Follow-up of patients with curatively resected colorectal cancer: a practice guideline

BACKGROUND: A systematic review was conducted to evaluate the literature regarding the impact of follow-up on colorectal cancer patient survival and, in a second phase, recommendations were developed. METHODS: The MEDLINE, CANCERLIT, and Cochrane Library databases, and abstracts published in the 1997 to 2002 proceedings of the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology were systematically searched for evidence. Study selection was limited to randomized trials and meta-analyses that examined different programs of follow-up after curative resection of colorectal cancer where five-year overall survival was reported. External review by Ontario practitioners was obtained through a mailed survey. Final approval of the practice guideline report was obtained from the Practice Guidelines Coordinating Committee. RESULTS: Six randomized trials and two published meta-analyses of follow-up were obtained. Of six randomized trials comparing one follow-up program to a more intense program, only two individual trials detected a statistically significant survival benefit favouring the more intense follow-up program. Pooling of all six randomized trials demonstrated a significant improvement in survival favouring more intense follow-up (Relative Risk Ratio 0.80 (95%CI, 0.70 to 0.91; p = 0.0008). Although the rate of recurrence was similar in both of the follow-up groups compared, asymptomatic recurrences and re-operations for cure of recurrences were more common in patients with more intensive follow-up. Trials including CEA monitoring and liver imaging also had significant results, whereas trials not including these tests did not. CONCLUSION: Follow-up programs for patients with curatively resected colorectal cancer do improve survival. These follow-up programs include frequent visits and performance of blood CEA, chest x-rays, liver imaging and colonoscopy, however, it is not clear which tests or frequency of visits is optimal. There is a suggestion that improved survival is due to diagnosis of recurrence at an earlier, asymptomatic stage which allows for more curative resection of recurrence. Based on this evidence and consideration of the biology of colorectal cancer and present practices, a guideline was developed. Patients should be made aware of the risk of disease recurrence or second bowel cancer, the potential benefits of follow-up and the uncertainties requiring further clinical trials. For patients at high-risk of recurrence (stages IIb and III) clinical assessment is recommended when symptoms occur or at least every 6 months the first 3 years and yearly for at least 5 years. At the time of those visits, patients may have blood CEA, chest x-ray and liver imaging. For patients at lower risk of recurrence (stages I and Ia) or those with co-morbidities impairing future surgery, only visits yearly or when symptoms occur. All patients should have a colonoscopy before or within 6 months of initial surgery, and repeated yearly if villous or tubular adenomas >1 cm are found; otherwise repeat every 3 to 5 years. All patients having recurrences should be assessed by a multidisciplinary team in a cancer centre

Routine Follow-up by Magnetic Resonance Imaging Does Not Improve Detection of Resectable Local Recurrences From Colorectal Cancer

OBJECTIVE: To determine if routine follow-up by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) improves the detection of resectable local recurrences from colorectal cancer. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Surgical treatment offers the best prospect of survival for patients with recurrent colorectal cancer. Unfortunately, most cases are often diagnosed at an unresectable stage when traditional follow-up methods are used. The impact of MRI surveillance on the early diagnosis of local recurrences has yet to be ascertained. METHODS: Patients who underwent curative surgery for rectal and left-sided colon tumors were included in a program of pelvic surveillance by routine MRI, in addition to the standard follow-up protocol. Cases were then analyzed for mode of diagnosis, resectability, and overall survival. RESULTS: Pelvic recurrence was found in 30 (13%) of the 226 patients studied. MRI detected 26 of 30 (87%) and missed 4 of 30 (13%) cases with local recurrence. Of the latter, 3 were anastomotic recurrences. In 28 (14%) patients, local recurrence was suspected by an initial MR scan but cleared by subsequent MRI or CT-guided biopsy. Recurrent pelvic cancer was diagnosed by MRI with 87% sensitivity and 86% specificity. In 19 (63%) cases, CEA was abnormally elevated, and 9 patients (30%) were symptomatic. Surgical resection was possible in only 6 patients (20%). There was no difference between MRI and conventional follow-up tests in their ability to detect cases suitable for surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Pelvic surveillance by MRI is not justified as part of the routine follow-up after a curative resection for colorectal cancer and should be reserved for selectively imaging patients with clinical, colonoscopic, and/or biochemical suspicion of recurrent disease

Do metastatic colorectal cancer patients who present with late relapse after curative surgery have a better survival?

BackgroundPatients who relapse after potentially curative surgery for colorectal cancer tend to relapse within 5 years. There is, however, a group of patients who relapse beyond 5 years after resection and this late relapsing group may have a different behaviour and prognosis.MethodsWe analysed data from a prospective population-based registry to compare the characteristics and survival of relapsed patients with metachronous mCRC. Patients were categorised into relapse at 5 years following their initial surgery. Univariate log-rank tests and multivariate Cox regression was performed to determine whether time to relapse (TTR) and other factors were associated with overall survival (OS).ResultsA total of 750 metachronous mCRC patients were identified. In all, 56% relapsed ≤2 years, 32.4% at 2-5 years and 11.6% >5 years. Median survival time from the time of diagnosis of mCRC for the three groups was 17.6, 26.1 and 27.5 months, respectively. Short TTR (5 years vs ConclusionTTR within 2 years is an independent predictor of shorter survival time for mCRC patients who experience a relapse. These data do not support the hypothesis that patients who have late relapse late (>5 years) have a 'better' biology or survival compared with patients with a TTR of 2-5 years.V T Broadbridge, C S Karapetis, C Beeke, R J Woodman, R Padbury, G Maddern, S W Kim, D Roder, P Hakendorf and T J Pric

Effectiveness of a Tailored Work-Related Support Intervention for Patients Diagnosed with Gastrointestinal Cancer:A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial

Purpose The aim of this research was to study the effectiveness on return to work (RTW) of an early tailored work-related support intervention in patients diagnosed with curative gastrointestinal cancer. Methods A multicenter randomized controlled trial was undertaken, in which patients were assigned randomly to the intervention or the control group (usual care). The intervention encompassed three psychosocial work-related support meetings, starting before treatment. Five self-reported questionnaires were sent over twelve months of follow-up. Primary outcome was days until RTW (fulltime or partial) and secondary outcomes included work status, quality of life, work ability, and work limitations. Descriptive analysis, Kaplan–Meier analysis, relative risk ratio and linear mixed models were applied. Results Participants (N = 88) had a mean age of 55 years; 67% were male and the most common cancer type was colon cancer (66%). Of the participants, 42 were randomized to the intervention group. The median time from sick leave until RTW was 233 days (range 187–279 days) for the control group, versus 190 days (range 139–240 days) for the intervention group (log-rank p = 0.37). The RTW rate at twelve months after baseline was 83.3% for the intervention group and 73.5% for the control group. Work limitations did statistically differ between the groups over time (p = 0.01), but quality of life and work ability did not. Conclusion Patients in the intervention group seem to take fewer days to RTW, albeit not to a statistically significant extent. Trial registration Trial NL4920 (NTR5022) (Dutch Trial Register https://www.trialregister.nl

Effectiveness of a Tailored Work-Related Support Intervention for Patients Diagnosed with Gastrointestinal Cancer: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial

Purpose The aim of this research was to study the effectiveness on return to work (RTW) of an early tailored work-related support intervention in patients diagnosed with curative gastrointestinal cancer. Methods A multicenter randomized controlled trial was undertaken, in which patients were assigned randomly to the intervention or the control group (usual care). The intervention encompassed three psychosocial work-related support meetings, starting before treatment. Five self-reported questionnaires were sent over twelve months of follow-up. Primary outcome was days until RTW (fulltime or partial) and secondary outcomes included work status, quality of life, work ability, and work limitations. Descriptive analysis, Kaplan–Meier analysis, relative risk ratio and linear mixed models were applied. Results Participants (N = 88) had a mean age of 55 years; 67% were male and the most common cancer type was colon cancer (66%). Of the participants, 42 were randomized to the intervention group. The median time from sick leave until RTW was 233 days (range 187–279 days) for the control group, versus 190 days (range 139–240 days) for the intervention group (log-rank p = 0.37). The RTW rate at twelve months after baseline was 83.3% for the intervention group and 73.5% for the control group. Work limitations did statistically differ between the groups over time (p = 0.01), but quality of life and work ability did not. Conclusion Patients in the intervention group seem to take fewer days to RTW, albeit not to a statistically significant extent. Trial registration Trial NL4920 (NTR5022) (Dutch Trial Register https://www.trialregister.nl)

Effectiveness of a Tailored Work-Related Support Intervention for Patients Diagnosed with Gastrointestinal Cancer: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial

Purpose The aim of this research was to study the effectiveness on return to work (RTW) of an early tailored work-related support intervention in patients diagnosed with curative gastrointestinal cancer. Methods A multicenter randomized controlled trial was undertaken, in which patients were assigned randomly to the intervention or the control group (usual care). The intervention encompassed three psychosocial work-related support meetings, starting before treatment. Five self-reported questionnaires were sent over twelve months of follow-up. Primary outcome was days until RTW (fulltime or partial) and secondary outcomes included work status, quality of life, work ability, and work limitations. Descriptive analysis, Kaplan–Meier analysis, relative risk ratio and linear mixed models were applied. Results Participants (N = 88) had a mean age of 55 years; 67% were male and the most common cancer type was colon cancer (66%). Of the participants, 42 were randomized to the intervention group. The median time from sick leave until RTW was 233 days (range 187–279 days) for the control group, versus 190 days (range 139–240 days) for the intervention group (log-rank p = 0.37). The RTW rate at twelve months after baseline was 83.3% for the intervention group and 73.5% for the control group. Work limitations did statistically differ between the groups over time (p = 0.01), but quality of life and work ability did not. Conclusion Patients in the intervention group seem to take fewer days to RTW, albeit not to a statistically significant extent. Trial registration Trial NL4920 (NTR5022) (Dutch Trial Register https://www.trialregister.nl)