Follow-up after curative surgery for colorectal cancer

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).

Colorectal cancer: current care, future innovations and economic considerations

For those involved in colorectal cancer management, the present day is an exciting time. There is a multitude of new techniques to be considered for early detection (screening). National population screening for 60-69-year olds in England is due to start this year. Also, minimally invasive surgical techniques and multimodal pathways of care are aiding faster recovery, and there are increasing options for both adjuvant and palliative therapies. This article summarizes how colorectal cancer is currently managed in the UK and discusses the developments that are in the early stages of clinical use or on the horizon. Current management is discussed in detail in the hope that innovators reading the article may identify areas for improvement and allow comparison of new interventions with what are currently the gold standards. As changes are moving so fast, this review will probably only relate to the next 10 years at most. It does not provide a detailed reference list to support all therapies but indicates the key publications that will enable more detailed reading.

Risk-stratified intensive follow up for treated colorectal cancer - realistic and cost saving?

OBJECTIVE

Intensive follow-up post surgery for colorectal cancer (CRC) is thought to improve long-term survival principally through the earlier detection of recurrent disease. This paper aims to calculate the additional resource and cost implications of intensive follow up post-CRC resection, examine the possibility of risk-stratifying this follow up to those at highest risk of recurrence and investigating the impact that population screening might have on the future cost and outcomes of follow up.

METHOD

Two follow-up regimens were constructed: the 'standard' follow-up protocol used the principles of the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) guidelines whilst the 'intensive' follow-up protocol used the most intensive arm of the follow up after colorectal surgery (FACS) trial. Using ONS data, the number of CRC diagnosed in a given year was calculated for 2003 and projected for 2016 based on the population of England and Wales. The resource requirements and costs of follow up over a 5-year period were then calculated for the two time periods. Risk stratifying entry to follow up and the introduction of population CRC screening were then considered.

RESULTS

For the 2003 cohort, an intensive follow-up program would detect 853 additional resectable recurrences over 5 years with 795 fewer subjects requiring palliative care. An additional 26 302 outpatient appointments, 181 352 CEA tests and 79 695 CT scans over 5 years would be required to achieve this. The cost of investigating subjects who would never develop detectable recurrences was pound15.6 million. The cost per additional resectable recurrence was pound18 077, a figure also found for a nonscreened population in 2016. An identical intensive follow-up policy with biennial FOBT screening in 2016 saw the cost per additional resectable recurrence rise to pound36 255.

CONCLUSION

Intensive follow up will detect considerably more resectable recurrences but at considerable cost and it is unclear if such follow up will be achievable in an already over-stretched NHS. If population-based CRC screening increases the number of Dukes A cancers this may offer the possibility of risk-stratifying future follow up to those at highest risk of recurrence; minimizing tests on those who will never have recurrent disease and better utilizing our scarce resources.

Follow-up after curative resection of colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis

PURPOSE

This is a systematic review to evaluate the impact of various follow-up intensities and strategies on the outcome of patients after curative surgery for colorectal cancer.

METHODS

All randomized trials up to January 2007, comparing different follow-up intensities and strategies, were retrieved. Meta-analysis was performed by using the Forest plot review.

RESULTS

Eight randomized, clinical trials with 2,923 patients with colorectal cancer undergoing curative resection were reviewed. There was a significant reduction in overall mortality in patients having intensive follow-up (intensive vs. less intensive follow-up: 21.8 vs. 25.7 percent; P = 0.01). Regular surveillance with serum carcinoembryonic antigen (P = 0.0002) and colonoscopy (P = 0.04) demonstrated a significant impact on overall mortality. However, cancer-related mortality did not show any significant difference. There was no significant difference in all-site recurrence and in local or distant metastasis. Detection of isolated local and hepatic recurrences was similar. Intensive follow-up detected asymptomatic recurrence more frequently (18.9 vs. 6.3 percent; P < 0.00001) and 5.91 months earlier than less intensive follow-up protocol; these were demonstrated with all investigation strategies used. Intensive surveillance program detected recurrences that were significantly more amenable to surgical reresection (10.7 vs. 5.7 percent; P = 0.0002). The chance of curative reresection were significantly better with more intensive follow-up (24.3 vs. 9.9 percent; P = 0.0001), independent of the investigation strategies used.

CONCLUSIONS

Intensive follow-up after curative resection of colorectal cancer improved overall survival and reresection rate for recurrent disease. However, the cancer-related mortality was not improved and the survival benefit was not related to earlier detection and treatment of recurrent disease.

General practice vs surgical-based follow-up for patients with colon cancer: randomised controlled trial

This trial examined the optimal setting for follow-up of patients after treatment for colon cancer by either general practitioners or surgeons. In all, 203 consenting patients who had undergone potentially curative treatment for colon cancer were randomised to follow-up by general practitioners or surgeons. Follow-up guidance recommended three monthly clinical review and annual faecal occult blood tests (FOBT) and were identical in both study arms. Primary outcome measures (measured at baseline, 12 and 24 months were (1) quality of life, SF-12; physical and mental component scores, (2) anxiety and depression: Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and (3) patient satisfaction: Patient Visit-Specific Questionnaire. Secondary outcomes (at 24 months) were: investigations, number and timing of recurrences and deaths. In all, 170 patients were available for follow-up at 12 months and 157 at 24 months. At 12 and 24 months there were no differences in scores for quality of life (physical component score, P=0.88 at 12 months; P=0.28 at 24 months: mental component score, P=0.51, P=0.47; adjusted), anxiety (P=0.72; P=0.11) depression (P=0.28; P=0.80) or patient satisfaction (P=0.06, 24 months). General practitioners ordered more FOBTs than surgeons (rate ratio 2.4, 95% CI 1.4–4.4), whereas more colonoscopies (rate ratio 0.7, 95% CI 0.5–1.0), and ultrasounds (rate ratio 0.5, 95% CI 0.3–1.0) were undertaken in the surgeon-led group. Results suggest similar recurrence, time to detection and death rates in each group. Colon cancer patients with follow-up led by surgeons or general practitioners experience similar outcomes, although patterns of investigation vary.

Colorectal cancer follow-up: Useful or useless?

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

The value of routine serum carcino-embryonic antigen measurement and computed tomography in the surveillance of patients after adjuvant chemotherapy for colorectal cancer

PURPOSE

This analysis aims to evaluate routine carcino-embryonic antigen (CEA) and computed tomography (CT) of thorax, abdomen, and pelvis as part of protocol-specified follow-up policy for colorectal cancer (CRC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with resected stage II and III CRC were randomly assigned to bolus fluorouracil/leucovorin or protracted venous infusion fluorouracil. Following completion of chemotherapy, patients were seen in clinic at regular intervals for 5 years. CEA was measured at each clinic visit, and CT of thorax, abdomen, and pelvis was performed at 12 and 24 months after commencement of chemotherapy.

RESULTS

Between 1993 and 1999, 530 patients were recruited. The median follow-up was 5.6 years. Disease relapses were observed in 154 patients. Relapses were detected by symptoms (n = 65), CEA (n = 45), CT (n = 49), and others (n = 9). Fourteen patients, whose relapses were detected by CT, had a concomitant elevation of CEA and were included in both groups. The CT-detected group had a better survival compared with the symptomatic group from the time of relapse (P =.0046). Thirty-three patients (21%) proceeded to potentially curative surgery for relapse and enjoyed a better survival than those who did not (P <.00001). For patients who underwent hepatic or pulmonary metastatic resection, 13 (26.5%) were in the CT group, eight (17.8%) in the CEA group, and only two (3.1%) in the symptomatic group (CT v symptomatic, P <.001; CEA v symptomatic, P =.015).

CONCLUSION

Surveillance CT and CEA are valuable components of postoperative follow-up in stage II and III colorectal cancer.