Postoperative surveillance in patients with colorectal cancer who have undergone curative resection: a prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial. A prospective randomized study of follow-up after radical surgery for colorectal cancer. Role of follow-up in management of local recurrences of colorectal cancer: a prospective, randomized study. Effect of surgeon specialty interest on patient outcome after potentially curative colorectal cancer surgery. Evidence of the effect of 'specialization' on the management, surgical outcome and survival from colorectal cancer in Wessex. [Prospective controlled study on the usefulness of Carmofur as a postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy for colorectal cancer]. Efficacy and cost of risk-adapted follow-up in patients after colorectal cancer surgery: a prospective, randomized and controlled trial. Surgeon and hospital volume and the management of colorectal cancer patients in Australia. Final results of randomized trials by the National Surgical Adjuvant Study of Colorectal Cancer (NSAS-CC).
Although systematic postoperative surveillance of patients with colorectal cancer has been demonstrated to improve survival, it remains unknown whether a more intensive strategy provides any significant advantage. This prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial was aimed at comparing the efficacy of two different surveillance strategies in terms of both survival and recurrence resectability.
                Patients with stage II or III colorectal cancer were allocated randomly to either a simple surveillance strategy including clinical evaluation and serum carcinoembryonic antigen monitoring, or an intensive strategy in which abdominal computed tomography or ultrasonography, chest radiograph, and colonoscopy were added.
                A total of 259 patients were included: 132 were observed according to the simple strategy and 127 were observed according to the intensive strategy. Both groups were similar with respect to baseline characteristics and rate and type of tumor recurrence. After a median follow-up of 48 months, there was no difference in the probability of overall survival in the whole series (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.87; 95% CI, 0.49 to 1.54; P = .62). However, the intensive strategy was associated with higher overall survival in patients with stage II tumors (HR = 0.34; 95% CI, 0.12 to 0.98; P = .045) and in those with rectal lesions (HR = 0.09; 95% CI, 0.01 to 0.81; P = .03), mainly due to higher rate of resectability for recurrent tumors. Colonoscopy was responsible for the detection of the highest proportion (44%) of resectable tumor recurrence in the intensive arm.
                A more intensive surveillance strategy improves the prognosis of patients with stage II colorectal cancer or those with rectal tumors. Inclusion of regular performance of colonoscopy seems justified up to the fifth year of follow-up, at least. The possible benefit for patients from follow-up examinations after curative surgery for colorectal cancer is unproven. The purpose of this study was to determine whether survival is improved by frequent follow-up examinations.
                A total of 597 patients less than 76 years old treated with radical surgery for colorectal cancer were included in the study from 1983 to 1994. Patients were randomized to frequent follow-up (group 1) or virtually no follow-up (group 2) with examinations at 5 and 10 years.
                Group 1 comprised 290 patients, group 2 contained 307. Recurrence was equally frequent (26 per cent), but the time of diagnosis was 9 months earlier in group 1; also, more recurrences were asymptomatic in group 1 and more patients had new surgery with curative intent (P = 0.02). However, no improvement in overall survival or in cancer-related survival resulted.
                Patients subjected to intensive follow-up have recurrence diagnosed earlier, and have more operations for recurrence, but the survival results suggest that any major improvement by intensive follow-up is unlikely. This prospective, randomized, single-center study was designed to evaluate the influence of follow-up on detection and resectability of local recurrences and on survival after radical surgery for colorectal cancer.
                Between 1987 and 1990, 207 consecutive patients who underwent curative resections for primary untreated large-bowel carcinoma were randomly assigned to a conventional follow-up group (Group A; n = 103) and to an intense follow-up group (Group B; n = 104). All the patients were followed up prospectively, and the outcome was known for all of them at five years. Patients in Group A were seen at six-month intervals for one year, and once a year thereafter. Patients in Group B were checked every three months during the first two years, at six-month intervals for the next three years, and once a year thereafter.
                Of the 103 patients in Group A, local recurrence was detected in 20; 9 (13 percent) of these patients had colon cancer, and 11 (29 percent) had rectal cancer. Of the 104 patients in Group B, local recurrence was detected in 26; 12 (16 percent) of these patients had colon cancer, and 14 (45 percent) had rectal cancer. Twelve cases (60 percent) of local recurrence in Group A and 24 cases (92 percent) in Group B were detected at scheduled visits (P < 0.05). Local recurrences were detected earlier in patients of Group B (10.3 +/- 2.7 vs. 20.2 +/- 6.1 months; P < 0.0003). Curative re-resection was possible in 2 patients (10 percent) in Group A, 1 with colon cancer and 1 with rectal cancer, and in 17 patients (65 percent) in Group B, 6 with colon cancer and 11 with rectal cancer (P < 0.01). Of the Group B patients who had curative re-resections of local recurrence, 8 (47 percent) were disease-free and long-term survivors as of the last follow-up, and 2 (11.7 percent) were alive, but with a new recurrence. The 2 patients in Group A who had curative re-resections died as a result of cancer. The five-year survival rate in Group A was 58.3 percent and in Group B was 73.1 percent. The difference is statistically significant (P < 0.02).
                Our data support use of an intense follow-up plan after primary resection of large-bowel cancer, at least in patients with rectal cancer. There are significant differences in patient outcome after potentially curative surgery for colorectal cancer that relate to the surgeon performing the procedure. The reasons for these differences remain obscure. The aim of this study was to examine the effect of the surgeon's specialty on patient outcome after potentially curative colorectal cancer surgery and to identify factors that may help explain differences in outcome among specialty groups.
                Between 1990 and 1993, 378 patients underwent potentially curative surgery for colorectal cancer by surgeons with different specialty interests, vascular or transplant, general, and colorectal surgeons, in a large teaching hospital. Information on operative details, including the length of the resection specimen, resection margins, whether the tumor was removed with en bloc resection of adjacent clinically involved organs, number of lymph nodes removed, and stage was collected. Factors affecting both local and overall recurrence rates were analyzed using logistic regression analysis at both univariate and multivariate levels.
                At a median follow-up of 45 months the only factors associated with a significantly reduced local recurrence rate were the length of the resection specimen (odds ratio, 0.56; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.31-0.99) and colorectal specialty (P = 0.04). Patients operated on by a general surgeon were 3.42 times (95 percent confidence interval, 1.32-8.9) more likely to develop a local recurrence than those operated on by a colorectal surgeon. For overall recurrence, early stage disease (P < 0.0001), absence of vascular invasion (0.005), and colorectal specialty (0.025) were the only factors associated with significantly improved outcome at multivariate analysis.
                These data show that surgeons with an interest in colorectal cancer achieve lower local and overall recurrence rates compared with vascular or transplant or general surgeons. Differences in local recurrence rates seem to be predominantly related to the extent of resection performed and demonstrate the need to remove an adequate specimen when performing potentially curative colorectal cancer surgery. A prospective audit of the management of colorectal cancer was established to investigate factors associated with variation in survival observed within the former Wessex region (population three million).
                Some 5173 patients (4562 surgically treated) with colorectal cancer diagnosed between 1991 and 1994 were followed for 5 years. Details of referral, diagnosis, surgical treatment, postoperative complications and outcomes were collected. The association between surgical outcomes and survival and both case volume and specialization (defined to include membership of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland) was explored, accounting for variables with prognostic significance.
                There was a statistically significant association between high-volume operators (more than 50 operations per year) and specialization. The greatest benefit was observed with respect to specialists versus non-specialists, in terms of a lower postoperative mortality rate (odds ratio 0.67 (95 per cent confidence interval (c.i. 0.53 to 0.84)), lower anastomotic leak rates (odds ratio 0.46 (c.i. 0.31 to 0.66)), higher local recurrence-free survival (hazard ratio 0.56 (0.44 to 0.71)) and better long-term survival (hazard ratio 0.76 (c.i. 0.71 to 0.83)).
                There is a stronger association between surgical specialization in coloproctology and beneficial outcome than with high-volume caseloads. This is not entirely accounted for by case-mix or patient population, and is seen following colonic and rectal surgery and among patients with advanced disease.
                Copyright 2003 British Journal of Surgery Society Ltd. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. A prospective controlled study, the 7th cooperative study of the Japanese Foundation for Multidisciplinary Treatment, was conducted to evaluate the usefulness of concomitant therapy with MMC + HCFU as a postoperative adjuvant therapy in patients with colorectal cancer who had undergone curative resection for a period of 2 years and 11 months from February, 1986. The Dukes B and C patients with colorectal cancer classified by macroscopic examination who had an intravenous MMC 6 mg/m2 on the day of operation and followed by oral HCFU for 12 months from 2 weeks after operation (Group X) were compared with patients who had operation only (Group Y). Some 978 patients with colon cancer and 713 patients with rectal cancer were enrolled in the study, 85 (5.0%) of whom were not eligible. The 5-year survival rate of Group X in colon cancer was 79.3% and that of Group Y was 76.4%: thus the survival rate of Group X was slightly better than that of Group Y, but no significant difference was found between the two groups. Subset analysis revealed that the survival rate of Group X in advanced cancer of stage III b + IV, according to the General Rules for Clinical and Pathological Studies on Cancer of the Colon, Rectum and Anus in Japan, was 62.4% and that of Group Y was 46.2%. Thus, the survival rate of Group X was significantly better than that of Group Y (logrank test: p = 0.035, generalized Wilcoxon test: p = 0.025). The disease-free survival rate was not significantly different between the groups with colon cancer and rectal cancer. The above results suggest that HCFU is useful for patients with a high risk of recurrence who had advanced colon cancer (stage III b + IV). However, additional prospective studies are required to verify them. This paper aims to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy and costs of follow-up tailored according to risk of recurrence compared with minimal surveillance.
                A total of 358 patients treated by surgery alone for colorectal cancer were prospectively divided into two groups of 200 and 158 patients considered at high and low risk of recurrence respectively, according to prognostic factors. They were further randomized into two subgroups: group 1, 192 patients undergoing risk-adapted follow-up, intensive and low-intensity; group 2, 145 patients undergoing minimal surveillance. Twenty-one cases dropped out. Median follow-up was 61.5 months and 42 months for cases at high risk (intensive follow-up) and at low risk (low-intensity follow-up) respectively.
                At the end of the study, 52.6% of patients undergoing risk-adapted follow-up and 57.2% undergoing minimal follow-up had developed recurrence. In patients at high risk, a significant difference in the incidence of curative re-operations was observed between the subgroups undergoing risk-adapted follow-up and subgroups undergoing minimal surveillance (P<0.05). The actuarial 5 year survival of patients at high and at low risk of recurrence undergoing risk-adapted follow-up is significantly better than that of cases undergoing minimal follow-up. The economic costs for 34 patients in the intensive follow-up group and for the 57 patients in the low-intensity follow-up group who were free from disease after primary surgery was very similar.
                Risk-adapted follow-up has significantly improved the targeting of curative re-operations and overall survival of patients independently of risk of recurrence and has allowed a reduction in the costs of following up of disease-free patients. The evidence for a relationship between patient outcomes and clinician and hospital volume is increasing. The National Colorectal Cancer Care Survey was undertaken to determine the management patterns in Australia for individuals newly diagnosed with colorectal cancer in a 3 month period in the year 2000.
                All new cases of colorectal cancer registered at each Australian State Cancer Registry were entered into the survey. This generated a questionnaire that was sent to the treating surgeon. Chi-squared tests and logistic regression analyses were used to determine levels of statistical significance.
                Of 2,383 surgical questionnaires generated, 2,015 (85%) were completed. The majority (58%) of surgeons treated one or two patients with colorectal cancer over the 3 months of the survey. There was variation across surgeon cohorts for preoperative measures including the use of deep vein thrombosis prophylaxis. Patients seen by low volume surgeons were most likely to be given a permanent stoma (P < 0.0001). Patients with rectal cancer who were operated on by high volume surgeons were significantly more likely to receive a colonic pouch (P < 0.0001).
                This nationwide population-based survey of the treatment of colorectal cancer patients suggests that the delivery of care by surgeons (the majority) who treat patients with rectal cancer infrequently should be evaluated. In the latter 1990s, adjuvant chemotherapy for completely resected Stage III colorectal cancer remained controversial in Japan. We conducted two independent randomized controlled trials in patients with Stage III colon and rectal cancer.
                Patients were randomly assigned to receive surgery alone or surgery followed by treatment with UFT (400 mg/m²/day), given for five consecutive days per week for 1 year. The primary endpoint was relapse-free survival (RFS), and the secondary endpoint was overall survival (OS).
                A total of 334 patients with colon cancer and 276 with rectal cancer were enrolled. The patients' characteristics were similar between the UFT group and the Surgery-alone group. There was no significant difference in RFS or OS in colon cancer. In rectal cancer, however, RFS and OS were significantly better in the UFT group than in the Surgery-alone group. The only grade 4 toxicity in the UFT group was diarrhea, occurring in one patient with colon cancer and one patient with rectal cancer.
                Postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy with UFT is successfully tolerated and improves RFS and OS in patients with Stage III rectal cancer. In colon cancer, the expected benefits were not obtained (hazard ratio = 0.89).
This updated meta-analysis confirms the previous findings and supports the association of PBT on the recurrence of curable colorectal cancers. However, since heterogeneity was detected and the effect of surgical technique could not be assessed, a causal relationship cannot still be claimed. Carefully restricted indications for PBT seems necessary.