Amanda B. Francescatti

A systematic review of patient perspectives on surveillance after colorectal cancer treatment

PurposeSurveillance after colorectal cancer (CRC) treatment is routine, but intensive follow-up may offer little-to-no overall survival benefit. Given the growing population of CRC survivors, we aimed to systematically evaluate the literature for the patient perspective on two questions: (1) How do CRC patients perceive routine surveillance following curative treatment and what do they expect to gain from their surveillance testing or visits? (2) Which providers (specialists, nursing, primary care) are preferred by CRC survivors to guide post-treatment surveillance?MethodsSystematic searches of PubMed MEDLINE, Embase, the CENTRAL Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, and PsycINFO were conducted. Studies were screened for inclusion by two reviewers, with discrepancies adjudicated by a third reviewer. Data were abstracted and evaluated utilizing validated reporting tools (CONSORT, STROBE, CASP) appropriate to study design.ResultsCitations (3691) were screened, 91 full-text articles reviewed, and 23 studies included in the final review: 15 quantitative and 8 qualitative. Overall, 12 studies indicated CRC patients perceive routine surveillance positively, expecting to gain reassurance of continued disease suppression. Negative perceptions described in six studies included anxiety and dissatisfaction related to quality of life or psychosocial issues during follow-up. Although 5 studies supported specialist-led care, 9 studies indicated patient willingness to have follow-up with non-specialist providers (primary care or nursing).ConclusionsPatients’ perceptions of follow-up after CRC are predominantly positive, although unmet needs included psychosocial support and quality of life.Implications for Cancer Survivors:Survivors perceived follow-up as reassuring, however, surveillance care should be more informative and focused on survivor-specific needs.

Association Between Intensity of Posttreatment Surveillance Testing and Detection of Recurrence in Patients With Colorectal Cancer

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

Impact of age and comorbidity on treatment of non-small cell lung cancer recurrence following complete resection: A nationally representative cohort study

OBJECTIVE Older patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are less likely to receive guideline-recommended treatment at diagnosis, independent of comorbidity. However, national data on treatment of postoperative recurrence are limited. We evaluated the associations between age, comorbidity, and other patient factors and treatment of postoperative NSCLC recurrence in a national cohort. MATERIALS AND METHODS We randomly selected 9001 patients with surgically resected stage I-III NSCLC in 2006-2007 from the National Cancer Data Base. Patients were followed for 5 years or until first NSCLC recurrence, new primary cancer, or death, whichever came first. Perioperative comorbidities, first recurrence, treatment of recurrence, and survival were abstracted from medical records and merged with existing registry data. Factors associated with active treatment (chemotherapy, radiation, and/or surgery) versus supportive care only were analyzed using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS Median age at initial diagnosis was 67; 69.7% had >1 comorbidity. At 5-year follow-up, 12.3% developed locoregional and 21.5% developed distant recurrence. Among patients with locoregional recurrence, 79.5% received active treatment. Older patients (OR 0.49 for age >75 compared with <55; 95% CI 0.27-0.88) and those with substance abuse (OR 0.43; 95% CI 0.23-0.81) were less likely to receive active treatment. Women (OR 0.62; 95% CI 0.43-0.89) and patients with symptomatic recurrence (OR 0.69; 95% CI 0.47-0.99) were also less likely to receive active treatment. Among those with distant recurrence, 77.3% received active treatment. Older patients (OR 0.42 for age >75 compared with <55; 95% CI 0.26-0.68) and those with any documented comorbidities (OR 0.59; 95% CI 0.38-0.89) were less likely to receive active treatment. CONCLUSION Older patients independent of comorbidity, patients with substance abuse, and women were less likely to receive active treatment for postoperative NSCLC recurrence. Studies to further characterize these disparities in treatment of NSCLC recurrence are needed to identify barriers to treatment.

Imaging Surveillance for Surgically Resected Stage I Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Is More Always Better?

Objective: Routine surveillance imaging for patients with resected non–small cell lung cancer is standard for the detection of disease recurrence and new primary lung cancers. However, surveillance intensity varies widely in practice, and its influence on long‐term outcomes is poorly understood. We hypothesized that surveillance intensity was not associated with 5‐year overall survival in patients with resected stage I non–small cell lung cancer. Additionally, we examined patterns of recurrence and new primary lung cancer development. Methods: Cancer registrars at the Commission on Cancer accredited institutions re‐abstracted records to augment National Cancer Database patient data with information on comorbidities, imaging surveillance including intent and result of imaging, and recurrence (2007‐2012). Pathologic stage I non–small cell lung cancer patients undergoing computed tomography surveillance were placed into 3 imaging surveillance groups based on clinical practice guidelines: high intensity (3 month), moderate intensity (6 month), and low intensity (annual). Kaplan‐Meier analysis and Cox regression were used to compare overall survival among the 3 surveillance groups. Results: Two thousand four hundred forty‐two patients were identified, with 805 (33%), 1216 (50%), and 421 (17%) patients in the high, moderate, and low surveillance intensity groups, respectively. Five‐year overall survival was similar between intensity groups (P = .547). Surveillance on asymptomatic patients detected 210 (63%) cases of locoregional recurrences and 128 (72%) cases of new primary lung cancer. Conclusions: In a unique national dataset of long‐term outcomes for stage I non–small cell lung cancer, surveillance intensity was not associated with 5‐year overall survival.

Comorbidity Assessment in the National Cancer Database for Patients With Surgically Resected Breast, Colorectal, or Lung Cancer (AFT-01, -02, -03)

PURPOSE Accurate comorbidity measurement is critical for cancer research. We evaluated comorbidity assessment in the National Cancer Database (NCDB), which uses a code-based Charlson-Deyo Comorbidity Index (CCI), and compared its prognostic performance with a chart-based CCI and individual comorbidities in a national sample of patients with breast, colorectal, or lung cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS Through an NCDB Special Study, cancer registrars re-abstracted perioperative comorbidities for 11,243 patients with stage II to III breast cancer, 10,880 with stage I to III colorectal cancer, and 9,640 with stage I to III lung cancer treated with definitive surgical resection in 2006-2007. For each cancer type, we compared the prognostic performance of the NCDB code-based CCI (categorical: 0 or missing data, 1, 2+), Special Study chart-based CCI (continuous), and 18 individual comorbidities in three separate Cox proportional hazards models for postoperative 5-year overall survival. RESULTS Comorbidity was highest among patients with lung cancer (13.2% NCDB CCI 2+) and lowest among patients with breast cancer (2.8% NCDB CCI 2+). Agreement between the NCDB and Special Study CCI was highest for breast cancer (rank correlation, 0.50) and lowest for lung cancer (rank correlation, 0.40). The NCDB CCI underestimated comorbidity for 19.1%, 29.3%, and 36.2% of patients with breast, colorectal, and lung cancer, respectively. Within each cancer type, the prognostic performance of the NCDB CCI, Special Study CCI, and individual comorbidities to predict postoperative 5-year overall survival was similar. CONCLUSION The NCDB underestimated comorbidity in patients with surgically resected breast, colorectal, or lung cancer, partly because the NCDB codes missing data as CCI 0. However, despite underestimation of comorbidity, the NCDB CCI was similar to the more complete measures of comorbidity in the Special Study in predicting overall survival.

Correction to: A systematic review of patient perspectives on surveillance after colorectal cancer treatment

The original version of this article unfortunately contained a mistake. The online supplementary files are missing. The complete version of online supplementary materials are published with this erratum.

How clinicians make decisions regarding surveillance and treatment of colorectal cancer (CRC) patients.

263 Background: The goal of post-treatment surveillance of CRC patients is to identify recurrences among patients eligible for salvage surgery or palliative chemotherapy. However, patient ineligibility for treatment of recurrence may contribute to variation in surveillance practices. The aim of this study was to evaluate patient factors that affect clinician decisions regarding surveillance and salvage treatment eligibility among CRC patients. METHODS A custom 41-item survey was developed, incorporating modified criteria for adult comorbidity evaluation. A convenience sample of physicians who treat CRC was recruited from the ALLIANCE GI Cancer Committee. All participants completed an anonymous written survey of objective and subjective information about salvage treatment eligibility and the impact on surveillance in these patients. RESULTS Respondents were medical oncologists (n = 16; n = 11 with > 10 yrs experience) and surgical oncologists (n = 4). Patients with average comorbidity were considered ineligible for curative salvage surgery at median age 85 yrs (IQR: 80, 90), life expectancy 3 yrs (IQR: 2, 4.8) or ECOG ≥ 2 (IQR: 2,3). Patients were considered ineligible for palliative chemotherapy at median age 90 (IQR: 80, 92.5), life expectancy ≤ 2 years (IQR: 1.5, 3) or ECOG status ≤ 3 (IQR: 3, 3). Patients with above average comorbidity were considered ineligible for salvage surgery at median age 80 yrs (IQR: 75, 80) and palliative chemotherapy at median age 80 yrs (IQR: 75, 85). 8 comorbidities were identified by > 75% of the respondents as determinants of treatment ineligibility. 12 respondents (60%) indicated follow-up of patients ineligible for treatment should be continued based on patient desire, ongoing management of late effects, and continuity of care. However, a majority (n = 15) responded that clinic visits only should be continued without further testing. CONCLUSIONS Considerable agreement was observed regarding patient characteristics that lead to ineligibility for treatment of recurrent disease. This information can aid shared clinical decision-making for post-treatment surveillance strategies and may potentially reduce variation in surveillance practice.