Follow-up after radical surgery for colorectal cancer. Design of a randomized study

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

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.

Impact on survival of intensive follow up after curative resection for colorectal cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials

OBJECTIVE

To review the evidence from clinical trials of follow up of patients after curative resection for colorectal cancer.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials of intensive compared with control follow up.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

All cause mortality at five years (primary outcome). Rates of recurrence of intraluminal, local, and metastatic disease and metachronous (second colorectal primary) cancers (secondary outcomes).

RESULTS

Five trials, which included 1342 patients, met the inclusion criteria. Intensive follow up was associated with a reduction in all cause mortality (combined risk ratio 0.81, 95% confidence interval 0.70 to 0.94, P=0.007). The effect was most pronounced in the four extramural detection trials that used computed tomography and frequent measurements of serum carcinoembryonic antigen (risk ratio 0.73, 0.60 to 0.89, P=0.002). Intensive follow up was associated with significantly earlier detection of all recurrences (difference in means 8.5 months, 7.6 to 9.4 months, P<0.001) and an increased detection rate for isolated local recurrences (risk ratio 1.61, 1.12 to 2.32, P=0.011).

CONCLUSIONS

Intensive follow up after curative resection for colorectal cancer improves survival. Large trials are required to identify which components of intensive follow up are most beneficial.

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

BACKGROUND

It is common clinical practise 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 reviewers.

MAIN RESULTS

Five trials were included. There was evidence that an overall survival benefit at 5 years exists for patients undergoing more intensive follow-up (OR = 0.67, 95% confidence interval 0.53 - 0.84; RD = -0.07, CI -0.12 - -0.02). The absolute number of recurrences was similar (OR = 0.91; 95% confidence interval 0.72 - 1.14; RD = 0.00, CI -0.07 - 0.07) and although the weighted mean difference for the time to recurrence was significantly reduced by 6.75 (95% confidence interval -11.06 - -2.44) there was significant heterogeneity between the studies. Analyses demonstrated a mortality benefit for performing more tests versus fewer tests (OR = 0.66; 95% confidence interval 0.46 - 0.95) and liver imaging versus no liver imaging (OR = 0.66; 95% confidence interval 0.46 - 0.95). However when both these results are expressed as a risk difference this significance is lost (RD = -0.06; CI -0.25 - 0.13). No useful data on quality of life, harms or cost-effectiveness were available for further analysis.

REVIEWER'S 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.

Follow-up of colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The value of intensive follow-up for patients after resection of colorectal cancer remains controversial. This study reviews all randomized and prospective cohort studies to assess the value of aggressive follow-up.

METHODS

The literature was searched from the years 1972 to 1996 for studies reporting on the follow-up of patients with colorectal cancer. Randomized and comparative-cohort studies that included history, physical examination, and carcinoembrionic antigen values at least three times a year for at least two years were included in a meta-analysis. Single-cohort studies with intensive follow-up and traditional follow-up were also included in a two-group comparative analysis for each outcome indicator. Outcome indicators were 1) curative resection rates after recurrent cancer, 2) survival rates of curative re-resections, 3) length of survival after recurrence, and 4) cumulative five-year survival.

RESULTS

Two randomized and three comparative-cohort studies met these criteria and included 2,005 patients, which were evaluated in the meta-analysis. The cumulative five-year survival was 1.16 times higher in the intensively followed group (P = 0.003). Two and one-half times more curative re-resections were performed for recurrent cancer in those patients undergoing intensive follow-up (P = 0.0001). Those patients in the intensive follow-up group with a recurrence had a 3.62-times higher survival rate than the control (P = 0.0004). Fourteen single-cohort studies were also included in the comparative analysis of 6,641 patients. The findings from these aggregated studies support the results of the meta-analysis.

CONCLUSION

Our study concludes that intensive follow-up detects more recurrent cancers at a stage amenable to curative resection, resulting in an improvement in survival of recurrences and an increased overall five-year cumulative rate of survival.

Metachronous colorectal cancers

BACKGROUND

Up to 9 per cent of patients who undergo resection for colorectal cancer develop metachronous cancers. There is no consensus on the detection and management of such cancers.

METHODS

The literature was reviewed exhaustively regarding the incidence, clinical characteristics, detection, treatment and molecular genetics of metachronous colorectal cancers. This was based on a Medline search from 1966 to December 1997 for articles on metachronous colorectal cancers. A manual search was also performed on references quoted in these articles. All publications relevant to this study were included.

RESULTS

Although the underlying causes for metachronous colorectal cancers are yet to be elucidated, risk factors for the disease have been identified. These include the presence of synchronous polyps or cancers, a history of metachronous cancers, and hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC).

CONCLUSION

Preoperative colonoscopy and postoperative colonoscopic surveillance are essential in identifying patients at risk of metachronous colorectal cancer. A total colectomy and ileorectal anastomosis should be considered for some patients, certainly for those with HNPCC.

Preoperative and postoperative imaging for colorectal cancer

Management and survival in colorectal cancer are dictated by the extent of the disease at the initial diagnosis. Technological advances over the past 25 years have improved the ability to accurately preoperatively stage these lesions and detect recurrence. This article reviews the focus on the utility of computerized tomography, magnetic resonance, endoscopic ultrasound, and newer imaging methods including PET scan and monoclonal antibodies in the management of colorectal carcinoma.

Routine compared with nonscheduled follow-up of patients with "curative" surgery for colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

The main rationale for follow-up of colorectal cancer patients resected for "cure" is that early detection and treatment of recurrence and metachronous disease should result in improved survival. Our purpose was to assess in a prospective fashion the impact on survival of a follow-up program versus that of undergoing nonscheduled visits.

METHODS

Within the 14-year period from 1975 through 1988, a prospective study was carried out on 800 patients with colorectal adenocarcinoma radically resected with no evidence of synchronous cancers of the colon and rectum or in other organs, of whom 322 patients were to attend a 5-year follow-up, and 478 patients were free to make nonscheduled visits on account of symptoms.

RESULTS

Asymptomatic recurrence was found at follow-up in 92 (28%) of 322 patients, whereas 175 (36%) of 478 patients had a symptomatic recurrence detected at a nonscheduled visit. Diagnosis of resectable recurrence was established within a median time of 21.5 months. Surgical resection of recurrence was performed in 30 (32%) of 92 and in 13 (7%) of 175 patients (32 vs. 7%; p < 0.001). Resection was curative in 13 (14%) of 92 and in two (1%) of 175. Five-year survival of resected recurrence was 10% in 30 of 92 patients and 0.8% in 13 of 175 (10 vs. 0.8%; p < 0.01). Two patients are alive with no evidence of disease or two (2%) of 92. Metachronous colorectal lesions were treated for cure in 63 (19.5%) of 322 patients. The effectiveness of scheduled follow-up was 4% (13 of 322 patients).

CONCLUSIONS

These results underline the rationale for a follow-up program in early detection and surgical treatment of recurrent disease in patients operated on for colorectal cancer.

Screening of average-risk individuals for colorectal cancer and postoperative evaluation of patients with colorectal cancer

Screening of the average-risk individual for disease creates a different relationship between practitioner and subject than the normal doctor-patient relationship. Screened individuals are asymptomatic, have a whole range of motivations from denial to neurosis, and, for the most part, derive no benefit from the screen, as they are destined never to contract the disease. Rewards to the few must clearly outweigh the risks to the many. The screening strategy must be economical when applied to a large population, safe, and effective in achieving the ultimate goal, which, in the case of colorectal cancer, is reduction in the mortality rate. Prediagnostic screening of asymptomatic adults over the age of 45 years for primary disease has been shown to fulfill all of these criteria. Postoperative screening of asymptomatic individuals after curative resection of colorectal cancer for recurrence has been shown to fulfill none of them.

Prophylaxis against colorectal cancer

Colorectal cancer is diagnosed in more than 3000 people every year in Denmark, with a population of 5 million, and 2000 die from this disease every year. The aetiology of the disease is complex, but an increasing number of cancers have been related to genetics and Denmark is contributing with a well-established register of familial adenomatous polyposis and a recently founded register for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer, both with major international relationships. The Danish tradition of epidemiology and clinical trials has also been demonstrated in population screening trials for colorectal cancer in average-risk persons as well as high-risk groups with precursors of the disease. The present review places Danish contributions within the prophylaxis of colorectal cancer during the last decade in an international context.

Follow-up after curative surgery for colorectal carcinoma. Randomized comparison with no follow-up

PURPOSE

This study investigated the value of intense follow-up compared with no follow-up after curative surgery of cancer in the colon or rectum.

METHODS

One hundred seven patients were randomized to no follow-up (control group; n = 54) or intense follow-up (follow-up group; n = 53) after surgery and early postoperative colonoscopy. Patients in the follow-up group were followed at frequent intervals with clinical examination, rigid proctosigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy, computed tomography of the pelvis (in patients operated with abdominoperineal resection), pulmonary x-ray, liver function tests, and determinations of carcinoembryonic antigen and fecal hemoglobin. Follow-up ranged from 5.5 to 8.8 years after primary surgery.

RESULTS

Tumor recurred in 18 patients (33 percent) in the control group and in 17 patients (32 percent) in the follow-up group. Reresection with curative intent was performed in three patients in the control group and in five patients (four of whom were asymptomatic) in the follow-up group. In the follow-up group two asymptomatic patients with elevated carcinoembryonic antigen levels were disease-free three and five and one-half years after reresection and were the only patients apparently cured by reresection. No patient underwent surgery for metastatic disease in the liver or lungs. Symptomatic metachronous carcinoma was detected in one patient (control group) after three years. Five-year survival rate was 67 percent in the control group and 75 percent in the follow-up group (P > 0.05); the corresponding cancer-specific survival rates were 71 percent and 78 percent, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Intense follow-up after resection of colorectal cancer did not prolong survival in this study.

Optimal follow-up in colorectal cancer patients: what tests and how often?

Patients' benefit from follow-up examinations after curative surgery for colorectal cancer is unproven in spite of numerous different programs' having been designed for that purpose. Unfortunately, no final results from prospective randomized studies have been published yet and no ideal marker for recurrent cancer is available to identify patients in whom new curative treatment may be possible. So far, screening for metachronous neoplasia with intervals of several years may influence survival, whereas benefit from detecting recurrent colorectal cancer may be claimed only by using historical or other inappropriate controls. The tradition of follow-up is expensive and prospective evidence for any cost benefit is needed to justify continuous use of our limited resources in this area of patient care.

Follow-up of patients with colorectal cancer. A meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The authors sought to determine whether intensive follow-up improves 5-year survival rates in patients with colorectal cancer who were operated on for cure.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Intensive follow-up of patients with colorectal cancer is still controversial. The present uncertainty in regard to the value of intensive follow-up could be the result of the absence of prospective randomized studies comparing patients with and without follow-up.

METHODS

Studies comparing two follow-up programs of different intensities were identified in the medical literature and were aggregated in a meta-analysis using the "random effects method." Seven nonrandomized studies describing 3283 patients were analyzed.

RESULTS

Patients with intensive follow-up did have 9% better 5-year survival rates than did those with minimal or no follow-up, only when intensive follow-up included carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) assays. In addition, more asymptomatic recurrences were detected and more recurrences were resected in patients with intensive follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis indicated that intensive follow-up using CEA assays can identify treatable recurrences at a relatively early stage. Treatment of these recurrences appears to be associated with improved 5-year survival rates. However, not all intensive follow-up strategies will be equally effective. Follow-up may yield the best results if diagnostic tests are used only to detect those recurrences that can be operated on with curative intent and when follow-up is "individualized," according to patient characteristics.

Is follow-up of colorectal cancer patients worthwhile?

Between 1978 and 1989, 1,045 of 1,399 patients (580 male and 474 female) underwent curative surgery for colorectal carcinoma. Of these patients, 350 (33 percent) had recurrences, another 16 (1.5 percent) developed a metachronous colorectal cancer, and 23 (2 percent) had cancers of other organs. An isolated locoregional recurrence was found in 75/350 (21 percent). The remaining 275/350 patients (79 percent) showed systemic dissemination of the carcinoma. Reoperations with curative intent were performed on 56/350 patients (16 percent). Only 21 of the 56 resected patients (38 percent), i.e., 21/350 (6 percent), were without recurrence at the end of the follow-up period on December 31, 1990. Despite a curative reoperation, 62 percent of the patients again developed recurrent growths. There is an imbalance between the efforts invested in tumor follow-up and the benefits gained. Further follow-up programs should be investigated in a controlled, prospective fashion.

The decision to treat patients with recurrent colorectal cancer

Although universally performed, postoperative diagnostic screening in patients with colorectal cancer has not been demonstrated to diminish overall mortality. Such screening often leads to second-look surgery, with many anecdotal successes but again no evidence that overall mortality is reduced. The cost of such interventions is at least $1 billion dollars per year in the United States and may be twice that amount. The research that is needed to support postoperative screening and surgery is feasible and economically easily justified. The endpoints must be shifted from that of previous studies, which have focused on sensitivity of screening techniques, to mortality. Such a study is ongoing in Denmark, and early results of that study should be reported soon.

Can Hemoccult-II replace colonoscopy in surveillance after radical surgery for colorectal cancer and after polypectomy?

Surveillance after colorectal carcinoma and adenoma includes colonoscopy, which is a demanding procedure for the patient, doctor, and society. Therefore, it was investigated whether a simple fecal occult blood test could replace colonoscopy. Hemoccult-II (H-II) was performed before 1,244 colonoscopies in patients with previous cancer and before 328 colonoscopies in an adenoma surveillance program. The H-II test was positive in 3 of 9 patients with local recurrence, in 2 of 13 with metachronous cancer, and in 31 of 186 with adenomas. The test was positive more often in patients with large and multiple adenomas, sigmoid adenomas, and adenomas with villous elements and moderate-to-severe dysplasia, but the sensitivity did not reach more than 25 to 40 percent. It was concluded that markers more sensitive than H-II are needed to detect metachronous cancers and new adenomas. In the meantime, colonoscopy has to be used with intervals of several years, but not for detection of local recurrent cancer, which in most cases may be found by simpler means.

Screening guidelines for colorectal cancer

A review is given of methods and results of screening for colorectal cancer in average-risk and high-risk groups. Possible methods are digital rectal exploration, endoscopic examination, barium enemas, faecal occult blood tests, tumour markers like carcinoembryonic antigen, Ca-19-9, and others, and gene markers. Final results of large randomized population studies with faecal occult blood tests are expected within the next few years, but it will probably be necessary to add flexible sigmoidoscopy to achieve a major reduction in mortality from colorectal cancer in average-risk persons. Recommendations for screening in high-risk groups are proposed, but strong support for these guidelines are still missing, an exception being first-degree relatives of individuals with familial adenomatous polyposis; the other high-risk groups include members of hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer families, relatives of patients with sporadic colorectal cancer, patients with colorectal adenomas, patients with previous colorectal cancer, and patients with inflammatory bowel disease.