R P Jones1, D McWhirter2, V L Fretwell3, A McAvoy3, J G Hardman3. 1. School of Cancer Studies, Institute of Translational Medicine, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK; Department of Colorectal Surgery, Mid Cheshire Hospitals Foundation Trust, Crewe, UK. Electronic address: robjones@liv.ac.uk. 2. School of Cancer Studies, Institute of Translational Medicine, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK; Department of Colorectal Surgery, Mid Cheshire Hospitals Foundation Trust, Crewe, UK. 3. Department of Colorectal Surgery, Mid Cheshire Hospitals Foundation Trust, Crewe, UK.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The benefit of clinical follow-up alongside CT & CEA in detecting recurrent colorectal cancer (CRC) remains unclear. Despite this, clinical review remains part of most surveillance protocols. This study assessed the efficacy of clinical follow-up in addition to CT/CEA in detecting disease recurrence. METHODS: Patients undergoing surgery for CRC at a single centre between 2009 and 2011 were identified. Follow-up included clinical review, CT and CEA for 5 years. The primary endpoint of the study was method of detection of recurrence. Secondary endpoints included detection of surgically treatable recurrence, compliance with follow-up, disease free survival and overall survival. RESULTS: 118 patients with stage I-III CRC were included. Only 68.9% of scheduled follow-up events were performed (76.6% clinical reviews, 76.2% CT scans and 60.4% CEA tests). At median follow-up of 36 months, 26 patients had developed recurrence (median DFS 45.8 months). 17 patients (14.7%) had died (median OS 49.3 months). Sensitivity and specificity of follow up modality in detecting recurrence were; CT (92.3%, 100%), CEA (57.7%, 100%), clinical review (23.0%, 27.2%). Addition of clinical review did not identify any disease recurrence that was not detected by scheduled CT. Eight patients (30.7%) had surgically treatable recurrence - all were identified by scheduled CT. CONCLUSION: The addition of CEA testing and clinical review to scheduled CT scanning offered no benefit in the detection of recurrent disease. Clinical review could be removed from follow-up protocols without any reduction in the detection of recurrent cancer.
INTRODUCTION: The benefit of clinical follow-up alongside CT & CEA in detecting recurrent colorectal cancer (CRC) remains unclear. Despite this, clinical review remains part of most surveillance protocols. This study assessed the efficacy of clinical follow-up in addition to CT/CEA in detecting disease recurrence. METHODS:Patients undergoing surgery for CRC at a single centre between 2009 and 2011 were identified. Follow-up included clinical review, CT and CEA for 5 years. The primary endpoint of the study was method of detection of recurrence. Secondary endpoints included detection of surgically treatable recurrence, compliance with follow-up, disease free survival and overall survival. RESULTS: 118 patients with stage I-III CRC were included. Only 68.9% of scheduled follow-up events were performed (76.6% clinical reviews, 76.2% CT scans and 60.4% CEA tests). At median follow-up of 36 months, 26 patients had developed recurrence (median DFS 45.8 months). 17 patients (14.7%) had died (median OS 49.3 months). Sensitivity and specificity of follow up modality in detecting recurrence were; CT (92.3%, 100%), CEA (57.7%, 100%), clinical review (23.0%, 27.2%). Addition of clinical review did not identify any disease recurrence that was not detected by scheduled CT. Eight patients (30.7%) had surgically treatable recurrence - all were identified by scheduled CT. CONCLUSION: The addition of CEA testing and clinical review to scheduled CT scanning offered no benefit in the detection of recurrent disease. Clinical review could be removed from follow-up protocols without any reduction in the detection of recurrent cancer.