PURPOSE: Our aims were to examine surveillance strategies after curative treatment of early gastroesophageal (GE) cancer and to evaluate the impact of different approaches on outcomes. METHODS: A total of 292 patients with non-metastatic GE cancer who were referred to the BC Cancer Agency from 2001 to 2010 for curative intent treatment were analyzed. Surveillance practices were classified into the following: cohort 1 (discharge to general practitioner), cohort 2 (follow-up by oncologist with clinical assessments), cohort 3 (specialist follow-up with laboratory investigations), and cohort 4 (specialist follow-up with imaging or endoscopy). Outcomes were compared across cohorts using Kaplan-Meier methods and Cox regression. RESULTS: In total, median age was 63 years and 76 % were men. Eighty-nine (30%), 18 (6%), 32 (11%), and 152 (53%) patients were classified into cohorts 1 to 4, respectively. Patients with primary lesions involving the distal esophagus were more likely to undergo intensive surveillance which involved imaging studies and endoscopic procedures (p = 0.001). Individuals affected by specific histological subtypes, such as squamous cell carcinoma and the signet cell variant, and those whose disease were managed with definitive chemoradiotherapy without surgery were also more inclined to receive intensive follow-up (p = 0.008 and p = 0.001, respectively) There were no significant differences in overall (p = 0.34) or relapse-free survival (p = 0.59) among the different surveillance strategies, even after adjusting for measured prognostic factors. CONCLUSION: In this population-based analysis, outcomes of GE cancer were comparable irrespective of surveillance strategy. Intensive follow-up with routine imaging and endoscopy may not be justified given the financial implications of these costly investigations.
PURPOSE: Our aims were to examine surveillance strategies after curative treatment of early gastroesophageal (GE) cancer and to evaluate the impact of different approaches on outcomes. METHODS: A total of 292 patients with non-metastatic GE cancer who were referred to the BC Cancer Agency from 2001 to 2010 for curative intent treatment were analyzed. Surveillance practices were classified into the following: cohort 1 (discharge to general practitioner), cohort 2 (follow-up by oncologist with clinical assessments), cohort 3 (specialist follow-up with laboratory investigations), and cohort 4 (specialist follow-up with imaging or endoscopy). Outcomes were compared across cohorts using Kaplan-Meier methods and Cox regression. RESULTS: In total, median age was 63 years and 76 % were men. Eighty-nine (30%), 18 (6%), 32 (11%), and 152 (53%) patients were classified into cohorts 1 to 4, respectively. Patients with primary lesions involving the distal esophagus were more likely to undergo intensive surveillance which involved imaging studies and endoscopic procedures (p = 0.001). Individuals affected by specific histological subtypes, such as squamous cell carcinoma and the signet cell variant, and those whose disease were managed with definitive chemoradiotherapy without surgery were also more inclined to receive intensive follow-up (p = 0.008 and p = 0.001, respectively) There were no significant differences in overall (p = 0.34) or relapse-free survival (p = 0.59) among the different surveillance strategies, even after adjusting for measured prognostic factors. CONCLUSION: In this population-based analysis, outcomes of GE cancer were comparable irrespective of surveillance strategy. Intensive follow-up with routine imaging and endoscopy may not be justified given the financial implications of these costly investigations.
Authors: Johan L Dikken; Anneriet E Dassen; Valery E P Lemmens; Hein Putter; Pieta Krijnen; Lydia van der Geest; Koop Bosscha; Marcel Verheij; Cornelis J H van de Velde; Michel W J M Wouters Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2012-03-27 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: I Takeyoshi; S Ohwada; T Ogawa; Y Kawashima; T Ohya; S Kawate; Y Nakasone; K Arai; T Ikeya; Y Morishita Journal: Hepatogastroenterology Date: 2000 Sep-Oct
Authors: Alexander J Greenstein; Virginia R Litle; Scott J Swanson; Celia M Divino; Stuart Packer; Juan P Wisnivesky Journal: Cancer Date: 2008-03-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Pamela L Kunz; Matthew Gubens; George A Fisher; James M Ford; Daphne Y Lichtensztajn; Christina A Clarke Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-09-04 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: E M L Verschuur; E W Steyerberg; H W Tilanus; S Polinder; M-L Essink-Bot; K T C Tran; A van der Gaast; L P S Stassen; E J Kuipers; P D Siersema Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2008-12-09 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Leila Sisic; Moritz J Strowitzki; Susanne Blank; Henrik Nienhueser; Sara Dorr; Georg Martin Haag; Dirk Jäger; Katja Ott; Markus W Büchler; Alexis Ulrich; Thomas Schmidt Journal: Gastric Cancer Date: 2017-07-24 Impact factor: 7.370
Authors: Tim Chew; Tim Bright; Timothy J Price; David I Watson; Peter G Devitt Journal: Ann Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2017-08-15 Impact factor: 1.520
Authors: Di M Jiang; Chihiro Suzuki; Osvaldo Espin-Garcia; Charles H Lim; Lucy X Ma; Peiran Sun; Hao-Wen Sim; Akina Natori; Bryan A Chan; Stephanie Moignard; Eric X Chen; Geoffrey Liu; Carol J Swallow; Gail E Darling; Rebecca Wong; Raymond W Jang; Elena Elimova Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2020-03-04 Impact factor: 4.452