Role of Chest X-ray in Diagnosis of the First Breast Cancer Relapse: A Randomized Trial

Prognostic Impact of Elevation of Cancer Antigen 15-3 (CA15-3) in Patients With Early Breast Cancer With Normal Serum CA15-3 Level

PURPOSE

Cancer antigen 15-3 (CA15-3) is a serum tumor marker for breast cancer (BC) extensively used in clinical practice. CA15-3 is non-invasive, easily available, and a cost-effective tumor marker for immediate diagnosis, monitoring and prediction of BC recurrence. We hypothesized that an elevation of CA15-3 may have prognostic impact in patients with early BC with normal serum CA15-3 level.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study, which included patients with BC who received curative surgery at a comprehensive single institution between 2000 and 2016. CA15-3 levels from 0 to 30 U/mL were considered normal, and patients who had CA15-3 > 30 U/mL, were excluded from the study.

RESULTS

The mean age of study participants (n = 11,452) was 49.3 years. The proportion of participants with elevated CA15-3 ≥ 1 standard deviation (SD) compared with the previous examination during follow-up was 23.3% (n = 2,666). During the follow-up (median follow-up 5.8 years), 790 patients experienced recurrence. The fully-adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for recurrence comparing participants with stable CA15-3 level to subjects with elevated CA15-3 level was 1.76 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.52-2.03). In addition, if the CA15-3 was elevated ≥ 1 SD, the risk was much higher (HR, 6.87; 95% CI, 5.81-8.11) than in patients without elevated CA15-3 ≥ 1 SD. In sensitivity analysis, the recurrence risk was consistently higher in participants with elevated CA15-3 levels than in participants without elevated CA15-3 levels. The association between elevated CA15-3 levels and incidence of recurrence was observed in all subtypes and the association was stronger in patients with N+ than in patients with N0 stage (p-value for interaction < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

The results of the present study demonstrated that elevation of CA15-3 in patients with early BC and initial normal serum CA15-3 levels has a prognostic impact.

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.

Intensity of metastasis screening and survival outcomes in patients with breast cancer

Previous randomized trials, performed decades ago, showed no survival benefit of intensive screening for distant metastasis in breast cancer. However, recent improvements in targeted therapies and diagnostic accuracy of imaging have again raised the question of the clinical benefit of screening for distant metastasis. Therefore, we investigated the association between the use of modern imaging and survival of patients with breast cancer who eventually developed distant metastasis. We retrospectively reviewed data of 398 patients who developed distant metastasis after their initial curative treatment between January 2000 and December 2015. Patients in the less-intensive surveillance group (LSG) had significantly longer relapse-free survival than did patients in the intensive surveillance group (ISG) (8.7 vs. 22.8 months; p = 0.002). While the ISG showed worse overall survival than the LSG did (50.2 vs. 59.9 months; p = 0.015), the difference was insignificant after adjusting for other prognostic factors. Among the 225 asymptomatic patients whose metastases were detected on imaging, the intensity of screening did not affect overall survival. A small subgroup of patients showed poor survival outcomes when they underwent intensive screening. Patients with HR-/HER2 + tumors and patients who developed lung metastasis in the LSG had better overall survival than those in the ISG did. Highly intensive screening for distant metastasis in disease-free patients with breast cancer was not associated with significant survival benefits, despite the recent improvements in therapeutic options and diagnostic techniques.

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.

Intensive follow-up for women with breast cancer: review of clinical, economic and patient's preference domains through evidence to decision framework

BACKGROUND

Women treated for breast cancer are followed-up for monitoring of treatment effectiveness and for detecting recurrences at an early stage. The type of follow-up received may affect women's reassurance and impact on their quality of life. Anxiety and depression among women with breast cancer has been described, but little is known about how the intensity of the follow-up can affect women's psychological status. This study was undertaken to evaluate the effects of intensive vs. less-intensive follow-up on different health outcomes, to determine what are women's preferences and values regarding the follow-up received, and also assess the costs of these different types of follow-up.

METHODS

A systematic review following standard Cochrane Collaboration methods was carried out to assess the efficacy of intensive follow-up versus non-intensive follow-up in breast cancer patients. Two additional reviews on women's preferences and economic evidence were also carried out. The search was performed up to January 2016 in: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PDQ, McMaster Health Systems Evidence, CENTRAL, and NHS EED (through The Cochrane Library). The quality of evidence was assessed by GRADE (for quantitative studies) and CerQUAL (for qualitative studies). Several outcomes including mortality, breast cancer recurrences, quality of life, and patient satisfaction were evaluated.

RESULTS

Six randomised trials (corresponding to 3534 women) were included for the evaluation of health outcomes; three studies were included for women's values and preferences and four for an economic assessment. There is moderate certainty of evidence showing that intensive follow-up, including more frequent diagnostic tests or visits, does not have effects on 5- or 10-year overall mortality and recurrences in women with breast cancer, compared with less intensive follow-up. Regarding women's preferences and values, there was important variability among studies and within studies (low confidence due to risk of bias and inconsistency). Furthermore, intensive follow-up, as opposed to less intensive follow-up, is not likely to be cost-effective.

CONCLUSIONS

Less intensive follow-up appears to be justified and can be recommended over intensive follow-up. Resources could thus be mobilised to other aspects of breast cancer care, or other areas of healthcare.

Implications of Cancer Staging Uncertainties in Radiation Therapy Decisions

Introduction . Radiation therapy (RT) for cancer is a critical medical procedure that occurs in a complex environment involving numerous health professionals, hardware, software, and equipment. Uncertainties and potential incidents can lead to inappropriate administration of radiation to patients, with sometimes catastrophic consequences such as premature death or appreciably impaired quality of life. The authors evaluate the impact of incorrectly staging (i.e., estimation of extent of cancer) breast cancer patients and resulting inappropriate treatment decisions. Methods . The authors employ analytic and simulation methods in an influence-diagram framework to estimate the probability of incorrect staging and treatment decisions. As inputs, they use a combination of literature information on the accuracy and precision of pathology and tests as well as expert judgment. Sensitivity and value-of-information analyses are conducted to identify important uncertainties. Results and conclusions . The authors find a small but nontrivial probability that breast cancer patients will be incorrectly staged and thus may be subjected to inappropriate treatment. Results are sensitive to a number of variables, and some routinely used tests for metastasis have very limited information value. This work has implications for the methods used in cancer staging, and the methods are generalizable for quantitative risk assessment of treatment errors.

An individual reference limit for ‘early’ diagnosis of metastatic breast cancer during postoperative follow-up

Aims: This study is a clinical pilot study with the principal aim to investigate the accuracy of a panel of serum tumor markers for the early diagnosis of relapses. We propose a systematic use of serum CEA-TPA-CA15.3 tumor marker panel and criteria in order to make it an accurate tool for a postoperative breast cancer monitoring. Materials & methods: 204 disease free breast cancer patients after mastectomy were intensively monitored with serial serum determination of CEA, CA15.3 and TPA. Results: During a mean follow-up of 3.7 years the sensitivity of the CEA-TPA-CA15.3 tumor marker panel was 93%, the specificity was 97.6% and the rate of false ‘warning signals’ per year of follow-up was 9 per 100 patients. Conclusions: Our results show that the proposed tool is promising for a postoperative monitoring of breast cancer patients.

Use of imaging in surveillance of women with early stage breast cancer

BACKGROUND

There is no evidence of benefit in terms of survival or quality of life for intensive surveillance of women with early breast cancer (BC) and current guidelines reflect this. We have examined whether Victorian women, nearly 4 years from a diagnosis of localized BC, were being managed according to these guidelines.

METHODS

Participants are women in the BUPA Health Foundation Health and Wellbeing after Breast Cancer prospective cohort study. All participants completed an enrolment questionnaire within 12 months of diagnosis and then completed follow-up questionnaires every 12 months thereafter. In the third follow-up questionnaire, completed nearly 4 years from the time of diagnosis, women were asked about imaging tests they had in the previous 12 months.

RESULTS

The analysis was completed on 673 women who were stage 1 at the time of diagnosis and had not reported evidence of recurrence or a new BC since diagnosis. Of the 673, 603 (89.5%) reported having had a mammogram in the previous 12 months and 319 (52.9% of those having a mammogram) reported a breast ultrasound. Seventy-one per cent of women reported no other imaging investigations in the previous 12 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study shows that, nearly 4 years from diagnosis, Australian practitioners are generally adhering to guidelines about imaging surveillance of BC survivors. Practitioners could use the guidelines for the education of BC survivors about appropriate health surveillance.

Intensive post-operative follow-up of breast cancer patients with tumour markers: CEA, TPA or CA15.3 vs MCA and MCA-CA15.3 vs CEA-TPA-CA15.3 panel in the early detection of distant metastases

Background

In breast cancer current guidelines do not recommend the routine use of serum tumour markers. Differently, we observed that CEA-TPA-CA15.3 (carcinoembryonic (CEA) tissue polypeptide (TPA) and cancer associated 115D8/DF3 (CA15.3) antigens) panel permits early detection and treatment for most relapsing patients. As high sensitivity and specificity and different cut-off values have been reported for mucin-like carcinoma associated antigen (MCA), we compared MCA with the above mentioned tumour markers and MCA-CA15.3 with the CEA-TPA-CA15.3 panel.

Methods

In 289 breast cancer patients submitted to an intensive post-operative follow-up with tumour markers, we compared MCA (cut-off values, ≥ 11 and ≥ 15 U/mL) with CEA or CA15.3 or TPA for detection of relapse. In addition, we compared the MCA-CA15.3 and CEA-TPA-CA15.3 tumour marker panels.

Results

Distant metastases occurred 19 times in 18 (6.7%) of the 268 patients who were disease-free at the beginning of the study. MCA sensitivity with both cut-off values was higher than that of CEA or TPA or CA15.3 (68% vs 10%, 26%, 32% and 53% vs 16%, 42%, 32% respectively). With cut-off ≥ 11 U/mL, MCA showed the lowest specificity (42%); with cut-off ≥ 15 U/mL, MCA specificity was similar to TPA (73% vs 72%) and lower than that of CEA and CA15.3 (96% and 97% respectively). With ≥ 15 U/mL MCA cut-off, MCA sensitivity increased from 53% to 58% after its association with CA15.3. Sensitivity of CEA-TPA-CA15.3 panel was 74% (14 of 19 recurrences). Eight of the 14 recurrences early detected with CEA-TPA-CA15.3 presented as a single lesion (oligometastatic disease) (5) or were confined to bony skeleton (3) (26% and 16% respectively of the 19 relapses). With ≥ 11 U/mL MCA cut-off, MCA-CA15.3 association showed higher sensitivity but lower specificity, accuracy and positive predictive value than the CEA-TPA-CA15.3 panel.

Conclusion

At both the evaluated cut-off values serum MCA sensitivity is higher than that of CEA, TPA or CA15.3 but its specificity is similar to or lower than that of TPA. Overall, CEA-TPA-CA15.3 panel is more accurate than MCA-CA15.3 association and can "early" detect a few relapsed patients with limited metastatic disease and more favourable prognosis. These findings further support the need for prospective randomised clinical trial to assess whether an intensive post-operative follow-up with an appropriate use of serum tumour markers can significantly improve clinical outcome of early detected relapsing patients.

Follow-up Cost of Breast Cancer Patients with Localized Disease After Primary Treatment: a Randomized Trial

We studied the cost of follow-up of 472 breast cancer patients without distant metastasis after primary treatment in four different schedules in a randomized trial. The mean follow-up was 4.2 years. The four schedules differed in frequency of follow-up visits (every third or sixth month) and in intensity of diagnostic examinations (routine or on clinical grounds). Neither the frequency of visits nor the intensity of diagnostic examinations had any effect on disease-free or overall survival of patients. The total costs of follow-up, however, were different in the four follow-up schedules and varied between arms per patient from 1050 to 2269 euros and per detected recurrence from 4166 to 9149 euros. Outpatient visits every third month compared to every sixth month and routine examinations in the follow-up of asymptomatic primary breast cancer patients do not improve patient disease-free or overall survival, but increase the costs of follow-up 2.2 times.