An open cohort study of bone metastasis incidence following surgery in breast cancer patients

Background: To help design clinical trials of adjuvant bisphosphonate therapy for breast cancer, the temporal incidence of bone metastasis was investigated in a cohort of patients. We have tried to draw the criteria to use adjuvant bisphosphonate.Methods: Consecutive breast cancer patients undergoing surgery between 1988 and 1998 (5459 patients) were followed up regarding bone metastasis until December 2006. Patients characteristics at the time of surgery were analyzed by Cox method, with bone metastasis as events. Patient groups were assigned according to Cox analysis, and were judged either to require the adjuvant bisphosphonate or not, using the tentative criteria: high risk (>3% person-year), medium risk (1-3%), and low risk (3% per person-year, patients with stage I <1% per person-year, andthose with stages II were between 1 and 3%. Further analysis with histology in stage II patients showed that stage IIB with high risk histology also had a high incidence (3% person year), whereas stage IIA with medium risk histology were <1%.Conclusions: Bone metastasis incidence remained constant for many years. Using pN, T, and histopathology, patients could be classified into high, medium, and low risk groups

Changing pattern of the detection of locoregional relapse in breast cancer: the Edinburgh experience

The guidelines for follow-up of breast cancer patients concentrate on the first 3–5 years, with either reduced frequency of visits or discharge after this. They also recommend mammography, but no evidence exists to inform frequency. We analyse treatable relapses in our unit from 1312 patients with early stage breast cancer treated by breast conserving surgery (BCS) and postoperative radiotherapy between 1991 and 1998 to assess appropriateness of the guidelines. A total of 110 treatable relapses were analysed. Treatable relapse developed at 1–1.5% per year throughout follow-up. Forty-eight relapses were in ipsilateral breast, 25 ipsilateral axilla, 35 contralateral breast, 2 both breasts simultaneously. Thirty-seven relapses (33.5%) were symptomatic, 56 (51%) mammographically detected, 15 (13.5%) clinically detected, 2 (2%) diagnosed incidentally. Mammography detected 5.37 relapses per 1000 mammograms. Patients with symptomatic or mammographically detected ipsilateral breast relapse had significantly longer survival from original diagnosis (P=0.0002) and from recurrence (P=0.0014) compared with clinically detected. Treatable relapse occurs at a constant rate for at least 10 years. Clinical examination detects a minority (13.5%). Relapse diagnosed clinically is associated with poorer outcome. Long-term follow-up based on regular mammography is warranted for all patients treated by BCS

Alternative methods of follow up in breast cancer: a systematic review of the literature

Regular clinical follow up after breast cancer is a common practice. Evidence from retrospective reviews casts doubt on the efficacy of this practice and the various guidelines for follow up show little concordance. Our aim was to investigate what alternative follow-up methods (including reduced frequency of visits) have been subjected to controlled trial and to establish what evidence exists from controlled trials to advise the guidelines. The study involved systematic review of the literature using MEDLINE, Embase, CancerLit, Web of Sciences and EBM reviews as data sources. Methods included reviewing all randomised controlled trials comparing different follow-up frequencies or comparing an alternative method with clinical follow up after breast cancer. All outcome measures addressed in the trials were analysed. Two trials compared frequency of traditional follow up. Five trials assessed alternative methods. All were of inadequate power or duration to establish ideal frequency of clinic visits or safety of alternative follow-up methods. Alternative follow up had no detrimental effect on satisfaction or outcome. Few trials have been conducted, all of which are underpowered to establish safety of reducing or replacing clinic visits. Alternative methods of follow up are acceptable to patients and may be associated with other benefits. Larger trials are required

Intensive post-operative follow-up of breast cancer patients with tumour markers: CEA, TPA or CA15.3 vs MCA and MCA-CA15.3 vs CEA-TPA-CA15.3 panel in the early detection of distant metastases

BACKGROUND: In breast cancer current guidelines do not recommend the routine use of serum tumour markers. Differently, we observed that CEA-TPA-CA15.3 (carcinoembryonic (CEA) tissue polypeptide (TPA) and cancer associated 115D8/DF3 (CA15.3) antigens) panel permits early detection and treatment for most relapsing patients. As high sensitivity and specificity and different cut-off values have been reported for mucin-like carcinoma associated antigen (MCA), we compared MCA with the above mentioned tumour markers and MCA-CA15.3 with the CEA-TPA-CA15.3 panel. METHODS: In 289 breast cancer patients submitted to an intensive post-operative follow-up with tumour markers, we compared MCA (cut-off values, ≥ 11 and ≥ 15 U/mL) with CEA or CA15.3 or TPA for detection of relapse. In addition, we compared the MCA-CA15.3 and CEA-TPA-CA15.3 tumour marker panels. RESULTS: Distant metastases occurred 19 times in 18 (6.7%) of the 268 patients who were disease-free at the beginning of the study. MCA sensitivity with both cut-off values was higher than that of CEA or TPA or CA15.3 (68% vs 10%, 26%, 32% and 53% vs 16%, 42%, 32% respectively). With cut-off ≥ 11 U/mL, MCA showed the lowest specificity (42%); with cut-off ≥ 15 U/mL, MCA specificity was similar to TPA (73% vs 72%) and lower than that of CEA and CA15.3 (96% and 97% respectively). With ≥ 15 U/mL MCA cut-off, MCA sensitivity increased from 53% to 58% after its association with CA15.3. Sensitivity of CEA-TPA-CA15.3 panel was 74% (14 of 19 recurrences). Eight of the 14 recurrences early detected with CEA-TPA-CA15.3 presented as a single lesion (oligometastatic disease) (5) or were confined to bony skeleton (3) (26% and 16% respectively of the 19 relapses). With ≥ 11 U/mL MCA cut-off, MCA-CA15.3 association showed higher sensitivity but lower specificity, accuracy and positive predictive value than the CEA-TPA-CA15.3 panel. CONCLUSION: At both the evaluated cut-off values serum MCA sensitivity is higher than that of CEA, TPA or CA15.3 but its specificity is similar to or lower than that of TPA. Overall, CEA-TPA-CA15.3 panel is more accurate than MCA-CA15.3 association and can "early" detect a few relapsed patients with limited metastatic disease and more favourable prognosis. These findings further support the need for prospective randomised clinical trial to assess whether an intensive post-operative follow-up with an appropriate use of serum tumour markers can significantly improve clinical outcome of early detected relapsing patients

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