The CEA Second-Look Trial: a randomised controlled trial of carcinoembryonic antigen prompted reoperation for recurrent colorectal cancer

Clinical utility of the carcinoembryonic antigen level in patients with stage III colon cancer after surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy

PURPOSE

The association between perioperative and post-adjuvant carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) levels and recurrence and prognosis remains unclear. We aimed to evaluate whether perioperative CEA levels are an integral component of the assessment of recurrence and prognosis of patients with stage III colon cancer (CC).

METHODS

This retrospective study was conducted at the Cancer Institute Hospital of the Japanese Foundation for Cancer Research from 2005 to 2013. We enrolled patients with stage III CC who underwent complete resection of a primary tumor and received adjuvant chemotherapy. We analyzed the association between perioperative and post-adjuvant CEA levels and recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

A total of 564 consecutive patients were included in the analysis. The RFS and OS of patients with high postoperative CEA levels were significantly worse than those of patients with normal postoperative CEA levels. In the multivariate analysis, high postoperative CEA levels were associated with shorter RFS and OS. The number of risk factors, postoperative CEA levels, and T/N-stage all had a cumulative effect on RFS and OS.

CONCLUSIONS

High postoperative CEA levels and the number of risk factors are associated with recurrence and worse prognosis for patients with stage III CC.

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.

Circulating tumour DNA in colorectal cancer management

Circulating tumour DNA analysis can be performed using two opposing paradigms: tumour-informed and tumour-agnostic approaches. The first requires sequencing data from the primary tumour sample to identify tumour DNA in circulation, whereas the latter occurs without previous primary tumour genetic profiling.

Several preanalytical and laboratory considerations need to be taken into account before proceeding with in-house circulating tumour DNA analysis.

Detection of circulating tumour DNA after curative resection is associated with a significant risk of recurrence. For those with stage II disease and detectable postoperative circulating tumour DNA, administration of adjuvant chemotherapy results in a reduction in the number of patients receiving chemotherapy while providing non-inferior recurrence-free survival compared with standard histopathological decision-making algorithms.

Monitoring circulating tumour DNA during post-treatment surveillance may provide a significantly earlier diagnosis of recurrence.

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

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

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.

Pulmonary metastasectomy: limits to credibility

Lung metastases are a common site of spread for many malignant tumours. Pulmonary metastasectomy has been practiced for many years for sarcomas and is now becoming increasingly frequently advocated for patients with many other tumours, especially colorectal cancer. In this article we argue that this procedure is one framed by therapeutic opportunity and not supported by strong evidence. It is potentially harmful and may not be effective. Our argument is based on several important issues: (I) the vagueness of the concept of "oligometastases" and its biological implausibility; (II) the flaws in the often-cited observational evidence, especially selection bias; (III) the lack of any reliable randomised trial evidence of improved survival but evidence of harm; (IV) the failure of strategies to detect metastases earlier to influence overall survival. The introduction of stereotactic radiotherapy and image-guided thermal ablation have made the urge to treat lung metastases stronger but without any good evidence to justify their use. We acknowledge the problems of carrying out randomised trials when there is a clear lack of equipoise in the clinical teams involved but believe that there is an ethical need to do so. Many patients are probably being given false hope of cure or prolonged survival but are at risk of harm from pulmonary metastasectomy or ablation. It is possible that a few patients may benefit but without better evidence we do not know which, if any, do.

The Combination Therapy of Fluorouracil and Oxaliplatin Suppress the Progression of Colon Cancer Through miR-183-5p/SOCS3 Axis and Downregulating PD-L1

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to investigate the mechanism of combination of fluorouracil (FU) and oxaliplatin (OXA) on the progression of colon cancer via miR-183-5p/SOCS3 axis and regulating PD-L1.

Methods

HCT116 cells were treated with 4 μM OXA and 10.5 μM FU, or exogenous regulation of the expression of miR-183-5p, SOCS3 and PD-L1 in HCT116 cells. CCK-8 assay was employed to detect cell viability of HCT116 cells. Flow cytometry was performed to assess the apoptosis and cell cycle. The expression level of SOCS3, PD-L1, chemokines (CCL1, CCL4 and CCL7) and immune escapes related proteins (EGFR, STARD1 and STARD3) in HCT116 cells were assessed by Western blotting. In addition, dual-luciferase reporter gene was carried out to verify the targeted relationship between miR-183-5p with SOCS3.

Results

Our study demonstrated that the combination of OXA and FU remarkably suppressed proliferation, promoted apoptosis and arrest cells in G0/G1 phrase of HCT116 cells, and observably downregulated the expression of PD-L1, CCL1, CCL4, CCL7, EGFR, STARD1 and STARD3. Meanwhile, the combination of OXA and FU significantly downregulated miR-183-5p expression. Knockdown of miR-183-5p also repressed the proliferation, promoted apoptosis and arrest cells in G0/G1 phrase of HCT116 cells, and downregulated the expression of PD-L1, CCL1, CCL4, CCL7, EGFR, STARD1 and STARD3. In addition, our study proved that miR-183-5p upregulated PD-L1 by targeting downregulated SOCS3 expression. Finally, we demonstrated that the combination therapy of OXA and FU inhibited the proliferation, promote apoptosis and arrest cells in G0/G1 phrase by downregulating PD-L1 via miR-183-5p/SOCS3 axis.

Conclusion

The combination therapy of OXA and FU could suppress the malignant biological behavior, and the mechanism was realized by inhibiting PD-L1 through miR-183-5p/SOCS3 axis.

Adjuvant-containing control arms in pivotal quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccine trials: restoration of previously unpublished methodology

PURPOSE

Trustworthy reporting of quadrivalent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine trials is the foundation for assessing the vaccine's risks and benefits. However, several pivotal trial publications incompletely reported important methodological details and inaccurately described the formulation that the control arms received. Under the Restoring Invisible and Abandoned Trials initiative (RIAT), we aim to restore the public record regarding the content and rationale of the controls used in the trials.

METHODS

We assembled a cohort (five randomised controlled trials) described as placebo-controlled using clinical study reports (CSRs) obtained from the European Medicines Agency. We extracted the content and rationale for the choice of control used in each trial across six data sources: trial publications, register records, CSR synopses, CSR main bodies, protocols and informed consent forms.

RESULTS

Across data sources, the control was inconsistently reported as 'placebo'-containing aluminium adjuvant (sometimes with dose information). Amorphous aluminium hydroxyphosphate sulfate (AAHS) was not mentioned in any trial registry entry, but was mentioned in all publications and CSRs. In three of five trials, consent forms described the control as an 'inactive' substance. No rationale for the selection of the control was reported in any trial publication, register, consent form, CSR synopsis or protocol. Three trials reported the rationale for choice of control in CSRs: to preserve blinding and assess the safety of HPV virus-like particles as the 'safety profile of (AAHS) is well characterised'.

CONCLUSIONS

The stated rationale of using AAHS control-to characterise the safety of the HPV virus-like particles-lacks clinical relevance. A non-placebo control may have obscured an accurate assessment of safety and the participant consent process of some trials raises ethical concerns.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS

NCT00092482, NCT00092521, NCT00092534, NCT00090220, NCT00090285.

Pulmonary Metastasectomy in Colorectal Cancer: updated analysis of 93 randomized patients - control survival is much better than previously assumed

AIM

Lung metastases from colorectal cancer are resected in selected patients in the belief that this confers a significant survival advantage. It is generally assumed that the 5-year survival of these patients would be near zero without metastasectomy. We tested the clinical effectiveness of this practice in Pulmonary Metastasectomy in Colorectal Cancer (PulMiCC), a randomized, controlled noninferiority trial.

METHOD

Multidisciplinary teams in 14 hospitals recruited patients with resectable lung metastases into a two-arm trial. Randomization was remote and stratified according to site, with minimization for age, sex, primary cancer stage, interval since primary resection, prior liver involvement, number of metastases and carcinoembryonic antigen level. The trial management group was blind to patient allocation until after intention-to-treat analysis.

RESULTS

From 2010 to 2016, 93 participants were randomized. These patients were 35-86 years of age and had between one and six lung metastases at a median of 2.7 years after colorectal cancer resection; 29% had prior liver metastasectomy. The patient groups were well matched and the characteristics of these groups were similar to those of observational studies. The median survival after metastasectomy was 3.5 (95% CI: 3.1-6.6) years compared with 3.8 (95% CI: 3.1-4.6) years for controls. The estimated unadjusted hazard ratio for death within 5 years, comparing the metastasectomy group with the control group, was 0.93 (95% CI: 0.56-1.56). Use of chemotherapy or local ablation was infrequent and similar in each group.

CONCLUSION

Patients in the control group (who did not undergo lung metastasectomy) have better survival than is assumed. Survival in the metastasectomy group is comparable with the many single-arm follow-up studies. The groups were well matched with features similar to those reported in case series.

Markers of metastatic colorectal cancer

Metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) is a major cause of cancer-related death. However, early diagnosis of CRC metastases offers a chance of long-term survival in as much as 40% of patients after curative treatment. Current guidelines are based on clinical examination, carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) testing, computed tomography scanning, and endoscopic surveillance. Although CEA is the most widely used laboratory test, it has very low sensitivity (30–40%). Moreover, there is no evidence to support the association of CEA testing with improved survival or quality of life. Thus, novel markers with greater specificity and sensitivity are needed. The aim of this review was to define the role of available laboratory markers in early diagnosis of metastatic CRC. We identified novel tests with the highest association to metastatic CRC: circulating tumour DNA, growth/differentiation factor 15, and β6-integrin. We also discuss other promising markers, although most of the studies are preliminary and require validation.

Potential for epistemic injustice in evidence-based healthcare policy and guidance

The rapid development in healthcare technologies in recent years has resulted in the need for health services, whether publicly funded or insurance based, to identify means to maximise the benefits and provide equitable distribution of limited resources. This has resulted in the need for rationing decisions, and there has been considerable debate regarding the substantive and procedural ethical principles that promote distributive justice when making such decisions. In this paper, I argue that while the scientifically rigorous approaches of evidence-based healthcare are claimed as aspects of procedural justice that legitimise such guidance, there are biases and distortions in all aspects of the process that may lead to epistemic injustices. Regardless of adherence to principles of distributive justice in the decision-making process, evidential failings may undermine the fairness and legitimacy of such decisions. In particular, I identify epistemic exclusion that denies certain patient and professional groups the opportunity to contribute to the epistemic endeavour. This occurs at all stages of the process, from the generation, analysis and reporting of the underlying evidence, through the interpretation of such evidence, to the decision-making that determines access to healthcare resources. I further argue that this is compounded by processes which confer unwarranted epistemic privilege on experts in relation to explicit or implicit value judgements, which are not within their remit. I suggest a number of areas in which changes to the processes for developing, regulating, reporting and evaluating evidence may improve the legitimacy of such processes.

Evidence-based follow-up in colorectal cancer—quo vadis?

Colorectal cancer is the third most common and the third most lethal cancer disease in the western world. As most patients undergo treatment with curative intent at initial diagnosis, postoperative surveillance protocols have been established with the primary aim to detect possible disease recurrence in an early resectable stage. Various international guidelines recommend an intensive surveillance protocol over a 5-year time period. These guidelines are based on the reported significant benefit regarding overall patient survival, and on the observation that 90% of recurrences occur within the first 5 years following resection. Surveillance protocols include regular clinical examinations, measurement of the carcinoembryonic antigen, computed tomography scans and regular endoscopies. While there is plenty of evidence regarding the scheduling of endoscopies, the frequency of carcinoembryonic antigen measurements and computed tomography scans has been ever since under debate. The benefit of intensive compared to low frequency surveillance protocols regarding disease-specific survival has never been shown. Moreover, recent meta-analyses and randomized controlled trials challenge current guidelines. Intensive carcinoembryonic antigen assessment and computed tomography scan follow-up protocols seem to fail in generating better overall and disease-specific survival in colorectal cancer patients compared to less intensive surveillance strategies. This change over the last few decades parallels the treatment evolution of colorectal cancer from a primarily surgical to a multidisciplinary task. Instead of advocating a reduction of the follow-up intensity, these findings should stimulate the colorectal oncology field to move from a one-fits-all to a patient-centered surveillance.

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 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.

Role of surveillance imaging and endoscopy in colorectal cancer follow-up: Quality over quantity?

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a prevalent disease and represents a major cause of morbidity and mortality in the developed world. Intensive post-treatment surveillance is routinely recommended by major expert groups for early stage (II and III) CRC survivors because previous meta-analyses showed a modest, but significant survival benefit. This practice has been recently challenged based on data emerging from several large phase III randomized trials that demonstrated a lack of survival benefit from intensive surveillance strategies. In addition, findings from cost-effectiveness analyses of such an approach are inconsistent. Data on real-world practice, specifically adherence to these follow-up guidelines, are also limited. The debate is especially controversial in resected stage IV patients where there are currently no clear guidelines for follow-up. In an era of personalized medicine, there may be a shift towards a more risk-adapted approach to better define the optimal follow-up strategy. In this article, we review the evidence and highlight the role of surveillance in CRC survivors.

Research integrity and the law that never was

Evidence-based medicine is arguably among the most important innovations of the modern era, but publication bias and inadequate research transparency are serious issues affecting the very foundation of evidence-based practice. Despite this truth, these crucial issues have gone largely unaddressed or inadequately addressed for a distressingly long period of time. Regulatory efforts have thus far proven insufficient in eliminating these issues. Fortunately, the last 5 years in particular have seen developments that one hopes will contribute to the eradication of these issues and a future where we can look back on these issues as a sordid story of our past. However, much like the purported fixes of the past, time will be the final arbiter of the efficacy of remedial measures currently underway. This article chronicles the history of these issues, failed attempts to fix these issues, and what can be and is being done with the hope of bringing about true resolution.

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.

A randomised controlled trial to assess the cost-effectiveness of intensive versus no scheduled follow-up in patients who have undergone resection for colorectal cancer with curative intent

BACKGROUND

Intensive follow-up after surgery for colorectal cancer is common practice but lacks a firm evidence base.

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether or not augmenting symptomatic follow-up in primary care with two intensive methods of follow-up [monitoring of blood carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) levels and scheduled imaging] is effective and cost-effective in detecting the recurrence of colorectal cancer treatable surgically with curative intent.

DESIGN

Randomised controlled open-label trial. Participants were randomly assigned to one of four groups: (1) minimum follow-up (n = 301), (2) CEA testing only (n = 300), (3) computerised tomography (CT) only (n = 299) or (4) CEA testing and CT (n = 302). Blood CEA was measured every 3 months for 2 years and then every 6 months for 3 years; CT scans of the chest, abdomen and pelvis were performed every 6 months for 2 years and then annually for 3 years. Those in the minimum and CEA testing-only arms had a single CT scan at 12-18 months. The groups were minimised on adjuvant chemotherapy, gender and age group (three strata).

SETTING

Thirty-nine NHS hospitals in England with access to high-volume services offering surgical treatment of metastatic recurrence.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 1202 participants who had undergone curative treatment for Dukes' stage A to C colorectal cancer with no residual disease. Adjuvant treatment was completed if indicated. There was no evidence of metastatic disease on axial imaging and the post-operative blood CEA level was ≤ 10 µg/l.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome Surgical treatment of recurrence with curative intent. Secondary outcomes Time to detection of recurrence, survival after treatment of recurrence, overall survival and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained.

RESULTS

Detection of recurrence During 5 years of scheduled follow-up, cancer recurrence was detected in 203 (16.9%) participants. The proportion of participants with recurrence surgically treated with curative intent was 6.3% (76/1202), with little difference according to Dukes' staging (stage A, 5.1%; stage B, 7.4%; stage C, 5.6%; p = 0.56). The proportion was two to three times higher in each of the three more intensive arms (7.5% overall) than in the minimum follow-up arm (2.7%) (difference 4.8%; p = 0.003). Surgical treatment of recurrence with curative intent was 2.7% (8/301) in the minimum follow-up group, 6.3% (19/300) in the CEA testing group, 9.4% (28/299) in the CT group and 7.0% (21/302) in the CEA testing and CT group. Surgical treatment of recurrence with curative intent was two to three times higher in each of the three more intensive follow-up groups than in the minimum follow-up group; adjusted odds ratios (ORs) compared with minimum follow-up were as follows: CEA testing group, OR 2.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02 to 5.65; CT group, OR 3.69, 95% CI 1.63 to 8.38; and CEA testing and CT group, OR 2.78, 95% CI 1.19 to 6.49. Survival A Kaplan-Meier survival analysis confirmed no significant difference between arms (log-rank p = 0.45). The baseline-adjusted Cox proportional hazards ratio comparing the minimum and intensive arms was 0.87 (95% CI 0.67 to 1.15). These CIs suggest a maximum survival benefit from intensive follow-up of 3.8%. Cost-effectiveness The incremental cost per patient treated surgically with curative intent compared with minimum follow-up was £40,131 with CEA testing, £43,392 with CT and £85,151 with CEA testing and CT. The lack of differential impact on survival resulted in little difference in QALYs saved between arms. The additional cost per QALY gained of moving from minimum follow-up to CEA testing was £25,951 and for CT was £246,107. When compared with minimum follow-up, combined CEA testing and CT was more costly and generated fewer QALYs, resulting in a negative incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (-£208,347) and a dominated policy.

LIMITATIONS

Although this is the largest trial undertaken at the time of writing, it has insufficient power to assess whether or not the improvement in detecting treatable recurrence achieved by intensive follow-up leads to a reduction in overall mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Rigorous staging to detect residual disease is important before embarking on follow-up. The benefit of intensive follow-up in detecting surgically treatable recurrence is independent of stage. The survival benefit from intensive follow-up is unlikely to exceed 4% in absolute terms and harm cannot be absolutely excluded. A longer time horizon is required to ascertain whether or not intensive follow-up is an efficient use of scarce health-care resources. Translational analyses are under way, utilising tumour tissue collected from Follow-up After Colorectal Surgery trial participants, with the aim of identifying potentially prognostic biomarkers that may guide follow-up in the future.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN41458548.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 32. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

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.

Discontinuation and Nonpublication of Randomized Clinical Trials Conducted in Children

BACKGROUND

Trial discontinuation and nonpublication represent potential waste in research resources and lead to compromises in medical evidence. Pediatric trials may be particularly vulnerable to these outcomes given the challenges encountered in conducting trials in children. We aimed to determine the prevalence of discontinuation and nonpublication of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) conducted in pediatric populations.

METHODS

Retrospective, cross-sectional study of pediatric RCTs registered in ClinicalTrials.gov from 2008 to 2010. Data were collected from the registry and associated publications identified (final search on September 1, 2015).

RESULTS

Of 559 trials, 104 (19%) were discontinued early, accounting for an estimated 8369 pediatric participants. Difficulty with patient accrual (37%) was the most commonly cited reason for discontinuation. Trials were less likely to be discontinued if they were funded by industry compared with academic institutions (odds ratio [OR] 0.46, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.27-0.77). Of the 455 completed trials, 136 (30%) were not published, representing 69 165 pediatric participants. Forty-two unpublished trials posted results on ClinicalTrials.gov. Trials funded by industry were more than twice as likely to result in nonpublication at 24 and 36 months (OR 2.21, 95% CI 1.35-3.64; OR 3.12, 95% CI 1.6-6.08, respectively) and had a longer mean time to publication compared with trials sponsored by academia (33 vs 24 months, P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

In this sample of pediatric RCTs, discontinuation and nonpublication were common, with thousands of children exposed to interventions that did not lead to informative or published findings. Trial funding source was an important determinant of these outcomes, with both academic and industry sponsors contributing to inefficiencies.

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.

Is Surgery Warranted for Oligometastatic Disease?

The development of metastases after curative treatment can be seen as a failure. A common justification for the removal of metastases is that the knowledge that they are there may cause psychological distress, a real symptom that may be relieved by their removal. Although it is a commonly used justification for metastasectomy, the authors are unaware of any studies confirming or quantifying the health gain. This article strongly challenges the belief in clinical effectiveness and demonstrates that it is supported neither by a sound biological rationale nor by any good evidence. Reasons are suggested why this unfounded belief has become so prevalent.

The COLOFOL trial: study design and comparison of the study population with the source cancer population

Introduction

The COLOFOL trial, a prospective randomized multicenter trial comparing two follow-up regimes after curative surgical treatment for colorectal cancer, focuses on detection of asymptomatic recurrences. This paper aims to describe the design and recruitment procedure in the COLOFOL trial, comparing demographic characteristics between randomized patients and eligible patients not included in the study.

Materials and methods

COLOFOL was designed as a pragmatic trial with wide inclusion criteria and few exclusion criteria, in order to obtain a sample reflecting the general patient population. To be eligible, patients had to be 75 years or younger and curatively resected for stage II or III colorectal cancer. Exclusion criteria were hereditary colorectal cancer, no signed consent, other malignancy, and life expectancy less than 2 years due to concomitant disease. In four of the 24 participating centers, we scrutinized hospital inpatient data to identify all colorectal cancer patients who underwent surgery, in order to ascertain all eligible patients who were not included in the study and to compare them with enrolled patients.

Results

Of a total of 4,445 eligible patients, 2,509 patients were randomized (56.4% inclusion rate). A total of 1,221 eligible patients were identified in the scrutinized hospitals, of which 684 (56%) were randomized. No difference in age or sex distribution was observed between randomized and nonrandomized eligible patients. However, a difference was noted in tumor location and stage distribution, with 5.6% more patients in the randomized group having colon cancer and 6.7% more patients having stage II disease.

Conclusion

Patients in the two study arms were not only demographically similar, but also similar to nonincluded eligible patients, apart from stage and localization. The analyses will be stratified by these variables. Taken together, we conclude that our trial results will be robust and possible to extrapolate to the target population.

Blood CEA levels for detecting recurrent colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Testing for carcino-embryonic antigen (CEA) in the blood is a recommended part of follow-up to detect recurrence of colorectal cancer following primary curative treatment. There is substantial clinical variation in the cut-off level applied to trigger further investigation.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the diagnostic performance of different blood CEA levels in identifying people with colorectal cancer recurrence in order to inform clinical practice.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted all searches to January 29 2014. We applied no language limits to the searches, and translated non-English manuscripts. We searched for relevant reviews in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, MEDION and DARE databases. We searched for primary studies (including conference abstracts) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Science Citation Index & Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science. We identified ongoing studies by searching WHO ICTRP and the ASCO meeting library.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included cross-sectional diagnostic test accuracy studies, cohort studies, and randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of post-resection colorectal cancer follow-up that compared CEA to a reference standard. We included studies only if we could extract 2 x 2 accuracy data. We excluded case-control studies, as the ratio of cases to controls is determined by the study design, making the data unsuitable for assessing test accuracy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors (BDN, IP) assessed the quality of all articles independently, discussing any disagreements. Where we could not reach consensus, a third author (BS) acted as moderator. We assessed methodological quality against QUADAS-2 criteria. We extracted binary diagnostic accuracy data from all included studies as 2 x 2 tables. We conducted a bivariate meta-analysis. We used the xtmelogit command in Stata to produce the pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity and we also produced hierarchical summary ROC plots.

MAIN RESULTS

In the 52 included studies, sensitivity ranged from 41% to 97% and specificity from 52% to 100%. In the seven studies reporting the impact of applying a threshold of 2.5 µg/L, pooled sensitivity was 82% (95% confidence interval (CI) 78% to 86%) and pooled specificity 80% (95% CI 59% to 92%). In the 23 studies reporting the impact of applying a threshold of 5 µg/L, pooled sensitivity was 71% (95% CI 64% to 76%) and pooled specificity 88% (95% CI 84% to 92%). In the seven studies reporting the impact of applying a threshold of 10 µg/L, pooled sensitivity was 68% (95% CI 53% to 79%) and pooled specificity 97% (95% CI 90% to 99%).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

CEA is insufficiently sensitive to be used alone, even with a low threshold. It is therefore essential to augment CEA monitoring with another diagnostic modality in order to avoid missed cases. Trying to improve sensitivity by adopting a low threshold is a poor strategy because of the high numbers of false alarms generated. We therefore recommend monitoring for colorectal cancer recurrence with more than one diagnostic modality but applying the highest CEA cut-off assessed (10 µg/L).

A randomized trial of intensive versus minimal surveillance of patients with resected Dukes B2-C colorectal carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer is the third most common and the third most lethal cancer in both men and women in developed countries. About 75% of cases are first diagnosed when the disease is classified as localized or regional, undergo potentially curative treatment and enter a post-treatment surveillance program. Although such programs drain significant resources from health systems, empirical evidence of their efficacy is scanty.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Dukes B2-C colorectal cancer patients who had no evidence of disease at the end of their front-line treatment (surgery and adjuvant radiochemotherapy, if indicated) were eligible for the trial and randomized to two different surveillance programs. These programs differed greatly in the frequency of diagnostic imaging. They had similar schedules of physical examinations and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) assessments. Patients received baseline and yearly health-related quality-of-life (HR-QoL) questionnaires. Primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and QoL.

RESULTS

From 1998 to 2006, 1228 assessable patients were randomized, 933 with colon cancer and 295 with rectal cancer. More than 90% of patients had the expected number of diagnostic procedures. Median follow-up duration was 62 months [interquartile range (IQR) 51-86] in the minimal surveillance group and 62 months (IQR 50-85) in the intensive group. At primary analysis, 250 patients had recurred and 218 had died. Intensive surveillance anticipated recurrence, as shown by a significant difference in mean disease-free survival of 5.9 months. Comparison of OS curves of the whole intention-to-treat population showed no statistically significant differences. HR-QoL of life scores did not differ between regimens.

CONCLUSION

Our findings support the conclusions of other randomized clinical trials, which show that early diagnosis of cancer recurrence is not associated with OS benefit.

CLINICALTRIALSGOV

NCT02409472.

Restoring Study 329: efficacy and harms of paroxetine and imipramine in treatment of major depression in adolescence

OBJECTIVES

To reanalyse SmithKline Beecham's Study 329 (published by Keller and colleagues in 2001), the primary objective of which was to compare the efficacy and safety of paroxetine and imipramine with placebo in the treatment of adolescents with unipolar major depression. The reanalysis under the restoring invisible and abandoned trials (RIAT) initiative was done to see whether access to and reanalysis of a full dataset from a randomised controlled trial would have clinically relevant implications for evidence based medicine.

DESIGN

Double blind randomised placebo controlled trial.

SETTING

12 North American academic psychiatry centres, from 20 April 1994 to 15 February 1998.

PARTICIPANTS

275 adolescents with major depression of at least eight weeks in duration. Exclusion criteria included a range of comorbid psychiatric and medical disorders and suicidality.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants were randomised to eight weeks double blind treatment with paroxetine (20-40 mg), imipramine (200-300 mg), or placebo.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The prespecified primary efficacy variables were change from baseline to the end of the eight week acute treatment phase in total Hamilton depression scale (HAM-D) score and the proportion of responders (HAM-D score ≤8 or ≥50% reduction in baseline HAM-D) at acute endpoint. Prespecified secondary outcomes were changes from baseline to endpoint in depression items in K-SADS-L, clinical global impression, autonomous functioning checklist, self-perception profile, and sickness impact scale; predictors of response; and number of patients who relapse during the maintenance phase. Adverse experiences were to be compared primarily by using descriptive statistics. No coding dictionary was prespecified.

RESULTS

The efficacy of paroxetine and imipramine was not statistically or clinically significantly different from placebo for any prespecified primary or secondary efficacy outcome. HAM-D scores decreased by 10.7 (least squares mean) (95% confidence interval 9.1 to 12.3), 9.0 (7.4 to 10.5), and 9.1 (7.5 to 10.7) points, respectively, for the paroxetine, imipramine and placebo groups (P=0.20). There were clinically significant increases in harms, including suicidal ideation and behaviour and other serious adverse events in the paroxetine group and cardiovascular problems in the imipramine group.

CONCLUSIONS

Neither paroxetine nor high dose imipramine showed efficacy for major depression in adolescents, and there was an increase in harms with both drugs. Access to primary data from trials has important implications for both clinical practice and research, including that published conclusions about efficacy and safety should not be read as authoritative. The reanalysis of Study 329 illustrates the necessity of making primary trial data and protocols available to increase the rigour of the evidence base.

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

AIM

The value of frequent Carcino-Embryonic Antigen (CEA) measurements and CEA-triggered imaging for detecting recurrent disease in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients was investigated in search for an evidence-based follow-up protocol.

METHODS

This is a randomized-controlled multicenter prospective study using a stepped-wedge cluster design. From October 2010 to October 2012, surgically treated non-metastasized CRC patients in follow-up were followed in eleven hospitals. Clusters of hospitals sequentially changed their usual follow-up care into an intensified follow-up schedule consisting of CEA measurements every two months, with imaging in case of two CEA rises. The primary outcome measures were the proportion of recurrences that could be treated with curative intent, recurrences with definitive curative treatment outcome, and the time to detection of recurrent disease.

RESULTS

3223 patients were included; 243 recurrences were detected (7.5%). A higher proportion of recurrences was detected in the intervention protocol compared to the control protocol (OR = 1.80; 95%-CI: 1.33-2.50; p = 0.0004). The proportion of recurrences that could be treated with curative intent was higher in the intervention protocol (OR = 2.84; 95%-CI: 1.38-5.86; p = 0.0048) and the proportion of recurrences with definitive curative treatment outcome was also higher (OR = 3.12, 95%-CI: 1.25-6.02, p-value: 0.0145). The time to detection of recurrent disease was significantly shorter in the intensified follow-up protocol (HR = 1.45; 95%-CI: 1.08-1.95; p = 0.013).

CONCLUSION

The CEAwatch protocol detects recurrent disease after colorectal cancer earlier, in a phase that a significantly higher proportion of recurrences can be treated with curative intent.

Head-to-Head Comparison and Evaluation of 92 Plasma Protein Biomarkers for Early Detection of Colorectal Cancer in a True Screening Setting

PURPOSE

Novel noninvasive blood-based screening tests are strongly desirable for early detection of colorectal cancer. We aimed to conduct a head-to-head comparison of the diagnostic performance of 92 plasma-based tumor-associated protein biomarkers for early detection of colorectal cancer in a true screening setting.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

Among all available 35 carriers of colorectal cancer and a representative sample of 54 men and women free of colorectal neoplasms recruited in a cohort of screening colonoscopy participants in 2005-2012 (N = 5,516), the plasma levels of 92 protein biomarkers were measured. ROC analyses were conducted to evaluate the diagnostic performance. A multimarker algorithm was developed through the Lasso logistic regression model and validated in an independent validation set. The .632+ bootstrap method was used to adjust for the potential overestimation of diagnostic performance.

RESULTS

Seventeen protein markers were identified to show statistically significant differences in plasma levels between colorectal cancer cases and controls. The adjusted area under the ROC curves (AUC) of these 17 individual markers ranged from 0.55 to 0.70. An eight-marker classifier was constructed that increased the adjusted AUC to 0.77 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.59-0.91]. When validating this algorithm in an independent validation set, the AUC was 0.76 (95% CI, 0.65-0.85), and sensitivities at cutoff levels yielding 80% and 90% specificities were 65% (95% CI, 41-80%) and 44% (95% CI, 24-72%), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The identified profile of protein biomarkers could contribute to the development of a powerful multimarker blood-based test for early detection of colorectal cancer.

Finding the evidence for pulmonary metastasectomy in colorectal cancer: the PulMicc trial

ABSTRACT 

The PulMiCC trial is a randomized controlled trial testing the effect on survival of pulmonary metastasectomy in patients with colorectal cancer. In stage 1 of the trial patients with treated primary colorectal cancer metastatic to the lungs are invited to consent for protocol-based evaluation of their suitability for metastasectomy. The evaluation is as in current practice and includes PET/CT. A decision for or against metastasectomy may be based on the opinion of the clinicians and the preference of the patient. If there is uncertainty the patient is invited to consent to have the treatment arm assigned by randomization in stage 2 of PulMiCC. More than 300 patients have entered stage 1 and more than 70 are in stage 2.

History and present status of pulmonary metastasectomy in colorectal cancer

Clinical practice with respect to metastatic colorectal cancer differs from the other two most common cancers, breast and lung, in that routine surveillance is recommended with the specific intent of detecting liver and lung metastases and undertaking liver and lung resections for their removal. We trace the history of this approach to colorectal cancer by reviewing evidence for effectiveness from the 1950s to the present day. Our sources included published citation network analyses, the documented proposal for randomised trials, large systematic reviews, and meta-analysis of observational studies. The present consensus position has been adopted on the basis of a large number of observational studies but the randomised trials proposed in the 1980s and 1990s were either not done, or having been done, were not reported. Clinical opinion is the mainstay of current practice but in the absence of randomised trials there remains a possibility of selection bias. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are now routine before adoption of a new practice but RCTs are harder to run in evaluation of already established practice. One such trial is recruiting and shows that controlled trial are possible.

Pulmonary Metastasectomy for Colorectal Cancer: Recent Reports Prompt a Review of the Available Evidence

Pulmonary metastasectomy for colorectal cancer is commonplace surgery, but the practice has grown on the basis of follow-up studies. These studies base their conclusion on the effectiveness of metastasectomy on the survival rates at 5 years of very highly selected patients. Three publications in the last year, a registry study, a meta-analysis and a randomised controlled trial of monitoring and early detection of cancer recurrence, prompted a review of the evidence. A critical examination of the evidence suggests that much of the apparent benefit may be due to selection of patients most likely to survive on the basis of well-known prognostic features, explicitly stated in the clinical record. Clinicians also assess their patients over time and do not offer surgery to those with faster progression. Such clinical judgements are of their nature often subtle and undocumented and thus cannot be retrieved from the clinical record. Although some patients may have long survival following pulmonary metastasectomy, and indeed their survival might be believed to be due to resection of pulmonary metastases, how many patients must be operated on to find these survivors? What is the number 'needed to treat'? It may be that of the patients having metastasectomy, for the greater proportion it does not materially alter their survival. A randomised controlled trial to resolve this uncertainty is in progress. The Pulmonary Metastasectomy in Colorectal Cancer (PulMiCC) trial is recruiting in Britain and Europe.