine trajectory was 2.6 years. The persistent-ultralow group had the highest 10-year overall survival (85.1%) and disease-free survival (82.7%). The around-upper-limit group had the lowest 10-year overall survival (55.5%) and disease-free survival (53.4%). The adjusted HR trend was comparable to the crude HR of the persistent-ultralow group. Consequently, the higher initial serum CEA groups had higher HRs of overall survival and disease-free survival. The adjusted HR of overall survival was 2.96 (95% CI, 2.39-3.66) and of disease-free survival was 2.66 (95% CI, 2.18-3.69) for the around-upper-limit groups.

LIMITATIONS

Retrospective design.

CONCLUSIONS

The postoperative serum CEA trajectory is an independent factor associated with long-term outcomes. Although CEA levels were all within normal range, higher levels of postoperative serum CEA trajectory correlated with worse long-term oncological outcomes. See Video Abstract.

TRAYECTORIAS DE MARCADORES TUMORALES Y ANLISIS DE SUPERVIVENCIA EN PACIENTES CON RANGOS NORMALES DE ANTGENO CARCINOEMBRIONARIO POSTERIOR A RESECCIN DE CNCER COLORRECTAL

ANTECEDENTES:La evidencia sobre el CEA post operatorio para la predicción de los resultados a largo plazo del cáncer colorrectal sigue siendo controversial, especialmente en pacientes con CEA post quirúrgico normal.OBJETIVO:Investigar la diferencia de riesgo entre diferentes trayectorias postoperatorias del CEA en pacientes con CEA post quirúrgico normal tras la resección curativa del cáncer colorrectal.DISEÑO:Este estudio de cohorte se realizó en un centro oncológico integral e incluyó datos recuperados de una base de datos recopilada prospectivamente entre enero de 2006 y diciembre de 2018.AJUSTES:Estudio de cohorte retrospectivo.PACIENTES:Se incluyeron pacientes con el diagnostico de CCR que fueron sometidos a cirugía por adenocarcinoma colorrectal primario en estadio I-III. Se excluyeron pacientes con CEA postoperatorio >5 ng/mL.INTERVENCIONES:Se realizó una resección radical curativa estandarizada.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Se analizaron la supervivencia general a diez años y la supervivencia libre de enfermedad.RESULTADOS:La población de estudio (n = 8156) fue clasificada en seis trayectorias, que incluyeron ultrabajo persistente (n = 2351), bajo persistente (n = 2474), disminución gradual (n = 401), medio persistente (n = 1727), aumento leve (n = 909) y alrededor del límite superior (n = 394). La mediana del tiempo de seguimiento fue de 7,8 años y la mediana del período de tiempo en el que el CEA fue medido para determinar la trayectoria fue de 2,6 años. El grupo ultrabajo persistente tuvo la mayor supervivencia general a 10 años (85,1 %) y supervivencia libre de enfermedad (82,7 %). El grupo alrededor del límite superior tuvo la supervivencia general a 10 años más baja (55,5 %) y la supervivencia libre de enfermedad (53,4 %). La tendencia del índice de riesgo ajustado fue comparable al índice de riesgo bruto del grupo ultrabajo persistente. En consecuencia, los grupos con CEA sérico iniciales más altos tenían índices de riesgos más altos de supervivencia general y supervivencia libre de enfermedad. Los índices de riesgos ajustados de supervivencia general/supervivencia libre de enfermedad fueron 2,96/2,66 (intervalo de confianza del 95 %: 2,39-3,66/2,18-3,69) para los grupos cercanos al límite superior.LIMITACIONES:El estudio estuvo limitado por su diseño retrospectivo.CONCLUSIONES:La trayectoria del CEA sérico postoperatorio es un factor independiente asociado con resultados a largo plazo. Aunque los niveles de CEA se encontraban todos dentro del rango normal, los niveles más altos de trayectoria del CEA en suero posoperatorio se correlacionaron con peores resultados oncológicos a largo plazo. (Traducción-Dr Osvaldo Gauto ).

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.

Two-dimensional substrate assisted SERS immunosensor for accurate detection of carcinoembryonic antigen

Accurate and sensitive detection of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) is essential for the detection of various diseases in healthcare and the medical field. Currently, due to the high false negative rate of CEA assay in clinical setting and its use as a common indicator for early cancer screening, a novel CEA detection method with high sensitivity, increased specificity and the lower cost has become a clinical challenge. Here, a facile sandwich type immunosensor based on surface-enhanced Raman scattering (SERS) was presented including 4-mercaptobenzonitrile (4MBN) labeled gold core-silver shell nanoparticles (Au@4MBN@Ag NPs) as SERS tag and 4-mercaptophenylboronic acid (4-MPBA) functionalized two-dimensional (2D) silver nanoparticle film (Ag FM) as SERS capture substrate for CEA detection. A linearity of 10-9-10-14M was observed with high sensitivity and excellent selectivity for the detection of CEA. Additionally, the spiking experiment yielded 105.33-127.00% recovery with variation coefficients below 10% demonstrating high assay accuracy and precision. The immunosensor we proposed here is a promising approach to quantify CEA in liquid biopsy samples with high sensitivity, which could be further developed for early cancer screening.

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.

Towards patient-led follow-up after curative surgical resection of stage I, II and III colorectal cancer (DISTANCE-trial): a study protocol for a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is among the most frequently diagnosed cancers. Approximately 20-30% of stage I-III CRC patients develop a recurrent tumour or metastases after curative surgical resection. Post-operative follow-up is indicated for the first five years after curative surgical resection. As intensified follow-up after curative surgical resection has shown no effect on survival, patient organisations and policy makers have advocated for a more patient-centred approach to follow-up. The objective of this study is to successfully implement patient-led, home-based follow-up (PHFU) in six hospitals in The Netherlands, with as ultimate aim to come to a recommendation for a patient-centred follow-up schedule for stage I-III CRC patients treated with surgical resection with curative intent.

METHODS

This study is designed as a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial (SW-CRT) in six participating centres. During the trial, three centres will implement PHFU after six months; the other three centres will implement PHFU after 12 months of inclusion in the control group. Eligible patients are those with pT2-4N0M0 or pT1-4N1-2M0 CRC, who are 18 years or older and have been free of disease for 12 months after curative surgical resection. The studied intervention is PHFU, starting 12 months after curative resection. The in-hospital, standard-of-care follow-up currently implemented in the participating centres functions as the comparator. The proportion of patients who had contact with the hospital regarding CRC follow-up between 12-24 months after curative surgical resection is the primary endpoint of this study. Quality of life, fear of cancer recurrence, patient satisfaction, cost-effectiveness and survival are the secondary endpoints.

DISCUSSION

The results of this study will provide evidence on whether nationwide implementation of PHFU for CRC in The Netherlands will be successful in reducing contact between patient and health care provider. Comparison of PROMs between in-hospital follow-up and PHFU will be provided. Moreover, the cost-effectiveness of PHFU will be assessed.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Dutch Trail Register (NTR): NL9266 (Registered on January 1st, 2021).

Using Machine Learning to Leverage Biomarker Change and Predict Colorectal Cancer Recurrence

PURPOSE

The risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) recurrence after primary treatment varies across individuals and over time. Using patients' most up-to-date information, including carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) biomarker profiles, to predict risk could improve personalized decision making.

METHODS

We used electronic health record data from an integrated health system on a cohort of patients diagnosed with American Joint Committee on Cancer stage I-III CRC between 2008 and 2013 (N = 3,970) and monitored until recurrence or end of follow-up. We addressed missingness in recurrence outcomes and longitudinal CEA measures, and engineered CEA features using current and past biomarker values for inclusion in a risk prediction model. We used a discrete time Superlearner model to evaluate various algorithms for predicting recurrence. We evaluated the time-varying discrimination and calibration of the algorithms and assessed the role of individual predictors.

RESULTS

Recurrence was documented in 448 (11.3%) patients. XGBoost with depth = 1 (XGB-D1) predicted recurrence substantially better than all other algorithms at all time points, with AUC ranging from 0.87 (95% CI, 0.86 to 0.88) at 6 months to 0.94 (95% CI, 0.92 to 0.96) at 54 months. The only variable used by XGB-D1 was 6-month change in log CEA. Predicted 1-year risk of recurrence was nearly zero for patients whose log CEA did not increase in the last 6 months, between 12.2% and 34.1% for patients whose log CEA increased between 0.10 and 0.40, and 43.6% for those with a log CEA increase >0.40. Compared with XGB, penalized regression approaches (lasso, ridge, and elastic net) performed poorly, with AUCs ranging from 0.58 to 0.69.

CONCLUSION

A flexible, machine learning approach that incorporated longitudinal CEA information yielded a simple and high-performing model for predicting recurrence on the basis of 6-month change in log CEA.

Is frequent measurement of tumor markers beneficial for postoperative surveillance of colorectal cancer?

PURPOSE

To determine whether frequent measurement of tumor markers triggers early detection of colorectal cancer recurrence.

METHODS

Of 1,651 consecutive patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery between 2010 and 2016, 1,050 were included. CEA and CA 19-9 were considered to be postoperative tumor markers and were measured every 3 months for 3 years, and then every 6 months for 2 years. Sensitivity analysis of elevated CEA and CA19-9 levels and multivariate analysis of factors associated with elevated CEA and CA19-9 levels were performed. The proportion of triggers for detecting recurrence was determined.

RESULTS

The median follow-up period was 5.3 years. After applying the exclusion criteria, 1,050 patients were analyzed, 176 (16.8%) of whom were found to have recurrence. After excluding patients with persistently elevated CEA and CA19-9 levels before and after surgery from the 176 patients, 71 (43.6%) of 163 patients had elevated CEA levels and 35 (20.2%) of 173 patients had elevated CA19-9 levels. Sensitivity/positive predictive values for elevated CEA and CA19-9 levels at recurrence were 43.6%/32.3% and 20.2%/32.4%, respectively. Lymph node metastasis was a factor associated with both elevated CEA and CA19-9 levels at recurrence. Of the 176 patients, computed tomography triggered the detection of recurrence in 137 (78%) and elevated tumor marker levels in 13 (7%); the diagnostic lead interval in the latter 13 patients was 1.7 months.

CONCLUSION

Tumor marker measurements in surveillance after radical colorectal cancer resection contribute little to early detection, and frequent measurements are unnecessary for stage I patients with low risk of recurrence.

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.

High Yield of Chest X-ray in the Follow-Up of Colorectal Cancer

Purpose: Worldwide, colorectal carcinoma (CRC) has a high incidence and a substantial cancer-related mortality. The recurrence risk is 30–50% and lung metastases are common. Treatment of lung metastases with stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) or metastasectomy may increase survival. The best modality for thoracic screening in the follow-up, however, remains controversial. In this study, we aimed to unravel the additional value of routine chest X-ray (CXR) for detecting lung metastases during the follow-up of CRC patients treated with curative surgery. Methods: Between 2013 and 2017, 668 CRC patients were treated with curative intent, of whom 633 patients were included in follow-up, which consisted of CXR, serum Carcino-Embryonic Antigen (CEA) and ultrasound of the liver. Patients who developed lung metastases, diagnosed with CXR and characterised by a normal concomitant serum CEA level, were identified. Number, size and treatment of lung metastases were described. Results: Thirty-four (5.4%) patients developed lung metastases. Seventeen (50%) were detected by CXR without pathological CEA levels. Eleven (65%) of these patients were treated with curative intent, whereas 21% of patients with lung metastases and elevated CEA levels were treated with curative intent (p = 0.049). Higher numbers of lung metastases were associated with a lower chance of curative treatment. Conclusions: More than 50% of patients with lung metastases on CXR in the follow-up would not have been detected with CEA-triggered imaging only. In addition, patients with colorectal lung metastases without elevated CEA levels were often suitable for curative treatment and, therefore, CXR seems to have additional value within the follow-up of CRC.

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.

Current Surveillance After Treatment is Not Sufficient for Patients With Rectal Cancer With Negative Baseline CEA

BACKGROUND

Serum CEA has been widely used to screen for potential recurrent disease after resection in rectal cancer. However, the influence of baseline CEA on the performance of CEA in recurrence surveillance needs to be investigated.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This longitudinal cohort study included 484 patients with nonmetastatic rectal cancer from 18,013 patients in a prospectively enrolled institutional database program of colorectal disease. Baseline CEA levels were determined before treatment, and CEA-based follow-up tests and examinations were applied in the surveillance after treatment.

RESULTS

A total of 62.6% (62/99) overall, 53.5% (23/43) local, and 64.9% (50/77) distant recurrences were seen in patients who had similar CEA levels with their baseline statuses. The sensitivity of elevated CEA levels during surveillance for overall recurrence was significantly lower in patients with negative baseline CEA than in those with elevated baseline CEA levels (41.3% vs 69.4%; P =.007). Moreover, similar results were observed in the surveillance for local (50% vs 61.5%; P =.048) and distant (39.6% vs 72.4%; P =.005) recurrences between these 2 patient groups. However, CEA had comparable and excellent specificity during surveillance for recurrent disease in these groups. The addition of CA19-9 to the CEA assay significantly improved the sensitivity in recurrence surveillance for patients with negative baseline CEA (49.2% vs 41.3%; P =.037). Finally, we identified a subgroup of CEA-turn recurrences characterized by negative CEA at baseline, elevated CEA at recurrence, and worse survival outcomes after recurrence (hazard ratio, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.07-3.30; P =.026).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with rectal cancer with negative baseline CEA, serum CEA had insufficient sensitivity in recurrence surveillance after treatment, and additional surveillance may improve oncologic outcomes. Baseline CEA should be considered before CEA-based surveillance can be applied in the follow-up trials.

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.

Treatment Strategies and Prognosis of Patients With Synchronous or Metachronous Colorectal Peritoneal Metastases: A Population-Based Study

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to compare treatment strategies and survival of patients with synchronous colorectal peritoneal metastases (CPM) and patients with metachronous CPM in a nationwide cohort.

METHODS

All patients from the Netherlands Cancer Registry with synchronous or metachronous CPM whose primary colorectal cancer (CRC) was diagnosed between 1 January and 30 June 2015 were included in the study. Treatments were categorized as (A) cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy [CRS-HIPEC]; (B) palliative treatment; or (C) best supportive care. Overall survival (OS) for all the patients and disease-free survival (DFS) for those who underwent CRS-HIPEC were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

Of 7233 patients, 743 had a diagnosis of CPM, including 409 patients with synchronous CPM and 334 patients with metachronous CPM. The median OS was 8.1 months for the patients with synchronous CPM versus 12 months for the patients with metachronous CPM (p = 0.003). After multivariable correction, OS no longer differed between the patients with synchronous CPM and those with metachronous CPM (HR 1.03 [0.83-1.27]). The patients with metachronous CPM more often underwent CRS-HIPEC than the patients with synchronous CPM (16 % vs 8 %; p = 0.001). The two groups did not differ statistically in terms of DFS and OS (median DFS, 21.5 vs 14.1 months, respectively; p = 0.094; median OS, 37.8 vs. 35.8 months, respectively; p = 0.553).

CONCLUSION

This population-based study showed that survival for the patients with synchronous CPM and patients with metachronous CPM did not significantly differ. This suggests that a similar prognosis may be expected for patients selected for treatment regardless of the onset of CPM.

The impact of socioeconomic status on survival in stage III colon cancer patients: A retrospective cohort study using the SEER census-tract dataset

Background

The impact of socioeconomic status (SES) has been described for screening and accessing treatment for colon cancer. However, little is known about the “downstream” effect in patients who receive guideline‐concordant treatment. This study assessed the impact of SES on cancer‐specific survival (CSS) and overall survival (OS) for stage III colon cancer patients.

Methods

The SEER Census Tract‐Level SES Dataset from 2004 to 2015 was used to identify stage III colon adenocarcinoma patients who received curative‐intent surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy. The predictor variable was census tract SES. SES was analyzed as quintiles. The outcome variables were OR and CSS. Statistical analysis included chi square tests for association, Kaplan–Meier, Cox, Fine and Gray regression for survival analysis.

Results

In total, 27,222 patients met inclusion criteria. Lower SES was associated with younger age, Black or Hispanic race/ethnicity, Medicaid/uninsured, higher T stage, and lower grade tumors. CSS at the 25th percentile was 54 months for the lowest SES quintile and 80 for the highest. Median OS was 113 months for the lowest SES quintile and not reached for highest. The 5‐year CSS rate was 72.4% for the lowest SES quintile compared to 78.9% in the highest (p < 0.001). The 5‐year OS rate was 66.5% for the lowest SES quintile and 74.6% in the highest (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

This is the first study to evaluate CSS and OS in an incidence‐based cohort of stage III colon cancer patients using a granular, standardized measure of SES. Despite receipt of guideline‐based treatment, SES was associated with disparities in CSS and OS.

No benefit of more intense follow-up after surgery for colorectal cancer in the risk group with elevated CEA levels - An analysis within the COLOFOL randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Patients with colorectal cancer were examined to determine (1) whether elevated carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) levels, either before treatment or after surgery, was associated with an increased risk of overall or colorectal cancer-specific mortality or recurrence, and (2) whether high intensity follow-up would benefit those patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Post-hoc analysis based on 2509 patients that underwent surgery for colorectal cancer, stage II or III, in the COLOFOL randomized trial with 5-year follow-up. Serum CEA levels were ascertained before treatment and one month after surgery. Follow-up examinations included computed tomography of the thorax and abdomen and serum CEA sampling. Patients were randomized to examinations at either 6, 12, 18, 24, and 36 months (high-intensity group) or at 12 and 36 months after surgery (low-intensity group). Levels of CEA >5 μg/l were defined as elevated.

RESULTS

Elevated CEA levels before treatment were associated with increased risk of recurrence (hazard ratio [HR], 1.49; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.22-1.83), colorectal cancer-specific mortality (HR, 1.44; 95% CI: 1.08-1.91), and overall mortality (HR, 1.38; 95% CI: 1.07-1.78). Elevated CEA levels after surgery were associated with increased colorectal cancer-specific mortality (HR, 1.68; 95% CI: 1.08-2.61) and overall mortality (HR, 1.79; 95% CI: 1.22-2.63). The intensity of the follow-up regimen had no effect on 5-year outcomes in patients with elevated CEA levels.

CONCLUSION

Both pre-treatment and post-surgery elevated serum CEA levels were associated with increased overall and cancer-specific mortality. Intensified follow-up showed no benefit over low-intensity follow-up in this high-risk group of patients with elevated CEA levels.

Radiological Surveillance Post-Curative Colorectal Cancer Resection: Is There a Need for a Targeted Protocol?

Background

The frequency of radiological surveillance after curative colorectal cancer resection has long been a controversial issue with the need to balance potential harm from ionizing radiation and the financial burden of intense surveillance against advantages of early detection of recurrent disease. NICE guidelines issued in 2018 suggested having two surveillance computed tomography (CT) scans within three years of surgery without specifying the timing or the interval.

Aim

To examine whether an evidence-based flexible approach based on individual patients’ risk factors can add value to surveillance protocols. Reaching a targeted protocol that can maximize early detection of metastasis without consumption of resources and most important without compromising patient safety.

Methodology

A retrospective study involving five years of data of patients who underwent curative colorectal cancer resections. Data extracted after patients completed their three-year surveillance CT scans, CT reports retrieved together with post-operative histology reports, and a detailed database was constructed.

Results

Of 179 patients included, 66 developed recurrence (7 local and 59 distant). Recurrence increased from 23.5% in T1 to 66% in T4 (P=0.0001). The median time to recurrence 23 months in T4 disease compared to 36, 42 and 43 months for stages T1, T2 and T3, respectively (P=0.0001). A similar incremental increase in recurrence noted from 22% in the N0 stage to 73.5% in the N2 stage (P=0.0001); the median time to recurrence of 14 months in N2 patients compared to 45 and 33 months for stages N0 and N1, respectively (P=0.0001). Recurrence correlated well with positive extramural vascular invasion (EMVI) status, (71.7% versus 19.3% P=0.0001) being detected significantly earlier in EMVI positive group at 17 versus 45 months (P=0.0001).

Conclusion

Flexible protocol for radiological surveillance after curative resection of colorectal cancer, based on known pathological prognostic factors, is likely to be more effective in maximizing resource utilization as well as improving patient outcomes.

Diagnostic accuracy of follow-up tests for detecting colorectal cancer recurrences in primary care: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction

Traditionally, follow‐up of colorectal cancer (CRC) is performed in secondary care. In new models of care, the screening part care could be replaced to primary care. We aimed to synthesise evidence on the diagnostic accuracy of commonly used screeners in CRC follow‐up applicable in primary care: carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), ultrasound and physical examination.

Methods

Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Trial Register and Web of Science databases were systematically searched. Studies were included if they provided sufficient data for a 2 × 2 contingency tables. QUADAS‐2 was used to assess methodological quality. We performed bivariate random effects meta‐analysis, generated a hypothetical cohort, and reported sensitivity and specificity.

Results

We included 12 studies (n = 3223, median recurrence rate 19.6%). Pooled estimates showed a sensitivity for CEA (≤ 5 μg/l) of 59% [47%–70%] and a specificity of 89% [80%–95%]. Only few studies reported sensitivities and specificities for ultrasound (36–70% and 97–100%, respectively) and clinical examination (23% and 27%, respectively).

Conclusion

In practice, GPs could perform CEA screening. Radiological examination in a hospital setting should remain part of the surveillance strategy. Personalised algorithms accounting for recurrence risk and changes of CEA‐values over time might add to the diagnostic value of CEA in primary care.

High-resolution MRI-based radiomics analysis to predict lymph node metastasis and tumor deposits respectively in rectal cancer

PURPOSE

To establish and validate two predictive radiomics models for preoperative prediction of lymph node metastases (LNMs) and tumor deposits (TDs) respectively in rectal cancer (RC) patients.

METHODS

A total of 139 RC patients (98 in the training cohort and 41 in the validation cohort) were enrolled in the present study. High-resolution magnetic resonance images (HRMRI) were retrieved for tumor segmentation and feature extraction. HRMRI findings of RC were assessed by three experienced radiologists. Two radiomics nomograms were established by integrating the clinical risk factors, HRMRI findings and radiomics signature.

RESULTS

The predictive nomogram of LNMs showed good predictive performance (area under the curve [AUC], 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.83-0.96) which was better than clinico-radiological (AUC, 0.83; 95% CI 0.74-0.93; Delong test, p = 0.017) or radiomics signature-only model (AUC, 0.77; 95% CI 0.67-0.86; Delong test, p = 0.003) in training cohort. Application of the nomogram in the validation cohort still exhibited good performance (AUC, 0.87; 95% CI 0.76-0.98). The accuracy, sensitivity and specificity of the combined model in predicting LNMs was 0.86,0.79 and 0.91 in training cohort and 0.83,0.85 and 0.82 in validation cohort. As for TDs, the predictive efficacy of the nomogram (AUC, 0.82; 95% CI 0.71-0.93) was not significantly higher than radiomics signature-only model (AUC, 0.80; 95% CI 0.69-0.92; Delong test, p = 0.71). Radiomics signature-only model was adopted to predict TDs with accuracy=0.76, sensitivity=0.72 and specificity=0.94 in training cohort and 0.68, 0.62 and 0.97 in validation cohort.

CONCLUSION

HRMRI-based radiomics models could be helpful for the prediction of LNMs and TDs preoperatively in RC patients.

Comprehensive literature review of randomized clinical trials examining novel treatment advances in patients with colon cancer

The treatment of colon cancer has had numerous recent advances, in terms of surgical approach, adjuvant therapies, and more. In this review, the authors examine randomized clinical trials comparing open surgery to laparoscopic surgery (including total mesocolic excision), and also examine the role of robotic surgery. Novel surgical techniques including the no-touch technique, side-to-side anastomosis, suture technique, complete mesocolic excision (CME) with central vascular ligation (CVL), and natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) are outlined. The role of placing endoscopic self-expandable metal stents (SEMS) for colonic obstruction is compared and contrasted with the surgical approach, and the effect that the anti-VEGF inhibitor bevacizumab may have on this side effect profile is further explored. The role of the resection of the primary tumor in the setting of metastatic disease is examined with respect to survival benefit. Pathways of perioperative care which can accelerate post-surgical recovery, including enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) are examined. The role of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with high-risk stage II and patients with stage III disease is examined, along with the role on circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) as well as with the biologic targeted agents cetuximab and bevacizumab. Lastly, the authors detail the postoperative surveillance schedules after surgical resection with respect to survival outcomes.

Feasibility of volatile organic compound in breath analysis in the follow-up of colorectal cancer: A pilot study

BACKGROUND

Colorectal carcinoma (CRC) has a worldwide incidence of 1.4 million patients and a large share in cancer-related mortality. After curative treatment, the risk of recurrence is 30-65%. Early detection may result in curative treatment. However, current follow-up (FU) examinations have low sensitivity ranging from 49 to 85% and are associated with high costs. Therefore, the search for a new diagnostic tool is justified. Analysis of volatile organic compound in exhaled air through an electronic nose (eNose) is a promising new patient-friendly diagnostic tool. We studied whether the eNose under investigation, the Aeonose™, is able to detect local recurrence or metastases of CRC.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study we included 62 patients, all of whom underwent curative treatment for CRC in the past 5 years. Thirty-six of them had no metastases and 26 had extraluminal local recurrence or metastases of CRC, detected during FU. Breath testing was performed and machine learning was used to predict extraluminal recurrences or metastases, and based on the receiver operating characteristics (ROC)-curve both sensitivity and specificity were calculated.

RESULTS

The eNose identified extra luminal local recurrences or metastases of CRC with a sensitivity and specificity of 0.88 (CI 0.69-0.97) and 0.75 (CI 0.57-0.87), respectively, with an overall accuracy of 0.81.

DISCUSSION

This eNose may be a promising tool in detecting extraluminal local recurrences or metastases in the FU of curatively treated CRC. However, a well-designed prospective study is warranted to show its accuracy and predictive value before it can be used in clinical practice.

Health care provider and patient preparedness for alternative colorectal cancer follow-up; a review

Follow-up after curative treatment for colorectal cancer (CRC) puts pressure on outpatient services due to the growing number of CRC survivors. The aim of this state-of-the-art review was to evaluate setting, manner and provider of follow-up. Moreover, perceptions of CRC survivors and health care providers regarding standard and alternative follow-up were examined. After a comprehensive literature search of the PubMed database, 69 articles were included reporting on CRC follow-up in the hospital, primary care and home setting. Hospital-based follow-up is most common and has been provided by surgeons, medical oncologists, and gastroenterologists, as well as nurses. Primary care-based follow-up has been provided by general practitioners or nurses. Even though most hospital- or primary care-based follow-up care requires patients to visit the clinic, telephone-based care has proven to be a feasible alternative. Most patients perceived follow-up as positive; valuing screening and detection for disease recurrence and appreciating support for physical and psychosocial symptoms. Hospital-based follow-up performed by the medical specialist or nurse is highly preferred by patients and health care providers. However, willingness of both patients and health care providers for alternative, primary care or remote follow-up exists. Nurse-led and GP-led follow-up have proven to be cost-effective alternatives compared to specialist-led follow-up. If proven safe and acceptable, remote follow-up can become a cost-effective alternative. To decrease the personal and financial burden of follow-up for a growing number of colorectal cancer survivors, a more acceptable, flexible and dynamic care follow-up mode consisting of enhanced communication and role definitions among clinicians is warranted.

Virtual Colorectal Cancer Surveillance: Bringing Scope Rate to Target

BACKGROUND

Although endoscopy is recommended at 1 year after colorectal cancer (CRC) resection to detect locally recurrent CRC, earlier work at our Veterans Affairs (VA) facility demonstrated that 35% of patients achieve this metric.

STUDY DESIGN

The interdisciplinary team used quality improvement methods to standardize processes and implement a gastroenterology-managed virtual surveillance clinic. The intervention clinic was implemented in August 2014. Veterans who underwent resection for stage I to III CRC at a single VA facility from January 2010 to December 2017 were included, with those undergoing resection between January 2010 and July 2014 considered pre-intervention and those undergoing resection between August 2014 and December 2017 considered post-intervention. The primary endpoint was the proportion of eligible patients for whom endoscopy was completed within 1 year of resection. Secondary outcomes were the proportion of patients who completed endoscopy within 18 months of resection or at any time post-resection and time to surveillance endoscopy.

RESULTS

A total of 186 patients underwent resection for stage I to III CRC from 2010 to 2017; of these, 160 (86%) were eligible for endoscopy at 1-year post-resection (98 pre-intervention and 62 post-intervention). In the pre-intervention period, 30 of 98 patients (30.6%) underwent surveillance endoscopy within 1 year vs 31 of 62 (50.0%) post-intervention (p = 0.031). When evaluated at 18 months after resection, 56 of 98 patients (57.1%) in the pre-intervention group vs 52 of 62 (83.9%) in the post-intervention group underwent surveillance endoscopy (p = 0.001). Median time from resection to endoscopy decreased during the study period, from 1.19 years pre-intervention (interquartile range 0.93 to 1.74 years) to 1.0 years post-intervention (interquartile range 0.93 to 1.09 years) (p = 0.006).

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of a virtual surveillance clinic with standardized processes was associated with increased guideline-concordant endoscopic surveillance after CRC resection.

British Society of Gastroenterology/Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland/Public Health England post-polypectomy and post-colorectal cancer resection surveillance guidelines

These consensus guidelines were jointly commissioned by the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG), the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (ACPGBI) and Public Health England (PHE). They provide an evidence-based framework for the use of surveillance colonoscopy and non-colonoscopic colorectal imaging in people aged 18 years and over. They are the first guidelines that take into account the introduction of national bowel cancer screening. For the first time, they also incorporate surveillance of patients following resection of either adenomatous or serrated polyps and also post-colorectal cancer resection. They are primarily aimed at healthcare professionals, and aim to address:Which patients should commence surveillance post-polypectomy and post-cancer resection?What is the appropriate surveillance interval?When can surveillance be stopped? two or more premalignant polyps including at least one advanced colorectal polyp (defined as a serrated polyp of at least 10 mm in size or containing any grade of dysplasia, or an adenoma of at least 10 mm in size or containing high-grade dysplasia); or five or more premalignant polyps The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument provided a methodological framework for the guidelines. The BSG's guideline development process was used, which is National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) compliant.two or more premalignant polyps including at least one advanced colorectal polyp (defined as a serrated polyp of at least 10 mm in size or containing any grade of dysplasia, or an adenoma of at least 10 mm in size or containing high-grade dysplasia); or five or more premalignant polyps The key recommendations are that the high-risk criteria for future colorectal cancer (CRC) following polypectomy comprise either:two or more premalignant polyps including at least one advanced colorectal polyp (defined as a serrated polyp of at least 10 mm in size or containing any grade of dysplasia, or an adenoma of at least 10 mm in size or containing high-grade dysplasia); or five or more premalignant polyps This cohort should undergo a one-off surveillance colonoscopy at 3 years. Post-CRC resection patients should undergo a 1 year clearance colonoscopy, then a surveillance colonoscopy after 3 more years.

Major differences in follow-up practice of patients with colorectal cancer; results of a national survey in the Netherlands

BACKGROUND

The precise content and frequency of follow-up of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) is variable and guideline adherence is low. The aim of this study was to assess the view of colorectal surgeons on their local follow-up schedule and to clarify their opinions about risk-stratification and organ preserving therapies. Equally important, adherence to the Dutch national guidelines was determined.

METHODS

Colorectal surgeons were invited to complete a web-based survey about the importance and interval of clinical follow-up, CEA monitoring and the use of imaging modalities. Furthermore, the opinions regarding physical examination, risk-stratification, organ preserving strategies, and follow-up setting were assessed. Data were analyzed using quantitative and qualitative analysis methods.

RESULTS

A total of 106 colorectal surgeons from 52 general and 5 university hospitals filled in the survey, yielding a hospital response rate of 74% and a surgeon response rate of 42%. The follow-up of patients with CRC was mainly done by surgeons (71%). The majority of the respondents (68%) did not routinely perform physical examination during follow-up of rectal patients. Abdominal ultrasound was the predominant modality used for detection of liver metastases (77%). Chest X-ray was the main modality for detecting lung metastases (69%). During the first year of follow-up, adherence to the minimal guideline recommendations was high (99-100%). The results demonstrate that, within the framework of the guidelines, some respondents applied a more intensive follow-up and others a less intensive schedule. The majority of the respondents (77%) applied one single follow-up imaging schedule for all patients that underwent treatment with curative intent.

CONCLUSIONS

Dutch colorectal surgeons' adherence to minimal guideline recommendations was high, but within the guideline framework, opinions differed about the required intensity and content of clinical visits, the interval of CEA monitoring, and the importance and frequency of imaging techniques. This national survey demonstrates current follow-up practice throughout the Netherlands and highlights the follow-up differences of curatively treated patients with CRC.

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.

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.

Health and Economic Impact of Intensive Surveillance for Distant Recurrence After Curative Treatment of Colon Cancer: A Mathematical Modeling Study

BACKGROUND

Intensive surveillance strategies are currently recommended for patients after curative treatment of colon cancer, with the aim of secondary prevention of recurrence. Yet, intensive surveillance has not yielded improvements in overall patient survival compared with minimal follow-up, and more intensive surveillance may be costlier.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to estimate the quality-adjusted life-years, economic costs, and cost-effectiveness of various surveillance strategies after curative treatment of colon cancer.

DESIGN

A Markov model was calibrated to reflect the natural history of colon cancer recurrence and used to estimate surveillance costs and outcomes.

SETTINGS

This was a decision-analytic model.

PATIENTS

Individuals entered the model at age 60 years after curative treatment for stage I, II, or III colon cancer. Other initial age groups were assessed in secondary analyses.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

We estimated the gains in quality-adjusted life-years achieved by early detection and treatment of recurrence, as well as the economic costs of surveillance under various strategies.

RESULTS

Cost-effective strategies for patients with stage I colon cancer improved quality-adjusted life-expectancy by 0.02 to 0.06 quality-adjusted life-years at an incremental cost of $1702 to $13,019. For stage II, they improved quality-adjusted life expectancy by 0.03 to 0.09 quality-adjusted life-years at a cost of $2300 to $14,363. For stage III, they improved quality-adjusted life expectancy by 0.03 to 0.17 quality-adjusted life-years for a cost of $1416 to $17,631. At a commonly cited willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, the most cost-effective strategy for patients with a history of stage I or II colon cancer was liver ultrasound and chest x-ray annually. For those with a history of stage III colon cancer, the optimal strategy was liver ultrasound and chest x-ray every 6 months with CEA measurement every 6 months.

LIMITATIONS

The study was limited by model structure assumptions and uncertainty around the values of the model's parameters.

CONCLUSIONS

Given currently available data and within the limitations of a model-based decision-analytic approach, the effectiveness of routine intensive surveillance for patients after treatment of colon cancer appears, on average, to be small. Compared with testing using lower cost imaging, currently recommended strategies are associated with cost-effectiveness ratios that indicate low value according to well-accepted willingness-to-pay thresholds in the United States. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A921.

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.

High KCNQ1OT1 expression might independently predict shorter survival of colon adenocarcinoma

AIM

To explore the expression profile of KCNQ1OT1 and its prognostic value in colon and rectal adenocarcinoma (COAD and READ) separately.

PATIENTS & METHODS

clinicopathological, genomic and survival data from The Cancer Genome Atlas and GSE39582 were obtained for a secondary analysis.

RESULTS

KCNQ1OT1 was significantly up-regulated in both COAD and READ compared with adjacent normal tissues. However, its up-regulation was only independently associated with shorter overall survival (hazard ratio: 2.02; 95% CI: 1.18-3.46; p = 0.01) and recurrence-free survival (hazard ratio: 2.79, 95% CI: 1.54-5.07; p < 0.01) in COAD, but not in READ.

CONCLUSION

KCNQ1OT1 up-regulation might serve as a valuable independent prognostic indicator of shorter overall survival and recurrence-free survival of COAD, but not READ.

Serum carcinoembryonic antigen to predict recurrence in the follow-up of patients with colorectal cancer

Introduction:

Serum carcinoembryonic (CEA) antigen is used as a diagnostic screening tool during follow-up in colorectal cancer patients. However, it remains unclear whether preoperative serum CEA is a reliable marker in the follow-up to predict recurrence. The aim of the study is to determine the value of elevated pre- and postoperative serum carcinoembryonic antigen levels (CEA > 5 µg/L) as an independent prognostic factor for locoregional and distant recurrence in patients who underwent curative surgery for colorectal cancer.

Methods:

This single center retrospective observational cohort study includes patients who underwent curative surgery for colorectal cancer between 2005 and 2015 and had pre- and postoperative serum CEA measurements. Five-year disease-free survival and multivariate Cox regression analyses were performed to adjust for confounding factors.

Results:

Preoperative serum CEA level was measured in 2093 patients with colorectal cancer. No significant association was found between an elevated preoperative serum CEA and locoregional recurrence (adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 1.29 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.91, 1.84; P=0.26)). However, a significant association was found between an elevated preoperative serum CEA and systemic recurrence (adjusted HR 1.58 (95% CI 1.25, 2.00; P<0.01)]. The five-year disease-free survival was lower in patients with elevated preoperative serum CEA levels ( P<0.01). Postoperative serum CEA level was the most sensitive for hepatic metastases during follow-up (73.3%).

Conclusions:

The preoperative serum CEA level is an independent prognostic factor for systemic metastasis after curative surgery for colorectal cancer in patients with stage I–III disease. The level is the most sensitive for hepatic metastasis compared to metastasis to other anatomic sites.

Effect of More vs Less Frequent Follow-up Testing on Overall and Colorectal Cancer-Specific Mortality in Patients With Stage II or III Colorectal Cancer: The COLOFOL Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

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

OBJECTIVE

To examine overall mortality, colorectal cancer-specific mortality, and colorectal cancer-specific recurrence rates among patients with stage II or III colorectal cancer who were randomized after curative surgery to 2 alternative schedules for follow-up testing with computed tomography and carcinoembryonic antigen.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Unblinded randomized trial including 2509 patients with stage II or III colorectal cancer treated at 24 centers in Sweden, Denmark, and Uruguay from January 2006 through December 2010 and followed up for 5 years; follow-up ended on December 31, 2015.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomized either to follow-up testing with computed tomography of the thorax and abdomen and serum carcinoembryonic antigen at 6, 12, 18, 24, and 36 months after surgery (high-frequency group; n = 1253 patients) or at 12 and 36 months after surgery (low-frequency group; n = 1256 patients).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcomes were 5-year overall mortality and colorectal cancer-specific mortality rates. The secondary outcome was the colorectal cancer-specific recurrence rate. Both intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Among 2555 patients who were randomized, 2509 were included in the intention-to-treat analysis (mean age, 63.5 years; 1128 women [45%]) and 2365 (94.3%) completed the trial. The 5-year overall patient mortality rate in the high-frequency group was 13.0% (161/1253) compared with 14.1% (174/1256) in the low-frequency group (risk difference, 1.1% [95% CI, -1.6% to 3.8%]; P = .43). The 5-year colorectal cancer-specific mortality rate in the high-frequency group was 10.6% (128/1248) compared with 11.4% (137/1250) in the low-frequency group (risk difference, 0.8% [95% CI, -1.7% to 3.3%]; P = .52). The colorectal cancer-specific recurrence rate was 21.6% (265/1248) in the high-frequency group compared with 19.4% (238/1250) in the low-frequency group (risk difference, 2.2% [95% CI, -1.0% to 5.4%]; P = .15).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among patients with stage II or III colorectal cancer, follow-up testing with computed tomography and carcinoembryonic antigen more frequently compared with less frequently did not result in a significant rate reduction in 5-year overall mortality or colorectal cancer-specific mortality.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00225641.

Evaluation of appropriate follow-up after curative surgery for patients with colorectal cancer using time to recurrence and survival after recurrence: a retrospective multicenter study

INTRODUCTION

The follow-up schedule for colorectal cancer patients after curative surgery is inconsistent among the guidelines. Evaluation of time to recurrence (TTR) and survival after recurrence (SAR) may provide evidence for appropriate follow-up.

METHODS

We assessed 3039 colon cancer (CC) and 1953 rectal cancer (RC) patients who underwent curative surgery between 2007 and 2008. We evaluated the pre- and post-recurrent clinicopathological factors associated with TTR and SAR in each stage of CC and RC.

RESULTS

The recurrence rates of stages I, II, and III were 1.2%, 13.1%, and 26.3%, respectively, for CC, and 8.4%, 20.0%, and 30.4%, respectively, for RC. In CC patients, high carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) level and lymphovascular invasion were independent predictors of short TTR. In RC patients, metastatic factors (liver metastasis in stage III) and venous invasion (stage III) were independent predictors of short TTR. The prognostic factors of SAR were age (stage II CC and stage III RC), female gender (stage III RC), high CEA level (stage II RC), histological type (stage III CRC), nodal status (stage III CC), recurrence within 1 year (stage III RC), M1b recurrence (stage II CRC), local recurrence (stage II CC), and no surgical resection after recurrence (stage II and III CRC).

CONCLUSIONS

The follow-up schedule for stage I should be different from that for the other stages. We recommend that intensive follow-up is appropriate in stage III CC patients with undifferentiated adenocarcinoma or N2 nodal status, stage II RC patients with high preoperative CEA level, and stage III RC patients.

Association Between Intensity of Posttreatment Surveillance Testing and Detection of Recurrence in Patients With Colorectal Cancer

Importance

Surveillance testing is performed after primary treatment for colorectal cancer (CRC), but it is unclear if the intensity of testing decreases time to detection of recurrence or affects patient survival.

Objective

To determine if intensity of posttreatment surveillance is associated with time to detection of CRC recurrence, rate of recurrence, resection for recurrence, or overall survival.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A retrospective cohort study of patient data abstracted from the medical record as part of a Commission on Cancer Special Study merged with records from the National Cancer Database. A random sample of patients (n=8529) diagnosed with stage I, II, or III CRC treated at a Commission on Cancer-accredited facilities (2006-2007) with follow-up through December 31, 2014.

Exposures

Intensity of imaging and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) surveillance testing derived empirically at the facility level using the observed to expected ratio for surveillance testing during a 3-year observation period.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was time to detection of CRC recurrence; secondary outcomes included rates of resection for recurrent disease and overall survival.

Results

A total of 8529 patients (49% men; median age, 67 years) at 1175 facilities underwent surveillance imaging and CEA testing within 3 years after their initial CRC treatment. The cohort was distributed by stage as follows: stage I, 25.0%; stage II, 35.2%; and stage III, 39.8%. Patients treated at high-intensity facilities-4188 patients (49.1%) for imaging and 4136 (48.5%) for CEA testing-underwent a mean of 2.9 (95% CI, 2.8-2.9) imaging scans and a mean of 4.3 (95% CI, 4.2-4.4) CEA tests. Patients treated at low-intensity facilities-4341 patients (50.8%) for imaging and 4393 (51.5%) for CEA testing-underwent a mean of 1.6 (95% CI, 1.6-1.7) imaging scans and a mean of 1.6 (95% CI, 1.6-1.7) CEA tests. Imaging and CEA surveillance intensity were not associated with a significant difference in time to detection of cancer recurrence. The median time to detection of recurrence was 15.1 months (IQR, 8.2-26.3) for patients treated at facilities with high-intensity imaging surveillance and 16.0 months (IQR, 7.9-27.2) with low-intensity imaging surveillance (difference, -0.95 months; 95% CI, -2.59 to 0.68; HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.90-1.09) and was 15.9 months (IQR, 8.5-27.5) for patients treated at facilities with high-intensity CEA testing and 15.3 months (IQR, 7.9-25.7) with low-intensity CEA testing (difference, 0.59 months; 95% CI, -1.33 to 2.51; HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.90-1.11). No significant difference existed in rates of resection for cancer recurrence (HR for imaging, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.99-1.51 and HR for CEA testing, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.91-1.39) or overall survival (HR for imaging, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.94-1.08 and HR for CEA testing, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.89-1.03) among patients treated at facilities with high- vs low-intensity imaging or CEA testing surveillance.

Conclusions and Relevance

Among patients treated for stage I, II, or III CRC, there was no significant association between surveillance intensity and detection of recurrence.

Trial Registration

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02217865.

Serum carcinoembryonic antigen trends for diagnosing colorectal cancer recurrence in the FACS randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Most guidelines recommend that patients who have undergone curative resection for primary colorectal cancer are followed up for 5 years with regular blood carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) tests to trigger further investigation for recurrence. However, CEA may miss recurrences, or patients may have false alarms and undergo unnecessary investigation.

METHODS

The diagnostic accuracy of trends in CEA measurements for recurrent colorectal cancer, taken as part of the FACS (Follow-up After Colorectal Surgery) trial (2003-2014), were analysed. Investigation to detect recurrence was triggered by clinical symptoms, scheduled CT or colonoscopy, or a CEA level of at least 7 μg/l above baseline. Time-dependent receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was used to compare the diagnostic accuracy of CEA trends with single measurements. CEA trends were estimated using linear regression.

RESULTS

The area under the ROC curve (AUC) for CEA trend was at least 0·820 across all 5 years of follow-up. In comparison, the AUCs for single measurements ranged from 0·623 to 0·749. Improvement was most marked at the end of the first year of follow-up, with the AUC increasing from 0·623 (95 per cent c.i. 0·509 to 0·736) to 0·880 (0·814 to 0·947). However, no individual trend threshold achieved a sensitivity above 70 per cent (30 per cent missed recurrences).

CONCLUSION

Interpreting trends in CEA measurements instead of single CEA test results improves diagnostic accuracy for recurrence, but not sufficiently to warrant it being used as a single surveillance strategy to trigger further investigation. In the absence of a more accurate biomarker, monitoring trends in CEA should be combined with clinical, endoscopic and imaging surveillance for improved accuracy.

What carcinoembryonic antigen level should trigger further investigation during colorectal cancer follow-up? A systematic review and secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Following primary surgical and adjuvant treatment for colorectal cancer, many patients are routinely followed up with blood carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) testing.

OBJECTIVE

To determine how the CEA test result should be interpreted to inform the decision to undertake further investigation to detect treatable recurrences.

DESIGN

Two studies were conducted: (1) a Cochrane review of existing studies describing the diagnostic accuracy of blood CEA testing for detecting colorectal recurrence; and (2) a secondary analysis of data from the two arms of the FACS (Follow-up After Colorectal Surgery) trial in which CEA testing was carried out.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

The secondary analysis was based on data from 582 patients recruited into the FACS trial between 2003 and 2009 from 39 NHS hospitals in England with access to high-volume services offering surgical treatment of metastatic recurrence and followed up for 5 years. CEA testing was undertaken in general practice.

RESULTS

In the systematic review we identified 52 studies for meta-analysis, including in aggregate 9717 participants (median study sample size 139, interquartile range 72-247). Pooled sensitivity at the most commonly recommended threshold in national guidelines of 5 µg/l was 71% [95% confidence interval (CI) 64% to 76%] and specificity was 88% (95% CI 84% to 92%). In the secondary analysis of FACS data, the diagnostic accuracy of a single CEA test was less than was suggested by the review [area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) 0.74, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.80]. At the commonly recommended threshold of 5 µg/l, sensitivity was estimated as 50.0% (95% CI 40.1% to 59.9%) and lead time as about 3 months. About four in 10 patients without a recurrence will have at least one false alarm and six out of 10 tests will be false alarms (some patients will have multiple false alarms, particularly smokers). Making decisions to further investigate based on the trend in serial CEA measurements is better (AUC for positive trend 0.85, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.91), but to maintain approximately 70% sensitivity with 90% specificity it is necessary to increase the frequency of testing in year 1 and to apply a reducing threshold for investigation as measurements accrue.

LIMITATIONS

The reference standards were imperfect and the main analysis was subject to work-up bias and had limited statistical precision and no external validation.

CONCLUSIONS

The results suggest that (1) CEA testing should not be used alone as a triage test; (2) in year 1, testing frequency should be increased (to monthly for 3 months and then every 2 months); (3) the threshold for investigating a single test result should be raised to 10 µg/l; (4) after the second CEA test, decisions to investigate further should be made on the basis of the trend in CEA levels; (5) the optimal threshold for investigating the CEA trend falls over time; and (6) continuing smokers should not be monitored with CEA testing. Further research is needed to explore the operational feasibility of monitoring the trend in CEA levels and to externally validate the proposed thresholds for further investigation.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015019327 and Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN93652154.

FUNDING

The main FACS trial and this substudy were funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Psychological effects of the intensified follow-up of the CEAwatch trial after treatment for colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

The aim of the study was to evaluate psychological effects of the state-of-art intensified follow-up protocol for colorectal cancer patients in the CEAwatch trial.

METHOD

At two time points during the CEAwatch trial questionnaires regarding patients' attitude towards follow-up, patients' psychological functioning and patients' experiences and expectations were sent to participants by post. Linear mixed models were fitted to assess the influences and secular trends of the intensified follow-up on patients' attitude towards follow-up and psychological functioning. As secondary outcome, odds ratios were calculated using ordinal logistic mixed model to compare patients' experiences to their expectations, as well as their experiences at two different time points.

RESULTS

No statistical significant effects of the intensified follow-up were found on patients' attitude towards the follow-up and psychological functioning variables. Patients had high expectations of the intensified follow-up and their experiences at the second time point were more positive compared to the scores at the first time point.

CONCLUSION

The intensified follow-up protocol posed no adverse effects on patients' attitude towards follow-up and psychological functioning. In general, patients were more nervous and anxious at the start of the new follow-up protocol, had high expectations of the new follow-up protocol and were troubled by the nuisances of the blood sample testing. As they spent more time in the follow-up and became more adapted to it, the nervousness and anxiety decreased and the preference for the frequent blood test became high in replacement of conversations with the doctors.