Trends in incidence, treatment, and relative survival of colorectal cancer in the Netherlands between 2000 and 2021

BACKGROUND

The epidemiology of colorectal cancer (CRC) has changed rapidly over the years. The aim of this study was to assess the trends in incidence, treatment, and relative survival (RS) of patients diagnosed with CRC in the Netherlands between 2000 and 2021.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

2 75667 patients diagnosed with CRC between 2000 and 2021 were included from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Analyses were stratified for disease extent (localised: T1-3N0M0; regional: T4N0M0/T1-4N1-2M0; distant: T1-4N0-2M1) and localisation (colon; rectum). Trends were assessed with joinpoint regression.

RESULTS

CRC incidence increased until the mid-2010s but decreased strongly thereafter to rates comparable with the early 2000s. Amongst other trend changes, local excision rates increased for patients with localised colon (2021: 13.6 %) and rectal cancer (2021: 34.9 %). Moreover, primary tumour resection became less common in patients with distant colon (2000-2021: 60.9-12.5 %) or rectal cancer (2000-2021: 47.8-6.9 %), while local treatment of metastases rates increased. Five-year RS improved continuously for localised and regional colon (97.7 % and 72.0 % in 2017, respectively) and rectal cancer (95.2 % and 76.3 % in 2017, respectively). The rate of anti-cancer treatments decreased in distant colon (2010-2021: 80.3 % to 67.2 %; p < 0.001) and rectal cancer (2011-2021: 86.0 % to 77.0 %; p < 0.001). The improvement of five-year RS stagnated for distant colon (2010-2017: 11.2 % to 11.9 %; average percentage of change [APC]: 2.1, 95 % confidence interval [CI]: -7.6, 4.7) and rectal cancer (2009-2017: 12.7 % to 15.6 %; APC: 1.4, 95 % CI: -19.1, 5.5).

CONCLUSIONS

Major changes in the incidence and treatment of CRC between 2000 and 2021 were identified and quantified. Five-year RS increased continuously for patients with localised and regional CRC, but stagnated for patients with distant CRC, likely caused by decreased rates of anti-cancer treatment in this group.

Cumulative Incidence, Risk Factors, and Overall Survival of Disease Recurrence after Curative Resection of Stage II-III Colorectal Cancer: A Population-based Study

Real-world data are necessitated to counsel patients about the risk for recurrent disease after curative treatment of colorectal cancer. This study provided a population-based overview of the epidemiology of recurrent disease in patients with surgically resected stage II/III colorectal cancer.Patients diagnosed with stage II/III primary colorectal cancer between July and December 2015 were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (N = 3,762). Cumulative incidence of recurrent disease was estimated, and multivariable competing risk regression was used to identify risk factors for recurrent disease in patients with primary colon and rectal cancer. Moreover, overall survival (OS) after diagnosis of recurrent colorectal cancer was estimated.Median clinical follow-up was 58 months (Q1-Q3: 22-62). Five-year cumulative incidence of recurrent disease was 21.6% [95% confidence interval (CI): 20.0-23.2] and 30.0% (95% CI: 28.3-33.5) for patients with primary colon and rectal cancer, respectively. Stage III disease and incomplete resection margin in patients with primary colon cancer and extramural vascular invasion in patients with primary rectal cancer were strongly (HR ≥ 2) associated with recurrent disease. Median OS of patients with distant, locoregional, or the synchronous combination of distant and locoregional recurrent disease was 29, 27, and 13 months, respectively (P < 0.001). Patients with distant recurrences limited to liver or lung showed a median OS of 46 and 48 months, respectively. The incidence of recurrent disease was higher in patients with rectal cancer than in patients with colon cancer, predominantly due to higher rates of distant recurrences. OS after recurrent disease was impaired, but subgroups of patients diagnosed with recurrent disease limited to one site showed statistically significantly longer OS.

SIGNIFICANCE

Population-based data on recurrent colorectal cancer are rare, but crucial for counseling patients and their physicians. This large nationwide, population-based study provides an up-to-date overview of the epidemiology of recurrent disease in patients with stage II and III primary colon and rectal cancer treated with surgical resection.

Patient experiences with patient-led, home-based follow-up after curative treatment for colorectal cancer: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVES

The number of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) in need of oncological follow-up is growing. As a response, patient-led, home-based follow-up (PHFU) was developed, implemented and assessed. The aim of this study was to investigate how patients experienced PHFU.

DESIGN

A qualitative study with individual semistructured interviews. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, and thematically analysed through an inductive, double-coding approach.

SETTING

A university medical centre in the Netherlands.

PARTICIPANTS

12 curatively treated patients with CRC who received PHFU were included after purposive sampling.

RESULTS

Overall, participants (N=12) were satisfied with PHFU. The time and cost-saving aspects for patient and hospital were evidently valued. PHFU was experienced as a shared effort, but patients felt like the primary responsibility remained in the hospital. Patients mentioned a decreased personal interaction with their healthcare provider (HCP) and felt a higher threshold to ask for help. However, all major questions were still addressed. Patients felt sufficiently competent to interpret their individual test results but experienced difficulty in interpreting repeated increases in carcinoembryonic antigen levels within the normal range. Educational status, age and a complicated disease course were seen as factors limiting the applicability of PHFU, and it was expressed that PHFU should be offered as an alternative instead of a novel standard of care.

CONCLUSIONS

According to patients, PHFU has great potential. However, PHFU may not be suitable for every CRC patient, and factors such as educational status, age and disease course should be taken into consideration. Patient and HCP have a shared responsibility to help successfully organise PHFU in practice.

Towards patient-led follow-up after curative surgical resection of stage I, II and III colorectal cancer (DISTANCE-trial): a study protocol for a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is among the most frequently diagnosed cancers. Approximately 20-30% of stage I-III CRC patients develop a recurrent tumour or metastases after curative surgical resection. Post-operative follow-up is indicated for the first five years after curative surgical resection. As intensified follow-up after curative surgical resection has shown no effect on survival, patient organisations and policy makers have advocated for a more patient-centred approach to follow-up. The objective of this study is to successfully implement patient-led, home-based follow-up (PHFU) in six hospitals in The Netherlands, with as ultimate aim to come to a recommendation for a patient-centred follow-up schedule for stage I-III CRC patients treated with surgical resection with curative intent.

METHODS

This study is designed as a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial (SW-CRT) in six participating centres. During the trial, three centres will implement PHFU after six months; the other three centres will implement PHFU after 12 months of inclusion in the control group. Eligible patients are those with pT2-4N0M0 or pT1-4N1-2M0 CRC, who are 18 years or older and have been free of disease for 12 months after curative surgical resection. The studied intervention is PHFU, starting 12 months after curative resection. The in-hospital, standard-of-care follow-up currently implemented in the participating centres functions as the comparator. The proportion of patients who had contact with the hospital regarding CRC follow-up between 12-24 months after curative surgical resection is the primary endpoint of this study. Quality of life, fear of cancer recurrence, patient satisfaction, cost-effectiveness and survival are the secondary endpoints.

DISCUSSION

The results of this study will provide evidence on whether nationwide implementation of PHFU for CRC in The Netherlands will be successful in reducing contact between patient and health care provider. Comparison of PROMs between in-hospital follow-up and PHFU will be provided. Moreover, the cost-effectiveness of PHFU will be assessed.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Dutch Trail Register (NTR): NL9266 (Registered on January 1st, 2021).

Locoregionally Recurrent Colon Cancer: How Far Have We Come? A Population-Based, Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

The reported outcomes of locoregionally recurrent colon cancer (LRCC) are poor, but the literature about LRCC is scarce and aged. Recent population-based studies to provide current insight into LRCC are warranted. This study aimed to provide an overview of the incidence, risk factors, treatment, and overall survival (OS) of patients with LRCC after curative resection of stage I-III primary colon cancer.

METHODS

Data on disease recurrence were collected for all patients with a diagnosis of non-metastasized primary colon cancer in the Netherlands during the first 6 months of 2015. Patients who underwent surgical resection (N = 3544) were included in this study. The 3-year cumulative incidence, risk factors, treatment, and OS for patients with LRCC were determined.

RESULTS

The 3-year cumulative incidence of LRCC was 3.8%. Synchronous distant metastases (LRCC-M1) were diagnosed in 62.7% of the patients. The risk factors for LRCC were age of 70 years or older, pT4, pN1-2, and R1-2. Adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with a decreased risk of LRCC for high-risk stage II and stage III patients [hazard ratio (HR), 0.47; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.31-0.93]. The median OS for the patients with LRCC was 13.1 months (95% CI 9.1-18.3 months). Curative-intent treatment was given to 22.4% of the LRCC patients, and the subsequent 3 years OS was 71% (95% CI 58-87%). The patients treated with palliative treatment and best supportive care showed 3-year OS rates of 15% (95% CI 7.0-31%) and 3.7% (95% CI 1.0-14%), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The cumulative incidence of LRCC was low, and adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with a decreased risk for LRCC among targeted patients. Curative-intent treatment was given to nearly 1 in 4 LRCC patients, and the OS for this group was high.

Locally Recurrent Rectal Cancer: Toward a Second Chance at Cure? A Population-Based, Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

In current practice, rates of locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) are low due to the use of the total mesorectal excision (TME) in combination with various neoadjuvant treatment strategies. However, the literature on LRRC mainly consists of single- and multicenter retrospective cohort studies, which are prone to selection bias. The aim of this study is to provide a nationwide, population-based overview of LRRC after TME in the Netherlands.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In total, 1431 patients with nonmetastasized primary rectal cancer diagnosed in the first six months of 2015 and treated with TME were included from the nationwide, population-based Netherlands Cancer Registry. Data on disease recurrence were collected for patients diagnosed in these 6 months only. Competing risk cumulative incidence, competing risk regression, and Kaplan-Meier analyses were performed to assess incidence, risk factors, treatment, and overall survival (OS) of LRRC.

RESULTS

Three-year cumulative incidence of LRRC was 6.4%; synchronous distant metastases (LRRC-M1) were present in 44.9% of patients with LRRC. Distal localization, R1-2 margin, (y)pT3-4, and (y)pN1-2 were associated with an increased LRRC rate. No differences in LRRC treatment and OS were found between patients who had been treated with or without prior n(C)RT. Curative-intent treatment was given to 42.9% of patients with LRRC, and 3-year OS thereafter was 70%.

CONCLUSIONS

Nationwide LRRC incidence was low. A high proportion of patients with LRRC underwent curative-intent treatment, and OS of this group was high in comparison with previous studies. Additionally, n(C)RT for primary rectal cancer was not associated with differences in treatment and OS of LRRC.

Health care provider and patient preparedness for alternative colorectal cancer follow-up; a review

Follow-up after curative treatment for colorectal cancer (CRC) puts pressure on outpatient services due to the growing number of CRC survivors. The aim of this state-of-the-art review was to evaluate setting, manner and provider of follow-up. Moreover, perceptions of CRC survivors and health care providers regarding standard and alternative follow-up were examined. After a comprehensive literature search of the PubMed database, 69 articles were included reporting on CRC follow-up in the hospital, primary care and home setting. Hospital-based follow-up is most common and has been provided by surgeons, medical oncologists, and gastroenterologists, as well as nurses. Primary care-based follow-up has been provided by general practitioners or nurses. Even though most hospital- or primary care-based follow-up care requires patients to visit the clinic, telephone-based care has proven to be a feasible alternative. Most patients perceived follow-up as positive; valuing screening and detection for disease recurrence and appreciating support for physical and psychosocial symptoms. Hospital-based follow-up performed by the medical specialist or nurse is highly preferred by patients and health care providers. However, willingness of both patients and health care providers for alternative, primary care or remote follow-up exists. Nurse-led and GP-led follow-up have proven to be cost-effective alternatives compared to specialist-led follow-up. If proven safe and acceptable, remote follow-up can become a cost-effective alternative. To decrease the personal and financial burden of follow-up for a growing number of colorectal cancer survivors, a more acceptable, flexible and dynamic care follow-up mode consisting of enhanced communication and role definitions among clinicians is warranted.