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

Recurrent disease detection after resection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma using a recurrence-focused surveillance strategy (RADAR-PANC): protocol of an international randomized controlled trial according to the Trials within Cohorts design

BACKGROUND

Disease recurrence remains one of the biggest concerns in patients after resection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Despite (neo)adjuvant systemic therapy, most patients experience local and/or distant PDAC recurrence within 2 years. High-level evidence regarding the benefits of recurrence-focused surveillance after PDAC resection is missing, and the impact of early detection and treatment of recurrence on survival and quality of life is unknown. In most European countries, recurrence-focused follow-up after surgery for PDAC is currently lacking. Consequently, guidelines regarding postoperative surveillance are based on expert opinion and other low-level evidence. The recent emergence of more potent local and systemic treatment options for PDAC recurrence has increased interest in early diagnosis. To determine whether early detection and treatment of recurrence can lead to improved survival and quality of life, we designed an international randomized trial.

METHODS

This randomized controlled trial is nested within an existing prospective cohort in pancreatic cancer centers in the Netherlands (Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Project; PACAP) and the United Kingdom (UK) (Pancreas Cancer: Observations of Practice and survival; PACOPS) according to the "Trials within Cohorts" (TwiCs) design. All PACAP/PACOPS participants with a macroscopically radical resection (R0-R1) of histologically confirmed PDAC, who provided informed consent for TwiCs and participation in quality of life questionnaires, are included. Participants randomized to the intervention arm are offered recurrence-focused surveillance, existing of clinical evaluation, serum cancer antigen (CA) 19-9 testing, and contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) of chest and abdomen every three months during the first 2 years after surgery. Participants in the control arm of the study will undergo non-standardized clinical follow-up, generally consisting of clinical follow-up with imaging and serum tumor marker testing only in case of onset of symptoms, according to local practice in the participating hospital. The primary endpoint is overall survival. Secondary endpoints include quality of life, patterns of recurrence, compliance to and costs of recurrence-focused follow-up, and the impact on recurrence-focused treatment.

DISCUSSION

The RADAR-PANC trial will be the first randomized controlled trial to generate high level evidence for the current clinical equipoise regarding the value of recurrence-focused postoperative surveillance with serial tumor marker testing and routine imaging in patients after PDAC resection. The Trials within Cohort design allows us to study the acceptability of recurrence-focused surveillance among cohort participants and increases the generalizability of findings to the general population. While it is strongly encouraged to offer all trial participants treatment at time of recurrence diagnosis, type and timing of treatment will be determined through shared decision-making. This might reduce the potential survival benefits of recurrence-focused surveillance, although insights into the impact on patients' quality of life will be obtained.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04875325 . Registered on May 6, 2021.

Cost-effectiveness of surveillance intervals after curative resection of colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Major guidelines consistently recommend 5 years of postoperative surveillance for patients with colorectal cancer. However, they differ in their recommendations for examination intervals and whether they should vary according to disease stage. Furthermore, there are no reports on the cost-effectiveness of the different surveillance schedules. The objective of this study is to identify the most cost-effective surveillance intervals after curative resection of colorectal cancer.

METHODS

A total of 3701 patients who underwent curative surgery for colorectal cancer at the National Cancer Center Hospital were included. A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted for the five surveillance strategies with reference to the guidelines. Expected medical costs and quality-adjusted life years after colorectal cancer resection were calculated using a state-transition model by Monte Carlo simulation. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life years gained was calculated for each strategy, with a maximum acceptable value of 43 500-52 200 USD (5-6 million JPY).

RESULTS

Stages I, II and III included 1316, 1082 and 1303 patients, respectively, with 45, 140 and 338 relapsed cases. For patients with stage I disease, strategy 4 (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio $26 555/quality-adjusted life year) was considered to be the most cost-effective, while strategies 3 ($83 071/quality-adjusted life year) and 2 ($289 642/quality-adjusted life year) exceeded the threshold value. In stages II and III, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for strategy 3 was the most cost-effective option, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $18 358-22 230/quality-adjusted life year.

CONCLUSIONS

In stage I, the cost-effectiveness of intensive surveillance is very poor and strategy 4 is the most cost-effective. Strategy 3 is the most cost-effective in stages II and III.

Management after non-curative endoscopic resection of T1 rectal cancer

Since the introduction of population-based screening, increasing numbers of T1 rectal cancers are detected and removed by local endoscopic resection. Patients can be cured with endoscopic resection alone, but there is a possibility of residual tumor cells remaining after the initial resection. These can be located intraluminally at the resection site or extraluminally in the form of (lymph node) metastases. To decrease the risk of residual cells progressing towards more advanced disease, additional treatment is usually needed. However, with the currently available risk stratification models, it remains challenging to determine who should and should not be further treated after non-curative endoscopic resection. In this review, the different management strategies for patients with non-curatively treated T1 rectal cancers are discussed, along with the available evidence for each strategy and relevant considerations for clinical decision making. Furthermore, we provide practical guidance on the management and surveillance following non-curative endoscopic resection of T1 rectal cancer.

Recurrence Patterns and Risk Factors after Curative Resection for Colorectal Cancer: Insights for Postoperative Surveillance Strategies

This study aimed to assess recurrence patterns and related risk factors following curative resection of colorectal cancer (CRC). This retrospective observational study was conducted at a tertiary care center, including 2622 patients with stage I-III CRC who underwent curative resection between 2008 and 2018. Hazard rates of recurrence were calculated using a hazard function. The primary outcome was the peak recurrence time after curative resection and secondary outcomes were prognostic factors associated with recurrence. Over a median follow-up period of 53 months, the overall, locoregional and systemic recurrence rates were 8.9%, 0.7%, and 8.5%, respectively. Recurrence rates were significantly higher for rectal cancer (14.9% overall, 4.4% locoregionally, and 12.3% systemically) than for colon cancer (all p < 0.001). The peak recurrence time was 11 months, with variations in hazard rates and curves depending on the tumor location, stage, and risk factors. Patients with AL or CRM involvement exhibited a distinct pattern, with a high hazard rate in the early postoperative period. Understanding these recurrence patterns and risk factors is crucial for establishing effective postoperative surveillance strategies. Our findings suggested that short-interval surveillance should be considered during the first 2 years post-surgery, particularly for high-risk patients who should receive early attention.

Local Recurrences in Rectal Cancer: MRI vs. CT

Rectal cancers are often considered a distinct disease from colon cancers as their survival and management are different. Particularly, the risk for local recurrence (LR) is greater than in colon cancer. There are many factors predisposing to LR such as postoperative histopathological features or the mesorectal plane of surgical resection. In addition, the pattern of LR in rectal cancer has a prognostic significance and an important role in the choice of operative approach and. Therefore, an optimal follow up based on imaging is critical in rectal cancer. The aim of this review is to analyse the risk and the pattern of local recurrences in rectal cancer and to provide an overview of the role of imaging in early detection of LRs. We performed a literature review of studies published on Web of Science and MEDLINE up to January 2023. We also reviewed the current guidelines of National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) and the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO). Although the timing and the modality of follow-up is not yet established, the guidelines usually recommend a time frame of 5 years post surgical resection of the rectum. Computed Tomography (CT) scans and/or Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) are the main imaging techniques recommended in the follow-up of these patients. PET-CT is not recommended by guidelines during post-operative surveillance and it is generally used for problem solving.

Diagnostic value of radiological staging and surveillance for T1 colorectal carcinomas: A multicenter cohort study

BACKGROUND

The role of radiological staging and surveillance imaging is under debate for T1 colorectal cancer (CRC) as the risk of distant metastases is low and imaging may lead to the detection of incidental findings.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the yield of radiological staging and surveillance imaging for T1 CRC.

METHODS

In this retrospective multicenter cohort study, all patients of 10 Dutch hospitals with histologically proven T1 CRC who underwent radiological staging in the period 2000-2014 were included. Clinical characteristics, pathological, endoscopic, surgical and imaging reports at baseline and during follow-up were recorded and analyzed. Patients were classified as high-risk T1 CRC if at least one of the histological risk factors (lymphovascular invasion, poor tumor differentiation, deep submucosal invasion or positive resection margins) was present and as low-risk when all risk factors were absent.

RESULTS

Of the 628 included patients, 3 (0.5%) had synchronous distant metastases, 13 (2.1%) malignant incidental findings and 129 (20.5%) benign incidental findings at baseline staging. Radiological surveillance was performed among 336 (53.5%) patients. The 5-year cumulative incidence of distant recurrence, malignant and benign incidental findings were 2.4% (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.1%-5.4%), 2.5% (95% CI: 0.6%-10.4%) and 18.3% (95% CI: 13.4%-24.7%), respectively. No distant metastatic events occurred among low-risk T1 CRC patients.

CONCLUSION

The risk of synchronous distant metastases and distant recurrence in T1 CRC is low, while there is a substantial risk of detecting incidental findings. Radiological staging seems unnecessary prior to local excision of suspected T1 CRC and after local excision of low-risk T1 CRC. Radiological surveillance should not be performed in patients with low-risk T1 CRC.

Treatment and survival of patients with metachronous colorectal lung metastases

INTRODUCTION

The lungs are the second most common site for metachronous metastases in colorectal cancer. No treatment algorithm is established, and the role of adjuvant chemotherapy is unclear. This study aimed to map pulmonary recurrences in a modern multimodal treated population, and to evaluate survival depending on management.

METHODS

Retrospective study based on the COLOFOL-trial population of 2442 patients, radically resected for colorectal cancer stage II-III. All recurrences within 5 years were identified and medical records were scrutinized.

RESULTS

Of 165 (6.8%) patients developing lung metastases as first recurrence, 89 (54%) were confined to the lungs. Potentially curative treatment was possible in 62 (37%) cases, of which 33 with surgery only and 29 with surgery and chemotherapy combined. The 5-year overall survival (5-year OS) for all lung recurrences was 28%. In patients treated with chemotherapy only the 5-year OS was 7.5%, compared with 55% in patients treated with surgery, and 72% when surgery was combined with chemotherapy. Hazard ratio for mortality was 2.9 (95% confidence interval 1.40-6.10) for chemotherapy only compared to surgery.

CONCLUSION

A high proportion of metachronous lung metastases after colorectal surgery were possible to resect, yielding good survival. The combination of surgery and chemotherapy might be advantageous for survival.

An Evidence-Based Guideline for Surveillance of Patients after Curative Treatment for Colon and Rectal Cancer

Objective: To provide recommendations for a surveillance regimen that leads to the largest overall survival benefit for patients after curative treatment for Stage I–IV colon and rectal cancer. Methods: Consistent with the Program in Evidence-Based Care’s standard approach, guideline databases, i.e., MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and PROSPERO, were systematically searched. Then, we drafted recommendations and methodology experts performed an internal review of the resulting draft recommendations, which was followed by an external review by targeted experts and intended users. Results: Four systematic reviews and two randomized controlled trials were identified that provided evidence for recommendations. Conclusions: For patients with stage I–III colon cancer, a medical history and physical examination should be performed every six months for three years; computed tomography (CT) of the chest-abdomen-pelvis (CT CAP) should be performed at one and three years, or one CT CAP could be performed at 18 months; the use of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) is optional if CT imaging is being performed; and surveillance colonoscopy should be performed one year after the initial surgery. The frequency of subsequent surveillance colonoscopy should be dictated by previous findings, but generally, colonoscopies should be performed every five years if the findings are normal. There was insufficient evidence to support these recommendations for patients with rectal cancer, Stage IV colon cancer, and patients over the age of 75 years. Patients should be informed of current recommendations and the treating physician should discuss the specific risks and benefits of each recommendation with their patients.

The utility of surveillance CT scans in a cohort of survivors of colorectal cancer

PURPOSE

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer worldwide. After curative intent treatment, international guidelines recommend surveillance protocols which include annual CT chest, abdomen and pelvis (CAP) and serum carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) monitoring which aim to improve overall survival by early detection of recurrence. Despite the widespread recommendations, robust evidence of an overall survival benefit is lacking. Our study aimed to quantify the utility of annual CT CAP as a surveillance modality in comparison to the rate of potentially harmful false-positive and incidental findings.

METHODS

High-risk stage II and stage III CRC patients were retrospectively identified from the Sydney Cancer Survivorship Centre database. Findings on surveillance CT were classified into confirmed recurrence or the potentially harmful findings of (a) false-positive or (b) clinically significant incidental finding.

RESULTS

A total of 376 surveillance CT CAPs were performed in 174 survivors between 12 September 2013 and 30 June 2020. The recurrence rate during the study period was 23/174 (13.2%) with the majority of recurrences detected by abnormal CEA (14/23, 60.9%) versus surveillance CT (4/23, 17.4%), with the remainder identified on non-surveillance CT (5/23, 21.7%). Curative intent surgery was performed in 12/23 people with CRC recurrence. Surveillance CT was shown to result in high levels of false-positive (31/174, 17.8% of patients) or clinically significant incidental findings (30/174, 17.2% of patients). The risk of identifying these potentially harmful findings was ongoing with each year of surveillance CT.

CONCLUSION

Surveillance CT was associated with low detection rates and high rates of potentially harmful findings bringing this surveillance modality under further scrutiny.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

An increased emphasis should be placed on educating survivors on the benefits of surveillance CT weighed against the risk of potentially harmful findings.

Reevaluating the Evidence for Intensive Postoperative Extracolonic Surveillance for Nonmetastatic Colorectal Cancer

OBJECTIVES

The FACS, GILDA, and COLOFOL trials have cast doubt on the value of intensive extracolonic surveillance for resected nonmetastatic colorectal cancer and by extension metastasectomy. We reexamined this pessimistic interpretation. We evaluate an alternative explanation: insufficient power to detect a realistically sized survival benefit that may be clinically meaningful.

METHODS

A microsimulation model of postdiagnosis colorectal cancer was constructed assuming an empirically plausible efficacy for metastasectomy and thus surveillance. The model was used to predict the large-sample mortality reduction expected for each trial and the implied statistical power. A potential recurrence imbalance in the FACS trial was investigated. Goodness of fit between model predictions and trial results were evaluated. Downstream life expectancy was estimated and power calculations performed for future trials evaluating surveillance and metastasectomy.

RESULTS

For all 3 trials, the model predicted a mortality reduction of ≤5% and power of <10%. The FACS recurrence imbalance likely led to a large relative bias (>2.5) in the hazard ratio for overall survival favoring control. After adjustment, both COLOFOL and FACS results were consistent with model predictions (P>.5). A 2.6 (95% credible interval 0.5-5.1) and 3.6 (95% credible interval 0.8-7.0) month increase in life expectancy is predicted comparing intensive extracolonic surveillance-routine computed tomography scans and carcinoembryonic antigen assays-with 1 computed tomography scan at 12 months or no surveillance, respectively. An adequately sized surveillance trial is not feasible. A metastasectomy trial should randomize at least 200 to 300 patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Recent trial results do not warrant de novo skepticism of metastasectomy nor targeted extracolonic surveillance. Given the potential for clinically meaningful life-expectancy gain and significant uncertainty, a trial of metastasectomy is needed.

FDG PET/CT in follow UP patients with colorectal carcinoma after adjuvant chemotherapy

Background

18F-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose (18F-FDG) positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) is a method of imaging that assesses and measures metabolic avidity in cancer cells, acting as a proxy for underlying cellular activity and vitality and so providing anatomic and metabolic information. 18F-FDG PET-CT is beneficial for detecting local recurrence, distant metastases, and monitoring tumor viability after chemotherapy and radiotherapy in patients with colorectal cancer. Strict adherence to set protocols, technological processes, and good patient preparation are essential to produce the greatest results. The goal of the trial was to see how useful PET/CT was in following up on patients who had resected colorectal cancer and had completed adjuvant chemotherapy rounds.

Results

In this study, PET/CT early detected hepatic deposits, pulmonary masses, bone deposits, and sizable LNs. PET/CT provided useful information and had a considerable impact on disease management, enabling the detection of recurrent disease as early as possible with high accuracy in assessment of therapeutic response. It detected viable residual tumor cells in operative bed scar, small metabolically active LNs, hepatic focal lesions, peritoneal deposits, pulmonary secondaries, and bone deposits avoiding unnecessary surgeries.

Conclusion

Because of its high accuracy in detection and capacity to identify recurrent illness, FDG-PET-CT imaging is effective in evaluating post-therapeutic colorectal cancer patients with suspected tumor recurrence or distant metastases.

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

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

Optimal postoperative surveillance strategies for stage III colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Optimal surveillance strategies for stage III colorectal cancer (CRC) are lacking, and intensive surveillance has not conferred a significant survival benefit.

AIM

To examine the association between surveillance intensity and recurrence and survival rates in patients with stage III CRC.

METHODS

Data from patients with pathologic stage III CRC who underwent radical surgery between January 2005 and December 2012 at Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea were retrospectively reviewed. Surveillance consisted of abdominopelvic computed tomography (CT) every 6 mo and chest CT annually during the 5 year follow-up period, resulting in an average of three imaging studies per year. Patients who underwent more than the average number of imaging studies annually were categorized as high intensity (HI), and those with less than the average were categorized as low intensity (LI).

RESULTS

Among 1888 patients, 864 (45.8%) were in HI group. Age, sex, and location were not different between groups. HI group had more advanced T and N stage (P = 0.002, 0.010, each). Perineural invasion (PNI) was more identified in the HI group (21.4% vs 30.3%, P < 0.001). The mean overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free interval (RFI) was longer in the LI group (P < 0.001, each). Multivariate analysis indicated that surveillance intensity [odds ratio (OR) = 1.999; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.680-2.377; P < 0.001], pathologic T stage (OR = 1.596; 95%CI: 1.197-2.127; P = 0.001), PNI (OR = 1.431; 95%CI: 1.192-1.719; P < 0.001), and circumferential resection margin (OR = 1.565; 95%CI: 1.083-2.262; P = 0.017) in rectal cancer were significantly associated with RFI. The mean post-recurrence survival (PRS) was longer in patients who received curative resection (P < 0.001). Curative resection rate of recurrence was not different between HI (29.3%) and LI (23.8%) groups (P = 0.160). PRS did not differ according to surveillance intensity (P = 0.802).

CONCLUSION

Frequent surveillance with CT scan do not improve OS in stage III CRC patients. We need to evaluate role of other surveillance method rather than frequent CT scans to detect recurrence for which curative treatment was possible because curative resection is the important to improve post-recurrence survival.

Diagnostic accuracy of follow-up tests for detecting colorectal cancer recurrences in primary care: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Traditionally, follow-up of colorectal cancer (CRC) is performed in secondary care. In new models of care, the screening part care could be replaced to primary care. We aimed to synthesise evidence on the diagnostic accuracy of commonly used screeners in CRC follow-up applicable in primary care: carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), ultrasound and physical examination.

METHODS

Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Trial Register and Web of Science databases were systematically searched. Studies were included if they provided sufficient data for a 2 × 2 contingency tables. QUADAS-2 was used to assess methodological quality. We performed bivariate random effects meta-analysis, generated a hypothetical cohort, and reported sensitivity and specificity.

RESULTS

We included 12 studies (n = 3223, median recurrence rate 19.6%). Pooled estimates showed a sensitivity for CEA (≤ 5 μg/l) of 59% [47%-70%] and a specificity of 89% [80%-95%]. Only few studies reported sensitivities and specificities for ultrasound (36-70% and 97-100%, respectively) and clinical examination (23% and 27%, respectively).

CONCLUSION

In practice, GPs could perform CEA screening. Radiological examination in a hospital setting should remain part of the surveillance strategy. Personalised algorithms accounting for recurrence risk and changes of CEA-values over time might add to the diagnostic value of CEA in primary care.

Follow-up practice and healthcare utilisation of colorectal cancer survivors

OBJECTIVE

To examine healthcare utilisation and adherence to colorectal cancer (CRC) follow-up guidelines.

METHODS

A total of 2450 out of 3025 stage I-III CRC survivors diagnosed between 2000 and 2009 completed the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, SF-12, EORTC QLQ-CR38 and Fatigue Assessment Score questionnaires, in December 2010. Multivariable regression analyses were performed to identify predictors for increased follow-up care (>1 visit than recommended by guidelines).

RESULTS

In the first follow-up year, the average number of cancer-related visits to the general practitioner and medical specialist was 1.7 and 4.2, respectively. More than 80% of the CRC survivors was comfortable with their follow-up schedule, and 49-72% of them received follow-up according to the guidelines. Around 29-47% was followed more than recommended. Simultaneously, around 4-14% of the CRC survivors received less follow-up care than recommended. Survivors of stage III disease treated with chemotherapy received the most follow-up care. In addition, lower socio-economic status stoma and fatigue were associated with increased follow-up care.

CONCLUSION

CRC survivors were predominantly followed according to national guidelines. Increased follow-up care is driven by advanced disease stage, chemotherapy, SES, stoma and fatigue. Future studies should investigate how increased follow-up care use can be reduced, while still addressing patients' needs.

Optimal Postoperative Surveillance Strategies for Colorectal Cancer: A Retrospective Observational Study

This study aimed to assess whether surveillance intensity is associated with recurrence and survival in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients. Overall, 3794 patients with pathologic stage I-III CRC who underwent radical surgery between January 2012 and December 2014 were examined. Surveillance comprised abdominopelvic computed tomography (CT) every 6 months and chest CT annually for 5 years. Patients who underwent more than and less than an average of three imaging examinations annually were assigned to the high-intensity (HI) and low-intensity (LI) groups, respectively. Demographics were similar in both groups. T and N stages were higher and perineural and lymphovascular invasion were more frequent in the HI group (p < 0.001 each). The mean overall survival (OS) was similar for both groups; however, recurrence-free survival (RFS) was longer (p < 0.001) and post-recurrence survival (PRS) was shorter (p = 0.024) in the LI group. In the multivariate analysis, surveillance intensity was associated with RFS (p < 0.001) in contrast to PRS (p = 0.731). In patients with high recurrence risk predicted using the nomogram, OS was longer in the HI group (p < 0.001). A higher imaging frequency in patients at high risk of recurrence could be expected to lead to a slight increase in PRS but does not improve OS. Therefore, rather than increasing the number of CT scans in high-risk patients, other imaging modalities or innovative approaches, such as liquid biopsy, are required.

Comparison of 18FDG-PET/CT and conventional follow-up methods in colorectal cancer: A randomised prospective study

BACKGROUND

A surveillance program was performed in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients after surgery, to diagnose asymptomatic recurrence.

AIMS

To assess whether 18-FDG positron emission tomography/CT (PET/CT) improved the detection of recurrence during a 3-year follow-up.

METHODS

A multicentre, two-arm randomised prospective trial comparing different 36-month follow-up strategies. Complete colonoscopy was performed at baseline and after 3 years and clinical exams with imaging every 3 months. The conventional arm (A) received carcinoembryonic antigen, liver echography, and alternated between lung radiography and computed tomography (CT) scans. The experimental arm (B) received PET/CT.

RESULTS

A total of 365 patients with colon (79.4%) or rectal cancer (20.6%), stages II (48.2%) or III (50.8%), were enroled in this study. At 36 months, intention-to-treat analysis revealed recurrence in 31 (17.2%) patients in arm A and 47 (25.4%) in arm B (p = 0.063). At 3 years, 7 of 31 relapses (22.5%) in arm A were surgically treated with curative intent, compared to 17 of 47 (36.2%) in arm B (p = 0.25). The rates of recurrence and new cancers were higher in arm B than arm A (p = 0.038).

CONCLUSIONS

PET/CT follow-up every 6 months did not increase the rate of recurrence at 3 years or the rate of surgically treated recurrence compared with conventional follow-up.

Intratumoural immune signature to identify patients with primary colorectal cancer who do not require follow-up after resection: an observational study

BACKGROUND

Following surgical and adjuvant treatment of primary colorectal cancer, many patients are routinely followed up with axial imaging (most commonly computerised tomography imaging) and blood carcinoembryonic antigen (a tumour marker) testing. Because fewer than one-fifth of patients will relapse, a large number of patients are followed up unnecessarily.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether or not the intratumoural immune signature could identify a cohort of patients with a relapse rate so low that follow-up is unnecessary.

DESIGN

An observational study based on a secondary tissue collection of the tumours from participants in the FACS (Follow-up After Colorectal Cancer Surgery) trial.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumour tissue was obtained from 550 out of 1202 participants in the FACS trial. Tissue microarrays were constructed and stained for cluster of differentiation (CD)3+ and CD45RO+ T lymphocytes as well as standard haematoxylin and eosin staining, with a view to manual and, subsequently, automated cell counting.

RESULTS

The tissue microarrays were satisfactorily stained for the two immune markers. Manual cell counting proved possible on the arrays, but manually counting the number of cores for the entire study was found to not be feasible; therefore, an attempt was made to use automatic cell counting. Although it is clear that this approach is workable, there were both hardware and software problems; therefore, reliable data could not be obtained within the time frame of the study.

LIMITATIONS

The main limitations were the inability to use machine counting because of problems with both hardware and software, and the loss of critical scientific staff. Findings from this research indicate that this approach will be able to count intratumoural immune cells in the long term, but whether or not the original aim of the project proved possible is not known.

CONCLUSIONS

The project was not successful in its aim because of the failure to achieve a reliable counting system.

FUTURE WORK

Further work is needed to perfect immune cell machine counting and then complete the objectives of this study that are still relevant.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN41458548.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 2. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Impact of Surgical Resection on Metachronous Metastases of Colorectal Cancer According to Tumor Doubling Time

BACKGROUND/AIM

We aimed to elucidate the prognostic impact of tumor doubling time (DT) and radical surgery when classified by DT in patients with metachronous liver, lung, or peritoneal metastases of colorectal cancer (CRC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We reviewed the data of 1941 patients who underwent curative surgery for CRC and calculated DT for recurrences using computed tomography.

RESULTS

Short DT was an independent prognostic risk factor in liver (p<0.001) and peritoneal (p=0.03) metastases. Survival was significantly better in patients who underwent surgery than in those who did not, both in short and long DT groups in any metastatic organ (p<0.01). Patients with long DT gained significantly better prognostic benefit from surgery than those with short DT in liver (p=0.01) and peritoneal (p=0.04) metastases.

CONCLUSION

Surgery is recommended for resectable metastases, especially in patients with liver and peritoneal metastases with long DT.

Less intensive surveillance after radical surgery for stage I-III colorectal cancer by focusing on the doubling time of recurrence

PURPOSE

To propose a new and improved surveillance schedule for colorectal cancer (CRC) patients by focusing on the recurrence rate, resectability, and especially, the tumor doubling time (DT) of recurrent tumors.

METHODS

The subjects of this retrospective review were 1774 consecutive patients who underwent radical surgery for stage I-III CRC between January, 2004 and December, 2015. We calculated the DT by measuring the tumor diameter using computed tomography (CT).

RESULTS

The median DT for recurrences in the liver, lung, peritoneum, and other locations were 35, 72, 85, and 36 days, respectively, (p < 0.001) and tumor growth rates differed according to the organs where recurrence developed. Multiple linear regression analysis showed that the DT was strongly associated with the relapse-free interval from primary surgery (p < 0.001), and that the DT in patients with recurrence detected ≥ 3 years after primary surgery was longer by 151.1 days than that in patients with recurrence detected within 1 year after primary surgery. We proposed a less intensive surveillance, which achieved an average cost reduction of 32.5% compared with conventional surveillance in Japan.

CONCLUSION

We propose a new and more cost-efficient surveillance schedule for CRC surgery patients in the clinical setting.

Video consultation during follow up care: effect on quality of care and patient- and provider attitude in patients with colorectal cancer

Background

Video consultation (VC) is gaining attention as a possible alternative to out-patient clinic visits. However, little is known in terms of attitude, satisfaction and quality of care using VC over a face-to-face (F2F) consultation. The aim of this observational survey study was to compare the attitude and satisfaction with VC amongst patients suffering from colorectal cancer and their treating surgeons at the outpatient surgical care clinic in a tertiary referral centre.

Methods

A patient-preference model was chosen following the concept of shared decision making. A total of fifty patients with colorectal cancer were asked to choose between VC- or a F2F-contact during their follow up at the outpatient surgical care clinic and were subsequently assigned to either the VC-group or the F2F-group. Attitude and satisfaction rates of both groups and their surgeons were measured using a questionnaire administered immediately after the consultation.

Results

Out of the 50 patients, 42% chose VC as their preferred follow-up modality. Patients demographics did not differ significantly. Patients who use video calling in their personal life choose VC significantly more often than patients lacking such experience (p = 0.010). These patients scored high on both the attitude- and satisfaction scale of the post-VC questionnaire. Patients who chose a F2F-contact seemed to question the ability of the surgeon to properly assess their healthcare condition by using a video connection more (p = 0.024). Surgeons were highly satisfied with the use of VC.

Conclusions

Based on patient preference, VC is equivalent to a F2F consultation in terms of patient satisfaction and perceived quality of care. Shared decision making is preferred with regard to which contact modality is used during follow up. For easy uptake in other environments it is to be recommended to facilitate VC using the electronic patient portal.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00464-020-07499-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Major differences in follow-up practice of patients with colorectal cancer; results of a national survey in the Netherlands

BACKGROUND

The precise content and frequency of follow-up of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) is variable and guideline adherence is low. The aim of this study was to assess the view of colorectal surgeons on their local follow-up schedule and to clarify their opinions about risk-stratification and organ preserving therapies. Equally important, adherence to the Dutch national guidelines was determined.

METHODS

Colorectal surgeons were invited to complete a web-based survey about the importance and interval of clinical follow-up, CEA monitoring and the use of imaging modalities. Furthermore, the opinions regarding physical examination, risk-stratification, organ preserving strategies, and follow-up setting were assessed. Data were analyzed using quantitative and qualitative analysis methods.

RESULTS

A total of 106 colorectal surgeons from 52 general and 5 university hospitals filled in the survey, yielding a hospital response rate of 74% and a surgeon response rate of 42%. The follow-up of patients with CRC was mainly done by surgeons (71%). The majority of the respondents (68%) did not routinely perform physical examination during follow-up of rectal patients. Abdominal ultrasound was the predominant modality used for detection of liver metastases (77%). Chest X-ray was the main modality for detecting lung metastases (69%). During the first year of follow-up, adherence to the minimal guideline recommendations was high (99-100%). The results demonstrate that, within the framework of the guidelines, some respondents applied a more intensive follow-up and others a less intensive schedule. The majority of the respondents (77%) applied one single follow-up imaging schedule for all patients that underwent treatment with curative intent.

CONCLUSIONS

Dutch colorectal surgeons' adherence to minimal guideline recommendations was high, but within the guideline framework, opinions differed about the required intensity and content of clinical visits, the interval of CEA monitoring, and the importance and frequency of imaging techniques. This national survey demonstrates current follow-up practice throughout the Netherlands and highlights the follow-up differences of curatively treated patients with CRC.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) monitoring by 6-monthly 18FDG-PET/CT: an open-label multicentre randomised trial

Background

[¹⁸F]2-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (¹⁸FDG-PET/CT) has high sensitivity for detecting recurrences of colorectal cancer (CRC). Our objective was to determine whether adding routine 6-monthly ¹⁸FDG-PET/CT to our usual monitoring strategy improved patient outcomes and to assess the effect on costs.

Patients and methods

In this open-label multicentre trial, patients in remission of CRC (stage II perforated, stage III, or stage IV) after curative surgery were randomly assigned (1 : 1) to usual monitoring alone (3-monthly physical and tumour marker assays, 6-monthly liver ultrasound and chest radiograph, and 6-monthly whole-body computed tomography) or with 6-monthly ¹⁸FDG-PET/CT, for 3 years. A multidisciplinary committee reviewed each patient’s data every 3 months and classified the recurrence status as yes/no/doubtful. Recurrences were treated with curative surgery alone if feasible and with chemotherapy otherwise. The primary end point was treatment failure defined as unresectable recurrence or death. Relative risks were estimated, and survival was analysed using the Kaplan–Meier method, log-rank test, and Cox models. Direct costs were compared.

Results

Of the 239 enrolled patients, 120 were in the intervention arm and 119 in the control arm. The failure rate was 29.2% (31 unresectable recurrences and 4 deaths) in the intervention group and 23.7% (27 unresectable recurrences and 1 death) in the control group (relative risk = 1.23; 95% confidence interval, 0.80–1.88; P = 0.34). The multivariate analysis also showed no significant difference (hazards ratio, 1.33; 95% confidence interval, 0.8–2.19; P = 0.27). Median time to diagnosis of unresectable recurrence (months) was significantly shorter in the intervention group [7 (3–20) versus 14.3 (7.3–27), P = 0.016]. Mean cost/patient was higher in the intervention group (18 192 ± 27 679 € versus 11 131 ± 13  €, P < 0.033).

Conclusion

¹⁸FDG-PET/CT, when added every 6 months, increased costs without decreasing treatment failure rates in patients in remission of CRC. The control group had very close follow-up, and any additional improvement (if present) would be small and hard to detect.

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier

NCT00624260

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.

Prognostic Potential of Circulating Tumor DNA Measurement in Postoperative Surveillance of Nonmetastatic Colorectal Cancer

Importance

For patients with resected, nonmetastatic colorectal cancer (CRC), the optimal surveillance protocol remains unclear.

Objective

To evaluate whether serial circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) levels detected disease recurrence earlier, compared with conventional postoperative surveillance, in patients with resected CRC.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This study included patients (n = 58) with stage I, II, or III CRC who underwent radical surgical resection at 4 Swedish hospitals from February 2, 2007, to May 8, 2013. Eighteen patients received adjuvant chemotherapy at the discretion of their clinicians, who were blinded to the ctDNA results. Blood samples were collected at 1 month after the surgical procedure and every 3 to 6 months thereafter for ctDNA analysis. Patients were followed up until metachronous metastases were detected, or for a median of 49 months. Data analysis was performed from March 1, 2009, to June 23, 2018.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Sensitivity and timing of ctDNA positivity were compared with those of conventional surveillance modalities (computed tomographic scans and serum carcinoembryonic antigen tests) for the detection of disease recurrence.

Results

This study included 319 blood samples from 58 patients, with a median (range) age of 69 (47-83) years and 34 males (59%). The recurrence rate among patients with positive ctDNA levels was 77% (10 of 13 patients). Positive ctDNA preceded radiologic and clinical evidence of recurrence by a median of 3 months. Of the 45 patients with negative ctDNA throughout follow-up, none (0%; 95% CI, 0%-7.9%) experienced a relapse, with a median follow-up of 49 months. However, 3 (6%; 95% CI, 1.3%-17%) of the 48 patients without relapse had a positive ctDNA result, which subsequently fell to undetectable levels during follow-up.

Conclusion and Relevance

Although these findings need to be validated in a larger, prospective trial, they suggest that ctDNA analysis could complement conventional surveillance strategies as a triage test to stratify patients with resected CRC on the basis of risk of disease recurrence.

Intensive follow-up strategies after radical surgery for nonmetastatic colorectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Intensive follow-up after surgery for colorectal cancers is common in clinical practice, but evidence of a survival benefit is limited.

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis on the effects of follow-up strategies for nonmetastatic colorectal cancer.

DATA SOURCES

We searched Medline, Embase, and CENTRAL databases through May 30, 2018.

STUDY SELECTION

We included randomized clinical trials evaluating intensive follow-up versus less follow-up in patients with nonmetastatic colorectal cancer.

INTERVENTIONS

Intensive follow-up.

MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES

Overall survival.

RESULTS

The analyses included 17 trials with a total of 8039 patients. Compared with less follow-up, intensive follow-up significantly improved overall survival in patients with nonmetastatic colorectal cancer after radical surgery (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.74-0.97, P = 0.01; I2 = 30%; high quality). Subgroup analyses showed that differences between intensive-frequency and intensive-test follow-up (P = 0.04) and between short interval and long interval of follow-up (P = 0.02) in favor of the former one.

LIMITATIONS

Clinical heterogeneity of interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with nonmetastatic colorectal cancer after curative resection, intensive follow-up strategy was associated with an improvement in overall survival compared with less follow-up strategy. Intensive-frequency follow-up strategy was associated with a greater reduction in mortality compared with intensive-test follow-up strategy.

Colorectal peritoneal metastases: Optimal management review

The peritoneum is a common site of dissemination for colorrectal cancer, with a poorer prognosis than other sites of metastases. In the last two decades, it has been considered as a locoregional disease progression and treated as such with curative intention treatments. Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) is the actual reference treatment for these patients as better survival results have been reached as compared to systemic chemotherapy alone, but its therapeutic efficacy is still under debate. Actual guidelines recommend that the management of colorectal cancer with peritoneal metastases should be led by a multidisciplinary team carried out in experienced centers and consider CRS + HIPEC for selected patients. Accumulative evidence in the last three years suggests that this is a curative treatment that may improve patients disease-free survival, decrease the risk of recurrence, and does not increase the risk of treatment-related mortality. In this review we aim to gather the latest results from referral centers and opinions from experts about the effectiveness and feasibility of CRS + HIPEC for treating peritoneal disease from colorectal malignancies.

Health and Economic Impact of Intensive Surveillance for Distant Recurrence After Curative Treatment of Colon Cancer: A Mathematical Modeling Study

BACKGROUND

Intensive surveillance strategies are currently recommended for patients after curative treatment of colon cancer, with the aim of secondary prevention of recurrence. Yet, intensive surveillance has not yielded improvements in overall patient survival compared with minimal follow-up, and more intensive surveillance may be costlier.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to estimate the quality-adjusted life-years, economic costs, and cost-effectiveness of various surveillance strategies after curative treatment of colon cancer.

DESIGN

A Markov model was calibrated to reflect the natural history of colon cancer recurrence and used to estimate surveillance costs and outcomes.

SETTINGS

This was a decision-analytic model.

PATIENTS

Individuals entered the model at age 60 years after curative treatment for stage I, II, or III colon cancer. Other initial age groups were assessed in secondary analyses.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

We estimated the gains in quality-adjusted life-years achieved by early detection and treatment of recurrence, as well as the economic costs of surveillance under various strategies.

RESULTS

Cost-effective strategies for patients with stage I colon cancer improved quality-adjusted life-expectancy by 0.02 to 0.06 quality-adjusted life-years at an incremental cost of $1702 to $13,019. For stage II, they improved quality-adjusted life expectancy by 0.03 to 0.09 quality-adjusted life-years at a cost of $2300 to $14,363. For stage III, they improved quality-adjusted life expectancy by 0.03 to 0.17 quality-adjusted life-years for a cost of $1416 to $17,631. At a commonly cited willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, the most cost-effective strategy for patients with a history of stage I or II colon cancer was liver ultrasound and chest x-ray annually. For those with a history of stage III colon cancer, the optimal strategy was liver ultrasound and chest x-ray every 6 months with CEA measurement every 6 months.

LIMITATIONS

The study was limited by model structure assumptions and uncertainty around the values of the model's parameters.

CONCLUSIONS

Given currently available data and within the limitations of a model-based decision-analytic approach, the effectiveness of routine intensive surveillance for patients after treatment of colon cancer appears, on average, to be small. Compared with testing using lower cost imaging, currently recommended strategies are associated with cost-effectiveness ratios that indicate low value according to well-accepted willingness-to-pay thresholds in the United States. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A921.

Postoperative surveillance of pancreatic cancer patients

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study is to collect the best available evidence for diagnostic modalities, frequency, and duration of surveillance after resection for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).

METHODS

PDAC guidelines published after 2015 were collected. Furthermore, a systematic search of the literature on postoperative surveillance was performed in PubMed and Embase from 2000 to 2019. Articles comparing different diagnostic modalities and frequencies of postoperative surveillance in PDAC patients with regard to survival, quality of life, morbidity and cost-effectiveness were selected.

RESULTS

The literature search resulted in 570 articles. A total of seven guidelines and twelve original clinical studies were eventually evaluated. PDAC guidelines increasingly recommend a combination of tumor marker testing and computed tomography (CT) imaging every three to six months during the first two years after resection. These guidelines are, however, based on expert opinion and other low-level evidence. Prospective studies comparing different surveillance strategies are lacking. According to recent studies, surveillance with tumor markers and imaging at regular intervals results in the detection of PDAC recurrence before the onset of symptoms and more frequent administration of further therapy, such as chemotherapy or radiotherapy.

CONCLUSION

Current evidence for recurrence-focused surveillance after PDAC resection is limited and contradictory. Consequently, recommendations on surveillance are conflicting. To define the clinical merit of recurrence-focused surveillance, patients who are most likely to benefit from early detection and treatment of PDAC recurrence need to be identified. To this purpose, well-designed prospective studies are needed, accounting for both economical and psychosocial implications of surveillance.

Imaging of the Postoperative Colon

Recognition of postoperative complications is important for the immediate diagnosis and treatment needed for appropriate patient care. Identification of postoperative complications from colon surgery requires not only knowledge of the type of procedure, but also the expected normal postoperative appearance. The purpose of this article is to discuss and review the expected anatomic changes after colorectal surgery, and the appearance of the most common postoperative complications.

Effect of More vs Less Frequent Follow-up Testing on Overall and Colorectal Cancer-Specific Mortality in Patients With Stage II or III Colorectal Cancer: The COLOFOL Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Intensive follow-up of patients after curative surgery for colorectal cancer is common in clinical practice, but evidence of a survival benefit is limited.

OBJECTIVE

To examine overall mortality, colorectal cancer-specific mortality, and colorectal cancer-specific recurrence rates among patients with stage II or III colorectal cancer who were randomized after curative surgery to 2 alternative schedules for follow-up testing with computed tomography and carcinoembryonic antigen.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Unblinded randomized trial including 2509 patients with stage II or III colorectal cancer treated at 24 centers in Sweden, Denmark, and Uruguay from January 2006 through December 2010 and followed up for 5 years; follow-up ended on December 31, 2015.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomized either to follow-up testing with computed tomography of the thorax and abdomen and serum carcinoembryonic antigen at 6, 12, 18, 24, and 36 months after surgery (high-frequency group; n = 1253 patients) or at 12 and 36 months after surgery (low-frequency group; n = 1256 patients).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcomes were 5-year overall mortality and colorectal cancer-specific mortality rates. The secondary outcome was the colorectal cancer-specific recurrence rate. Both intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Among 2555 patients who were randomized, 2509 were included in the intention-to-treat analysis (mean age, 63.5 years; 1128 women [45%]) and 2365 (94.3%) completed the trial. The 5-year overall patient mortality rate in the high-frequency group was 13.0% (161/1253) compared with 14.1% (174/1256) in the low-frequency group (risk difference, 1.1% [95% CI, -1.6% to 3.8%]; P = .43). The 5-year colorectal cancer-specific mortality rate in the high-frequency group was 10.6% (128/1248) compared with 11.4% (137/1250) in the low-frequency group (risk difference, 0.8% [95% CI, -1.7% to 3.3%]; P = .52). The colorectal cancer-specific recurrence rate was 21.6% (265/1248) in the high-frequency group compared with 19.4% (238/1250) in the low-frequency group (risk difference, 2.2% [95% CI, -1.0% to 5.4%]; P = .15).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among patients with stage II or III colorectal cancer, follow-up testing with computed tomography and carcinoembryonic antigen more frequently compared with less frequently did not result in a significant rate reduction in 5-year overall mortality or colorectal cancer-specific mortality.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00225641.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Towards a personalised approach to aftercare: a review of cancer follow-up in the UK

INTRODUCTION

Due to growth in cancer survivorship and subsequent resource limitations, the current UK position of follow-up services is unsustainable. With people living longer after a cancer diagnosis, supported self-management for ongoing treatment-related chronic conditions is a fundamental component of aftercare services. Alternative models to traditional hospital aftercare require consideration in terms of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.

METHODS

'Evidence to Inform the Cancer Reform Strategy: The Clinical Effectiveness of Follow-Up Services after Treatment for Cancer' (Centre for Reviews and Dissemination 2007) has been updated using a number of quality-controlled databases. Correspondence with experts was also sought to identify current initiatives.

RESULT

The review highlights a shift towards patient empowerment via individualised and group education programmes aimed at increasing survivor's ability to better manage their condition and the effects of treatment, allowing for self-referral or rapid access to health services when needed. The role of specialist nurses as key facilitators of supportive aftercare is emphasised, as is a move towards technology-based aftercare in the form of telephone or web-based services.

CONCLUSIONS

The challenge will be replacing traditional clinic follow-up with alternative methods in a cost-effective way that is either as equally effective, or more so. To establish this, more rigorous trials are needed, with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up assessments.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Increasing patient confidence to initiate follow-up specific to their needs is likely to increase the workload of primary care providers, who will need training for this.

Surveillance of patients following surgery with curative intent for colorectal cancer

Surveillance after resection of colorectal cancer with curative intent is an important component of post-operative care. Clinical review, imaging, colonoscopy, and cost to the community are among significant issues to consider in planning a surveillance regime. This review aims to identify the available evidence for the use of surveillance and its individual components. The literature pertaining to follow-up of patients following potentially curative surgery for colorectal cancer was reviewed in order to formulate a summary of the wide range of clinical practice. There is evidence of improved survival of patients undergoing more intense follow-up compared with those having minimal surveillance, with an estimated overall 5-year gain of up to 10%. The efficacy of individual components of follow-up regimes remains unclear, but an overall package of ‘intensive’ follow-up including clinical review, liver imaging, and colonoscopy appears to be of benefit. It is cost-effective and can be specialist or community-based.

Cost-effectiveness of oxaliplatin and capecitabine in the adjuvant treatment of stage III colon cancer

For many years, the standard treatment for stage III colon cancer has been surgical resection followed by 5-fluorouracil in combination with folinic acid (5-FU/LV). Ongoing clinical trial evidence suggests that capecitabine and oxaliplatin (in combination with 5-FU/LV) may improve disease-free survival and overall survival when compared against 5-FU/LV alone in the adjuvant setting. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness profiles of these two regimens in comparison to standard chemotherapy, using evidence from two international randomised controlled trials. Survival modelling techniques were employed to extrapolate survival curves from the two trials in order to estimate the long-term benefits of alternative treatment options over the remaining lifetime of patients. The health economic analysis suggests that capecitabine is expected to produce greater health gains at a lower cost than 5-FU/LV. Oxaliplatin in combination with 5-FU/LV is estimated to cost pounds 2970 per additional QALY gained when compared to 5-FU/LV alone. Future research should attempt to elucidate uncertainties concerning the optimal roles of capecitabine and/or oxaliplatin in the adjuvant setting in order to achieve the maximum level of clinical benefit.

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

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