Evaluating Surveillance Patterns after Chemoradiation-Only Compared with Conventional Management for Older Patients with Rectal Cancer.
Journal
Journal of the American College of Surgeons
ISSN: 1879-1190
Titre abrégé: J Am Coll Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9431305
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 2019
05 2019
Historique:
received:
27
10
2018
revised:
07
01
2019
accepted:
09
01
2019
pubmed:
28
1
2019
medline:
24
4
2020
entrez:
28
1
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Upfront chemoradiation with omission of surgery (CR-only) is increasingly being used to treat rectal cancer. When CR-only is used with curative intent, intense surveillance is recommended. We hypothesized that in practice, few patients treated with CR-only receive intensive post-treatment surveillance. Using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare, all nonmetastatic rectal cancer patients (≥66 years old) diagnosed from 2004 to 2012, who received upfront chemoradiation, were included. Patients who received CR-only were compared with patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy plus proctectomy. In the 24 months after treatment, markers of surveillance, including carcinoembryonic antigen testing (CEA), endoscopy, and imaging, were compared between groups. A total of 2,482 individuals met the inclusion criteria: 21% (n = 514) had CR-only and 79% had conventional treatment (ie chemoradiation plus proctectomy). Only 2.5% and 3.4% of those in the CR-only and conventional treatment groups, respectively, were in complete compliance with National Comprehensive Cancer Network surveillance guidelines during the first 2 years post-treatment (p < 0.01). The CR-only group was less likely than the conventional treatment group to receive: CEA (adjusted risk ratio [aRR] 0.57; 95% CI 0.50 to 0.65), endoscopy (aRR 0.76; 95% CI 0.66 to 0.87), and office visits (aRR 0.88; 95% CI 0.84 to 0.92), respectively. However, there were similar rates of cross-sectional imaging between groups (aRR 1.31; 95% CI 0.93 to 1.85). Adherence to guideline-recommended surveillance was poor for all Medicare patients with rectal cancer. Despite recommendations for closer follow-up, patients treated with CR-only were less likely to receive surveillance than those treated with conventional treatment. Efforts should be made to increase adherence to surveillance guidelines for all rectal cancer patients treated with curative intent, but particularly for those with higher risk of recurrence, such as those treated with CR-only.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Upfront chemoradiation with omission of surgery (CR-only) is increasingly being used to treat rectal cancer. When CR-only is used with curative intent, intense surveillance is recommended. We hypothesized that in practice, few patients treated with CR-only receive intensive post-treatment surveillance.
STUDY DESIGN
Using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare, all nonmetastatic rectal cancer patients (≥66 years old) diagnosed from 2004 to 2012, who received upfront chemoradiation, were included. Patients who received CR-only were compared with patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy plus proctectomy. In the 24 months after treatment, markers of surveillance, including carcinoembryonic antigen testing (CEA), endoscopy, and imaging, were compared between groups.
RESULTS
A total of 2,482 individuals met the inclusion criteria: 21% (n = 514) had CR-only and 79% had conventional treatment (ie chemoradiation plus proctectomy). Only 2.5% and 3.4% of those in the CR-only and conventional treatment groups, respectively, were in complete compliance with National Comprehensive Cancer Network surveillance guidelines during the first 2 years post-treatment (p < 0.01). The CR-only group was less likely than the conventional treatment group to receive: CEA (adjusted risk ratio [aRR] 0.57; 95% CI 0.50 to 0.65), endoscopy (aRR 0.76; 95% CI 0.66 to 0.87), and office visits (aRR 0.88; 95% CI 0.84 to 0.92), respectively. However, there were similar rates of cross-sectional imaging between groups (aRR 1.31; 95% CI 0.93 to 1.85).
CONCLUSIONS
Adherence to guideline-recommended surveillance was poor for all Medicare patients with rectal cancer. Despite recommendations for closer follow-up, patients treated with CR-only were less likely to receive surveillance than those treated with conventional treatment. Efforts should be made to increase adherence to surveillance guidelines for all rectal cancer patients treated with curative intent, but particularly for those with higher risk of recurrence, such as those treated with CR-only.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30685478
pii: S1072-7515(19)30076-6
doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2019.01.010
pmc: PMC6487226
mid: NIHMS1519560
pii:
doi:
Substances chimiques
Biomarkers, Tumor
0
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
782-791.e2Subventions
Organisme : AHRQ HHS
ID : T32 HS000032
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCATS NIH HHS
ID : UL1 TR001111
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCATS NIH HHS
ID : UL1 TR002489
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2019 American College of Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Références
Am J Epidemiol. 2004 Apr 1;159(7):702-6
pubmed: 15033648
Ann Surg. 2004 Oct;240(4):711-7; discussion 717-8
pubmed: 15383798
Am J Epidemiol. 2005 Aug 1;162(3):199-200
pubmed: 15987728
Ann Epidemiol. 2007 Aug;17(8):584-90
pubmed: 17531502
Cancer. 2008 Oct 15;113(8):2029-37
pubmed: 18780338
Lancet Oncol. 2010 Sep;11(9):835-44
pubmed: 20692872
J Clin Oncol. 2011 Dec 10;29(35):4633-40
pubmed: 22067400
Med Care. 2013 May;51(5):e27-34
pubmed: 22080337
Cancer. 2013 Mar 15;119(6):1235-42
pubmed: 23184361
J Cancer Surviv. 2013 Sep;7(3):464-83
pubmed: 23677524
Surgery. 2013 Aug;154(2):244-55
pubmed: 23889952
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2014 Mar 15;88(4):822-8
pubmed: 24495589
Med Care. 2014 Jun;52(6):500-10
pubmed: 24638118
Lancet Oncol. 2015 Aug;16(8):919-27
pubmed: 26156652
Dis Colon Rectum. 2015 Aug;58(8):713-25
pubmed: 26163950
Cancer. 2016 Jan 1;122(1):34-41
pubmed: 26599064
Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2016 Feb;28(2):152-160
pubmed: 26625960
J Gastrointest Surg. 2016 May;20(5):1002-11
pubmed: 26658793
J Clin Oncol. 2016 May 10;34(14):1644-51
pubmed: 27022115
Med Care. 2016 Aug;54(8):780-8
pubmed: 27326547
Ann Surg Oncol. 2017 Jul;24(7):1904-1915
pubmed: 28324284
JAMA Oncol. 2017 Jun 1;3(6):859-860
pubmed: 28448650
Ann Oncol. 2018 Apr 1;29(4):931-937
pubmed: 29365058
JAMA. 2018 May 22;319(20):2104-2115
pubmed: 29800181
Lancet. 2018 Jun 23;391(10139):2537-2545
pubmed: 29976470