The role of postoperative colonoscopic surveillance after radical surgery for colorectal cancer: a prospective, randomized clinical study

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.

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.

Endoscopic surveillance after surgery for colorectal cancer

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

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

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Optimal postoperative surveillance strategies for stage III colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Optimal surveillance strategies for stage III colorectal cancer (CRC) are lacking, and intensive surveillance has not conferred a significant survival benefit.

AIM

To examine the association between surveillance intensity and recurrence and survival rates in patients with stage III CRC.

METHODS

Data from patients with pathologic stage III CRC who underwent radical surgery between January 2005 and December 2012 at Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea were retrospectively reviewed. Surveillance consisted of abdominopelvic computed tomography (CT) every 6 mo and chest CT annually during the 5 year follow-up period, resulting in an average of three imaging studies per year. Patients who underwent more than the average number of imaging studies annually were categorized as high intensity (HI), and those with less than the average were categorized as low intensity (LI).

RESULTS

Among 1888 patients, 864 (45.8%) were in HI group. Age, sex, and location were not different between groups. HI group had more advanced T and N stage (P = 0.002, 0.010, each). Perineural invasion (PNI) was more identified in the HI group (21.4% vs 30.3%, P < 0.001). The mean overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free interval (RFI) was longer in the LI group (P < 0.001, each). Multivariate analysis indicated that surveillance intensity [odds ratio (OR) = 1.999; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.680-2.377; P < 0.001], pathologic T stage (OR = 1.596; 95%CI: 1.197-2.127; P = 0.001), PNI (OR = 1.431; 95%CI: 1.192-1.719; P < 0.001), and circumferential resection margin (OR = 1.565; 95%CI: 1.083-2.262; P = 0.017) in rectal cancer were significantly associated with RFI. The mean post-recurrence survival (PRS) was longer in patients who received curative resection (P < 0.001). Curative resection rate of recurrence was not different between HI (29.3%) and LI (23.8%) groups (P = 0.160). PRS did not differ according to surveillance intensity (P = 0.802).

CONCLUSION

Frequent surveillance with CT scan do not improve OS in stage III CRC patients. We need to evaluate role of other surveillance method rather than frequent CT scans to detect recurrence for which curative treatment was possible because curative resection is the important to improve post-recurrence survival.

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

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

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

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

Risk Stratification Based on Synchronous Neoplasia and Clinical Physicochemical Characteristics Predicts a Higher Incidence of Metachronous Advanced Neoplasia in Patients Undergoing Colorectal Resection for Colorectal Cancer

Purpose

Patients who undergo primary colorectal cancer (CRC) resection remain at increased risk for metachronous advanced neoplasia (MAN) in the remnant colorectum. This study aimed to investigate the incidence and clinicopathological characteristics predictive of MAN development in the residual colon after surgery.

Patients and Methods

We retrospectively reviewed 450 primary CRC cases referred to our hospital during a 4-year period. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify risk factors for MAN. The cumulative incidence of MAN was evaluated by the Cox proportional hazards model.

Results

MAN development was confirmed in 78 of the 450 patients (17.3%). Overall 1-, 2-, 3-, and 5-year cumulative probabilities were 0.9%, 4.8%, 9.8%, and 16.1%, respectively, for MAN. Among the clinical and colonoscopic factors at baseline, the independent factors that were significantly associated with MAN were synchronous neoplasia, carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) level ≥10.0 ng/mL, and index cancer size ≥50 mm. The cumulative probability of MAN was significantly higher for patients with synchronous advanced neoplasia (SAN) than for those without synchronous neoplasia (P = 0.000). A subgroup analysis of patients based on the CEA level and index cancer size indicated that CEA ≥10 ng/mL and index cancer ≥50 mm resulted in a significantly higher cumulative probability of MAN (P = 0.039).

Conclusion

Patients with SAN or high preoperative serum CEA levels and large index cancer are at increased risk for early-onset MAN. More intensive surveillance strategies may be appropriate for these groups. Risk stratification based on synchronous neoplasia and clinical physicochemical characteristics requires further investigations involving modified appropriate postoperative colonoscopic surveillance schedules.

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

Simple Summary

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

Abstract

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

Computed Tomography Colonography Versus Standard Optical Colonoscopy for the Detection of Colorectal Polyp in Patients Who Faced Curative Surgery for Colorectal Cancer: A Diagnostic Performance Study

Data regarding computed tomography colonography, standard optical colonoscopy, and enhanced colonoscopy/histopathology at 1-year after surgery and at 6-month intervals for the next 2 years of 345 patients who faced curative surgery for colorectal cancer were included in this analysis. Computed tomography colonography and standard optical colonoscopy both detected 298 polyps as suspicious. With reference to enhanced colonoscopy/histopathology, sensitivities for the detection of any polyps for computed tomography colonography and standard optical colonoscopy were 0.952 and 0.906, while, accuracies were 0.783 and 0.641, respectively. Computed tomography colonography may be a sensitive and accurate surveillance tool for colorectal cancer patients.

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.

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.

Colonoscopy Surveillance After Colorectal Cancer: the Optimal Interval for Follow-Up

PURPOSE

Patients who have undergone curative surgery for colorectal cancer are at risk of developing a metachronous colorectal tumour or anastomotic recurrence. The aim of this study was to determine the incidence of recurrent colorectal cancer in a cohort of patients who participated in a colonoscopy surveillance programme.

METHODS

This single-centre retrospective observational cohort study included patients who underwent curative surgery for colorectal cancer between 2005 and 2015. All reports of postoperative colonoscopies were retrieved to calculate the incidence rates of recurrence and metachronous colorectal cancer.

RESULTS

Of 2420 patients, 1644 (67.9%) underwent at least one postoperative colonoscopy and 776 (32.1%) did not. In 1087 patients, colonoscopy was performed in the first 18 months after surgery, which detected 34 (3.1%) instances of metachronous colorectal tumours or anastomotic recurrence. Thirty-three additional patients were also diagnosed with recurrent colorectal cancer, but the tumours were detected by other diagnostic modalities or detected perioperatively, rather than by colonoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with a history of colorectal cancer have an increased risk for a second colorectal tumour. Therefore, we recommend a colonoscopic surveillance programme with the first colonoscopy performed 1 year after curative surgery, which is in accordance with national guidelines.

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.

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

BACKGROUND & AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Precision Medicine Versus Population Medicine in Colon Cancer: From Prospects of Prevention, Adjuvant Chemotherapy, and Surveillance

With the advances of technologic revolution that provides new insights into human biology, genetics and cancer, as well as advantages of big data which amasses large amounts of information for us to approach cancer treatment and prevention, we are facing challenges of organically combining data from studies based on general population and information from individual testing and setting out precisional recommendations in cancer diagnosis, prevention, and treatment. We are obligated to accelerate the adaptation of new scientific discoveries into effective treatments and prevention for cancer. In this review, we introduce our opinions on bringing knowledge of precision and population medicine together to guide our clinical practice from the prospects of colorectal cancer prevention, stage III colon cancer adjuvant therapy, and postsurgery surveillance.

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

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

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

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

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

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Post-treatment surveillance testing of patients with colorectal cancer and the association with survival: protocol for a retrospective cohort study of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database

INTRODUCTION

Although the colorectal cancer (CRC) mortality rate has significantly improved over the past several decades, many patients will have a recurrence following curative treatment. Despite this high risk of recurrence, adherence to CRC surveillance testing guidelines is poor which increases cancer-related morbidity and potentially, mortality. Several randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with varying surveillance strategies have yielded conflicting evidence regarding the survival benefit associated with surveillance testing. However, due to differences in study protocols and limitations of sample size and length of follow-up, the RCT may not be the best study design to evaluate this relationship. An observational comparative effectiveness research study can overcome the sample size/follow-up limitations of RCT designs while assessing real-world variability in receipt of surveillance testing to provide much needed evidence on this important clinical issue. The gap in knowledge that this study will address concerns whether adherence to National Comprehensive Cancer Network CRC surveillance guidelines improves survival.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Patients with colon and rectal cancer aged 66-84 years, who have been diagnosed between 2002 and 2008 and have been included in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database, are eligible for this retrospective cohort study. To minimise bias, patients had to survive at least 12 months following the completion of treatment. Adherence to surveillance testing up to 5 years post-treatment will be assessed in each year of follow-up and overall. Binomial regression will be used to assess the association between patients' characteristics and adherence. Survival analysis will be conducted to assess the association between adherence and 5-year survival.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study was approved by the National Cancer Institute and the Institutional Review Board of the University of Central Florida. The results of this study will be disseminated by publishing in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, presentation at national/international scientific conferences and posting through social media.

Metachronous Granular Cell Tumor of the Descending Colon

Granular cell tumors (GCTs) are uncommon tumors. They are believed to be neuronal in origin and are usually found in the head and/or neck area of the body. They have also been reported in various locations of the gastrointestinal (GI) system, usually discovered during routine screening colonoscopy. We report a case of GCT in a 58-year-old asymptomatic African American female as a metachronous tumor of a well-differentiated adenocarcinoma of the sigmoid colon, which was an incidental finding in screening colonoscopy. To our knowledge, this is the first case with GCT identified as a metachronous tumor following an adenocarcinoma of the colon.

Prospective Trial Evaluating the Surgical Anastomosis at One-Year Colorectal Cancer Surveillance: CT Colonography Versus Optical Colonoscopy and Implications for Patient Care

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of CT colonography versus optical colonoscopy for neoplastic involvement at the surgical anastomosis 1 year after curative-intent colorectal cancer resection.

DESIGN, SETTING, PATIENTS, AND INTERVENTIONS

Two hundred one patients (mean age, 58.6 years; 117 men, 84 women) underwent same-day contrast-enhanced CT colonography and colonoscopy approximately 1 year (mean, 12.1 months; median, 11.9 months) after colorectal cancer resection as part of a prospective, multicenter trial. All patients enrolled were without clinical evidence of disease and considered low risk for recurrence (stage I-III).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Suspected neoplastic lesions within 5 cm of the colonic anastomosis were recorded at CT colonography, with subsequent colonoscopy performed for the same, with segmental unblinding of colonography findings. Anastomotic region biopsy or polypectomy was performed at the endoscopist's discretion.

RESULTS

None of the 201 patients had intraluminal anastomotic cancer recurrence or advanced neoplasia (or metachronous cancers). CT colonography detected extramural perianastomotic recurrence in 2 patients (1.0%); neither was detected at colonoscopy. Only 2 patients (1.0%; 2/201) were called positive at CT colonography for intraluminal anastomotic nondiminutive lesions (7- to 8-mm polyps), which were confirmed at colonoscopy but nonneoplastic at histopathology. At optical colonoscopy, the anastomosis was deemed abnormal and/or biopsied in 10.0% (20/201), yielding only 1 nondiminutive benign neoplasm (7-mm tubular adenoma).

LIMITATIONS

The lack of luminal cancer recurrence in our lower-risk cohort precludes assessment of sensitivity for detection, rendering the study underpowered in this regard. Potential cost savings of combined CT/CT colonography over the standard CT/colonoscopy approach were not assessed.

CONCLUSIONS

Relevant intraluminal anastomotic pathology appears to be very uncommon 1 year after colorectal cancer resection in lower-risk cohorts. Unlike colonoscopy, diagnostic contrast-enhanced CT colonography effectively evaluates both the intra- and extraluminal aspects of the anastomosis. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A471.

Incidence and predictors of adenoma after surgery for colorectal cancer

OBJECTIVE

Patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) are at increased risk for developing metachronous premalignant and malignant lesions. However, its real incidence and underlying risk factors are still unclear, and therefore quality measures for colonoscopy under this indication have not been completely established. The aim of this study was to assess the incidence of and risk factors for the development of adenomas after surgery for CRC.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 535 patients submitted to curative surgery for CRC between January 2008 and December 2011 were selected and their clinical records and surveillance colonoscopies were reviewed.

RESULTS

During a median follow-up of 62 months, 39.4% of the patients developed adenomas, 17.6% advanced adenomas and 3.4% developed metachronous cancers. Male sex [adjusted odds ratio (AOR)=1.99; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.29-3.07] was an independent risk factor for adenomas during follow-up and absence of a high-quality baseline colonoscopy was the only independent risk factor for advanced adenomas (AOR=1.78; 95% CI: 1.03-3.07) and metachronous cancer (AOR=7.05; 95% CI: 1.52-32.66). In patients who had undergone a high-quality colonoscopy at baseline and at the first follow-up, the presence of adenomas (odds ratio=12.30; 95% CI: 2.30-66.25) and advanced adenomas (odds ratio=10.50; 95% CI: 2.20-50.18) in the first follow-up colonoscopy was a risk factor for the development of metachronous advanced adenomas during the subsequent surveillance.

CONCLUSION

Undergoing a high-quality baseline colonoscopy is the most important factor for reducing the incidence of advanced lesions after CRC surgery. All patients remain at high-risk for adenomas and advanced adenomas, but standardized follow-up should be adjusted after the first year of follow-up.

Colorectal Cancer: Postoperative Follow-up and Surveillance

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

Risk factors for metachronous adenoma in the residual colon of patients undergoing curative surgery for colorectal cancer

PURPOSE

Adenoma detection in colorectal cancer survivors is poorly characterised with insufficient evidence to inform frequency of surveillance schedule. The aim of this study was to examine adenoma incidence and recurrence in patients who have undergone colorectal cancer resection with curative intent. Survival outcomes were compared to determine if the presence of adenomas could be used to identify patients at higher risk of local recurrence.

METHODS

This is a retrospective observational cohort study at a single tertiary institution between 2006 and 2012. Five hundred fifteen consecutive patients with stage I-III colorectal cancer who had preoperative colonoscopy and curative surgery were included (median follow-up 56 months (36-75 months).

RESULTS

In total, 352/515 (68%) patients underwent postoperative surveillance colonoscopy in the first 5 years after resection. Male gender was associated with greater risk of detecting synchronous adenoma at index colonoscopy or in the resection specimen (OR 2.35, p < 0.001). In the first 5 years after cancer surgery, synchronous adenoma, male gender and right sided primary tumour were independent predictors of metachronous lesions (OR 2.13, p = 0.009; OR 2.07, p = 0.027 and OR 2.34, p = 0.004, respectively). Presence of synchronous or metachronous adenoma had no impact upon incidence of local recurrence, overall or disease free survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with synchronous adenoma remain at high risk of adenoma recurrence despite undergoing colonic resection and should be considered for early endoscopic surveillance. Men and those undergoing right-sided resection have a higher risk of metachronous adenoma in the long term and may benefit from more frequent endoscopic surveillance post resection.

Surveillance after endoscopic and surgical resection of colorectal cancer

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

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

BACKGROUND

It is common clinical practice to follow patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) for several years following their curative surgery or adjuvant therapy, or both. Despite this widespread practice, there is considerable controversy about how often patients should be seen, what tests should be performed, and whether these varying strategies have any significant impact on patient outcomes. This is the second update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2002 and first updated in 2007.

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

Metachronous colorectal cancers result from missed lesions and non-compliance with surveillance

BACKGROUND

Several studies examined the rate of colorectal cancer (CRC) developed during colonoscopy surveillance after CRC resection (ie, metachronous CRC [mCRC]), yet the underlying etiology is unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the rate and likely etiology of mCRCs.

DESIGN

Population-based, multicenter study. Review of clinical and histopathologic records, including data of the national pathology database and The Netherlands Cancer Registry.

SETTING

National cancer databases reviewed at 3 hospitals in South-Limburg, The Netherlands.

PATIENTS

Total CRC population diagnosed in South-Limburg from January 2001 to December 2010.

INTERVENTIONS

Colonoscopy.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

We defined an mCRC as a second primary CRC, diagnosed >6 months after the primary CRC. By using a modified algorithm to ascribe likely etiology, we classified the mCRCs into cancers caused by non-compliance with surveillance recommendations, inadequate examination, incomplete resection of precursor lesions (CRC in same segment as previous advanced adenoma), missed lesions, or newly developed cancers.

RESULTS

We included a total of 5157 patients with CRC, of whom 93 (1.8%) had mCRCs, which were diagnosed on an average of 81 months (range 7-356 months) after the initial CRC diagnosis. Of all mCRCs, 43.0% were attributable to non-compliance with surveillance advice, 43.0% to missed lesions, 5.4% to incompletely resected lesions, 5.4% to newly developed cancers, and 3.2% to inadequate examination. Age-adjusted and sex-adjusted logistic regression analyses showed that mCRCs were significantly smaller in size (odds ratio [OR] 0.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.7-0.9) and more often poorly differentiated (OR 1.7; 95% CI, 1.0-2.8) than were solitary CRCs.

LIMITATIONS

Retrospective evaluation of clinical data.

CONCLUSION

In this study, 1.8% of all patients with CRC developed mCRCs, and the vast majority were attributable to missed lesions or non-compliance with surveillance advice. Our findings underscore the importance of high-quality colonoscopy to maximize the benefit of post-CRC surveillance.

Pattern of rectal cancer recurrence after curative surgery

PURPOSE

After curative rectal cancer surgery, local recurrences manifest in 2.4-10% and distant metastases in 20-50% of patients. The effectiveness of different surveillance regimens is not well established. We evaluated the pattern of recurrence and the utility of different surveillance instruments. Risk factors for recurrence were also recorded.

METHODS

This retrospective study comprises 580 consecutive rectal cancer patients operated on at Helsinki University Central Hospital, Finland, during 2005-2011. Data were collected from patient records. After exclusions, 481 patients treated with curative intent remained. Patients were followed up according to an intensive surveillance program.

RESULTS

Rectal cancer recurrence was observed in 124 patients (25.8%). Local recurrence manifested in 40 patients (8.3%) and distant metastases in 112 patients (23.3%). Recurrences were observed a median of 1.3 years after surgery. Twelve patients had to be followed up to find one local recurrence and four patients to find one distant metastasis. Recurrences detected during regular follow-up visits were discovered on average earlier than those detected in additional visits arranged because of patient symptoms (p = 0.023 for local recurrence, p = 0.001 for distant metastases). All surveillance instruments were similarly useful in finding recurrence. Curative treatment was possible in 51 (41.1%) of 124 patients with disease recurrence. Follow-up led to a 10.0% chance of detecting recurrence that could be treated with curative intent.

CONCLUSIONS

Rectal cancer recurrences are detected earlier within a surveillance program than by symptoms alone. The most intensive follow-up should be focused on patients with known risk factors for recurrence.

Intensive follow-up strategies improve outcomes in nonmetastatic colorectal cancer patients after curative surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

A wide variety of follow-up strategies are used for patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) after curative surgery. The aim of this study is to review the evidence of the impact of different follow-up strategies in patients with nonmetastatic CRC after curative surgery, in relation to overall survival and other outcomes.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS and ISI Web of Knowledge up to June 2014 was carried out. Eligible studies were all randomized clinical trials comparing the effectiveness of different follow-up strategies after curative resection in nonmetastatic CRC.

RESULTS

Eleven studies with n = 4055 participants were included in a meta-analysis. A significant improvement in overall survival was observed in patients with more intensive follow-up strategies [hazard ratio = 0.75; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66-0.86]. A higher probability of detection of asymptomatic recurrences [relative risk (RR) = 2.59; 95% CI 1.66-4.06], curative surgery attempted at recurrences (RR = 1.98; 95% CI 1.51-2.60), survival after recurrences (RR = 2.13; 95% CI 1.24-3.69), and a shorter time in detecting recurrences (mean difference = -5.23 months; 95% CI -9.58 to -0.88) was observed in the intervention group. There were no significant differences in the total tumor recurrences, nor in the mortality related to disease.

CONCLUSION

Intensive follow-up strategies improve overall survival, increase the detection of asymptomatic recurrences and curative surgery attempted at recurrence, and are associated with a shorter time in detecting recurrences. This more intensive follow-up could not be associated with an improvement in cancer-specific survival nor with an increased detection of total tumor recurrences. Follow-up with serum carcinoembryonic antigen and colonoscopies are related to an increase in overall survival.

Cytoreductive surgery plus hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy improves survival for patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis from colorectal cancer: a phase II study from a Chinese center

Background

Peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) is a difficult clinical challenge in colorectal cancer (CRC) because conventional treatment modalities could not produce significant survival benefit, which highlights the acute need for new treatment strategies. Our previous case-control study demonstrated the potential survival advantage of cytoreductive surgery (CRS) plus hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) over CRS alone. This phase II study was to further investigate the efficacy and adverse events of CRS+HIPEC for Chinese patients with CRC PC.

Methods

A total of 60 consecutive CRC PC patients underwent 63 procedures consisting of CRS+HIPEC and postoperative chemotherapy, all by a designated team focusing on this combined treatment modality. All the clinico-pathological information was systematically integrated into a prospective database. The primary end point was disease-specific overall survival (OS), and the secondary end points were perioperative safety profiles.

Results

By the most recent database update, the median follow-up was 29.9 (range 3.5–108.9) months. The peritoneal cancer index (PCI) ≤20 was in 47.0% of patients, complete cytoreductive surgery (CC0-1) was performed in 53.0% of patients. The median OS was 16.0 (95% confidence interval [CI] 12.2–19.8) months, and the 1-, 2-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates were 70.5%, 34.2%, 22.0% and 22.0%, respectively. Mortality and grades 3 to 5 morbidity rates in postoperative 30 days were 0.0% and 30.2%, respectively. Univariate analysis identified 3 parameters with significant effects on OS: PCI ≤20, CC0-1 and adjuvant chemotherapy over 6 cycles. On multivariate analysis, however, only CC0-1 and adjuvant chemotherapy ≥6 cycles were found to be independent factors for OS benefit.

Discussion

CRS+HIPEC at a specialized treatment center could improve OS for selected CRC PC patients from China, with acceptable perioperative safety.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Early detection of colorectal cancer recurrence in patients undergoing surgery with curative intent: current status and challenges

Despite advances in neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy, attention to proper surgical technique, and improved pathological staging for both the primary and metastatic lesions, almost half of all colorectal cancer patients will develop recurrent disease. More concerning, this includes ~25% of patients with theoretically curable node-negative, non-metastatic Stage I and II disease. Given the annual incidence of colorectal cancer, approximately 150,000 new patients are candidates each year for follow-up surveillance. When combined with the greater population already enrolled in a surveillance protocol, this translates to a tremendous number of patients at risk for recurrence. It is therefore imperative that strategies aim for detection of recurrence as early as possible to allow initiation of treatment that may still result in cure. Yet, controversy exists regarding the optimal surveillance strategy (high-intensity vs. traditional), ideal testing regimen, and overall effectiveness. While benefits may involve earlier detection of recurrence, psychological welfare improvement, and greater overall survival, this must be weighed against the potential disadvantages including more invasive tests, higher rates of reoperation, and increased costs. In this review, we will examine the current options available and challenges surrounding colorectal cancer surveillance and early detection of recurrence.

Current and emerging surveillance strategies to expand the window of opportunity for curative treatment after surgery in colorectal cancer

Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer globally. At diagnosis, more than 70% of patients have nonmetastatic disease. Cure rates for early-stage colorectal cancer have improved with primary screening, improvements in surgical techniques and advances in adjuvant chemotherapy. Despite optimal primary treatment, 30-50% of these patients will still relapse. While death will result from widespread metastatic disease, patients with small volume oligometastatic disease are still considered curable with aggressive multimodality therapy. Hence, early detection of relapsed cancer when it is still amenable to resection expands the window of opportunity for cure. Here, the authors review the modalities currently employed in clinical practice and the evidence supporting intensive surveillance strategies. The authors also discuss ongoing clinical trials examining specific surveillance programs and emerging modalities that may be deployed in the future for early detection of metastatic disease.

Many patients who undergo surgery for colorectal cancer receive surveillance colonoscopies earlier than recommended by guidelines

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Patients treated with surgery for colorectal cancer (CRC) should undergo colonoscopy examinations 1, 4, and 9 years later, to check for cancer recurrence. We investigated the use patterns of surveillance colonoscopies among Medicare patients.

METHODS

We used the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare linked database to identify patients who underwent curative surgery for colorectal cancer from 1992 to 2005 and analyzed the timing of the first 3 colonoscopies after surgery. Early surveillance colonoscopy was defined as a colonoscopy, for no reason other than surveillance, within 3 months to 2 years after a colonoscopy examination with normal results.

RESULTS

Approximately 32.1% and 27.3% of patients with normal results from their first and second colonoscopies, respectively, underwent subsequent surveillance colonoscopies within 2 years (earlier than recommended). Of patients who were older than 80 years at their first colonoscopy, 23.6% underwent a repeat procedure within 2 years for no clear indication. In multivariable analysis, early surveillance colonoscopy was not associated with sex, race, or patients' level of education. There was significant regional variation in early surveillance colonoscopies among the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results regions. There was a significant trend toward reduced occurrence of second early surveillance colonoscopies.

CONCLUSIONS

Many Medicare enrollees who have undergone curative resection for colorectal cancer undergo surveillance colonoscopy more frequently than recommended by the guidelines. Reducing overuse could free limited resources for appropriate colonoscopy examinations of inadequately screened populations.

Surveillance after colorectal cancer resection: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Surveillance programs are widely accepted as an integral part of the treatment plan provided to patients after surgical treatment of colorectal cancer. Despite an enormous amount of research performed regarding these programs, there is still uncertainty regarding what is appropriate surveillance.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to systematically review recent literature regarding outcomes achieved with different types of surveillance programs for patients with surgically treated colorectal cancer.

DATA SOURCES

A search of the PubMed database was performed to identify studies published in the English language between January 2000 and January 2010.

STUDY SELECTION

We included 2 types of studies in our systematic review: first, comparative studies where 2 or more surveillance strategies were applied and outcomes compared; second, single-cohort studies where the outcomes of a single surveillance strategy were reported.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Cancer-related outcomes included survival, recurrence detection rate, and the ability of a recurrence to be resected with curative intent.

RESULTS

Our review found 15 studies meeting our inclusion criteria. Of these, 9 were comparative (4 randomized trials) and 6 were single-cohort studies. One study reported a better survival rate among patients who received more intensive follow-up. The vast majority of recurrences occurred within 3 years.

LIMITATIONS

Our review found that the recent literature regarding the efficacy of surveillance is inconclusive, largely because of the small sample sizes and the heterogeneity in the surveillance programs and outcomes reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Future randomized trials need to focus on larger sample sizes, and experimental designs should isolate specific elements of surveillance to better understand how each element contributes to improvements in patient outcomes. Risk stratification and duration of surveillance are key elements of surveillance strategies that also deserve focused investigation.