Cost-effectiveness of a carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) based follow-up programme for colorectal cancer (the CEA Watch trial)

Normal CEA Levels After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy and Cytoreduction with Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemoperfusion Predict Improved Survival from Colorectal Peritoneal Metastases

BACKGROUND

Normal carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) levels (≤ 2.5 ng/ml) after resection of localized colorectal cancer or liver metastases are associated with improved survival, however, these trends are understudied for colorectal peritoneal metastases (CRPM).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We conducted a retrospective single-institution study of patients with CRPM undergoing cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemoperfusion (CRS/HIPEC) with and without neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT). CEA was measured before and after NACT and within 3 months after CRS/HIPEC.

RESULTS

A total of 253 patients (mean age 55.3 years) with CRPM undergoing CRS/HIPEC had complete CEA data and 191 also underwent NACT with complete data. The median peritoneal carcinomatosis index score (PCI) of the overall cohort was 12 and 82.7% of patients had complete cytoreduction (CC0). In total, 64 (33.5%) patients had normal CEA levels after NACT with a median overall survival (OS) of 45.2 months compared with those with an elevated CEA (26.4 months, p = 0.004). Patients with normal CEA after NACT had a lower PCI found at the time of surgery than those with elevated CEA (10 versus 14, p < 0.001), 68 (26.9%) patients with an elevated preoperative CEA level experienced normalization after CRS/HIPEC, and 118 (46.6%) patients had elevated CEA after CRS/HIPEC. Patients who experienced normalization demonstrated similar OS to patients that had normal CEA levels pre- and post-surgery and improved OS compared with those with elevated postop CEA (median 41.9 versus 47 months versus 17.1 months, respectively, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Normal CEA levels after NACT and/or CRS/HIPEC are associated with improved survival for patients with CRPM. Patients that normalize CEA levels after surgery have similar survival to those with normal preoperative levels.

Economic Evaluation of Long-Term Survivorship Care for Cancer Patients in OECD Countries: A Systematic Review for Decision-Makers

Long-term cancer survivorship care is a crucial component of an efficient healthcare system. For numerous reasons, there has been an increase in the number of cancer survivors; therefore, healthcare decision-makers are tasked with balancing a finite budget with a strong demand for services. Decision-makers require clear and pragmatic interpretation of results to inform resource allocation decisions. For these reasons, the impact and importance of economic evidence are increasing. The aim of the current study was to conduct a systematic review of economic evaluations of long-term cancer survivorship care in Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) member countries and to assess the usefulness of economic evidence for decision-makers. A systematic review of electronic databases, including MEDLINE, PubMed, PsycINFO and others, was conducted. The reporting quality of the included studies was appraised using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist. Each included study’s usefulness for decision-makers was assessed using an adapted version of a previously published approach. Overall, 3597 studies were screened, and of the 235 studies assessed for eligibility, 34 satisfied the pre-determined inclusion criteria. We found that the majority of the included studies had limited value for informing healthcare decision-making and conclude that this represents an ongoing issue in the field. We recommend that authors explicitly include a policy statement as part of their presentation of results.

GPI-AP: Unraveling a New Class of Malignancy Mediators and Potential Immunotherapy Targets

With millions of cases diagnosed annually and high economic burden to cover expensive costs, cancer is one of the most difficult diseases to treat due to late diagnosis and severe adverse effects from conventional therapy. This creates an urgent need to find new targets for early diagnosis and therapy. Progress in research revealed the key steps of carcinogenesis. They are called cancer hallmarks. Zooming in, cancer hallmarks are characterized by ligands binding to their cognate receptor and so triggering signaling cascade within cell to make response for stimulus. Accordingly, understanding membrane topology is vital. In this review, we shall discuss one type of transmembrane proteins: Glycosylphosphatidylinositol-Anchored Proteins (GPI-APs), with specific emphasis on those involved in tumor cells by evading immune surveillance and future applications for diagnosis and immune targeted therapy.

Comparison of the diagnostic value of CEA combined with OPN or DKK1 in non-small cell lung cancer

Carcinoma embryonic antigen (CEA), osteopontin (OPN), and Dickkopf-1 (DKK1) expressed in serum are associated with hypoxia in tumor progression. However, the role of these proteins in the plasma of patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is poorly understood. The diagnostic values of CEA combined with OPN or DKK1 were compared in non-small cell lung cancer. This study investigated the diagnostic value of CEA combined with OPN and DKK1, respectively, in NSCLC. Eighty patients with NSCLC (NSCLC group) and 60 patients with benign lung diseases (benign lung disease group) admitted to Shandong Provincial Third Hospital from May 2014 to January 2015 were selected as the study subjects. In addition, 60 healthy subjects undergoing normal physical examination were selected as healthy control group. The OPN and DKK1 in serum of the two groups were detected by enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), and the CEA expression was measured by Electrochemical Photometric method. The diagnostic value of CEA combined with OPN and DKK1, respectively, in NSCLC was analyzed. The expression of CEA, OPN, and DKK1 in serum of NSCLC group was significantly higher than that of healthy control group and benign lung disease group (P<0.05). The expression of CEA, OPN and DKK1 in serum of NSCLC patients was correlated with tumor diameter, lymph node metastasis, degree of pathological differentiation and clinical stage (P<0.05). ROC curve for diagnosis of NSCLC was drawn by further combination of serum CEA and OPN. The AUC of combined diagnosis of CEA and OPN for NSCLC was 0.920 (95% CI, 0.875-0.964), and the diagnostic sensitivity and specificity were 87.50 and 86.67%, respectively; the AUC of combined diagnosis of CEA and DKK1 for NSCLC was 0.912 (95% CI, 0.866-0.958), and the diagnostic sensitivity and specificity were 92.50 and 76.67%, respectively. CEA, OPN and DKK1 may be involved in the occurrence and progression of NSCLC and have good sensitivity and specificity in the diagnosis of NSCLC and may be new biomarkers for the diagnosis of NSCLC.

A Review of the Role of Carcinoembryonic Antigen in Clinical Practice

Carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) is not normally produced in significant quantities after birth but is elevated in colorectal cancer. The aim of this review was to define the current role of CEA and how best to investigate patients with elevated CEA levels. A systematic review of CEA was performed, in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Studies were identified from PubMed, Cochrane library, and controlled trials registers. We identified 2,712 papers of which 34 were relevant. Analysis of these papers found higher preoperative CEA levels were associated with advanced or metastatic disease and thus poorer prognosis. Postoperatively, failure of CEA to return to normal was found to be indicative of residual or recurrent disease. However, measurement of CEA levels alone was not sufficient to improve survival rates. Two algorithms are proposed to guide investigation of patients with elevated CEA: one for patients with elevated CEA after CRC resection, and another for patients with de novo elevated CEA. CEA measurement has an important role in the investigation, management and follow-up of patients with colorectal cancer.

Follow-up strategies following completion of primary cancer treatment in adult cancer survivors

BACKGROUND

Most cancer survivors receive follow-up care after completion of treatment with the primary aim of detecting recurrence. Traditional follow-up consisting of fixed visits to a cancer specialist for examinations and tests are expensive and may be burdensome for the patient. Follow-up strategies involving non-specialist care providers, different intensity of procedures, or addition of survivorship care packages have been developed and tested, however their effectiveness remains unclear.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review is to compare the effect of different follow-up strategies in adult cancer survivors, following completion of primary cancer treatment, on the primary outcomes of overall survival and time to detection of recurrence. Secondary outcomes are health-related quality of life, anxiety (including fear of recurrence), depression and cost.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, four other databases and two trials registries on 11 December 2018 together with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised trials comparing different follow-up strategies for adult cancer survivors following completion of curatively-intended primary cancer treatment, which included at least one of the outcomes listed above. We compared the effectiveness of: 1) non-specialist-led follow-up (i.e. general practitioner (GP)-led, nurse-led, patient-initiated or shared care) versus specialist-led follow-up; 2) less intensive versus more intensive follow-up (based on clinical visits, examinations and diagnostic procedures) and 3) follow-up integrating additional care components relevant for detection of recurrence (e.g. patient symptom education or monitoring, or survivorship care plans) versus usual care.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological guidelines by Cochrane and Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. For each comparison, we present synthesised findings for overall survival and time to detection of recurrence as hazard ratios (HR) and for health-related quality of life, anxiety and depression as mean differences (MD), with 95% confidence intervals (CI). When meta-analysis was not possible, we reported the results from individual studies. For survival and recurrence, we used meta-regression analysis where possible to investigate whether the effects varied with regards to cancer site, publication year and study quality.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 53 trials involving 20,832 participants across 12 cancer sites and 15 countries, mainly in Europe, North America and Australia. All the studies were carried out in either a hospital or general practice setting. Seventeen studies compared non-specialist-led follow-up with specialist-led follow-up, 24 studies compared intensity of follow-up and 12 studies compared patient symptom education or monitoring, or survivorship care plans with usual care. Risk of bias was generally low or unclear in most of the studies, with a higher risk of bias in the smaller trials. Non-specialist-led follow-up compared with specialist-led follow-up It is uncertain how this strategy affects overall survival (HR 1.21, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.15; 2 studies; 603 participants), time to detection of recurrence (4 studies, 1691 participants) or cost (8 studies, 1756 participants) because the certainty of the evidence is very low. Non-specialist- versus specialist-led follow up may make little or no difference to health-related quality of life at 12 months (MD 1.06, 95% CI -1.83 to 3.95; 4 studies; 605 participants; low-certainty evidence); and probably makes little or no difference to anxiety at 12 months (MD -0.03, 95% CI -0.73 to 0.67; 5 studies; 1266 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We are more certain that it has little or no effect on depression at 12 months (MD 0.03, 95% CI -0.35 to 0.42; 5 studies; 1266 participants; high-certainty evidence). Less intensive follow-up compared with more intensive follow-up Less intensive versus more intensive follow-up may make little or no difference to overall survival (HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.14; 13 studies; 10,726 participants; low-certainty evidence) and probably increases time to detection of recurrence (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.92; 12 studies; 11,276 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Meta-regression analysis showed little or no difference in the intervention effects by cancer site, publication year or study quality. It is uncertain whether this strategy has an effect on health-related quality of life (3 studies, 2742 participants), anxiety (1 study, 180 participants) or cost (6 studies, 1412 participants) because the certainty of evidence is very low. None of the studies reported on depression. Follow-up strategies integrating additional patient symptom education or monitoring, or survivorship care plans compared with usual care: None of the studies reported on overall survival or time to detection of recurrence. It is uncertain whether this strategy makes a difference to health-related quality of life (12 studies, 2846 participants), anxiety (1 study, 470 participants), depression (8 studies, 2351 participants) or cost (1 studies, 408 participants), as the certainty of evidence is very low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence regarding the effectiveness of the different follow-up strategies varies substantially. Less intensive follow-up may make little or no difference to overall survival but probably delays detection of recurrence. However, as we did not analyse the two outcomes together, we cannot make direct conclusions about the effect of interventions on survival after detection of recurrence. The effects of non-specialist-led follow-up on survival and detection of recurrence, and how intensity of follow-up affects health-related quality of life, anxiety and depression, are uncertain. There was little evidence for the effects of follow-up integrating additional patient symptom education/monitoring and survivorship care plans.

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

BACKGROUND

This is the fourth update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2002 and last updated in 2016.It is common clinical practice to follow patients with colorectal cancer for several years following their curative surgery or adjuvant therapy, or both. Despite this widespread practice, there is considerable controversy about how often patients should be seen, what tests should be performed, and whether these varying strategies have any significant impact on patient outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of follow-up programmes (follow-up versus no follow-up, follow-up strategies of varying intensity, and follow-up in different healthcare settings) on overall survival for patients with colorectal cancer treated with curative intent. Secondary objectives are to assess relapse-free survival, salvage surgery, interval recurrences, quality of life, and the harms and costs of surveillance and investigations.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, on 5 April 2109 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Science Citation Index. We also searched reference lists of articles, and handsearched the Proceedings of the American Society for Radiation Oncology. In addition, we searched the following trials registries: ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We contacted study authors. We applied no language or publication restrictions to the search strategies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently determined study eligibility, performed data extraction, and assessed risk of bias and methodological quality. We used GRADE to assess evidence quality.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 19 studies, which enrolled 13,216 participants (we included four new studies in this second update). Sixteen out of the 19 studies were eligible for quantitative synthesis. Although the studies varied in setting (general practitioner (GP)-led, nurse-led, or surgeon-led) and 'intensity' of follow-up, there was very little inconsistency in the results.Overall survival: we found intensive follow-up made little or no difference (hazard ratio (HR) 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 1.04: I² = 18%; high-quality evidence). There were 1453 deaths among 12,528 participants in 15 studies. In absolute terms, the average effect of intensive follow-up on overall survival was 24 fewer deaths per 1000 patients, but the true effect could lie between 60 fewer to 9 more per 1000 patients.Colorectal cancer-specific survival: we found intensive follow-up probably made little or no difference (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.07: I² = 0%; moderate-quality evidence). There were 925 colorectal cancer deaths among 11,771 participants enrolled in 11 studies. In absolute terms, the average effect of intensive follow-up on colorectal cancer-specific survival was 15 fewer colorectal cancer-specific survival deaths per 1000 patients, but the true effect could lie between 47 fewer to 12 more per 1000 patients.Relapse-free survival: we found intensive follow-up made little or no difference (HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.21; I² = 41%; high-quality evidence). There were 2254 relapses among 8047 participants enrolled in 16 studies. The average effect of intensive follow-up on relapse-free survival was 17 more relapses per 1000 patients, but the true effect could lie between 30 fewer and 66 more per 1000 patients.Salvage surgery with curative intent: this was more frequent with intensive follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 1.98, 95% CI 1.53 to 2.56; I² = 31%; high-quality evidence). There were 457 episodes of salvage surgery in 5157 participants enrolled in 13 studies. In absolute terms, the effect of intensive follow-up on salvage surgery was 60 more episodes of salvage surgery per 1000 patients, but the true effect could lie between 33 to 96 more episodes per 1000 patients.Interval (symptomatic) recurrences: these were less frequent with intensive follow-up (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.86; I² = 66%; moderate-quality evidence). There were 376 interval recurrences reported in 3933 participants enrolled in seven studies. Intensive follow-up was associated with fewer interval recurrences (52 fewer per 1000 patients); the true effect is between 18 and 75 fewer per 1000 patients.Intensive follow-up probably makes little or no difference to quality of life, anxiety, or depression (reported in 7 studies; moderate-quality evidence). The data were not available in a form that allowed analysis.Intensive follow-up may increase the complications (perforation or haemorrhage) from colonoscopies (OR 7.30, 95% CI 0.75 to 70.69; 1 study, 326 participants; very low-quality evidence). Two studies reported seven colonoscopic complications in 2292 colonoscopies, three perforations and four gastrointestinal haemorrhages requiring transfusion. We could not combine the data, as they were not reported by study arm in one study.The limited data on costs suggests that the cost of more intensive follow-up may be increased in comparison with less intense follow-up (low-quality evidence). The data were not available in a form that allowed analysis.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

The cost-effectiveness of follow-up strategies after cancer treatment: a systematic literature review

INTRODUCTION

The cost of treatment and follow-up of cancer patients in the UK is substantial. In a budget-constrained system such as the NHS, it is necessary to consider the cost-effectiveness of the range of management strategies at different points on cancer patients' care pathways to ensure that they provide adequate value for money.

SOURCES OF DATA

We conducted a systematic literature review to explore the cost-effectiveness of follow-up strategies of patients previously treated for cancer with the aim of informing UK policy. All papers that were considered to be economic evaluations in the subject areas described above were extracted.

AREAS OF AGREEMENT

The existing literature suggests that intensive follow-up of patients with colorectal disease is likely to be cost-effective, but the opposite holds for breast cancer.

AREAS OF CONTROVERSY

Interventions and strategies for follow-up in cancer patients were variable across type of cancer and setting. Drawing general conclusions about the cost-effectiveness of these interventions/strategies is difficult.

GROWING POINTS

The search identified 2036 references but applying inclusion/exclusion criteria a total of 44 articles were included in the analysis. Breast cancer was the most common (n = 11) cancer type followed by colorectal (n = 10) cancer. In general, there were relatively few studies of cost-effectiveness of follow-up that could influence UK guidance. Where there was evidence, in the most part, NICE guidance broadly reflected this evidence.

AREAS TIMELY TO DEVELOP RESEARCH

In terms of future research around the timing, frequency and composition of follow-ups, this is dependent on the type of cancer being considered. Nevertheless, across most cancers, the possibility of remote follow-up (or testing) by health professionals other than hospital consultants in other settings appears to warrant further work.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Survival analysis of the CEAwatch multicentre clustered randomized trial

BACKGROUND

The CEAwatch randomized trial showed that follow-up with intensive carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) monitoring (CEAwatch protocol) was better than care as usual (CAU) for early postoperative detection of colorectal cancer recurrence. The aim of this study was to calculate overall survival (OS) and disease-specific survival (DSS).

METHODS

For all patients with recurrence, OS and DSS were compared between patients detected by the CEAwatch protocol versus CAU, and by the method of detection of recurrence, using Cox regression models.

RESULTS

Some 238 patients with recurrence were analysed (7·5 per cent); a total of 108 recurrences were detected by CEA blood test, 64 (55·2 per cent) within the CEAwatch protocol and 44 (41·9 per cent) in the CAU group (P = 0·007). Only 16 recurrences (13·8 per cent) were detected by patient self-report in the CEAwatch group, compared with 33 (31·4 per cent) in the CAU group. There was no significant improvement in either OS or DSS with the CEAwatch protocol compared with CAU: hazard ratio 0·73 (95 per cent 0·46 to 1·17) and 0·78 (0·48 to 1·28) respectively. There were no differences in survival when recurrence was detected by CT versus CEA measurement, but both of these methods yielded better survival outcomes than detection by patient self-report.

CONCLUSION

There was no direct survival benefit in favour of the intensive programme, but the CEAwatch protocol led to a higher proportion of recurrences being detected by CEA-based blood test and reduced the number detected by patient self-report. This is important because detection of recurrence by blood test was associated with significantly better survival than patient self-report, indirectly supporting use of the CEAwatch protocol.

Colorectal cancer and the KIR genes in the human genome: A meta-analysis

Colorectal cancer is one of the most common types of inflammation-based cancers and is occurred due to growth and spread of cancer cells in colon and/or rectum. Previously genetic association of cell cycle genes, both proto-oncogenes and the tumor suppressors has been proved. But there were few studies about association of immune related genes such as killer-cell immunoglobulin-like receptors (KIRs). Thus we intend to perform a meta-analysis to find the association of different genes of KIR and susceptibility to be affected by colorectal cancer. The overall population of the four studies investigated in our meta-analysis was 953 individuals (470 individuals with colorectal cancer and 483 individuals in control groups). After the analyses, we concluded that colorectal cancer is affected by KIR2DS5 and also there were no protecting gene. This result shows the inflammatory basis of this cancer. In other words, in contrast to leukemia and blood cancers, colorectal cancers seem to be affected by hyper activity of natural killer-cells (NKs). Whys and therefore of this paradox, is suggested to be investigated further.

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.