A critical appraisal of the potential benefit of post-operative structured follow-up after resection for biliary tract cancer.


Journal

HPB : the official journal of the International Hepato Pancreato Biliary Association
ISSN: 1477-2574
Titre abrégé: HPB (Oxford)
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100900921

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
11 Oct 2023
Historique:
received: 12 06 2023
revised: 19 09 2023
accepted: 01 10 2023
medline: 28 10 2023
pubmed: 28 10 2023
entrez: 27 10 2023
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

There is currently no evidence to support structured use of imaging or biomarkers during follow-up of patients after curative resection of biliary tract cancer (BTC). Besides, the influence of early detection of recurrence and subsequent start of palliative chemotherapy on overall survival remains unknown. The aim of this study is to describe and compare the results of two follow-up strategies. This retrospective multicenter cohort study compared patients from the Amsterdam UMC undergoing pragmatic clinical follow-up, to patients from the observational cohort of the BILCAP study undergoing structured follow-up. Primary outcome was overall survival. A total of 315 patients were included n=91 pragmatic, n=224 structured follow-up). At median follow-up of 56.9 months, 189 (60%) patients were diagnosed with recurrence. After recurrence, more patients received palliative (chemo) therapy in the structured group (43% vs 75%, P<0.001). Median overall survival was lower in the pragmatic group (27.7 vs 39.1 months, P=0.003). Median overall survival of patients who actually received chemotherapy was comparable (27.2 vs 27.7 months, P=0.574). This study describes the results of two follow-up strategies. Although these groups are biased, it is noted that after pragmatic follow-up fewer patients received palliative chemotherapy but that those who actually received chemotherapy had similar overall survival compared to patients undergoing structured follow-up.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
There is currently no evidence to support structured use of imaging or biomarkers during follow-up of patients after curative resection of biliary tract cancer (BTC). Besides, the influence of early detection of recurrence and subsequent start of palliative chemotherapy on overall survival remains unknown. The aim of this study is to describe and compare the results of two follow-up strategies.
METHODS METHODS
This retrospective multicenter cohort study compared patients from the Amsterdam UMC undergoing pragmatic clinical follow-up, to patients from the observational cohort of the BILCAP study undergoing structured follow-up. Primary outcome was overall survival.
RESULTS RESULTS
A total of 315 patients were included n=91 pragmatic, n=224 structured follow-up). At median follow-up of 56.9 months, 189 (60%) patients were diagnosed with recurrence. After recurrence, more patients received palliative (chemo) therapy in the structured group (43% vs 75%, P<0.001). Median overall survival was lower in the pragmatic group (27.7 vs 39.1 months, P=0.003). Median overall survival of patients who actually received chemotherapy was comparable (27.2 vs 27.7 months, P=0.574).
CONCLUSION CONCLUSIONS
This study describes the results of two follow-up strategies. Although these groups are biased, it is noted that after pragmatic follow-up fewer patients received palliative chemotherapy but that those who actually received chemotherapy had similar overall survival compared to patients undergoing structured follow-up.

Identifiants

pubmed: 37891150
pii: S1365-182X(23)01944-5
doi: 10.1016/j.hpb.2023.10.004
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.

Auteurs

Lynn E Nooijen (LE)

Amsterdam UMC, Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Surgery, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Cancer Center Amsterdam, Cancer Treatment and Quality of Life, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Lizzel van der Snee (L)

Cancer Center Amsterdam, Cancer Treatment and Quality of Life, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Amsterdam UMC, Location University of Amsterdam, Department of Surgery, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Britte Ten Haaft (B)

Cancer Center Amsterdam, Cancer Treatment and Quality of Life, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Amsterdam UMC, Location University of Amsterdam, Department of Surgery, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Geert Kazemier (G)

Amsterdam UMC, Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Surgery, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Cancer Center Amsterdam, Cancer Treatment and Quality of Life, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Heinz-Josef Klümpen (HJ)

Cancer Center Amsterdam, Cancer Treatment and Quality of Life, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Amsterdam UMC, Location University of Amsterdam, Department of Medical Oncology, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

John Bridgewater (J)

UCL Cancer Institute, Department of Medical Oncology, London, United Kingdom.

John Primrose (J)

University of Southampton, Department of Surgery, Southampton, United Kingdom.

Joris Erdmann (J)

Amsterdam UMC, Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Surgery, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Cancer Center Amsterdam, Cancer Treatment and Quality of Life, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Electronic address: j.i.erdmann@amsterdamumc.nl.

Classifications MeSH