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. Efficacy and cost of risk-adapted follow-up in patients after colorectal cancer surgery: a prospective, randomized and controlled trial. Postoperative surveillance in patients with colorectal cancer who have undergone curative resection: a prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial. General practice vs surgical-based follow-up for patients with colon cancer: randomised controlled trial. Yearly colonoscopy, liver CT, and chest radiography do not influence 5-year survival of colorectal cancer patients.
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. 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. 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. This trial examined the optimal setting for follow-up of patients after treatment for colon cancer by either general practitioners or surgeons. In all, 203 consenting patients who had undergone potentially curative treatment for colon cancer were randomised to follow-up by general practitioners or surgeons. Follow-up guidance recommended three monthly clinical review and annual faecal occult blood tests (FOBT) and were identical in both study arms. Primary outcome measures (measured at baseline, 12 and 24 months were (1) quality of life, SF-12; physical and mental component scores, (2) anxiety and depression: Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and (3) patient satisfaction: Patient Visit-Specific Questionnaire. Secondary outcomes (at 24 months) were: investigations, number and timing of recurrences and deaths. In all, 170 patients were available for follow-up at 12 months and 157 at 24 months. At 12 and 24 months there were no differences in scores for quality of life (physical component score, P=0.88 at 12 months; P=0.28 at 24 months: mental component score, P=0.51, P=0.47; adjusted), anxiety (P=0.72; P=0.11) depression (P=0.28; P=0.80) or patient satisfaction (P=0.06, 24 months). General practitioners ordered more FOBTs than surgeons (rate ratio 2.4, 95% CI 1.4-4.4), whereas more colonoscopies (rate ratio 0.7, 95% CI 0.5-1.0), and ultrasounds (rate ratio 0.5, 95% CI 0.3-1.0) were undertaken in the surgeon-led group. Results suggest similar recurrence, time to detection and death rates in each group. Colon cancer patients with follow-up led by surgeons or general practitioners experience similar outcomes, although patterns of investigation vary. Guidelines on the type and frequency of follow-up of patients after curative surgery for colorectal cancer are unclear. The aim of this study was to determine the survival benefit of a planned follow-up program.
                Three hundred twenty-five patients who underwent curative resection of colorectal cancer were prospectively randomized to either intensive or standard follow-up. After stratification according to Dukes' stage and site in the colon or rectum, patients were randomized to intensive follow-up of yearly colonoscopy, computerized tomography (CT) of the liver, and chest radiography and clinical review and simple screening vs. structured clinical review and simple screening tests only.
                On completion of 5-year follow-up, there was no significant difference in survival between the two groups. Yearly colonoscopy failed to detect any asymptomatic local recurrences. Only one asymptomatic curable metachronous colon tumor was detected. Liver CT resulted in earlier detection of hepatic metastases but did not increase the number of curative hepatectomies. Only 1 patient had an asymptomatic CT-detected liver metastasis, and another had an asymptomatic chest radiography-detected lung metastasis. Both had curative resections.
                Yearly colonoscopy, liver CT, and chest radiography will not improve survival from colorectal cancer when added to symptom and simple screening review.