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.

Management of colorectal cancer patients in Australia: the National Colorectal Cancer Care Survey

BACKGROUND

The National Colorectal Cancer Care Survey was undertaken to determine the management patterns for individuals newly diagnosed with colorectal cancer in Australia.

METHODS

Between 1 February and 30 April 2000, all new cases of colorectal cancer registered at each Cancer Registry within Australia were entered into the survey. This generated a questionnaire that was sent to the treating surgeons. Chi-squared and logistic regression analyses were used to determine levels of statistical significance for the various comparisons of interest.

RESULTS

Of 2383 surgical questionnaires generated, 2015 (85%) were completed. A total of 1911 patients (95% of those who responded to the questionnaire) had an operation. Of the 86 guidelines for the management of colorectal cancer published by the National Health and Medical Research Council, the survey allowed for comparison between 18 of these, which covered a spectrum of surgical management. Thromboembolic prophylaxis was given to 1843 patients (96.4%) undergoing surgery. Prophylactic antibiotics were commonly used, but there appear to be issues regarding the best regimen to use. Curative resections were carried out in 1563 patients (81.8%), with anterior resections being the most commonly performed procedure. Adjuvant therapy was regularly used, but not all eligible patients were offered such treatment.

CONCLUSION

With the considerable resources required to develop clinical practice guidelines, studies like this are essential to monitor the impact of the guidelines. To ensure that the guidelines are in line with current evidence, regular reviews of the guideline recommendations are required.

Cancer physicians' attitudes toward colorectal cancer follow-up

BACKGROUND

The optimal follow-up strategy for colorectal cancer is unknown.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We surveyed all Canadian radiation oncologists, medical oncologists and surgeons specializing in colorectal cancer to assess their recommendations for follow-up after potentially curative treatment, the beliefs and attitudes underlying these practices, and the cost implications of different follow-up strategies.

RESULTS

One hundred and sixty practitioners (58%) returned completed surveys. Most recommended clinical assessments every 3-4 months in the first 2 years including carcino-embryonic antigen testing, gradually decreasing in frequency over 5 years. Ninety per cent recommend a surveillance colonoscopy in the first year. The majority felt that specialist involvement in follow-up was important because of the increased opportunities for patients to contribute to research (76%) and teaching (73%). About half felt that specialists were more efficient at providing follow-up than primary care physicians, but these same physicians recommended significantly longer and more expensive follow-up routines on average than others. Primary care physicians were felt to be important allies, especially in managing the psychosocial concerns of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Surveillance practices are generally in keeping with published recommendations. Most specialists feel that they should remain involved in follow-up, but this may result in increased resource utilization.

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.

Independently predictive prognostic variables after resection for colorectal carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Clinical variables such as surgical morbidity, comorbidity and follow-up have been claimed to influence ultimate survival in patients who have resection for colorectal cancer. It is unclear whether the effect of clinical covariates is confounding or independent. We have attempted to build a comprehensive model, which is capable of testing the dependence and importance of prognostic factors.

METHODS

A consecutive series of patients admitted between 1970 and 1988 and followed until 1992 had data recorded about presentation, pathology, hospitalization, aftercare and long-term outcome. The patients were also divided into two approximately equal groups that were cared for by one and seven surgeons, respectively. Clinical and pathological covariates were built into a Cox (multivariate) proportional hazard model of crude survival. This was achieved with the SPSS advanced statistical package version 6.1. Comparison between groups was then performed of clinical and pathological factors and subsequent cancer management.

RESULTS

There were 207 patients whose average age was 75 years, median survival was 43 months and operative mortality was 4%. The Cox model was robust. Covariates that had independent survival effects were pathological stage (P = 0.0000), grade (P = 0.014), age (P = 0.018), heart disease (P = 0.001), and group (P = 0.0008). Some of the dependent variables were symptoms, type of surgery, complications and length of stay. The groups, however, were well matched for age, stage, substage and comorbidity. Furthermore there were no substantial differences in mortality, complications or follow-up frequency. There was a significant survival difference (P = 0.0003) between groups, which was restricted to patients who were in clinicopathological stages B and C. Within stages B and C there was a significant (P = 0.008) survival difference between patients who were or were not treated for recurrent disease. Diagnosis of recurrence was pursued more aggressively (P < 0.01), and decisions to treat recurrent disease were made more frequently in group 1 (P = 0.0002).

CONCLUSIONS

Pathology, comorbidity and management of recurrence all have a significant independent effect upon crude survival after colorectal carcinoma resection.

What is the risk factor for metachronous colorectal carcinoma?

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to determine the risk factors for developing metachronous colorectal carcinoma and to determine an adequate postoperative colonoscopic surveillance.

METHODS

Two hundred eighty-four patients, examined by routine colonoscopy after resection for colorectal carcinoma, were reviewed. Clinical and pathologic factors were assessed by multiple logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

One hundred eighty-three patients with synchronous adenoma or carcinoma at the initial operation had a significantly higher incidence of both metachronous adenoma and carcinoma than the 101 patients without a synchronous lesion. Other clinical factors including age, gender, tumor stage, tumor site, and tumor grade were not significant for an increased incidence of metachronous carcinoma. The presence of synchronous lesions proved to be the only risk factor (relative risk, 3.293; P = 0.0155) for developing metachronous carcinoma. Metachronous carcinoma was detected in 30 patients (10.6 percent) and completely removed from all patients. Mucosal carcinoma was found in 25 patients (8.8 percent) and invasive carcinoma in 5 patients (1.8 percent). All five invasive carcinomas were detected in asymptomatic patients having synchronous lesion. Four patients required a second operation for metachronous carcinoma more than 13 months following the first.

CONCLUSION

The risk factor for developing metachronous carcinoma is the presence of synchronous adenoma or carcinoma at the initial operation. To detect metachronous carcinoma at a curable stage, annual colonoscopic surveillance should be performed for high-risk patients.

The use of prognostic markers in surgery for colorectal cancer

The basis for prognostic prediction after surgery for colorectal cancer remains the various pathological staging systems based on that of Dukes. Serum prognostic markers have not shown significant independent prognostic power compared with these predictive tools. Much energy has been expended in examining the ability of serum markers to predict recurrent tumour prior to the onset of symptoms. Carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) has been a particular subject of attention, and has been widely, though variably, advocated as a useful predictor in these circumstances. It has been estimated that around half a million Americans are presently undergoing regular postoperative CEA monitoring to this end. Controversy continues regarding the therapeutic utility of such monitoring. This may be resolved when the results of the only randomised trial in the field are published in the near future. No other serum marker, nor any combination of markers, has been shown clearly to be superior to CEA as a predictor of recurrent tumour.

Colonoscopic follow-up of colorectal carcinoma

PURPOSE

The value of routine colonoscopy in the prevention or early detection of metachronous carcinoma of the colon and rectum remains unproven. This study attempts to clarify this issue.

METHODS

An analysis of a personal series of 460 patients with primary colorectal carcinoma treated by the second author between 1972 and 1990 was reviewed. After various exclusions, there remained 231 patients who had been prospectively followed by colonoscopy with a mean follow-up period of 5.6 years.

RESULTS

In 48 (21 percent) patients, there were synchronous adenomas present at the time of the initial resection for carcinoma and 35 (73 percent) of these patients subsequently developed metachronous adenomas, being recurrent in 22. Ninety-five (52 percent) of the 183 patients without synchronous adenomas eventually developed metachronous adenomas, so that overall 130 (56 percent) patients developed a metachronous adenomas. Four patients developed a metachronous carcinoma that was either Dukes A or B, and all remain well at the time of final follow-up. These metachronous carcinomas were found after a mean interval of seven and three-quarter years. All four patients had synchronous adenomas and all developed metachronous adenomas on multiple occasions before the metachronous carcinoma was detected. Thus, a subset consisting of only 22 patients produced all four metachronous malignancies--a rate of 18 percent.

CONCLUSION

It would appear that the presence of synchronous adenomas with the subsequent development of recurring metachronous adenomas is significant and warrants a more intensive follow-up program to ensure the early diagnosis and more likely cure of any metachronous carcinoma.

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.