S Pita-Fernández1, M Alhayek-Aí2, C González-Martín3, B López-Calviño4, T Seoane-Pillado4, S Pértega-Díaz4. 1. Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics Unit, Instituto de Investigación Biomédica de A Coruña (INIBIC), Complexo Hospitalario Universitario de A Coruña (CHUAC), SERGAS, Universidade da Coruña, A Coruña Clinical Epidemiology Research Group, Department of Health Sciences, Universidade da Coruña (UDC), Ferrol, Spain salvador.pita.fernandez@sergas.es. 2. Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics Unit, Instituto de Investigación Biomédica de A Coruña (INIBIC), Complexo Hospitalario Universitario de A Coruña (CHUAC), SERGAS, Universidade da Coruña, A Coruña. 3. Clinical Epidemiology Research Group, Department of Health Sciences, Universidade da Coruña (UDC), Ferrol, Spain. 4. Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics Unit, Instituto de Investigación Biomédica de A Coruña (INIBIC), Complexo Hospitalario Universitario de A Coruña (CHUAC), SERGAS, Universidade da Coruña, A Coruña Clinical Epidemiology Research Group, Department of Health Sciences, Universidade da Coruña (UDC), Ferrol, Spain.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A wide variety of follow-up strategies are used for patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) after curative surgery. The aim of this study is to review the evidence of the impact of different follow-up strategies in patients with nonmetastatic CRC after curative surgery, in relation to overall survival and other outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS and ISI Web of Knowledge up to June 2014 was carried out. Eligible studies were all randomized clinical trials comparing the effectiveness of different follow-up strategies after curative resection in nonmetastatic CRC. RESULTS: Eleven studies with n = 4055 participants were included in a meta-analysis. A significant improvement in overall survival was observed in patients with more intensive follow-up strategies [hazard ratio = 0.75; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66-0.86]. A higher probability of detection of asymptomatic recurrences [relative risk (RR) = 2.59; 95% CI 1.66-4.06], curative surgery attempted at recurrences (RR = 1.98; 95% CI 1.51-2.60), survival after recurrences (RR = 2.13; 95% CI 1.24-3.69), and a shorter time in detecting recurrences (mean difference = -5.23 months; 95% CI -9.58 to -0.88) was observed in the intervention group. There were no significant differences in the total tumor recurrences, nor in the mortality related to disease. CONCLUSION: Intensive follow-up strategies improve overall survival, increase the detection of asymptomatic recurrences and curative surgery attempted at recurrence, and are associated with a shorter time in detecting recurrences. This more intensive follow-up could not be associated with an improvement in cancer-specific survival nor with an increased detection of total tumor recurrences. Follow-up with serum carcinoembryonic antigen and colonoscopies are related to an increase in overall survival.
BACKGROUND: A wide variety of follow-up strategies are used for patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) after curative surgery. The aim of this study is to review the evidence of the impact of different follow-up strategies in patients with nonmetastatic CRC after curative surgery, in relation to overall survival and other outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS and ISI Web of Knowledge up to June 2014 was carried out. Eligible studies were all randomized clinical trials comparing the effectiveness of different follow-up strategies after curative resection in nonmetastatic CRC. RESULTS: Eleven studies with n = 4055 participants were included in a meta-analysis. A significant improvement in overall survival was observed in patients with more intensive follow-up strategies [hazard ratio = 0.75; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66-0.86]. A higher probability of detection of asymptomatic recurrences [relative risk (RR) = 2.59; 95% CI 1.66-4.06], curative surgery attempted at recurrences (RR = 1.98; 95% CI 1.51-2.60), survival after recurrences (RR = 2.13; 95% CI 1.24-3.69), and a shorter time in detecting recurrences (mean difference = -5.23 months; 95% CI -9.58 to -0.88) was observed in the intervention group. There were no significant differences in the total tumor recurrences, nor in the mortality related to disease. CONCLUSION: Intensive follow-up strategies improve overall survival, increase the detection of asymptomatic recurrences and curative surgery attempted at recurrence, and are associated with a shorter time in detecting recurrences. This more intensive follow-up could not be associated with an improvement in cancer-specific survival nor with an increased detection of total tumor recurrences. Follow-up with serum carcinoembryonic antigen and colonoscopies are related to an increase in overall survival.
Authors: Elena Elimova; Xuemei Wang; Wei Qiao; Kazuki Sudo; Roopma Wadhwa; Hironori Shiozaki; Yusuke Shimodaira; Venkatram Planjery; Nikolaos Charalampakis; Jeffrey H Lee; Brian R Weston; Manoop S Bhutani; Ritsuko Komaki; David C Rice; Stephen G Swisher; Mariela A Blum; Jane E Rogers; Heath D Skinner; Dipen M Maru; Wayne L Hofstetter; Jaffer A Ajani Journal: Oncology Date: 2018-04-27 Impact factor: 2.935
Authors: D Bossé; T Ng; C Ahmad; A Alfakeeh; I Alruzug; J Biagi; J Brierley; P Chaudhury; S Cleary; B Colwell; C Cripps; L A Dawson; M Dorreen; E Ferland; P Galiatsatos; S Girard; S Gray; F Halwani; N Kopek; A Mahmud; G Martel; L Robillard; B Samson; M Seal; J Siddiqui; L Sideris; S Snow; M Thirwell; M Vickers; R Goodwin; R Goel; T Hsu; E Tsvetkova; B Ward; T Asmis Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2016-12-21 Impact factor: 3.677
Authors: R Vera; J Aparicio; F Carballo; M Esteva; E González-Flores; J Santianes; F Santolaya; J M Fernández-Cebrián Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2019-02-14 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: David L Chan; Matthew Cheung; Craig C Earle; Natalie Coburn; Nicole Mittmann; Farah Rahman; Ning Liu; Simron Singh Journal: J Gastrointest Cancer Date: 2020-03
Authors: Charles J Kahi; C Richard Boland; Jason A Dominitz; Francis M Giardiello; David A Johnson; Tonya Kaltenbach; David Lieberman; Theodore R Levin; Douglas J Robertson; Douglas K Rex Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2016-02-12 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Rebecca A Snyder; Chung-Yuan Hu; Amanda Cuddy; Amanda B Francescatti; Jessica R Schumacher; Katherine Van Loon; Y Nancy You; Benjamin D Kozower; Caprice C Greenberg; Deborah Schrag; Alan Venook; Daniel McKellar; David P Winchester; George J Chang Journal: JAMA Date: 2018-05-22 Impact factor: 56.272