Standard follow-up of colorectal cancer patients: finally, we can make practice guidelines based on evidence

Follow-up recommendations for colon cancer

Recent evidence suggests that intensive follow-up after curative resection of colorectal cancer is associated with a small but significant improvement in survival. Regimens that employ cross-sectional imaging and carcinoembryonic antigen determination appear to have the greatest benefit. A risk-adapted approach to follow-up, intensively following patients at highest risk of recurrence, increases efficacy and cost-effectiveness. Ongoing improvements in risk stratification, disease detection, and treatment will increase the benefits of postoperative surveillance. Large randomized controlled trials are needed to determine the optimal surveillance regimen and must include an analysis of survival, quality of life, and cost-effectiveness to assess efficacy properly.

Evidence and research in rectal cancer

The main evidences of epidemiology, diagnostic imaging, pathology, surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy and follow-up are reviewed to optimize the routine treatment of rectal cancer according to a multidisciplinary approach. This paper reports on the knowledge shared between different specialists involved in the design and management of the multidisciplinary ESTRO Teaching Course on Rectal Cancer. The scenario of ongoing research is also addressed. In this time of changing treatments, it clearly appears that a common standard for large heterogeneous patient groups have to be substituted by more individualised therapies based on clinical-pathological features and very soon on molecular and genetic markers. Only trained multidisciplinary teams can face this new challenge and tailor the treatments according to the best scientific evidence for each patient.

Colorectal cancer follow-up: Useful or useless?

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

Management of colorectal cancer patients in Australia: the National Colorectal Cancer Care Survey

BACKGROUND

The National Colorectal Cancer Care Survey was undertaken to determine the management patterns for individuals newly diagnosed with colorectal cancer in Australia.

METHODS

Between 1 February and 30 April 2000, all new cases of colorectal cancer registered at each Cancer Registry within Australia were entered into the survey. This generated a questionnaire that was sent to the treating surgeons. Chi-squared and logistic regression analyses were used to determine levels of statistical significance for the various comparisons of interest.

RESULTS

Of 2383 surgical questionnaires generated, 2015 (85%) were completed. A total of 1911 patients (95% of those who responded to the questionnaire) had an operation. Of the 86 guidelines for the management of colorectal cancer published by the National Health and Medical Research Council, the survey allowed for comparison between 18 of these, which covered a spectrum of surgical management. Thromboembolic prophylaxis was given to 1843 patients (96.4%) undergoing surgery. Prophylactic antibiotics were commonly used, but there appear to be issues regarding the best regimen to use. Curative resections were carried out in 1563 patients (81.8%), with anterior resections being the most commonly performed procedure. Adjuvant therapy was regularly used, but not all eligible patients were offered such treatment.

CONCLUSION

With the considerable resources required to develop clinical practice guidelines, studies like this are essential to monitor the impact of the guidelines. To ensure that the guidelines are in line with current evidence, regular reviews of the guideline recommendations are required.

The prevalence of patients with colorectal carcinoma under care in the U.S

BACKGROUND

Prevalence usually is defined as the proportion of individuals alive who previously had a diagnosis of the disease, regardless of whether the individuals still are receiving treatment or are cured. The objective of this study was to estimate the proportion of elderly patients with colorectal carcinoma (CRC) in the U.S. that actually were receiving care for their disease as a better quantification of the burden of CRC.

METHODS

The authors used data from the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program linked to Medicare claims. Four phases of CRC care were defined: initial diagnosis and treatment, postdiagnostic monitoring, treatment for recurrent/metastatic disease, and terminal care. CRC care prevalence measures by phase were extrapolated to the U.S. population age 65 years and older.

RESULTS

For all patients with CRC who were diagnosed between 1975 and 1996, 62% received at least 1 service related to their CRC in 1996, and patients received an average of 2.1 months per person of CRC care. Among the U.S. population age 65 years and older, 1.81% had 1 diagnosis of CRC, and (1.81% x 0.62%) = 1.12% received at least 1 service related to their CRC. This translated to 380,783 individuals who received care and 1,210,121 person months of care during 1996.

CONCLUSIONS

To the authors' knowledge, this is the first report in which care prevalence has been estimated directly. The classification of CRC care by phases of care provides a very detailed picture of the amount of care delivered in the U.S. population. Person-month estimates can be used to estimate the cost of CRC.

[Colonoscopic follow-up of patients undergoing curative resection of colorectal cancer]

AIM

To investigate the role of colonoscopy in the follow-up of patients undergoing curative resection of colorectal cancer.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A prospective study was performed of 102 patients with colorectal cancer who underwent surgery with curative intention. Postoperative colonoscopic follow-up was a minimum of 5 years.

RESULTS

There were 62 males and 40 females. The mean duration of follow-up was 73.4 months. Synchronous polyps were found in 44.1% (114 in 45 patients) and metachronous polyps in 33.4% (64 in 34 patients). Synchronous carcinoma was detected in 7.8% (9 in 8 patients), metachronous carcinoma in 1.9% (2 in 2 patients) and suture recurrence in 4.9% (5 in 5 patients). Metachronous polyps developed in 55.5% of the patients with synchronous polyps and in only 15.8% of those with no synchronous polyps (p < 0.00005); the odds ratio was 6.67. Colonoscopy diagnosed 92 synchronous polyps and 64 metachronous polyps; of these, 34 were found to be significant(in 22 patients). Colonoscopy diagnosed 5 synchronous carcinomas; in 3 of these (polyps with non-invasive carcinoma) polypectomy constituted definitive therapy and in the remaining 2, curative resection was achieved. Colonoscopy diagnosed 2 stage C2 metachronous carcinomas at 63 and 94 months. Curative resection was achieved in both cases. Colonoscopic follow-up diagnosed 2 suture recurrences and resection was potentially curative.

CONCLUSIONS

Colonoscopy was found to play an essential role in 30% of the patients. The technique allowed the early diagnosis of synchronous carcinomas and curative treatment of metachronous carcinomas and demonstrated that the presence of synchronous polyps increases the risk of developing metachronous polyps.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Ensuring quality cancer care by the use of clinical practice guidelines and critical pathways

PURPOSE

We describe the impact of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) on improvement in oncology treatment processes or outcomes.

METHODS

We performed a comprehensive search of the literature from 1966 to the present and a directed review of the literature.

RESULTS

Improvements have been demonstrated in compliance with evidence-based guidelines or evidence-based medicine, and in short-term length of stay, complication rates, and financial outcomes. The data suggest that patient satisfaction can be maintained despite a shorter length of stay. There has been one example of province-wide improvement in disease-free and overall survival of breast cancer patients coincident with the adoption of CPGS: The components of successful guidelines can be summarized as follows: (1) development is based on evidence, with the guideline formulated by key physicians in the group; (2) the guidelines are disseminated to all affected health care professionals for critique; (3) implementation includes direct feedback on performance to physicians or general feedback on system performance; and (4) there is accountability for performance according to the guidelines. This accountability can consist of voluntary peer pressure to conform to evidence-based medicine, and it does not require a financial reward or penalty.

CONCLUSION

Some attempts to improve practice have been moderately successful in achievement of reduced health care costs, reduced hospital length of stay, and possibly improved outcomes. Other methods that are still in use have been demonstrated to have little effect. Programs that have not succeeded have relied on voluntary change in practice behavior without incentives to change or have had no accountability component. Further research is needed to assess how guidelines are enacted in organizations other than those demonstrably committed to improvement, ways to improve compliance of health care providers who are not committed to change, and methods to improve accountability.

Symptom reporting in cancer patients II: relations to social desirability, negative affect, and self-reported health behaviors

BACKGROUND

Patients' appraisal of somatic symptoms is correlated with their negative affect. The authors have investigated whether social desirability is associated with patients' symptom and health behavior reporting.

METHODS

One hundred fourteen surgical cancer patients who participated in either an outpatient or an inpatient follow-up care program filled out the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-C30, the New Social Desirability Scale, and a health behavior checklist.

RESULTS

Patients' reports of somatic symptoms were correlated inversely with social desirability (r = -0.50) and positively with negative affect (r = 0.72). When objective health and demographic variables (e.g., prognosis, adjuvant therapy prior to follow-up, and gender) were entered first in hierarchical multiple regression analyses, social desirability and negative affect accounted for an additional 16% and 36% of the symptom variance, respectively. Similar results were found when global quality of life was the dependent variable. Self-reported health behaviors were explained only through the set of health and demographic variables (14%), and social desirability and negative affect did not account for additional variance. On the average, patients reported that they had a median of 4.7 (out of a list of 21) self-initiated health behaviors, and 11% of the patients admitted to having used unproven therapies.

CONCLUSIONS

Symptom reports do not give a pure picture of patients' health status, but they are strongly correlated with social desirability and negative affect. Detection of such psychologic variables is essential to understanding the dynamics of quality of life. In applied settings, quality-of-life measures should be used together with conventional criteria. As practical experience and scientific understanding grow, the relative positioning of these patient-oriented versus clinic-oriented endpoints will become clear.