E Carter Paulson1,2,3, Christine M Veenstra4,5, Anil Vachani1, Christine A Ciunci1, Andrew J Epstein2,3,6. 1. Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 2. Philadelphia VA Medical Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 3. Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 4. Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 5. Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 6. Division of General Internal Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Little is known about recent trends in surveillance among the more than 1 million US colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors. Moreover, for stage I disease, which accounts for more than 30% of survivors, the guidelines are limited, and the use of surveillance has not been well studied. Guidelines were changed in 2005 to include recommendations for computed tomography (CT) surveillance in select patients, but the impact of these changes has not been explored. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of patients who were identified in the Survival, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database and underwent resection of stage I to III CRC between 2001 and 2009 was performed. The receipt of guideline-determined sufficient surveillance, including office visits, colonoscopy, carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) testing, and CT imaging, in the 3 years after resection was evaluated. RESULTS: The study included 23,990 colon cancer patients and 5665 rectal cancer patients. Rates of office visits and colonoscopy were high and stable over the study period. Rates of CEA surveillance increased over the study period but remained low, even for stage III disease. Rates of CT imaging increased gradually during the study period, but the 2005 guideline change had no effect. Stage II patients, including high-risk patients, received surveillance at significantly lower rates than stage III patients despite similar recommendations. Conversely, up to 30% of stage I patients received nonrecommended CEA testing and CT imaging. CONCLUSIONS: There continues to be substantial underuse of surveillance for CRC survivors and particularly for stage II patients, who constitute almost 40% of survivors. The 2005 guideline change had a negligible impact on CT surveillance. Conversely, although guidelines are limited, many stage I patients are receiving intensive surveillance.
BACKGROUND: Little is known about recent trends in surveillance among the more than 1 million US colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors. Moreover, for stage I disease, which accounts for more than 30% of survivors, the guidelines are limited, and the use of surveillance has not been well studied. Guidelines were changed in 2005 to include recommendations for computed tomography (CT) surveillance in select patients, but the impact of these changes has not been explored. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of patients who were identified in the Survival, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database and underwent resection of stage I to III CRC between 2001 and 2009 was performed. The receipt of guideline-determined sufficient surveillance, including office visits, colonoscopy, carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) testing, and CT imaging, in the 3 years after resection was evaluated. RESULTS: The study included 23,990 colon cancerpatients and 5665 rectal cancerpatients. Rates of office visits and colonoscopy were high and stable over the study period. Rates of CEA surveillance increased over the study period but remained low, even for stage III disease. Rates of CT imaging increased gradually during the study period, but the 2005 guideline change had no effect. Stage II patients, including high-risk patients, received surveillance at significantly lower rates than stage III patients despite similar recommendations. Conversely, up to 30% of stage I patients received nonrecommended CEA testing and CT imaging. CONCLUSIONS: There continues to be substantial underuse of surveillance for CRC survivors and particularly for stage II patients, who constitute almost 40% of survivors. The 2005 guideline change had a negligible impact on CT surveillance. Conversely, although guidelines are limited, many stage I patients are receiving intensive surveillance.
Authors: Paul F Engstrom; Juan Pablo Arnoletti; Al B Benson; Yi-Jen Chen; Michael A Choti; Harry S Cooper; Anne Covey; Raza A Dilawari; Dayna S Early; Peter C Enzinger; Marwan G Fakih; James Fleshman; Charles Fuchs; Jean L Grem; Krystyna Kiel; James A Knol; Lucille A Leong; Edward Lin; Mary F Mulcahy; Sujata Rao; David P Ryan; Leonard Saltz; David Shibata; John M Skibber; Constantinos Sofocleous; James Thomas; Alan P Venook; Christopher Willett Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Vassiliki L Tsikitis; Kishore Malireddy; Erin A Green; Brent Christensen; Richard Whelan; Jace Hyder; Peter Marcello; Sergio Larach; David Lauter; Daniel J Sargent; Heidi Nelson Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-06-29 Impact factor: 44.544
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: Jeffrey A Meyerhardt; Pamela B Mangu; Patrick J Flynn; Larissa Korde; Charles L Loprinzi; Bruce D Minsky; Nicholas J Petrelli; Kim Ryan; Deborah H Schrag; Sandra L Wong; Al B Benson Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2013-11-12 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Phyllis Brawarsky; Bridget A Neville; Garrett M Fitzmaurice; Craig Earle; Jennifer S Haas Journal: Cancer Date: 2012-11-26 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Alvaro Figueredo; R Bryan Rumble; Jean Maroun; Craig C Earle; Bernard Cummings; Robin McLeod; Lisa Zuraw; Caroline Zwaal Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2003-10-06 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Shrujal S Baxi; Minal Kale; Salomeh Keyhani; Benjamin R Roman; Annie Yang; Antonio P Derosa; Deborah Korenstein Journal: Med Care Date: 2017-07 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Amblessed E Onuma; Elizabeth Palmer Kelly; Jeffery Chakedis; Anghela Z Paredes; Diamantis I Tsilimigras; Brianne Wiemann; Morgan Johnson; Katiuscha Merath; Ozgur Akgul; Jordan Cloyd; Timothy M Pawlik Journal: Surgery Date: 2019-02-13 Impact factor: 3.982
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: Janeth I Sanchez; Veena Shankaran; Joseph M Unger; Margaret M Madeleine; Noah Espinoza; Beti Thompson Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2021-05-24 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Christine M Veenstra; Jennifer Acosta; Rebecca Sharar; Sarah T Hawley; Arden M Morris Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2021-01-18 Impact factor: 4.452
Authors: Christine M Veenstra; Katrina R Ellis; Paul Abrahamse; Kevin C Ward; Arden M Morris; Sarah T Hawley Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2022-10-13 Impact factor: 4.638
Authors: Marvella E Ford; Katherine R Sterba; Kent Armeson; Angela M Malek; Kendrea D Knight; Jane Zapka Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2019-10 Impact factor: 1.771