Mechanisms of improved survival from intensive followup in colorectal cancer: a hypothesis

A meta-analysis of six randomised trials demonstrated that intensive followup in colorectal cancer was associated with an absolute reduction in all-cause 5-year mortality of 10% (95% confidence interval (CI): 4–16) – however, only two percent (95% CI: 0–5) was attributable to cure from salvage re-operations. We postulate that other factors, such as increased psychological well-being and/or altered lifestyle, and/or improved treatment of coincidental disease may contribute to the remaining lives saved, and form important future research questions

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

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

Laparoscopic versus small-incision cholecystectomy: Health status in a blind randomised trial

Contains fulltext : 69536.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: Gallstones are a major cause of morbidity, and cholecystectomy is a commonly performed procedure. Minimal invasive procedures, laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) and small-incision cholecystectomy (SIC), have replaced the classical open cholecystectomy. No differences have been found in primary outcome measures between LC and SIC, therefore secondary outcome measures have to be considered to determine preferences. The aim of our study was to examine health status applying evidence-based guidelines in LC and SIC in a randomised trial. METHODS: Patients with symptomatic cholecystolithiasis were included in a blind randomised trial. Operative procedures, anaesthesia, analgesics and postoperative care were standardised in order to limit bias. Questionnaires were filled in preoperatively, the first day postoperatively, and at outpatients follow-up at 2, 6 and 12 weeks. In accordance with evidence-based guidelines, the generic short form (SF-36) and the disease-specific gastrointestinal quality-of-life index (GIQLI) questionnaires were used in addition to the body image questionnaire (BIQ). RESULTS: A total of 257 patients were randomised between LC (120) and SIC (137). Analyses were performed according to intention-to-treat (converted procedures included) and also distinguishing converted from minimal invasive (nonconverted) procedures. Questionnaires were obtained with a response rate varying from 87.5% preoperatively to 77.4% three months postoperatively. Except for two time-specific measurements in one SF-36 subscale, there were no differences between LC and SIC. There were significant differences in several subscales in all three questionnaires comparing minimal invasive versus converted procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Applying adequate methodological quality and evidence-based guidelines (by using SF-36 and GIQLI), there are no significant differences in health status between LC and SIC

Early detection of recurrence by 18FDG-PET in the follow-up of patients with colorectal cancer

We assessed the potential benefits of including systematic 18fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) for detecting tumour recurrence in a prospective randomised trial. Patients (N=130) who had undergone curative therapy were randomised to undergo either conventional (Con) or FDG-PET procedures during follow-up. The two groups were matched at baseline. Recurrence was confirmed histologically. ‘Intention-to-treat' analysis revealed a recurrence in 46 patients (25 in the FDG-PET group, and 21 in the Con group; P=0.50), whereas per protocol analysis revealed a recurrence in 44 out of 125 patients (23 and 21, respectively; P=0.60). In another three cases, PET revealed unexpected tumours (one gastric GIST, two primary pulmonary cancers). Three false-positive cases of FDG-PET led to no beneficial procedures (two laparoscopies and one liver MRI that were normal). We failed to identify peritoneal carcinomatosis in two of the patients undergoing FDG-PET. The overall time in detecting a recurrence from the baseline was not significantly different in the two groups. However, recurrences were detected after a shorter time (12.1 vs 15.4 months; P=0.01) in the PET group, in which recurrences were also more frequently (10 vs two patients) cured by surgery (R0). Regular FDG-PET monitoring in the follow up of colorectal cancer patients may permit the earlier detection of recurrence, and influence therapy strategies

Multi-messenger observations of a binary neutron star merger

On 2017 August 17 a binary neutron star coalescence candidate (later designated GW170817) with merger time 12:41:04 UTC was observed through gravitational waves by the Advanced LIGO and Advanced Virgo detectors. The Fermi Gamma-ray Burst Monitor independently detected a gamma-ray burst (GRB 170817A) with a time delay of ~1.7 s with respect to the merger time. From the gravitational-wave signal, the source was initially localized to a sky region of 31 deg2 at a luminosity distance of 40+8-8 Mpc and with component masses consistent with neutron stars. The component masses were later measured to be in the range 0.86 to 2.26 Mo. An extensive observing campaign was launched across the electromagnetic spectrum leading to the discovery of a bright optical transient (SSS17a, now with the IAU identification of AT 2017gfo) in NGC 4993 (at ~40 Mpc) less than 11 hours after the merger by the One- Meter, Two Hemisphere (1M2H) team using the 1 m Swope Telescope. The optical transient was independently detected by multiple teams within an hour. Subsequent observations targeted the object and its environment. Early ultraviolet observations revealed a blue transient that faded within 48 hours. Optical and infrared observations showed a redward evolution over ~10 days. Following early non-detections, X-ray and radio emission were discovered at the transient’s position ~9 and ~16 days, respectively, after the merger. Both the X-ray and radio emission likely arise from a physical process that is distinct from the one that generates the UV/optical/near-infrared emission. No ultra-high-energy gamma-rays and no neutrino candidates consistent with the source were found in follow-up searches. These observations support the hypothesis that GW170817 was produced by the merger of two neutron stars in NGC4993 followed by a short gamma-ray burst (GRB 170817A) and a kilonova/macronova powered by the radioactive decay of r-process nuclei synthesized in the ejecta

Describing knowledge encounters in healthcare: a mixed studies systematic review and development of a classification

This review was self-funded