Determining Optimal Follow-up for Patients With Anal Cancer Following Chemoradiation.
Journal
American journal of clinical oncology
ISSN: 1537-453X
Titre abrégé: Am J Clin Oncol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8207754
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 2020
05 2020
Historique:
pubmed:
7
2
2020
medline:
31
7
2020
entrez:
7
2
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
US health care is increasingly defined by over expenditure and inefficiency. Optimizing patient follow-up is critical, especially in cancers treated with high control rates. To optimize patient care, this study assessed time to disease recurrence or toxicity in patients with anal carcinoma. In total, 140 patients with biopsy-proven, nonmetastatic anal carcinoma, treated with chemoradiation utilizing intensity-modulated radiation therapy, were identified from our institutional database. This retrospective study evaluated local recurrence (LR), distant metastasis (DM), overall survival (OS), and late ≥grade 3 toxicity (LG3T). Patients were followed posttreatment every 3 months for 2 years, every 6 months in years 3 to 5, then yearly thereafter per NCCN recommendations. The median age and follow-up was 58 years and 27 months, respectively. Patients were categorized into high (n=61; 44%) and low (n=77; 55%) risk groups based on stage. The 2-year LC, DMFS, and OS were 93%, 94%, and 89% and 5-year LC, DMFS, OS were 92%, 87%, and 85%, respectively. Overall, there were 29 events (9 LR, 11 DM, and 9 LG3T), with 62% of events occurring within year 1 and 79% within 2 years. Stratified by event type, at 2 years 89% of LR, 64% of DM, and 89% LG3T were identified. At the remaining follow-up points, the event incidence rate was 1.3%. With the majority of recurrences/toxicities occurring within the first 2 years, a reduction in follow-up during years 3 to 5 may provide adequate surveillance. Revisions of the current recommendations could maximize resources while improving patient quality of life.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
US health care is increasingly defined by over expenditure and inefficiency. Optimizing patient follow-up is critical, especially in cancers treated with high control rates. To optimize patient care, this study assessed time to disease recurrence or toxicity in patients with anal carcinoma.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
In total, 140 patients with biopsy-proven, nonmetastatic anal carcinoma, treated with chemoradiation utilizing intensity-modulated radiation therapy, were identified from our institutional database. This retrospective study evaluated local recurrence (LR), distant metastasis (DM), overall survival (OS), and late ≥grade 3 toxicity (LG3T). Patients were followed posttreatment every 3 months for 2 years, every 6 months in years 3 to 5, then yearly thereafter per NCCN recommendations.
RESULTS
The median age and follow-up was 58 years and 27 months, respectively. Patients were categorized into high (n=61; 44%) and low (n=77; 55%) risk groups based on stage. The 2-year LC, DMFS, and OS were 93%, 94%, and 89% and 5-year LC, DMFS, OS were 92%, 87%, and 85%, respectively. Overall, there were 29 events (9 LR, 11 DM, and 9 LG3T), with 62% of events occurring within year 1 and 79% within 2 years. Stratified by event type, at 2 years 89% of LR, 64% of DM, and 89% LG3T were identified. At the remaining follow-up points, the event incidence rate was 1.3%.
CONCLUSION
With the majority of recurrences/toxicities occurring within the first 2 years, a reduction in follow-up during years 3 to 5 may provide adequate surveillance. Revisions of the current recommendations could maximize resources while improving patient quality of life.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32028341
doi: 10.1097/COC.0000000000000673
pii: 00000421-202005000-00003
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
319-324Références
Uronis HE, Bendell JC. Anal cancer: an overview. The Oncologist. 2007;12:524–534.
Ryan DP, Compton CC, Mayer RJ. Carcinoma of the anal canal. N Engl J Med. 2000;342:792–800.
Gunderson LL, Winter KA, Ajani JA, et al. Long-term update of US GI intergroup RTOG 98-11 phase III trial for anal carcinoma: survival, relapse, and colostomy failure with concurrent chemoradiation involving fluorouracil/mitomycin versus fluorouracil/cisplatin. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:4344–4351.
Symer MM, Yeo HL. Recent advances in the management of anal cancer. F1000Res. 2018;7:pii: F1000 Faculty Rev-1572.
Ajani JA, Winter KA, Gunderson LL, et al. Fluorouracil, mitomycin, and radiotherapy vs fluorouracil, cisplatin, and radiotherapy for carcinoma of the anal canal: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2008;299:1914–1921.
James RD, Glynne-Jones R, Meadows HM, et al. Mitomycin or cisplatin chemoradiation with or without maintenance chemotherapy for treatment of squamous-cell carcinoma of the anus (ACT II): a randomised, phase 3, open-label, 2× 2 factorial trial. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14:516–524.
Kachnic LA, Winter K, Myerson RJ, et al. RTOG 0529: a phase 2 evaluation of dose-painted intensity modulated radiation therapy in combination with 5-fluorouracil and mitomycin-C for the reduction of acute morbidity in carcinoma of the anal canal. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013;86:27–33.
Kachnic L, Winter K, Myerson R, et al. NRG oncology/RTOG 0529: long-term outcomes of dose-painted intensity modulated radiation therapy, 5-fluorouracil, and mitomycin-C in anal canal cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017;99:S64–S65.
Tangka FK, Trogdon JG, Richardson LC, et al. Cancer treatment cost in the United States: has the burden shifted over time? Cancer. 2010;116:3477–3484.
Ginsburg PB. High and Rising Health Care Costs: Demystifying US Health Care Spending. Princeton, NJ; 2008.
Gilbert SM, Miller DC, Hollenbeck BK, et al. Cancer survivorship: challenges and changing paradigms. J Urol. 2008;179:431–438.
Gunderson LL, Moughan J, Ajani JA, et al. Anal carcinoma: impact of TN category of disease on survival, disease relapse, and colostomy failure in US Gastrointestinal Intergroup RTOG 98-11 phase 3 trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013;87:638–645.
Benson AB, Venook AP, Al-Hawary MM, et al. Anal carcinoma, version 2.2018, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2018;16:852–871.
(CDC) CfDCaP. Human papillomavirus-associated cancers - United States, 2004-2008. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2012;61:258–261.
Frakes JM, Naghavi AO, Demetriou SK, et al. Determining optimal follow-up in the management of human papillomavirus-positive oropharyngeal cancer. Cancer. 2016;122:634–641.
Liu C, Mann D, Sinha UK, et al. The molecular mechanisms of increased radiosensitivity of HPV-positive oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC): an extensive review. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2018;47:59.
Mai S, Welzel G, Ottstadt M, et al. Prognostic relevance of HPV infection and p16 overexpression in squamous cell anal cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2015;93:819–827.
Ellemann AC, Serup-Hansen E. [Work-up and treatment of anal cancer]. Ugeskr Laeger. 2018;180:12.
Johnson N, Pellino G, Simillis C, et al. Discrepancies between NCCN and ESMO guidelines in the management of anal cancer: a qualitative review. Updates Surg. 2017;69:345–349.
Mitra D, Hong TS, Horick N, et al. Long-term outcomes and toxicities of a large cohort of anal cancer patients treated with dose-painted IMRT per RTOG 0529. Adv Radiat Oncol. 2017;2:110–117.
Schiller DE, Cummings BJ, Rai S, et al. Outcomes of salvage surgery for squamous cell carcinoma of the anal canal. Ann Surg Oncol. 2007;14:2780–2789.
Harris DA, Williamson J, Davies M, et al. Outcome of salvage surgery for anal squamous cell carcinoma. Colorectal Dis. 2013;15:968–973.
Delhorme JB, Severac F, Waissi W, et al. Surgery is an effective option after failure of chemoradiation in cancers of the anal canal and anal margin. Oncology. 2017;93:183–190.
Glynne-Jones R, Nilsson PJ, Aschele C, et al. Anal cancer: ESMO-ESSO-ESTRO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2014;25(suppl 3):iii10–iii20.
Cardenas ML, Spencer CR, Markovina S, et al. Quantitative FDG-PET/CT predicts local recurrence and survival for squamous cell carcinoma of the anus. Adv Radiat Oncol. 2017;2:281–287.
Duimering A, Riauka T, Nijjar Y, et al. Prognostic utility of pre- and post-treatment FDG-PET parameters in anal squamous cell carcinoma. Radiother Oncol. 2019;136:21–28.
Day FL, Link E, Ngan S, et al. FDG-PET metabolic response predicts outcomes in anal cancer managed with chemoradiotherapy. Br J Cancer. 2011;105:498–504.
Goldman KE, White EC, Rao AR, et al. Posttreatment FDG-PET-CT response is predictive of tumor progression and survival in anal carcinoma. Pract Radiat Oncol. 2016;6:e149–e154.
Houard C, Pinaquy JB, Mesguich C, et al. Role of 18F-FDG PET/CT in posttreatment evaluation of anal carcinoma. J Nucl Med. 2017;58:1414–1420.
Teagle AR, Gilbert DC, Jones JR, et al. Negative 18F-FDG-PET-CT may exclude residual or recurrent disease in anal cancer. Nucl Med Commun. 2016;37:1038–1045.
Glynne-Jones R, Sebag-Montefiore D, Meadows HM, et al. Best time to assess complete clinical response after chemoradiotherapy in squamous cell carcinoma of the anus (ACT II): a post-hoc analysis of randomised controlled phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2017;18:347–356.
Zhou M, Holden L, Bedard G, et al. The utilization of telephone follow-up in the advanced cancer population: a review of the literature. J Comp Eff Res. 2012;1:509–517.
Liptrott S, Bee P, Lovell K. Acceptability of telephone support as perceived by patients with cancer: a systematic review. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2018:27.