Matthias Sauter1,2, Stephan R Vavricka3,4, Georg Keilholz5, Henriette Heinrich4, Thomas Winder6, Helmut Kranzbühler5, Norbert Lombriser5, Benjamin Misselwitz4. 1. Department of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology, Triemli Hospital, Birmensdorferstrasse 497, 8063, Zurich, Switzerland. matthias.sauter@outlook.com. 2. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. matthias.sauter@outlook.com. 3. Department of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology, Triemli Hospital, Birmensdorferstrasse 497, 8063, Zurich, Switzerland. 4. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. 5. Division of Radiation-Oncology, Triemli Hospital, Zurich, Switzerland. 6. Department of Oncology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Surveillance after radiochemotherapy of anal carcinoma (ACa) with curative intent is recommended in guidelines, but data regarding the effectiveness of follow-up are lacking. We aimed to assess the performance of an ACa surveillance program in a real-life setting. METHODS: We retrospectively summarized clinical history, physical findings, and follow-up investigations (endoanal ultrasound, endoscopy, CT scan) obtained during 42 months (±27 months) from 80 patients after radiochemotherapy of ACa. RESULTS: In 7/80 cases (8.8%) an incomplete response to therapy was identified at or before the 6‑month time point after the end of treatment; 4 of the 7 cases were identified during scheduled follow-up. In 6 cases (7.5%), recurrent disease was found after the 6‑month time point. Recurrence was systemic in 5 cases and local/inguinal in 1 case. In 3 of the 6 cases (50%), recurrence was identified during scheduled follow-up. In one asymptomatic patient, a single liver metastasis was detected during scheduled follow-up and the patient remains free of disease 19 months after surgery. Surveillance resulted in a high rate of false-positive findings (70 findings in 604 investigations), of which only 14 could be confirmed. CONCLUSION: Scheduled follow-up after treatment of ACa detected recurrent disease at systemic sites, enabling potentially curative treatment in a single case. Effectiveness of abdominal imaging during follow-up after ACa treatment should be tested in a prospective trial.
BACKGROUND: Surveillance after radiochemotherapy of anal carcinoma (ACa) with curative intent is recommended in guidelines, but data regarding the effectiveness of follow-up are lacking. We aimed to assess the performance of an ACa surveillance program in a real-life setting. METHODS: We retrospectively summarized clinical history, physical findings, and follow-up investigations (endoanal ultrasound, endoscopy, CT scan) obtained during 42 months (±27 months) from 80 patients after radiochemotherapy of ACa. RESULTS: In 7/80 cases (8.8%) an incomplete response to therapy was identified at or before the 6‑month time point after the end of treatment; 4 of the 7 cases were identified during scheduled follow-up. In 6 cases (7.5%), recurrent disease was found after the 6‑month time point. Recurrence was systemic in 5 cases and local/inguinal in 1 case. In 3 of the 6 cases (50%), recurrence was identified during scheduled follow-up. In one asymptomatic patient, a single liver metastasis was detected during scheduled follow-up and the patient remains free of disease 19 months after surgery. Surveillance resulted in a high rate of false-positive findings (70 findings in 604 investigations), of which only 14 could be confirmed. CONCLUSION: Scheduled follow-up after treatment of ACa detected recurrent disease at systemic sites, enabling potentially curative treatment in a single case. Effectiveness of abdominal imaging during follow-up after ACa treatment should be tested in a prospective trial.
Authors: Chaosu Hu; Eric L Chang; Samuel J Hassenbusch; Pamela K Allen; Shiao Y Woo; Anita Mahajan; Ritsuko Komaki; Zhongxing Liao Journal: Cancer Date: 2006-05-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Claudia Allemani; Hannah K Weir; Helena Carreira; Rhea Harewood; Devon Spika; Xiao-Si Wang; Finian Bannon; Jane V Ahn; Christopher J Johnson; Audrey Bonaventure; Rafael Marcos-Gragera; Charles Stiller; Gulnar Azevedo e Silva; Wan-Qing Chen; Olufemi J Ogunbiyi; Bernard Rachet; Matthew J Soeberg; Hui You; Tomohiro Matsuda; Magdalena Bielska-Lasota; Hans Storm; Thomas C Tucker; Michel P Coleman Journal: Lancet Date: 2014-11-26 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Timothy M Pawlik; Ana Luiza Gleisner; Todd W Bauer; Reid B Adams; Srinevas K Reddy; Bryan M Clary; Robert C Martin; Charles R Scoggins; Kenneth K Tanabe; James S Michaelson; David A Kooby; Charles A Staley; Richard D Schulick; Jean-Nicolas Vauthey; Eddie K Abdalla; Steven A Curley; Michael A Choti; Dominque Elias Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2007-06-06 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Matthias Sauter; Georg Keilholz; Helmut Kranzbühler; Norbert Lombriser; Meher Prakash; Stephan R Vavricka; Benjamin Misselwitz Journal: BMC Gastroenterol Date: 2016-04-06 Impact factor: 3.067