Lorenzo D'Ambrosio1, Erica Palesandro1, Paola Boccone1, Francesco Tolomeo1, Sara Miano1, Danilo Galizia1, Antonio Manca2, Gabriele Chiara2, Ilaria Bertotto2, Filippo Russo2, Delia Campanella2, Tiziana Venesio3, Dario Sangiolo1, Ymera Pignochino1, Dimitrios Siatis4, Michele De Simone4, Alessandro Ferrero5, Alberto Pisacane3, Angelo Paolo Dei Tos6, Sandra Aliberti7, Massimo Aglietta1, Giovanni Grignani8. 1. Sarcoma Unit, Division of Medical Oncology Candiolo Cancer Institute - FPO, IRCCS, Strada Provinciale 142, Km 3.95, 10060 Candiolo, TO, Italy; University of Torino, Department of Oncology, Regione Gonzole, 10, 10043 Orbassano, TO, Italy. 2. Radiology Unit, Candiolo Cancer Institute - FPO, IRCCS, Strada Provinciale 142, Km 3.95, 10060 Candiolo, TO, Italy. 3. Pathology Unit, Candiolo Cancer Institute - FPO, IRCCS, Strada Provinciale 142, Km 3.95, 10060 Candiolo, TO, Italy. 4. Surgical Oncology Unit, Candiolo Cancer Institute - FPO, IRCCS, Strada Provinciale 142, Km 3.95, 10060 Candiolo, TO, Italy. 5. Department of General and Oncological Surgery, Ospedale Mauriziano "Umberto I", Via Magellano 1, 10128 Torino, TO, Italy. 6. Department of Pathology and Molecular Genetics, Treviso General Hospital, Piazza Ospedale 23, 31100 Treviso, TV, Italy; University of Padova, Department of Medicine, Via 8 febbraio 2, 35122 Padova, PD, Italy. 7. Sarcoma Unit, Division of Medical Oncology Candiolo Cancer Institute - FPO, IRCCS, Strada Provinciale 142, Km 3.95, 10060 Candiolo, TO, Italy. 8. Sarcoma Unit, Division of Medical Oncology Candiolo Cancer Institute - FPO, IRCCS, Strada Provinciale 142, Km 3.95, 10060 Candiolo, TO, Italy; University of Torino, Department of Oncology, Regione Gonzole, 10, 10043 Orbassano, TO, Italy. Electronic address: giovanni.grignani@ircc.it.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Follow-up aims to precociously identify recurrences, metastases or treatment-related adverse events so as to undertake the appropriate therapy. Guidelines admit lack of knowledge on optimal surveillance schedule, but suggest follow-up based on experts' opinion and risk stratification. To identify the impact, if any, of regular follow-up, we interrogated our prospectively collected database whether early detection of recurrences affected both clinical management and, likely, the outcome. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We required information to be available on primary surgery and ≥3°years of follow-up for non-recurring patients. We analysed recurrence characteristics (asymptomatic versus symptomatic, low- versus high tumour burden) and computed tomography (CT) scan counts to detect one recurrence. Kaplan-Meier method estimated recurrence-free survival (RFS), post-recurrence progression-free survival (PR-PFS), and disease-specific overall survival (OS). Comparisons used Hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Multivariate analyses employed the Cox proportional hazards model. All tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Between 01/2001 and 12/2012 we found 233 study-eligible patients. Estimated 5- and 10-year RFS were 61.8% and 50.4%, respectively. After a 68-month median follow-up, we observed 94 (40.3%) recurrences [73/94 (77.7%) asymptomatic versus 21/94 (22.3%) symptomatic and 45/94 (47.9%) low- versus 49/94 (52.1%) high tumour burden]. Multivariate analysis revealed that symptomatic and high tumour burden recurrences were highly predictive of both worse PR-PFS (HR:3.19, P < 0.001; HR:2.80, P = 0.003, respectively) and OS (HR:3.65, P < 0.001; HR:2.38, P = 0.026, respectively). Finally, 29 second (primary) cancers were detected during follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Regular follow-up detects recurrences at an earlier stage and may be associated with a better PR-PFS and OS for these patients. In the absence of randomised trials, these evidences support follow-up effort and cost.
BACKGROUND: Follow-up aims to precociously identify recurrences, metastases or treatment-related adverse events so as to undertake the appropriate therapy. Guidelines admit lack of knowledge on optimal surveillance schedule, but suggest follow-up based on experts' opinion and risk stratification. To identify the impact, if any, of regular follow-up, we interrogated our prospectively collected database whether early detection of recurrences affected both clinical management and, likely, the outcome. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We required information to be available on primary surgery and ≥3°years of follow-up for non-recurring patients. We analysed recurrence characteristics (asymptomatic versus symptomatic, low- versus high tumour burden) and computed tomography (CT) scan counts to detect one recurrence. Kaplan-Meier method estimated recurrence-free survival (RFS), post-recurrence progression-free survival (PR-PFS), and disease-specific overall survival (OS). Comparisons used Hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Multivariate analyses employed the Cox proportional hazards model. All tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Between 01/2001 and 12/2012 we found 233 study-eligible patients. Estimated 5- and 10-year RFS were 61.8% and 50.4%, respectively. After a 68-month median follow-up, we observed 94 (40.3%) recurrences [73/94 (77.7%) asymptomatic versus 21/94 (22.3%) symptomatic and 45/94 (47.9%) low- versus 49/94 (52.1%) high tumour burden]. Multivariate analysis revealed that symptomatic and high tumour burden recurrences were highly predictive of both worse PR-PFS (HR:3.19, P < 0.001; HR:2.80, P = 0.003, respectively) and OS (HR:3.65, P < 0.001; HR:2.38, P = 0.026, respectively). Finally, 29 second (primary) cancers were detected during follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Regular follow-up detects recurrences at an earlier stage and may be associated with a better PR-PFS and OS for these patients. In the absence of randomised trials, these evidences support follow-up effort and cost.