Recommended colorectal cancer surveillance guidelines by the American Society of Clinical Oncology

Is It Time to Introduce PET/CT in Rectal Cancer Guidelines?

At the moment, international guidelines for rectal cancer suggest to consider F-FDG PET/CT scan in a few conditions: (1) at disease presentation in case of suspected or proven metastatic synchronous adenocarcinoma with potentially curable M1 disease; (2) in the recurrence workup for serial carcinoembryonic antigen level elevation; (3) in the recurrence workup with metachronous metastases documented by CT, MRI, or biopsy; (4) in case of strong contraindication to IV contrast agent administration; and (5) to evaluate an equivocal finding on a contrast-enhanced CT or MRI. PET/CT is not indicated in the follow-up or surveillance of rectal cancer. On the other hand, an attentive evaluation of the literature shows that PET/CT may also be used in some circumstances with significant levels of diagnostic accuracy. This review article aims to emphasize differences between current international guidelines and scientific literature in the role of PET/CT in rectal cancer.

Understanding primary care-oncology relationships within a changing healthcare environment

Background

Management of care transitions from primary care into and out of oncology is critical for optimal care of cancer patients and cancer survivors. There is limited understanding of existing primary care-oncology relationships within the context of the changing health care environment.

Methods

Through a comparative case study of 14 innovative primary care practices throughout the United States (U.S.), we examined relationships between primary care and oncology settings to identify attributes contributing to strengthened relationships in diverse settings. Field researchers observed practices for 10–12 days, recording fieldnotes and conducting interviews. We created a reduced dataset of all text related to primary care-oncology relationships, and collaboratively identified patterns to characterize these relationships through an inductive “immersion/crystallization” analysis process.

Results

Nine of the 14 practices discussed having either formal or informal primary care-oncology relationships. Nearly all formal primary care-oncology relationships were embedded within healthcare systems. The majority of private, independent practices had more informal relationships between individual primary care physicians and specific oncologists. Practices with formal relationships noted health system infrastructure that facilitates transfer of patient information and timely referrals. Practices with informal relationships described shared commitment, trust, and rapport with specific oncologists. Regardless of relationship type, challenges reported by primary care settings included lack of clarity about roles and responsibilities during cancer treatment and beyond.

Conclusions

With the rapid transformation of U.S. healthcare towards system ownership of primary care practices, efforts are needed to integrate strengths of informal primary care-oncology relationships in addition to formal system driven relationships.

Patterns of computed tomography surveillance in survivors of colorectal cancer at Veterans Health Administration facilities

BACKGROUND

Annual computed tomography (CT) scans are a component of the current standard of care for the posttreatment surveillance of survivors of colorectal cancer (CRC) after curative-intent resection. The authors conducted a retrospective study with the primary aim of assessing patient, physician, and organizational characteristics associated with the receipt of CT surveillance among veterans.

METHODS

The Department of Veterans Affairs Central Cancer Registry was used to identify patients diagnosed with AJCC collaborative stage I to III CRC between 2001 and 2009. Patient sociodemographic and clinical (ie, CRC stage and comorbidity) characteristics, provider specialty, and organizational characteristics were measured. Hierarchical multivariable logistic regression models were used to assess the association between patient, provider, and organizational characteristics on receipt of 1) consistently guideline-concordant care (at least 1 CT every 12 months for both of the first 2 years of CRC surveillance) versus no CT receipt and 2) potential overuse (>1 CT every 12 months during the first 2 years of CRC surveillance) of CRC surveillance using CT. The authors also analyzed the impact of the 2005 American Society of Clinical Oncology update in CRC surveillance guidelines on care received over time.

RESULTS

For 2263 survivors of stage II/III CRC who were diagnosed after 2005, 19.4% of patients received no surveillance CT, whereas potential overuse occurred in both surveillance years for 14.9% of patients. Guideline-concordant care was associated with younger age, higher stage of disease (stage III vs stage II), and geographic region. In adjusted analyses, younger age and higher stage of disease (stage III vs stage II) were found to be associated with overuse. There was no significant difference in the annual rate of CT scanning noted across time periods (year ≤ 2005 vs year > 2005).

CONCLUSIONS

Among a minority of veteran survivors of CRC, both underuse and potential overuse of CT surveillance were present. Patient factors, but no provider or organizational characteristics, were found to be significantly associated with patterns of care. The 2005 change in American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines did not appear to have an impact on rates of surveillance CT. Cancer 2017;123:2338-2351. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

The move from accuracy studies to randomized trials in PET: current status and future directions

Since the influential study by van Tinteren et al. published in The Lancet in 2002, there have been an increasing number of diagnostic randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the benefit of PET. If they provide valid and useful information on the benefit, these studies can play an important role in informing guideline developers and policy makers. Our aim was to investigate how far the nuclear medicine community has come on its way from accuracy studies to RCTs and which issues we have to take into account in planning future studies.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of diagnostic randomized trials, in which PET was applied in only one arm. We covered published studies as well as registered unpublished and planned studies. We considered 3 quality indicators related to the usefulness of a trial to generate evidence for a clinical benefit: use of patient-important outcome, sufficient sample size, and current standard as comparator.

RESULTS

Fourteen published and 15 planned studies were identified. Five of the published studies and 12 of the planned studies did not use a patient-important outcome. Sample sizes were often so small that a significant result could be expected only under the assumption of a substantial reduction in the event rate. Comparators typically reflected the current standard.

CONCLUSION

If we consider the traditional areas of primary diagnosis, staging, and follow-up, then the number and quality of RCTs on PET is currently not sufficient to provide a major source for evidence-based decisions on the clinical benefit of PET. There will also be a future need in these traditional areas to deduce the clinical benefit of PET from the results of accuracy studies. The situation may be more favorable for the areas of treatment planning and response evaluation. Choice of patient-important outcomes and sufficient sample sizes are crucial issues in planning RCTs to demonstrate the clinical benefit of using PET.

The impact of primary care physicians on follow-up care of underserved breast cancer survivors

PURPOSE

To investigate the impact of the involvement of primary care physicians (PCPs) on the receipt of preventive follow-up care after a breast cancer (BC) diagnosis among a low-income population.

METHODS

Multiple logistic regression analyses were performed to identify potential factors associated with receipt of preventive care among 579 low-income women with BC. The main outcome variables at 36 months after BC diagnosis were receipt of annual mammography, Papanicolaou smear in the past 2 years, and ever had colonoscopy for those who were at least 50 years old. The main independent variable was type of provider visit in the past 12 months.

RESULTS

Women with a PCP visit only or both PCP and surgeon/cancer specialist visits in the past 12 months were more likely to have had annual mammography (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 2.67; P = .109 and AOR, 2.20, P = .0008, respectively), a Papanicolaou smear in the past 2 years (AOR, 2.90; P = .04 and AOR, 2.24, P = .009, respectively), and colonoscopy (AOR, 2.99; P = .041 and AOR, 2.17; P = .026, respectively) than those who only visited surgeons/cancer specialists. Indeed, women who saw only a PCP for their follow-up care had the highest odds ratio of receiving each clinical care service.

CONCLUSIONS

The involvement of PCPs in the medical care of low-income BC survivors results in better preventive follow-up care. Getting PCPs involved in the care of cancer survivors might be particularly pertinent for low-income populations because of lower costs and ease of access compared with cancer specialist-provided care.

Surveillance after resection for colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Professional societies recommend posttreatment surveillance for colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors. This study describes the use of surveillance over time, with a particular focus on racial/ethnic disparities, and also examines the role of area characteristics, such as capacity for CRC screening, on surveillance.

METHODS

Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare data were used to identify individuals aged 66 to 85 years who were diagnosed with CRC from 1993 to 2005 and treated with surgery. The study examined factors associated with subsequent receipt of a colonoscopy, carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) testing, primary care (PC) visits, and a composite measure of overall surveillance.

RESULTS

Of eligible subjects, 61.0% had a colonoscopy, 68.0% had CEA testing, 77.1% had PC visits, and 43.0% received overall surveillance. After adjustment, blacks were less likely than whites to undergo colonoscopy (odds ratio [OR] 0.76, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.69-0.83) and to receive CEA testing and overall surveillance, whereas white/Hispanic rates did not differ. Rates for all outcomes increased from 1993 to 2005, but black/white disparities remained. Individuals in areas with greatest capacity for CRC screening were more likely (OR = 1.09, 95% CI = 1.02-1.18) to receive colonoscopy, and those in areas with the greatest percentage of blacks were less likely (OR = 0.89, 95% CI = 0.83-0.95) to receive colonoscopy. Those living in areas with shortage of PC were less likely to receive PC visits (OR = 0.55, 95% CI = 0.48-0.64) and overall surveillance (OR = 0.83, 95% CI = 0.71-0.98).

CONCLUSIONS

Many CRC survivors do not get recommended surveillance, and black/white disparities in rates of surveillance have not improved. Characteristics of the area where an individual lives contribute to the use of surveillance.

Impact of a dedicated cancer center surveillance program on guideline adherence for patients with stage II and III colorectal cancer

Surveillance after curative treatment for stage II/III colorectal cancer identifies surgically resectable disease and improves survival. We evaluated adherence to guidelines and outcomes for 408 patients enrolled in an innovative follow-up program at our cancer center. We found that a dedicated intensive surveillance program can impact adherence to guidelines for patients with colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND

Our aims were to evaluate adherence to guidelines on colorectal cancer surveillance and outcomes for patients enrolled in an innovative follow-up program at our cancer center.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A retrospective chart review was conducted at the Cross Cancer Institute in Edmonton, Canada. Patients with stage II/III colorectal cancer who completed treatment and who entered into the program from December 1, 2007, to December 31, 2009, were identified. The minimum standard of care follow-up was defined as (1) carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) testing every 120 days for 3 years; (2) computed tomography of chest, abdomen, and pelvis at 10 to 14 months and 22 to 26 months after surgery; and (3) colonoscopy within 14 months of surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 408 patients met inclusion criteria. Two hundred (49.0%) patients were adherent to all 3 components of surveillance. Among all patients, 57 (14.0%) were nonadherent to computed tomography imaging, 135 (33.1%) were nonadherent to colonoscopy, and 96 (23.5%) were nonadherent to CEA testing. Determinants of nonadherence are described. In total, 192 (47.2%) patients had an abnormal surveillance investigation that led to 307 follow-up events. After a median of 1.6 years, 69 (16.9%) patients had documented tumor recurrence. Sixty-one (88.4%) of these 69 patients had recurrence diagnosed via surveillance, and 31 (44.9%) patients were considered potentially resectable.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study demonstrated an improvement in CEA testing since the program began; however, adherence rates for all components are not yet optimal. Alterations to surveillance program management are outlined. Further investigation will determine whether intense follow-up improves patient survival locally.

Screening colonoscopy among colorectal cancer survivors insured by Medicaid

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this research study are to describe the proportion of Medicaid-insured colorectal cancer survivors who had a colonoscopy between 3 and 18 months after surgery of the colon or rectum and to determine if patient, health services, and community characteristics are associated with colonoscopy follow-up after treatment.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study among 1044 Medicaid-insured individuals diagnosed with local or regional colorectal cancer was conducted. Multivariable logistic regression analyses assessed patient, hospital, and community characteristics associated with colonoscopy.

RESULTS

About 42% of the study population had a colonoscopy 3 to 18 months after surgery. Factors associated with receipt of colonoscopy in the multivariable model include having colon (vs rectal) cancer, having local (vs regional) cancer, and having received chemotherapy as part of first course of therapy. Being 75 or older (vs <65), having first course of therapy at a hospital with the highest surgical volume (vs lowest surgical volume), and living in an urban (vs rural) environment were associated with a decreased likelihood of colonoscopy. Colonoscopy utilization patterns diverge after 65 years of age when persons become dually insured by Medicare. By age 80 years, there seems to be an almost 3-fold difference in receipt of colonoscopy-those with comorbidity are more likely to be screened than those without comorbidity.

CONCLUSIONS

Less than half of Medicaid-insured colorectal cancer survivors received a colonoscopy in 3 to 18 months after colorectal resection. Improvements in screening in this high-risk population should be the target of future interventions to reduce the probability of recurrence.

Population-based longitudinal study of follow-up care for patients with colorectal cancer in Nova Scotia

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to examine colorectal cancer (CRC) follow-up care in Nova Scotia, Canada. More specifically, the objectives were to describe adherence to two elements of follow-up guidelines (colonoscopies and physician visits) and to identify factors associated with receiving at least guideline-recommended care.

METHODS

All patients with stage II or III CRC undergoing curative-intent surgery in Nova Scotia, Canada, were identified through the provincial cancer registry and anonymously linked to additional administrative health databases. For a 3-year follow-up period, beginning 1 year after the diagnosis date, descriptive statistics were calculated for physician visits and colonoscopies. Factors associated with receiving at least guideline-recommended care were identified using logistic regression.

RESULTS

Most patients received follow-up care from multiple physician specialties. In year 3, 58.1% of patients received oncologist follow-up care. Guideline adherence for colonoscopies was 52.4%, whereas guideline adherence for physician visits decreased from 41.9% to 25.4%. Receipt of at least guideline-recommended care was inversely associated with age and comorbidity for colonoscopy and inversely associated with age for physician visits.

CONCLUSION

Receipt of follow-up care from oncologists and primary care physicians, prolonged oncologist care, and receipt of care inconsistent with guideline recommendations suggest there may be potential issues with inefficient use of cancer system resources and integration of guidelines into follow-up care practices in Nova Scotia. Transitioning routine follow-up to primary care could potentially increase guideline adherence by improving access to and continuity of care. CRC may be well suited to targeted knowledge translation strategies to improve guideline adherence.

Adherence to surveillance care guidelines after breast and colorectal cancer treatment with curative intent

BACKGROUND

Evidence-based guidelines recommend routine surveillance, including office visits and testing, to detect new and recurrent disease among survivors of breast and colorectal cancer. The extent to which surveillance practice is consistent with guideline recommendations or may vary by age is not known.

METHODS

Cohorts of adult patients diagnosed with breast (n = 6205) and colorectal (n = 2297) cancer between 2000 and 2008 and treated with curative intent in 4 geographically diverse managed care environments were identified via tumor registries. Kaplan-Meier estimates were used to describe time to initial and subsequent receipt of surveillance services. Cox proportional hazards models evaluated the relation between patient characteristics and receipt of metastatic screening.

RESULTS

Within 18 months of treatment, 87.2% of breast cancer survivors received recommended mammograms, with significantly higher rates noted for patients aged 50 years to 65 years. Among survivors of colorectal cancer, only 55.0% received recommended colon examinations, with significantly lower rates for those aged ≥ 75 years. The majority of breast (64.7%) and colorectal (73.3%) cancer survivors received nonrecommended metastatic disease testing. In patients with breast cancer, factors associated with metastatic disease testing include white race (hazards ratio [HR], 1.13), comorbidities (HR, 1.17), and younger age (HR, 1.13; 1.15; 1.13 for age groups: <50, 50-64, and 65-74 respectively). In those with colorectal cancer, these factors included younger age (HR, 1.31; 1.25 for age groups: <50 and 50-64 respectively) and comorbidities (HR, 1.10).

CONCLUSIONS

Among an insured population, wide variation regarding the use of surveillance care was found by age and relative to guideline recommendations. Breast cancer survivors were found to have high rates of both guideline-recommended recurrence testing and non-guideline-recommended metastatic testing. Only approximately 50% of colorectal cancer survivors received recommended tests but greater than 67% received metastatic testing.

Using a nutritional screening tool to evaluate the nutritional status of patients with colorectal cancer

We assessed which nutrition evaluation method [subjective global assessment (SGA); malnutrition universal screening tool (MUST); nutritional risk index (NRI)] provided the most efficacious combination of high validity, low cost, and ease of use to examine and improve the status of malnutrition for colorectal cancer (CRC) patients. The SGA, MUST, and NRI scales were used to analyze the preoperative status of malnutrition for 45 CRC patients in a medical center in Taiwan. Differences in the reliability of the 3 methods were compared using the kappa (κ) coefficient of agreement. Lengths of hospital stays were compared using the Mann-Whitney U test to examine the effect of malnutrition in CRC patients. The SGA κ coefficient was higher with the MUST than with the NRI. Preoperative and postoperative weight losses were significantly different on the NRI, and the longer the length of the hospital stay, the greater was the weight loss. Although the SGA had a higher validity and lower cost than the NRI, we recommend using the MUST method for a routine nutrition evaluation because it is easier to use and is less expensive than the SGA and the NRI.

Predicting survival after curative colectomy for cancer: individualizing colon cancer staging

PURPOSE

Cancer staging determines extent of disease, facilitating prognostication and treatment decision making. The American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) TNM classification system is the most commonly used staging algorithm for colon cancer, categorizing patients on the basis of only these three variables (tumor, node, and metastasis). The purpose of this study was to extend the seventh edition of the AJCC staging system for colon cancer to incorporate additional information available from tumor registries, thereby improving prognostic accuracy.

METHODS

Records from 128,853 patients with primary colon cancer reported to the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results Program from 1994 to 2005 were used to construct and validate three survival models for patients with primary curative-intent surgery. Independent training/test data sets were used to develop and test alternative models. The seventh edition TNM staging system was compared with models supplementing TNM staging with additional demographic and tumor variables available from the registry by calculating a concordance index, performing calibration, and identifying the area under receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves.

RESULTS

Inclusion of additional registry covariates improved prognostic estimates. The concordance index rose from 0.60 (95% CI, 0.59 to 0.61) for the AJCC model, with T- and N-stage variables, to 0.68 (95% CI, 0.67 to 0.68) for the model including tumor grade, number of collected metastatic lymph nodes, age, and sex. ROC curves for the extended model had higher sensitivity, at all values of specificity, than the TNM system; calibration curves indicated no deviation from the reference line.

CONCLUSION

Prognostic models incorporating readily available data elements outperform the current AJCC system. These models can assist in personalizing treatment and follow-up for patients with colon cancer.

Oncologic effectiveness of regular follow-up to detect recurrence after curative resection of gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

While clinicians routinely follow up gastric cancer patients after curative resection to detect recurrence, the effectiveness of regular follow-up has not been proven, and no consensus has been reached regarding follow-up programs.

METHODS

Of the 1,767 patients who underwent curative resection for gastric cancer from 2001 to 2004, 310 (17.5%) developed recurrence during follow-up. The oncologic effectiveness of follow-up was evaluated using recurrence detection rates during follow-up and survivals. Clinicopathologic characteristics, the detection tools used, and times lapsed between recurrence and previous examinations were also investigated.

RESULTS

Two hundred thirty-three (75.2%) of the 310 patients who developed recurrence were detected by regular follow-up (detected group). The frequencies of undifferentiated and diffuse-type recurrences were higher in patients with recurrence detected based on patient-initiated findings (undetected group) than in the detected group. Computed tomography and tumor markers were the first detection tools that yielded positive findings. Times between recurrence detection and previous examinations ranged from 2.8 to 5.3 months over the first 2 years. No difference in overall survival was found between the detected and undetected groups (log rank, P = 0.2).

CONCLUSIONS

The oncologic effectiveness of regular follow-up after curative resection for gastric cancer was found to be unsatisfactory. A large-scale randomized controlled trial is required to identify the effectiveness of regular follow-up in terms of its oncologic, functional, psychological, and economical aspects.

Advanced synchronous adenoma but not simple adenoma predicts the future development of metachronous neoplasia in patients with resected colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Patients with resected colorectal cancer remain at a high risk for developing metachronous neoplasia in the remnant colorectum. The aim of this study was to identify baseline clinical and colonoscopic features predictive of metachronous neoplasia after curative resection of colorectal cancer.

METHODS

The baseline clinical and colonoscopic data and follow-up details of 503 patients who had colonoscopic surveillance after curative colorectal resection between January 2000 and October 2005 in a single tertiary institution were analyzed. Univariate and multivariate analyses were done to identify risk factors for metachronous adenoma.

RESULTS

Metachronous adenomas were diagnosed in 176 patients (35.0%) and advanced adenomas in 39 (7.8%) during the follow-up period (35.7+/-20.9 mo). Among the clinical and colonoscopic factors at baseline, advanced age (> or = 60 y) (odds ratio (OR)=3.64; 95% confidence intervals (CI), 1.55-8.52), the presence of advanced synchronous adenoma (OR=4.38; 95% CI, 1.77-10.85), and longer total follow-up period (OR=1.03; 95% CI, 1.01-1.04) were independently correlated with developing advanced metachronous adenoma. Patients who had synchronous tubular adenoma without advanced features at baseline were not found to have an increased risk for future development of advanced metachronous adenoma compared with those in the synchronous adenoma-free group (OR=1.75; 95% CI, 0.69-4.43, P=0.650).

CONCLUSIONS

Our data showed that patients with advanced synchronous adenoma at baseline were identified to have an increased risk of advanced metachronous neoplasia during a longer follow-up period but those with tubular adenoma without advanced features at baseline were not.

Metastatic colorectal cancer to the small bowel-an uncommon cause of obscure GI bleeding: a three-case experience with review of the literature

PURPOSE

Metastatic colorectal cancer to the small intestine is a rare condition presenting with nonspecific symptoms such as obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (OGIB). We report our experience with the use of capsule endoscopy (CE) and double-balloon enteroscopy (DBE) to identify and diagnose the metastatic colorectal cancer to the small bowel. The aim was to demonstrate the approach to the diagnosis of metastatic colorectal cancer to the small bowel including literature review.

METHODS

This is a retrospective case series from an academic tertiary referral center. Three patients with a history of colorectal cancer referred for OGIB underwent CE and subsequent DBE.

RESULTS

All patients underwent evaluation including esophagogastroduodenoscopy and colonoscopy prior to referral. In each case, CE was performed revealing the source of bleeding which was confirmed as metastatic colorectal cancer to the small bowel by DBE. Significant lag time was noted from the initial diagnosis of colorectal cancer to the onset of symptomatic small bowel metastasis in this series (1.3-7 years).

CONCLUSIONS

We found the incidence of metastatic colorectal cancer to the small intestine of those with small intestine tumors to be 6%. Clinicians should be suspicious of this condition in any patient with OGIB and prior history of colorectal cancer. The approach to this diagnosis is varied but one algorithm includes the combined use of CE for tumor localization and balloon-assisted enteroscopy for confirmation.

Follow-up recommendations for colon cancer

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

[Surgical treatment of cancer at the beginning of the third millenium--based on the 2004 Krompecher Memorial Lecture of the Society of Hungarian Oncologists]

The author presents a historical overview of cancer surgery of the last century. At the last quarter of the century the main characteristic of this process has been the significant extension of surgical radicality. Three new surgical methods appeared and have been routinely used at the Surgical Clinic of the Szeged University School, to increase surgical radicality, to improve survival rate without impairing the postoperative quality of life. 1.) Subtotal colectomy (STC) involves an extended resection of the colon over the splenic flexure. In a period of 8 years a total of 72 STCs were performed for the treatment of large bowel obstructions or symptomatic stenosis caused by cancer of the left colon. STC offers: a) one stage treatment for colonic obstruction in emergency surgery, b.) removal of the tumor with sufficient oncological radicality, c.) primary reconstruction of the digestive tract, with a safe ileocolic anastomosis even in emergency cases. Based on a study about postoperative quality of life of STC operated patients, it proved to be normal. 2.) The author reports a total of 108 middle and low third rectal cancer cases operated on by total mesorectal excision (TME) by the method of Heald. The oncological basis of this procedure is the horizontal regional metastatization of rectal cancer. The author succeeded in 60% of cases to perform an anterior resection with preservation of the anal sphincter, and to decrease the early (within two years after surgery) local recurrence rate from 14.5% to 6.4%, compared to the group of patients operated on by traditional technic. 3.) A total of 154 patients with locally advanced - stage IV - colorectal cancer underwent extended surgery of multivisceral resections as a treatment of cancer process involving adjacent abdominal organs. Surgery was performed to treat advanced cancer of the colon in 112 cases and the one of the rectum in 42 cases. The mortality rate was 7% in the colon cancer group, and 12% in the group of rectal cancer patients. In their tumor-free postoperative period 90% of colon cancer patients and 95% of rectal cancer patients had an improved quality of life. The 5 years survival rate was 40% in the colon group and 22% in the rectal cancer group. In the group of patients having more than 3 simultaneously tumorous organs, in spite of the multiple organ resections, no 5 years survival has been recorded.

Benefit of post-operative surveillance for recurrence after curative resection for gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

Although most clinicians perform surveillance after gastrectomy, there is no consensus on the optimal follow-up schedule. This study aimed to evaluate the benefit of postoperative surveillance for recurrence after curative resection for gastric cancer.

METHOD

We retrospectively studied 110 patients who had recurrences after undergoing curative gastrectomies between 2000 and 2004 at Korea University Hospital. We analyzed the clinico-pathologic factors and oncologic results according to the presence of recurrence symptoms.

RESULTS

Fifty-five (50%) patients had symptomatic recurrences. There were significant differences in recurrence patterns; locoregional (29.1%) and peritoneal recurrences (27.3%) were dominant in asymptomatic group; peritoneal (47.3%) and hematogenous recurrences (25.5%) were dominant in symptomatic group. The median recurrence-free survival was not different for both groups (p = 0.054). However, median overall and post-recurrence survival was poor in the symptomatic group (p = 0.004, p < 0.001). The presence of symptoms and short disease-free survival were independent poor prognostic factors for post-recurrence survival.

CONCLUSION

Patients with asymptomatic recurrences could have increased survival compared to symptomatic patients. Although our post-operative surveillance could not be any benefit to improve outcomes for recurrent gastric cancer, it is important to discriminate the nature of recurrent gastric cancer by the presence of symptoms for planning further treatment.

Is quality of colorectal cancer care good enough? Core measures development and its application for comparing hospitals in Taiwan

BACKGROUND

Although performance measurement for assessing care quality is an emerging area, a system for measuring the quality of cancer care at the hospital level has not been well developed. The purpose of this study was to develop organization-based core measures for colorectal cancer patient care and apply these measures to compare hospital performance.

METHODS

The development of core measures for colorectal cancer has undergone three stages including a modified Delphi method. The study sample originated from 2004 data in the Taiwan Cancer Database, a national cancer data registry. Eighteen hospitals and 5585 newly diagnosed colorectal cancer patients were enrolled in this study. We used indicator-based and case-based approaches to examine adherences simultaneously.

RESULTS

The final core measure set included seventeen indicators (1 pre-treatment, 11 treatment-related and 5 monitoring-related). There were data available for ten indicators. Indicator-based adherence possesses more meaningful application than case-based adherence for hospital comparisons. Mean adherence was 85.8% (79.8% to 91%) for indicator-based and 82.8% (77.6% to 88.9%) for case-based approaches. Hospitals performed well (>90%) for five out of eleven indicators. Still, the performance across hospitals varied for many indicators. The best and poorest system performance was reflected in indicators T5-negative surgical margin (99.3%, 97.2%-100.0%) and T7-lymph nodes harvest more than twelve(62.7%, 27.6%-92.2%), both of which related to surgical specimens.

CONCLUSIONS

In this nationwide study, quality of colorectal cancer care still shows room for improvement. These preliminary results indicate that core measures for cancer can be developed systematically and applied for internal quality improvement.

Follow-up strategy after curative resection of gastric cancer: a nationwide survey in Korea

BACKGROUND

To date, guidelines for follow-up after curative resection in patients with gastric cancer have not been reported. Thus, most centers have managed the process according to institution-specific protocols. We investigated current follow-up practices after curative resection of gastric cancer using a nationwide survey in Korea, where gastric cancer is epidemic.

METHODS

From July to September 2007, questionnaires were sent out to 205 members of the Korean Gastric Cancer Association (KGCA). The questionnaire packet contained a covering letter, general information, and a questionnaire about follow-up schedules and methodologies.

RESULTS

Forty-six percent (96/205) of the members of the KGCA returned the survey. The majority of responders indicated that patients with early gastric cancer were followed up every 6 months (64.4%) for the first year, every 12 months (47.9%) for the next 4 years, and every 12 months (68.8%) from the fifth year after surgery on. For patients with advanced gastric cancer, follow-up studies were carried out every 3 months (43.8%) for the first year, every 6 months for the next 4 years, and every 12 months (75.0%) from the fifth year onward. After surgery, most responders used computed tomography for imaging, carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and carbohydrate antigen (CA)19-9 as tumor markers, and serum iron among follow-up measures.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians have a variety of approaches regarding the extent of follow-up and methodologies used after curative resection for gastric cancer. Therefore, a multicenter randomized trial will be needed to compare routine follow-up with intensive schedules. Our results could facilitate the design of such studies.

New chemotherapy treatments in advanced cancer patients: an easily applicable evaluation of clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness

Novel cytostatic drugs have recently been introduced to treat advanced cancer patients. Although of only modest efficacy, their use is widespread, considerably increasing treatment costs. An easily applicable method to assess their efficacy and cost-effectiveness is needed. We have documented new cytostatic drugs whose consumption increased by over 60% from January 1998 to December 2000 in patients with advanced or metastatic cancer of the colorectum, lung (non-small cell), breast, ovary or brain. A review of the literature yielded 17 treatments that included these agents. For each regimen, we recorded six efficacy variables [median survival time (MS), survival rate at 1 year, absolute risk reduction, time to progression, quality of life (QoL), and patients needed to treat (NNT)]. A four-point (A-D) efficacy (E) scale and a five-point (1-5) strength of evidence (SE) scale were applied. We obtained the cost differential of each regimen for a 4-week treatment, cost per extra month of MS. and cost per NNT. One combination was rated with A efficacy (MS > 9 months+improved QoL) and nine with D (no MS or QoL improvement); 12 studies presented good quality (grade 1-2) evidence. The QoL of patients was significantly improved in only two regimens. The average cost differential was 1 311 Euro (all new regimens except one showed higher cost); the average cost per extra month of MS was 6 415 Euro; and treatment cost per NNT was 87 767 Euro. Our method proved to be easy to apply, enabled comparisons with other treatments to be made and revealed that these very costly changes in clinical practice are not justified by available studies.

What is the most cost-effective strategy to screen for second primary colorectal cancers in male cancer survivors in Korea?

AIM

To identify a cost-effective strategy of second primary colorectal cancer (CRC) screening for cancer survivors in Korea using a decision-analytic model.

METHODS

A Markov model estimated the clinical and economic consequences of a simulated 50-year-old male cancer survivors' cohort, and we compared the results of eight screening strategies: no screening, fecal occult blood test (FOBT) annually, FOBT every 2 years, sigmoidoscopy every 5 years, double contrast barium enema every 5 years, and colonoscopy every 10 years (COL10), every 5 years (COL5), and every 3 years (COL3). We included only direct medical costs, and our main outcome measures were discounted lifetime costs, life expectancy, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).

RESULTS

In the base-case analysis, the non-dominated strategies in cancer survivors were COL5, and COL3. The ICER for COL3 in cancer survivors was $5593/life-year saved (LYS), and did not exceed $10,000/LYS in one-way sensitivity analyses. If the risk of CRC in cancer survivors is at least two times higher than that in the general population, COL5 had an ICER of less than $10,500/LYS among both good and poor prognosis of index cancer. If the age of cancer survivors starting CRC screening was decreased to 40 years, the ICER of COL5 was less than $7400/LYS regardless of screening compliance.

CONCLUSION

Our study suggests that more strict and frequent recommendations for colonoscopy such as COL5 and COL3 could be considered as economically reasonable second primary CRC screening strategies for Korean male cancer survivors.

Carcinoembryonic Antigen in the Staging and Follow-up of Patients with Colorectal Cancer

CEA is a complex glycoprotein produced by 90% of colorectal cancers and contributes to the malignant characteristics of a tumor. It can be measured in serum quantitatively, and its level in plasma can be useful as a marker of disease. Because of its lack of sensitivity in the early stages of colorectal cancer, CEA measurement is an unsuitable modality for population screening. An elevated preoperative CEA is a poor prognostic sign and correlates with reduced overall survival after surgical resection of colorectal carcinoma. A failure of the CEA to return to normal levels after surgical resection is indicative of inadequate resection of occult systemic disease. Frequent monitoring of CEA postoperatively may allow identification of patients with metastatic disease for whom surgical resection or other localized therapy might be potentially beneficial. To identify this group, serial CEA measurement appears to be more effective than clinical evaluation or any other diagnostic modality, although its sensitivity for detecting recurrent disease is not as high for locoregional or pulmonary metastases as it is for liver metastases. Several studies have shown that a small percentage of patients followed postoperatively with CEA monitoring and who undergo CEA-directed salvage surgery for metastatic disease will be alive and disease-free 5 years after surgery. Furthermore, CEA levels after salvage surgery do appear to predict survival in patients undergoing resection of liver or pulmonary metastases. However, several authors argue that CEA surveillance is not cost-effective in terms of lives saved. In support of this argument, there is no clear difference in survival after resection of metastatic disease with curative intent between patients in whom the second-look surgery was performed on the basis of elevated CEA levels and those with other laboratory or imaging abnormalities. There is also no clear consensus on the frequency or duration of CEA monitoring, although the ASCO guidelines currently recommend every 2-3 months for at least 2 years after diagnosis. In the follow-up of patients undergoing palliative therapy, the CEA level correlates well with response, and CEA is indicative of not only response but may also identify patients with stable disease for whom there is also a demonstrated benefit in survival and symptom relief with combination chemotherapy. More recently, scintigraphic imaging after administration of radiolabeled antibodies afforded an important radionuclide technique that adds clinically significant information in assessing the extent and location of disease in patients with colorectal cancer above and beyond or complementary to conventional imaging modalities. Immunotherapy based on CEA is a rapidly advancing area of clinical research demonstrating antibody and T-cell responses.

Patient satisfaction with colorectal cancer follow-up system: an audit

Although there have been studies into intensive follow-up versus non-intensive follow-up of patients following colorectal surgery, the evidence has not demonstrated sufficient benefit in the intensive follow-up regimen to warrant change in practice nationally, and there are no national guidelines for this. Currently at the authors' hospital the follow-up is non-intensive, and consists of an initial nurse-led surgical follow-up, dedicated patient hotline telephone number, surveillance, symptom list and open access to the nurse-led clinic as required. An audit was carried out to determine patient satisfaction with the current method of follow-up and to identify areas for improvement. The majority of patients (95%) were 'very or fairly' happy with the current service. Areas for improvement were identified. The key point from the survey was that patients would like a follow-up phone call post-diagnosis and 48 hours post-discharge from hospital. This has been implemented since the audit.

Receipt of guideline-recommended follow-up in older colorectal cancer survivors : a population-based analysis

BACKGROUND

After curative resection for colorectal cancer, routine follow-up with office visits, carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), and colonoscopy is recommended. The actual adherence to these guidelines as well as the potential overuse of testing in routine practice has not been well studied.

METHODS

The authors identified 9426 eligible patients aged > or = 66 years in a linked tumor registry-claims database who were diagnosed with adenocarcinoma of the colon or rectum from 2000 to 2001. Patients were observed to 3 years after diagnosis. Receipt of > or = 2 office visits per year, > or = 2 CEA tests per year (years 1 and 2), and > or = 1 colonoscopy within 3 years constituted guideline fulfillment.

RESULTS

Guidelines for office visits, colonoscopy, and CEA testing were met in 92.3%, 73.6%, and 46.7% of patients, respectively. In addition, receipt of 2 nonrecommended procedures, abdominal/pelvic computed tomography scans and positron emission tomography scans, was documented in 47.7% and 6.8%, respectively. Overall, 60.2% received testing below recommended levels, 17.1% at recommended frequency, and 22.7% above guideline recommendations. In a multivariate analysis, factors associated with meeting guidelines included younger age group, white race, regional stage cancers, and poorly differentiated tumors. Considerable geographic variation in meeting guidelines was also observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Many older colorectal cancer survivors in this population-based cohort underwent testing below a minimum frequency specified by clinical practice guidelines, especially with regard to CEA. Further studies should ascertain the reasons for poor compliance and the effect on patient outcome.

Community compliance with carcinoembryonic antigen: follow-up of patients with colorectal cancer

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to determine whether recommendations for surveillance carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) testing in stage II/III colorectal cancer (CRC) are adhered to upon discharge from our cancer center, patterns of care after CEA elevation, and whether differences in outcomes exist between patients who did and did not receive recommended CEA monitoring.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A retrospective, single-institution chart review was completed at the Cross Cancer Institute (CCI) in Edmonton, Alberta. The Alberta Cancer Registry (ACR) identified patients with CRC diagnosed between January 1 and December 31, 2001. Patients with stage II/III CRC seen and/or treated at the CCI and later discharged to the community with follow-up recommendations based on American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines were included. Carcinoembryonic antigen monitoring > or = every 4 months for > or = 2 years was deemed acceptable for study purposes.

RESULTS

The ACR identified 152 stage II/III CRC cases meeting inclusion criteria. Eleven patients (7.2%) received the minimum predefined CEA follow-up. Eighty-seven CEA follow-up tests were elevated; only 20 (23%) elevated CEAs were investigated with predefined timely intervention. Twenty-six patients (17.1%) had documentable tumor recurrence. There was no difference in overall survival or time to recurrence between the groups who received and did not receive appropriate follow-up, although small numbers limit the effectiveness of statistical analysis.

CONCLUSION

Post-therapy surveillance is important in CRC management. Our study reveals follow-up recommendations based on best available evidence for interval CEA testing are not followed in the community. These findings suggest the need for review of recommendations and change in management for monitoring discharged patients with stage II/III CRC.

Adherence to surveillance guidelines after curative resection for stage II/III colorectal cancer

PURPOSE

Our aims were to determine adherence to American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guidelines on colorectal cancer (CRC) surveillance and to evaluate differences in practice patterns and clinical outcomes between an academic institution (Princess Margaret Hospital [PMH]) and a community cancer hospital (Credit Valley Hospital [CVH]).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with stage II/III CRC who were diagnosed between January 1, 1999, and December 31, 2001, were identified, and their records were retrospectively reviewed.

RESULTS

A total of 244 and 97 patients were eligible at PMH and CVH, respectively. Surveillance patterns, including blood tests, imaging studies, and colonoscopies, were inconsistent with ASCO recommendations in a significant proportion of patients. Clinic visits occurred more frequently and imaging studies were more commonly ordered at PMH than at CVH (P < .001). In contrast, CVH performed a higher median number of blood count and liver function tests (P = .001) per patient than PMH. The rates of carcinoembryonic antigen monitoring and surveillance colonoscopies were not statistically different between centers (P = .67 and P = .43, respectively). There were a total of 70 CRC recurrences: 53 (75.7%) were detected by surveillance (44 at PMH and 9 at CVH) and 17 (24.3%) by patient symptoms (9 at PMH and 8 at CVH). For recurrences detected by surveillance, 38% were resectable, whereas only 18% of those detected by symptoms were resectable.

CONCLUSION

Colorectal cancer surveillance revealed noticeable departures from ASCO guidelines, with the academic institution using a more intensive surveillance strategy with imaging studies than the community cancer center. Surveillance was associated with a higher proportion of resectable tumor recurrences than was detection by patient symptoms.

Follow-up of adult cancer survivors: new paradigms for survivorship care planning

The reality of cancer care in the twenty first century is that patients live longer and are more likely to receive care from multiple providers across diverse delivery systems over many years. To meet the challenge of optimal survivor care, a summary of cancer treatment and a formal plan for survivorship must be explained to patients and shared among providers at the end of cancer treatment. These plans must be dynamic documents that change with the circumstances of individual patients, the growth of knowledge, and the guidelines in specific relevant areas. In the new paradigm, open communication across the spectrum of survivor needs and concerns (as contained in a survivorship care plan) will successfully transition cancer patients to healthy survivors. Survivorship planning must become an integral part of every oncologist's education and practice.

Trends in follow-up and preventive care for colorectal cancer survivors

BACKGROUND

As cancer patients transition from treatment to survivorship, the responsibility of primary care providers (PCPs) versus oncology specialists is unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To explore (1) physician types (PCPs versus oncology specialists) survivors visit during survivorship year 1, (2) preventive care received, (3) how preventive care receipt relates to physician types visited, and (4) trends in physician types visited and preventive care received over time.

DESIGN

Retrospective cross-sectional study of 5 cohorts of cancer survivors in survivorship year 1.

SUBJECTS

Twenty thousand sixty-eight survivors diagnosed with stage 1-3 colorectal cancer between 1997 and 2001.

MEASUREMENTS

Using the SEER-Medicare database, we assessed the mean number of visits to different physician types, the percentage of survivors receiving preventive services, how receipt of preventive services related to physician types visited, and trends over time in physician visits and preventive care.

RESULTS

There was a trend over time of increased visits to all physician types, which was statistically significant for oncology specialists and other physicians (p < .001) but not PCPs. The percentage of survivors receiving preventive services remained relatively stable across the 5 cohorts, except for an increase in bone densitometry (p < .05). Survivors who visited both a PCP and oncology specialist were most likely to receive each preventive care service (p < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Oncology specialist follow-up in survivorship year 1 is intensifying over time. Survivors not being followed-up by both PCPs and oncology specialists were less likely to receive preventive care. Clarifying the roles of PCPs and oncology specialists during follow-up can improve the quality of care for survivors.

Results of a national survey among Dutch surgeons treating patients with colorectal carcinoma. Current opinion about follow-up, treatment of metastasis, and reasons to revise follow-up practice

OBJECTIVE

Follow-up after curative resection of colorectal carcinoma (CRC) has been subjected to debate concerning its effectiveness to reduce cancer mortality. Current national and international guidelines advise CEA measurements every 3 months during 3 years after surgery. The common clinical practice and opinion about follow-up for colorectal carcinoma, was evaluated by means of a survey among Dutch general surgeons.

METHOD

A web-based survey of follow-up after treatment of CRC was sent to all registered Dutch general surgeons. A reply from 246 surgeons treating patients for colorectal carcinoma in 105 out of 118 hospitals was received (response rate 91%). Questions related to actual follow-up protocol, opinion about serum CEA monitoring, liver and/or lung metastasectomy, and motivation to participate in a new trial concerning follow-up.

RESULTS

For the majority of surgeons the length of follow-up was influenced by age of the patient (62%) and physical condition (76%) prohibiting hepatic metastasectomy. The generally accepted follow-up protocol consisted of CEA measurements every 3 months in the first year and six-monthly thereafter, and ultrasound examination of the liver every 6 months. Nearly all surgeons (92%) were willing to participate in a new study of follow-up protocol.

CONCLUSION

The adherence to national guidelines for the follow-up of colorectal carcinoma is low. The indistinctness about follow-up after curative treatment of colorectal carcinoma also affects clinical practice. Recent advancements in imaging techniques, liver and lung surgery have changed circumstances, which are not yet anticipated upon in current guidelines. Renewal of follow-up based upon scientific evidence is required.

Five-year colon surveillance after screening colonoscopy

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Outcomes of colon surveillance after colorectal cancer screening with colonoscopy are uncertain. We conducted a prospective study to measure incidence of advanced neoplasia in patients within 5.5 years of screening colonoscopy.

METHODS

Three thousand one hundred twenty-one asymptomatic subjects, age 50 to 75 years, had screening colonoscopy between 1994 and 1997 in the Department of Veterans Affairs. One thousand one hundred seventy-one subjects with neoplasia and 501 neoplasia-free controls were assigned to colonoscopic surveillance over 5 years. Cohorts were defined by baseline findings. Relative risks for advanced neoplasia within 5.5 years were calculated. Advanced neoplasia was defined as tubular adenoma greater than > or =10 mm, adenoma with villous histology, adenoma with high-grade dysplasia, or invasive cancer.

RESULTS

Eight hundred ninety-five (76.4%) patients with neoplasia and 298 subjects (59.5%) without neoplasia at baseline had colonoscopy within 5.5 years; 2.4% of patients with no neoplasia had interval advanced neoplasia. The relative risk in patients with baseline neoplasia was 1.92 (95% CI: 0.83-4.42) with 1 or 2 tubular adenomas <10 mm, 5.01 (95% CI: 2.10-11.96) with 3 or more tubular adenomas <10 mm, 6.40 (95% CI: 2.74-14.94) with tubular adenoma > or =10 mm, 6.05 (95% CI: 2.48-14.71) for villous adenoma, and 6.87 (95% CI: 2.61-18.07) for adenoma with high-grade dysplasia.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a strong association between results of baseline screening colonoscopy and rate of serious incident lesions during 5.5 years of surveillance. Patients with 1 or 2 tubular adenomas less than 10 mm represent a low-risk group compared with other patients with colon neoplasia.

A Phase II study of cetuximab (Erbitux) plus FOLFIRI for irinotecan and oxaliplatin-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer

We have evaluated the efficacy and safety of cetuximab plus FOLFIRI for irinotecan and oxaliplatin-refractory colorectal cancers. From September 2004 to February 2006, 31 patients with metastatic colorectal cancer were treated with cetuximab (400 mg/m(2) intravenously [IV] over 2 hr on day 1 followed by weekly 1-hr infusions of 250 mg/m(2)) plus bi-weekly FOLFIRI (irinotecan 150 mg/m(2) IV over 90 min, and leucovorin 100 mg/m(2) IV over 2 hr, followed by 5-FU 400 mg/m(2) IV bolus on day 1, and followed by 5-FU 2,400 mg/m(2) by continuous IV over 46 hrs). Patients received a median of four cycles (range: 1-23). Eight (25.8%) patients had confirmed partial responses and 10 (32.2%) had stable disease. After a median follow-up of 13.2 months for surviving patients, the median time to progression was 2.9 months, the median duration of response was 5.4 months, and the median overall survival was 10.9 months. Skin toxicity was observed in 25 patients (80.4%) including grade 3 in 6 patients (19.4%). Other common non-hematologic toxicities of all grades were mucositis (32.3%), asthenia (22.6%), diarrhea (12.9%), and paronychial cracking (12.9%). The combination of cetuximab with FOLFIRI was effective and tolerable in colorectal cancer patients heavily pretreated with a number of chemotherapy regimens.

Surveillance endoscopy does not improve survival for patients with local and regional stage colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic surveillance is recommended and widely practiced after definitive treatment for colorectal cancer, yet to the authors' knowledge there is little evidence supporting its benefit. The purpose of the current study was to estimate the impact of endoscopic surveillance on colorectal cancer-specific survival for persons with localized or regional colorectal cancer. The population included Medicare patients (age >or=65 years) who were diagnosed with local or regional stage colorectal cancer between 1986 and 1996.

METHODS

The current study was a retrospective case-control study. Cases were defined as those individuals who died of colorectal cancer and controls were defined as those with colorectal cancer who did not die of colorectal cancer; controls were frequency matched to cases. Surveillance was defined as the use of colonoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy, or barium enema >or=6 months after diagnosis. Logistic regression was used to control for endoscopic procedure, race, comorbidity index at the time of diagnosis, and types of initial treatments after surgery.

RESULTS

The analysis group contained 8130 cases (29%) and 20,079 controls (71%). The average time to first bowel surveillance for those with at least 1 surveillance examination was 15.9 months after the diagnosis (median, 13 months). In the regression analysis, surveillance endoscopy was not found to be associated with improved colorectal cancer-specific survival (odds ratio of 1.01; 95% confidence interval, 0.95-1.06 [P=0.85]). Setting the surveillance interval to 12 months and 15 months rather than 6 months after diagnosis did not appear to influence the results.

CONCLUSIONS

Surveillance endoscopy does not appear to influence colorectal cancer-specific mortality in patients age >65 years who are diagnosed with localized or regional stage colorectal cancer.

Contemporary Imaging for Colorectal Cancer

With improvements in therapy for colorectal cancer, accurate imaging has taken on an increased significance. Preoperative diagnosis of metastatic disease helps identify patients who could undergo combined resection or might benefit from systemic therapy before surgery. Accurate imaging of rectal cancer is critical in evaluating locally advanced disease treatable by combined modality therapy, including chemoradiation and surgery. Postoperative imaging enhances identification of recurrent disease that might be amenable to salvage surgery.

Outcome of follow-up colon examination among a population-based cohort of colorectal cancer patients

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The benefit of colonoscopy in the follow-up of colorectal cancer survivors is uncertain, and findings of surveillance colonoscopy are not well-characterized. We sought to estimate survival among colorectal cancer patients according to receipt of a follow-up colon examination and to describe the findings of such exams.

METHODS

We studied health maintenance organization enrollees with colorectal cancer who underwent surgical resection. Mortality was estimated by using survival analysis, and findings of colon examinations were determined by review of pathology reports.

RESULTS

One thousand two patients were eligible for study; 5-year survival was higher (76.8%) for patients who had at least one follow-up exam than for patients who did not undergo follow-up (52.2%, P < .0001). In multivariate analysis, colon examination remained independently associated with improved survival (hazard ratio, 0.58; 95% confidence interval, 0.44-0.75). Twenty patients (3.1%) were diagnosed with a second colorectal cancer, including 9 cancers detected within 18 months of initial cancer diagnosis. Advanced neoplasia was more common (15.5%) among patients followed up between 36-60 months after diagnosis compared with patients followed up within 18 months (6.9%, P = .02). History of adenomas was associated with advanced neoplasia on follow-up (P = .002). Patients with advanced neoplasia on initial follow-up were at high risk for advanced neoplasia on subsequent examinations (13/16, 81%).

CONCLUSIONS

After colorectal cancer resection, patients have a high risk of interval cancers, some of which represent missed lesions at initial diagnosis. Therefore, surveillance colonoscopy within 1 year of initial diagnosis is warranted. After adjusting for key variables, endoscopic surveillance is associated with improved survival.

Carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) measurement during follow-up for rectal carcinoma is useful even if normal levels exist before surgery. A retrospective study of CEA values in the TME trial

BACKGROUND

Carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) as a marker in the follow-up after curative resection of colorectal carcinoma (CRC) is often omitted from follow-up despite guideline recommendations. One reason is the assumption that when a normal CEA value exists before curative resection of CRC, it will neither rise during follow-up. This study investigates this relationship.

METHOD

Data were derived from a study initiated to evaluate treatment regimes for rectal carcinoma (Dutch TME trial, n=1861) from which 954 were eligible for analysis. Recurrent disease occurred in 272 of these patients (29.5%). The pre-operative CEA value was compared to CEA values during follow-up, using threshold values of 2.5 and 5.0 ng/ml.

RESULTS

Normal pre-operative CEA values were present in 63% (CEA<5.0) and 39% (CEA<2.5) of patients with recurrent disease. Patients with a normal pre-operative CEA and recurrent disease had elevated CEA values during follow-up in 41% (CEA<5.0), 50% (CEA<2.5) and in 60% with both threshold values when the last measurement was done within 3 months before recurrent disease was diagnosed.

CONCLUSION

A normal pre-operative CEA is common in patients with rectal carcinoma. CEA does rise due to recurrent disease in at least 50% of patients with normal pre-operative values. Serial post-operative CEA testing cannot be discarded based on a normal pre-operative serum CEA.

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 definitive surgery and/or adjuvant therapy. 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 review the available evidence concerning the benefits of intensive follow up of colorectal cancer patients with respect to survival. Secondary endpoints include time to diagnosis of recurrence, quality of life and the harms and costs of surveillance and investigations.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Relevant trials were identified by electronic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CANCERLIT, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Science Citation Index, conference proceedings, trial registers, reference lists and contact with experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Only randomised controlled trials comparing different follow-up strategies for patients with non-metastatic CRC treated with curative intent were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Trial eligibility and methodological quality were assessed independently by the three authors.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight studies were included in this update of the review. There was evidence that an overall survival benefit at five years exists for patients undergoing more intensive follow up OR was 0.73 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.91); and RD -0.06 (95% CI -0.11 to -0.02). The absolute number of recurrences was similar; OR was 0.91 (95% CI 0.75 to 1.10); and RD -0.02 (95% CI -0.06 to 0.02) and although the weighted mean difference for the time to recurrence was significantly reduced by -6.75 (95% CI -11.06 to -2.44) there was significant heterogeneity between the studies. Analyses demonstrated a mortality benefit for performing more tests versus fewer tests OR was 0.64 (95% CI 0.49 to 0.85), and RD -0.09 (95%CI -0.14 to -0.03) and liver imaging versus no liver imaging OR was 0.64 (95% CI 0.49 to 0.85), and RD -0.09 (95%CI -0.14 to -0.03). There were significantly more curative surgical procedures attempted in the intensively followed arm: OR 2.41(95% CI 1.63 to 3.54), RD 0.06 (95%CI 0.04 to 0.09). No useful data on quality of life, harms or cost-effectiveness were available for further analysis.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The results of our review suggest that there is an overall survival benefit for intensifying the follow up of patients after curative surgery for colorectal cancer. Because of the wide variation in the follow-up programmes used in the included studies it is not possible to infer from the data the best combination and frequency of clinic (or family practice) visits, blood tests, endoscopic procedures and radiological investigations to maximise the outcomes for these patients. Nor is it possible to estimate the potential harms or costs of intensifying follow up for these patients in order to adopt a cost-effective approach in this clinical area. Large clinical trials underway or about to commence are likely to contribute valuable further information to clarify these areas of clinical uncertainty.

Temporal trends in colorectal procedure use after colorectal cancer resection

BACKGROUND

After curative cancer resection, routine colon surveillance is recommended. It is not known whether trends over time in cancer survivors parallel that of the general population.

OBJECTIVE

Our purpose was to describe temporal changes in the use of posttreatment procedures.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Linked tumor registry and Medicare claims data.

PATIENTS

Medicare beneficiaries >65 years old who were diagnosed with local or regional stage colorectal cancer from 1992-2002 and who underwent surgical resection.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Use of colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, or barium enema within 1 year, 18 months, or 3 years of diagnosis.

RESULTS

A total of 62,882 patients were followed up for 1 year and 35,784 for 3 years. Colonoscopy within 1 year was performed in 25.9%, within 18 months in 53.8%, and within 3 years in 70.3%. Corresponding rates for sigmoidoscopy were 7.4%, 10.2%, and 14.9%, respectively, and were 3.4%, 5.1%, and 7.9%, respectively, for barium enema. There was a decrease over time in the receipt of colonoscopy within 1 year of diagnosis (31.3% in 1992 to 20.6% in 2002), no change in 18-month rates, and a smaller increase in colonoscopy use within 3 years (66.5% to 72.3%). The use of sigmoidoscopy and barium enema declined over time. Overall procedure use within 1 year and 18 months also decreased and 3-year rates were essentially unchanged. These differences were maintained in multivariate analyses.

LIMITATIONS

Accuracy of procedure coding and indications for tests could not be measured.

CONCLUSIONS

Temporal trends in procedure use in cancer survivors were consistent with the general population. Importantly, despite guideline recommendations and Medicare reimbursement, 25% of patients who undergo curative treatment do not receive surveillance examinations and this was unchanged over time.

Follow-up of gastric cancer: a review

Although there is broad agreement in the staging, classification, and surgery for gastric cancer, there is no consensus regarding follow-up after gastrectomy. Follow-up varies from investigations on clinical suspicion of relapse to intensive investigations to detect recurrences early, assuming that this improves survival and quality of life. Advanced gastric cancers recur mainly by locoregional recurrence or distant metastasis. Local recurrences detected at endoscopy or on computed tomography (CT) are invariably incurable. For early gastric cancers, endoscopy can detect new primaries, but the incidence of these tumors is low, and many thousands of procedures are required to detect each operable case. CT is much better at detecting liver metastasis and, although these are usually multiple and unresectable, there are several reports of good survival following liver resection for isolated metastasis. Tumor markers have been used with some success to detect subclinical recurrences and could be used to target more invasive or expensive procedures. In chemotherapy, many newer agents are promising significantly improved survival, but again, the evidence for greater benefit when administered prior to the patient becoming symptomatic is lacking. Overall, it appears that follow-up policy is as much decided by the wealth and facilities of the institution as by any significant evidence base. Although the early detection of recurrent cancer is an emotive issue for both patients and surgeons, considering the amount of time and money invested in follow-up, and the lack of evidence of efficacy, a randomized controlled trial of intensive follow-up is required.

The postoperative surveillance of patients with colon cancer and rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Colon cancer is relatively common; however, the results of treatment have marginally improved over the last half century. Though about 85% of patients have colorectal tumors resected with curative intent, a significant number of these patients will eventually die from cancer. As a result, many clinicians have advocated intensive follow-up in such patients as an attempt to increase survival.

DATA SOURCES

A review of the literature focusing on studies that have specifically addressed postoperative surveillance programs in patients with colorectal cancer was conducted. Only studies with level A evidence were included. Further references were obtained through cross-referencing the bibliography cited in each work.

CONCLUSION

One of the six prospective randomized studies demonstrated a statistically significant survival benefit. Undoubtedly, survival benefits can be shown with a well-designed evidence-based follow-up strategy. However, well-designed large prospective multi-institutional randomized studies are needed to establish a consensus for follow-up.

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.