Should the surgeon or the general practitioner (GP) follow up patients after surgery for colon cancer? A randomized controlled trial protocol focusing on quality of life, cost-effectiveness and serious clinical events

This trial has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov. The trial registration number is: NCT00572143.© 2008 Augestad et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0),which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited

Intensified surveillance after surgery for colorectal cancer significantly improves survival

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Postoperative surveillance after curative resection for colorectal cancer has been demostrated to improve survival. It remains unknown however, whether intensified surveillance provides a significant benefit regarding outcome and survival. This study was aimed at comparing different surveillance strategies regarding their effect on long-term outcome.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Between 1990 and 2006, all curative resections for colorectal cancer were selected from our prospective colorectal cancer database. All patients were offered to follow our institution's surveillance programm according to the ASCO guidelines. We defined surveillance as "intensive" in cases where > 70% appointments were attended and the program was completed. As "minimal" we defined surveillance with < 70% of the appointments attended and an incomplete program. As "none" we defined the group which did not take part in any surveillance.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Out of 1469 patients 858 patients underwent "intensive", 297 "minimal" and 314 "none" surveillance. The three groups were well balanced regarding biographical data and tumor characteristics. The 5-year survival rates were 79% (intensive), 76% (minimal) and 54% (none) (OR 1.480, (95% CI 1.135-1.929); <it>p </it>< 0.0001), respectively. The 10-year survival rates were 65% (intensive), 50% (minimal) and 31% (none) (<it>p </it>< 0.0001), respectively. With a median follow-up of 70 months the median time of survival was 191 months (intensive), 116 months (minimal) and 66 months (none) (<it>p </it>< 0.0001). After recurrence, the 5-year survival rates were 32% (intensive, <it>p </it>= 0.034), 13% (minimal, <it>p </it>= 0.001) and 19% (none, <it>p </it>= 0.614). The median time of survival after recurrence was 31 months (intensive, <it>p </it>< 0.0001), 21 months (minimal, <it>p </it>< 0.0001) and 16 month (none, <it>p </it>< 0.0001) respectively.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Intensive surveillance after curative resection of colorectal cancer improves survival. In cases of recurrent disease, intensive surveillance has a positive impact on patients' prognosis. Large randomized, multicenter trials are needed to substantiate these results.</p

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

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