Rebecca A Snyder1,2, Chung-Yuan Hu1, Amanda Cuddy1, Amanda B Francescatti3, Jessica R Schumacher4, Katherine Van Loon5, Y Nancy You1, Benjamin D Kozower6, Caprice C Greenberg4, Deborah Schrag7, Alan Venook8, Daniel McKellar4,9, David P Winchester4, George J Chang1,10. 1. Department of Surgical Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. 2. Department of Surgery, University of South Carolina School of Medicine, Greenville. 3. American College of Surgeons (ACS) Cancer Programs, Chicago, Illinois. 4. Wisconsin Surgical Outcomes Research Program, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison. 5. Division of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco. 6. Department of Surgery, Washington University, St Louis, Missouri. 7. Division of Population Sciences, Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts. 8. Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California, San Francisco. 9. Department of Surgery, Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio. 10. Department of Health Services Research, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.
Abstract
Importance: Surveillance testing is performed after primary treatment for colorectal cancer (CRC), but it is unclear if the intensity of testing decreases time to detection of recurrence or affects patient survival. Objective: To determine if intensity of posttreatment surveillance is associated with time to detection of CRC recurrence, rate of recurrence, resection for recurrence, or overall survival. Design, Setting, and Participants: A retrospective cohort study of patient data abstracted from the medical record as part of a Commission on Cancer Special Study merged with records from the National Cancer Database. A random sample of patients (n=8529) diagnosed with stage I, II, or III CRC treated at a Commission on Cancer-accredited facilities (2006-2007) with follow-up through December 31, 2014. Exposures: Intensity of imaging and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) surveillance testing derived empirically at the facility level using the observed to expected ratio for surveillance testing during a 3-year observation period. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was time to detection of CRC recurrence; secondary outcomes included rates of resection for recurrent disease and overall survival. Results: A total of 8529 patients (49% men; median age, 67 years) at 1175 facilities underwent surveillance imaging and CEA testing within 3 years after their initial CRC treatment. The cohort was distributed by stage as follows: stage I, 25.0%; stage II, 35.2%; and stage III, 39.8%. Patients treated at high-intensity facilities-4188 patients (49.1%) for imaging and 4136 (48.5%) for CEA testing-underwent a mean of 2.9 (95% CI, 2.8-2.9) imaging scans and a mean of 4.3 (95% CI, 4.2-4.4) CEA tests. Patients treated at low-intensity facilities-4341 patients (50.8%) for imaging and 4393 (51.5%) for CEA testing-underwent a mean of 1.6 (95% CI, 1.6-1.7) imaging scans and a mean of 1.6 (95% CI, 1.6-1.7) CEA tests. Imaging and CEA surveillance intensity were not associated with a significant difference in time to detection of cancer recurrence. The median time to detection of recurrence was 15.1 months (IQR, 8.2-26.3) for patients treated at facilities with high-intensity imaging surveillance and 16.0 months (IQR, 7.9-27.2) with low-intensity imaging surveillance (difference, -0.95 months; 95% CI, -2.59 to 0.68; HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.90-1.09) and was 15.9 months (IQR, 8.5-27.5) for patients treated at facilities with high-intensity CEA testing and 15.3 months (IQR, 7.9-25.7) with low-intensity CEA testing (difference, 0.59 months; 95% CI, -1.33 to 2.51; HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.90-1.11). No significant difference existed in rates of resection for cancer recurrence (HR for imaging, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.99-1.51 and HR for CEA testing, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.91-1.39) or overall survival (HR for imaging, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.94-1.08 and HR for CEA testing, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.89-1.03) among patients treated at facilities with high- vs low-intensity imaging or CEA testing surveillance. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients treated for stage I, II, or III CRC, there was no significant association between surveillance intensity and detection of recurrence. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02217865.
Importance: Surveillance testing is performed after primary treatment for colorectal cancer (CRC), but it is unclear if the intensity of testing decreases time to detection of recurrence or affects patient survival. Objective: To determine if intensity of posttreatment surveillance is associated with time to detection of CRC recurrence, rate of recurrence, resection for recurrence, or overall survival. Design, Setting, and Participants: A retrospective cohort study of patient data abstracted from the medical record as part of a Commission on Cancer Special Study merged with records from the National Cancer Database. A random sample of patients (n=8529) diagnosed with stage I, II, or III CRC treated at a Commission on Cancer-accredited facilities (2006-2007) with follow-up through December 31, 2014. Exposures: Intensity of imaging and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) surveillance testing derived empirically at the facility level using the observed to expected ratio for surveillance testing during a 3-year observation period. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was time to detection of CRC recurrence; secondary outcomes included rates of resection for recurrent disease and overall survival. Results: A total of 8529 patients (49% men; median age, 67 years) at 1175 facilities underwent surveillance imaging and CEA testing within 3 years after their initial CRC treatment. The cohort was distributed by stage as follows: stage I, 25.0%; stage II, 35.2%; and stage III, 39.8%. Patients treated at high-intensity facilities-4188 patients (49.1%) for imaging and 4136 (48.5%) for CEA testing-underwent a mean of 2.9 (95% CI, 2.8-2.9) imaging scans and a mean of 4.3 (95% CI, 4.2-4.4) CEA tests. Patients treated at low-intensity facilities-4341 patients (50.8%) for imaging and 4393 (51.5%) for CEA testing-underwent a mean of 1.6 (95% CI, 1.6-1.7) imaging scans and a mean of 1.6 (95% CI, 1.6-1.7) CEA tests. Imaging and CEA surveillance intensity were not associated with a significant difference in time to detection of cancer recurrence. The median time to detection of recurrence was 15.1 months (IQR, 8.2-26.3) for patients treated at facilities with high-intensity imaging surveillance and 16.0 months (IQR, 7.9-27.2) with low-intensity imaging surveillance (difference, -0.95 months; 95% CI, -2.59 to 0.68; HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.90-1.09) and was 15.9 months (IQR, 8.5-27.5) for patients treated at facilities with high-intensity CEA testing and 15.3 months (IQR, 7.9-25.7) with low-intensity CEA testing (difference, 0.59 months; 95% CI, -1.33 to 2.51; HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.90-1.11). No significant difference existed in rates of resection for cancer recurrence (HR for imaging, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.99-1.51 and HR for CEA testing, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.91-1.39) or overall survival (HR for imaging, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.94-1.08 and HR for CEA testing, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.89-1.03) among patients treated at facilities with high- vs low-intensity imaging or CEA testing surveillance. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients treated for stage I, II, or III CRC, there was no significant association between surveillance intensity and detection of recurrence. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02217865.
Authors: P Wille-Jørgensen; S Laurberg; L Påhlman; L Carriquiry; N Lundqvist; K Smedh; M Svanfeldt; J Bengtson Journal: Colorectal Dis Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 3.788
Authors: Al B Benson; Alan P Venook; Lynette Cederquist; Emily Chan; Yi-Jen Chen; Harry S Cooper; Dustin Deming; Paul F Engstrom; Peter C Enzinger; Alessandro Fichera; Jean L Grem; Axel Grothey; Howard S Hochster; Sarah Hoffe; Steven Hunt; Ahmed Kamel; Natalie Kirilcuk; Smitha Krishnamurthi; Wells A Messersmith; Mary F Mulcahy; James D Murphy; Steven Nurkin; Leonard Saltz; Sunil Sharma; David Shibata; John M Skibber; Constantinos T Sofocleous; Elena M Stoffel; Eden Stotsky-Himelfarb; Christopher G Willett; Christina S Wu; Kristina M Gregory; Deborah Freedman-Cass Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2017-03 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Daniel J Boffa; Joshua E Rosen; Katherine Mallin; Ashley Loomis; Greer Gay; Bryan Palis; Kathleen Thoburn; Donna Gress; Daniel P McKellar; Lawrence N Shulman; Matthew A Facktor; David P Winchester Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2017-12-01 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Scott R Steele; George J Chang; Samantha Hendren; Marty Weiser; Jennifer Irani; W Donald Buie; Janice F Rafferty Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 4.585
Authors: S Pita-Fernández; M Alhayek-Aí; C González-Martín; B López-Calviño; T Seoane-Pillado; S Pértega-Díaz Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2014-11-19 Impact factor: 32.976
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: G Rosati; G Ambrosini; S Barni; B Andreoni; G Corradini; G Luchena; B Daniele; F Gaion; G Oliverio; M Duro; G Martignoni; N Pinna; P Sozzi; G Pancera; G Solina; G Pavia; S Pignata; F Johnson; R Labianca; G Apolone; A Zaniboni; M Monteforte; E Negri; V Torri; P Mosconi; R Fossati Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2015-11-16 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: John N Primrose; Rafael Perera; Alastair Gray; Peter Rose; Alice Fuller; Andrea Corkhill; Steve George; David Mant Journal: JAMA Date: 2014-01-15 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Elizabeth Palmer Kelly; J Madison Hyer; Amblessed E Onuma; Anghela Z Paredes; Diamantis I Tsilimigras; Timothy M Pawlik Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2019-05-20 Impact factor: 3.454
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: Tamar B Nobel; Jennifer Livschitz; Xin Xin Xing; Arianna Barbetta; Meier Hsu; Kay See Tan; Smita Sihag; David R Jones; Daniela Molena Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2019-07-16 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: C Tyler Ellis; Ashley L Cole; Hanna K Sanoff; Sharon Hinton; Stacie B Dusetzina; Karyn B Stitzenberg Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2019-01-25 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: D M Le; S Ahmed; S Ahmed; B Brunet; J Davies; C Doll; M Ferguson; N Ginther; V Gordon; T Hamilton; P Hebbard; R Helewa; C A Kim; R Lee-Ying; H Lim; J M Loree; J P McGhie; K Mulder; J Park; D Renouf; R P W Wong; A Zaidi; T Asif Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2019-12-01 Impact factor: 3.677