BACKGROUND: Guidelines for post resection surveillance of colorectal cancer recommend a collection of the patient's history and physical examination, testing for carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), and colonoscopy. No consistent guidelines exist for the use of abdominal computed tomography (CT) and position emission tomography (PET)/PET-CT. The goal of our study was to describe current trends, the impact of oncologic follow-up on guideline adherence, and the patterns of use of nonrecommended tests. METHODS: We used Texas Cancer Registry-Medicare-linked data (2000-2009) to identify physician visits, CEA testing, colonoscopy, abdominal CT, and PET/PET-CT scans in patients ≥ 66 years old with stage I-III colorectal cancer who underwent curative resection. Compliance with guidelines was assessed with a composite measure of physician visits, CEA tests, and colonoscopy use from start of surveillance. RESULTS: In patients who survived 3 years, the overall compliance with guidelines was 25.1%. In patients seen regularly by a medical oncologist, compliance with guidelines increased to 61.5% compared with 8.8% for those not seen by a medical oncologist regularly (P < .0001). The use of abdominal CT and PET/PET-CT increased from 57.5% and 9.5%, respectively, in 2001 to 65.8% and 24.6% (P < .0001) in 2006. Patients who saw a medical oncologist were more likely to get cross-sectional imaging than those who did not (P < .0001). CONCLUSION: Compliance with current minimum guidelines for post treatment surveillance of colorectal cancer is low and the use of nonrecommended testing has increased over time. Both compliance and use of nonrecommended tests are markedly increased in patients seen by a medical oncologist. The comparative effectiveness of CT and PET/PET-CT in the surveillance of colorectal cancer patients needs further examination.
BACKGROUND: Guidelines for post resection surveillance of colorectal cancer recommend a collection of the patient's history and physical examination, testing for carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), and colonoscopy. No consistent guidelines exist for the use of abdominal computed tomography (CT) and position emission tomography (PET)/PET-CT. The goal of our study was to describe current trends, the impact of oncologic follow-up on guideline adherence, and the patterns of use of nonrecommended tests. METHODS: We used Texas Cancer Registry-Medicare-linked data (2000-2009) to identify physician visits, CEA testing, colonoscopy, abdominal CT, and PET/PET-CT scans in patients ≥ 66 years old with stage I-III colorectal cancer who underwent curative resection. Compliance with guidelines was assessed with a composite measure of physician visits, CEA tests, and colonoscopy use from start of surveillance. RESULTS: In patients who survived 3 years, the overall compliance with guidelines was 25.1%. In patients seen regularly by a medical oncologist, compliance with guidelines increased to 61.5% compared with 8.8% for those not seen by a medical oncologist regularly (P < .0001). The use of abdominal CT and PET/PET-CT increased from 57.5% and 9.5%, respectively, in 2001 to 65.8% and 24.6% (P < .0001) in 2006. Patients who saw a medical oncologist were more likely to get cross-sectional imaging than those who did not (P < .0001). CONCLUSION: Compliance with current minimum guidelines for post treatment surveillance of colorectal cancer is low and the use of nonrecommended testing has increased over time. Both compliance and use of nonrecommended tests are markedly increased in patients seen by a medical oncologist. The comparative effectiveness of CT and PET/PET-CT in the surveillance of colorectal cancerpatients needs further examination.
Authors: Thomas Anthony; Clifford Simmang; Neil Hyman; Donald Buie; Donald Kim; Peter Cataldo; Charles Orsay; James Church; Daniel Otchy; Jeffery Cohen; W Brian Perry; Gary Dunn; Janice Rafferty; C Neal Ellis; Jan Rakinic; Phillip Fleshner; Thomas Stahl; Sharon Gregorcyk; Charles Ternent; John W Kilkenny; Mark Whiteford Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 2004-05-04 Impact factor: 4.585
Authors: Christopher E Desch; Al B Benson; Mark R Somerfield; Patrick J Flynn; Carol Krause; Charles L Loprinzi; Bruce D Minsky; David G Pfister; Katherine S Virgo; Nicholas J Petrelli Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-10-31 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Christina E Bailey; Chung-Yuan Hu; Y Nancy You; Harmeet Kaur; Randy D Ernst; George J Chang Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2015-04-07 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: C Tyler Ellis; Ashley L Cole; Hanna K Sanoff; Sharon Hinton; Stacie B Dusetzina; Karyn B Stitzenberg Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2019-01-25 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Ulrike Boehmer; Jennifer Potter; Melissa A Clark; Michael Winter; Flora Berklein; Rachel M Ceballos; Kevan Hartshorn; Al Ozonoff Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2021-04-14 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Alfred I Neugut; Xiaobo Zhong; Benjamin Lebwohl; Grace C Hillyer; Melissa K Accordino; Jason D Wright; Ravi P Kiran; Dawn L Hershman Journal: Therap Adv Gastroenterol Date: 2018-03-26 Impact factor: 4.409
Authors: Amina Dhahri; Jori Kaplan; Syeda M H Naqvi; Naomi C Brownstein; Shana O Ntiri; Iman Imanirad; Seth I Felder; Sean P Dineen; Julian Sanchez; Sophie Dessureault; Estrella Carballido; Benjamin D Powers Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2021-06-30 Impact factor: 4.452