Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2016 Nov 24;11(11):CD002200.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002200.pub3.

Follow-up strategies for patients treated for non-metastatic colorectal cancer

Mark Jeffery  1 , Brigid E Hickey, Phil N Hider, Adrienne M See
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Follow-up strategies for patients treated for non-metastatic colorectal cancer

Mark Jeffery et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. .

Update in

Abstract

Background: It is common clinical practice to follow patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) for several years following their curative surgery or adjuvant therapy, or both. Despite this widespread practice, there is considerable controversy about how often patients should be seen, what tests should be performed, and whether these varying strategies have any significant impact on patient outcomes. This is the second update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2002 and first updated in 2007.

Objectives: To assess the effects of intensive follow-up for patients with non-metastatic colorectal cancer treated with curative intent.

Search methods: For this update, we searched CENTRAL (2016, Issue 3), MEDLINE (1950 to May 20th, 2016), Embase (1974 to May 20th, 2016), CINAHL (1981 to May 20th, 2016), and Science Citation Index (1900 to May 20th, 2016). We also searched reference lists of articles, and handsearched the Proceedings of the American Society for Radiation Oncology (2011 to 2014). In addition, we searched the following trials registries (May 20th, 2016): ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We further contacted study authors. No language or publication restrictions were applied to the search strategies.

Selection criteria: We included only randomised controlled trials comparing different follow-up strategies for participants with non-metastatic CRC treated with curative intent.

Data collection and analysis: Two authors independently determined trial eligibility, performed data extraction, and assessed methodological quality.

Main results: We studied 5403 participants enrolled in 15 studies. (We included two new studies in this second update.) Although the studies varied in setting (general practitioner (GP)-led, nurse-led, or surgeon-led) and "intensity" of follow-up, there was very little inconsistency in the results.Overall survival: we found no evidence of a statistical effect with intensive follow-up (hazard ratio (HR) 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 1.02; I² = 4%; P = 0.41; high-quality evidence). There were 1098 deaths among 4786 participants enrolled in 12 studies.Colorectal cancer-specific survival: this did not differ with intensive follow-up (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.12; I² = 0%; P = 0.45; moderate-quality evidence). There were 432 colorectal cancer deaths among 3769 participants enrolled in seven studies.Relapse-free survival: we found no statistical evidence of effect with intensive follow-up (HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.18; I² = 5%; P = 0.39; moderate-quality evidence). There were 1416 relapses among 5253 participants enrolled in 14 studies.Salvage surgery with curative intent: this was more frequent with intensive follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 1.98, 95% CI 1.53 to 2.56; I² = 31%; P = 0.14; high-quality evidence). There were 457 episodes of salvage surgery in 5157 participants enrolled in 13 studies.Interval (symptomatic) recurrences: these were less frequent with intensive follow-up (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.86; I² = 66%; P = 0.007; moderate-quality evidence). Three hundred and seventy-six interval recurrences were reported in 3933 participants enrolled in seven studies.Intensive follow-up did not appear to affect quality of life, anxiety, nor depression (reported in three studies).Harms from colonoscopies did not differ with intensive follow-up (RR 2.08, 95% CI 0.11 to 40.17; moderate-quality evidence). In two studies, there were seven colonoscopic complications in 2112 colonoscopies.

Authors' conclusions: The results of our review suggest that there is no overall survival benefit for intensifying the follow-up of patients after curative surgery for colorectal cancer. Although more participants were treated with salvage surgery with curative intent in the intensive follow-up group, this was not associated with improved survival. Harms related to intensive follow-up and salvage therapy were not well reported.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Mark Jeffery was an international member of the Follow‐up After Colorectal Surgery (FACS) trial management committee. For other authors in the byline (BEH, PNH, AMS), nothing to declare.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Study flow diagram
Figure 2
Figure 2
'Risk of bias' summary: review authors' judgements about each 'Risk of bias' item for each included study
Figure 3
Figure 3
Funnel plot of comparison: 1 Intensive follow‐up versus minimal follow‐up, outcome: 1.1 Overall survival
Figure 4
Figure 4
Funnel plot of comparison: 1 Intensive follow‐up versus minimal follow‐up, outcome: 1.3 Relapse‐free survival
Figure 5
Figure 5
Funnel plot of comparison: 1 Intensive follow‐up versus minimal follow‐up, outcome: 1.4 Salvage surgery
Analysis 1.1
Analysis 1.1
Comparison 1 Intensive follow‐up versus minimalist follow‐up, Outcome 1 Overall survival.
Analysis 1.2
Analysis 1.2
Comparison 1 Intensive follow‐up versus minimalist follow‐up, Outcome 2 Colorectal cancer‐specific survival.
Analysis 1.3
Analysis 1.3
Comparison 1 Intensive follow‐up versus minimalist follow‐up, Outcome 3 Relapse‐free survival.
Analysis 1.4
Analysis 1.4
Comparison 1 Intensive follow‐up versus minimalist follow‐up, Outcome 4 Salvage surgery.
Analysis 1.5
Analysis 1.5
Comparison 1 Intensive follow‐up versus minimalist follow‐up, Outcome 5 Interval recurrences.
Analysis 1.6
Analysis 1.6
Comparison 1 Intensive follow‐up versus minimalist follow‐up, Outcome 6 Colonoscopy complications.
Analysis 1.7
Analysis 1.7
Comparison 1 Intensive follow‐up versus minimalist follow‐up, Outcome 7 OS SGA CEA versus NO CEA.
Analysis 1.8
Analysis 1.8
Comparison 1 Intensive follow‐up versus minimalist follow‐up, Outcome 8 OS CT versus no CT.
Analysis 1.9
Analysis 1.9
Comparison 1 Intensive follow‐up versus minimalist follow‐up, Outcome 9 OS CT versus < 2 or no CT.
Analysis 1.10
Analysis 1.10
Comparison 1 Intensive follow‐up versus minimalist follow‐up, Outcome 10 Overall survival SGA.
Analysis 1.11
Analysis 1.11
Comparison 1 Intensive follow‐up versus minimalist follow‐up, Outcome 11 Overall survival SGA "dose" of follow‐up.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Update of

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

References to studies included in this review

    1. Augestad KM, Norum J, Dehof S, Aspevik R, Ringberg U, Nestvold T, et al. Cost‐effectiveness and quality of life in surgeon versus general practitioner‐organised colon cancer surveillance: a randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open 2013;3(4):e002391. [; NCT00572143] - PMC - PubMed
    2. Augestad KM, Vonen B, Aspevik R, Nestvold T, Ringberg U, Johnsen R, et al. Should the surgeon or the general practitioner (GP) follow up patients after surgery for colon cancer? A randomized controlled trial protocol focusing on quality of life, cost‐effectiveness and serious clinical events. BMC Health Services Research 2008;8:137. [] - PMC - PubMed

    3. 3026259

    1. Corkhill A, Primrose JN, Mant D, The FACS Study Group. Follow up after colorectal cancer (the FACS trial). British Journal of Cancer 2004;91(Suppl 1):S78. []
    2. Mant D, Perera R, Gray A, Rose P, Fuller A, Corkhill A, et al. Effect of 3‐5 years of scheduled CEA and CT follow‐up to detect recurrence of colorectal cancer: FACS randomized controlled trial. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2013;31:Suppl; abstr 3500. [] - PubMed
    3. NCT00560365. Follow‐up study of patients who have undergone surgery for stage I, stage II, or stage III colorectal cancer [A randomised controlled trial to assess the cost‐effectiveness of intensive versus no scheduled follow‐up in patients who have undergone resection for colorectal cancer with curative intent (FACS ‐ Follow‐up After Colorectal Surgery)]. clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00560365?term=NCT00560365&rank=1 (first received November 14th 2012). []
    4. Primrose JN, Fuller A, Rose P, Perera‐Salazar R, Mellor J, Corkhill A, et al. Follow‐up after colorectal cancer surgery: preliminary observational findings from the UK FACS trial. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2011 ASCO Annual Meeting Abstracts Part 1 2011;29, No 15(Suppl (May 20)):3521. []
    5. Primrose JN, Perera R, Gray A. Effect of 3 to 5 years of scheduled CEA and CT follow‐up to detect recurrence of colorectal cancer: the FACS randomized clinical trial. Diseases of the Colon and Rectum 2014;57:e421‐2. [] - PubMed
    6. Primrose JN, Perera R, Gray A, Rose P, Fuller A, Corkhill A, et al. Effect of 3 to 5 years of scheduled CEA and CT follow‐up to detect recurrence of colorectal cancer: the FACS randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2014;311(3):263‐70. [] - PubMed
    7. Primrose JN, Perera R, Gray A, et al. FACS Trial Investigators. Effect of 3 to 5 years of scheduled CEA and CT follow‐up to detect recurrence of colorectal cancer: the FACS randomized clinical trial. http://jama.jamanetwork.com/ (First received January 14th 2014). [; DOI: 10.1001/jama.2013.285718] - DOI - PubMed
    8. Reibetanz J, Germer CT. Influence of structured CEA determination and CT‐scan to detect recurrence of colorectal cancer: results of the randomized clinical FACS study. Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift für alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen 2014;85(7):642. [] - PubMed

    9. 3026262

    1. Fossati R, Andreoni A, Costanzo B, Fossati D, Johnson G, Liberati L, et al. Preliminary results of the Italian study "GILDA" [Preliminari dello studio I risultati preliminari dello studio italiano GILDA]. Bologna2005. []
    2. Grossmann EM, Johnson FE, Virgo KS, Longo WE, Fossati R. Follow‐up of colorectal cancer patients after resection with curative intent‐the GILDA trial. Surgical Oncology 2004;13(2‐3):119‐24. [] - PubMed
    3. Johnson FE, Virgo KS, Grossmann EM, Longo WE, Fossati R. Colorectal cancer patient follow‐up following surgery with curative intent: the GILDA trial. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2004 ASCO Annual Meeting Proceedings (Post‐meeting Edition) 2004;22:14S. []
    4. Rosati G, Ambrosini G, Barni S, Andreoni B, Corradini G, Luchena G, et al. A randomized trial of intensive versus minimal surveillance of patients with resected Dukes B2‐C colorectal carcinoma. Annals of Oncology 2016;27(2):274‐80. [; DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdv541] - DOI - PubMed

    5. 3026271

    1. Kjeldsen BJ, Kronborg O, Fenger C, Jørgensen OD. A prospective randomised study of follow‐up after radical surgery for colorectal cancer. British Journal of Surgery 1997;84(5):666‐9. [] - PubMed
    2. Kjeldsen BJ, Kronborg O, Fenger C, Jørgensen OD. The pattern of recurrent colorectal cancer in a prospective randomised study and the characteristics of diagnostic tests. International Journal of Colorectal Disease 1997;12(6):329‐34. [] - PubMed
    3. Kjeldsen BJ, Thorsen H, Whalley D, Kronborg O. Influence of follow‐up on health‐related quality of life after radical surgery for colorectal cancer. Scandinavian Journal of Colorectal Diseases 1999;34(5):509‐15. [] - PubMed

    4. 3026276

    1. Mäkelä J, Laitinen S, Kairaluoma MI. Early results of follow‐up after radical resection for colorectal cancer. Preliminary results of a prospective randomized trial. Surgical Oncology 1992;1(2):157‐61. [] - PubMed
    2. Mäkelä JT, Laitinen SO, Kairaluoma MI. Five‐year follow‐up after radical surgery for colorectal cancer. Results of a prospective randomized trial. Archives of Surgery 1995;130(10):1062‐7. [] - PubMed

    3. 3026280

References to studies excluded from this review

    1. Barillari P, Ramacciato G, Manetti G, Bovino A, Sammartino P, Stipa V. Surveillance of colorectal cancer: effectiveness of early detection of intraluminal recurrences on prognosis and survival of patients treated for cure. Diseases of the Colon and Rectum 1996;39(4):388‐93. [] - PubMed

    2. 3026308

    1. Kronborg O, Hage E, Deichgraeber E. A prospective, partly randomized study of the effectiveness of repeated examination of the colon after polypectomy and radical surgery for cancer. Scandinavian Journal of Gasteroenterology 1981;16(7):879‐84. [] - PubMed

    2. 3026310

    1. Sano Y, Fujii T, Oda Y, Matsuda T, Kozu T, Kudo S, et al. A multicenter randomized controlled trial designed to evaluate follow‐up surveillance strategies for colorectal cancer: The Japan Polyp Study. Digestive Endoscopy 2004;16(4):376‐8. []

    2. 3026312

References to studies awaiting assessment

    1. Butow PN, Sze M, Dugal‐Beri P, Mikhail M, Eisenbruch M, Jefford M, et al. From inside the bubble: migrants' perceptions of communication with the cancer team. Psychooncology 2010;19(Suppl 2):S193, P‐39. [] - PubMed
    2. Jefford M, Aranda S, Gough K, Lotfi‐Jam K, Butow P, Krishnasamy M, et al. Evaluating a nurse‐led survivorship care package (SurvivorCare) for bowel cancer survivors: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials 2013;14(1):260. [] - PMC - PubMed
    3. Jefford M, Gough K, Drosdowsky A, Russell L, Aranda S, Butow P, et al. A randomized controlled trial of a nurse‐led supportive care package (SurvivorCare) for survivors of colorectal cancer. The Oncologist 2016;21(8):1014‐23. [] - PMC - PubMed

    4. 3026328

    1. NCT00199654. Follow‐up care with or without CEA assessments in patients who have undergone surgery for stage II or stage III colorectal cancer [Follow‐up of fully resected stage II or III colorectal cancer. Phase III multicentric prospective randomised study]. clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00995202?term=NCT00995202&rank=1 (First received November 14th 2012). []

    2. 3026324

    1. Verberne C, Doornbos PM, Grossmann I, Bock GH, Wiggers T. Intensified follow‐up in colorectal cancer patients using frequent carcino‐embryonic antigen (CEA) measurements and CEA‐triggered imaging. European Journal of Cancer 2013;49 Suppl 2:1188‐96. [] - PubMed
    2. Verberne CJ, Zhan Z, Heuvel E, Grossmann I, Doornbos PM, Havenga K, et al. Intensified follow‐up in colorectal cancer patients using frequent Carcino‐Embryonic Antigen (CEA) measurements and CEA‐triggered imaging: Results of the randomized "CEAwatch" trial. European Journal of Surgical Oncology 2015;41(9):1188‐96. [] - PubMed
    3. Zhan Z, Heuvel ER, Doornbos PM, Burger H, Verberne CJ, Wiggers T, et al. Strengths and weaknesses of a stepped wedge cluster randomized design: its application in a colorectal cancer follow‐up study. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2014;67(4):454‐61. [] - PubMed

    4. 3026316

References to ongoing studies

    1. NCT00225641. Assessment of frequency of surveillance after curative resection in patients with stage II and III colorectal cancer [COLOFOL ‐ a pragmatic study to assess the frequency of surveillance tests after curative resection in patients with stage II and III colorectal cancer ‐ a randomised multicentre trial]. clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00225641?term=NCT00225641&rank=1 (First received November 14th 2012). []
    2. Wille‐Jørgensen P, Laurberg S, Påhlman L, Carriquiry L, Lundqvist N, Smedh K, et al. An interim analysis of recruitment to the COLOFOL trial. Colorectal Disease 2009;11(7):756‐8. [] - PubMed
    3. Wille‐Jørgensen P, Laurberg S, Sørensen HT, Påhlman L, on behalf of the COLOFOL study group. COLOFOL study protocol A pragmatic study to assess the frequency of surveillance tests after curative resection in patients with stage II and III colorectal cancer – a randomised multicentre trial. COLFOL protocol April 30th 2008, issue 7.5. []

    4. 3026320

    1. NCT00995202. Follow‐up care with or without CEA assessments in patients who have undergone surgery for stage II or stage III colorectal cancer [Follow‐up of fully resected stage II or III colorectal cancer. Phase III multicentric prospective randomised study]. clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00995202?term=NCT00995202&rank=1 (First received November 14th 2012). []

    2. 3026326

    1. NCT01628211. Second look laparoscopy in colorectal cancer (HIPEC) [Randomized phase 2 study comparing second look laparoscopy to standard follow up in patients with no radiologic evidence of disease at 6 months after complete resection of colorectal mucinous carcinoma]. clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01628211?term=NCT01628211&rank=1 (First received August 20th 2014). []

    2. 3026314

Additional references

    1. Alberts SR, Horvath WL, Sternfeld WC, Goldberg RM, Mahoney MR, Dakhil SR, et al. Oxaliplatin, fluorouracil, and leucovorin for patients with unresectable liver‐only metastases from colorectal cancer: a North Central Cancer Treatment Group phase II study. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2005;23(36):9243‐9. - PubMed
    1. Altman DG. Practical statistics for medical research. London: Chapman and Hall, 1992.
    1. Anderson RT, Aaronson NK, Bullinger M, McBee WL. A review of the progress towards developing health‐related quality of life instruments for international clinical studies and outcomes research. PharmacoEconomics 1996;10(4):336‐55. - PubMed
    1. Apolone G, Mosconi P. The Italian SF‐36 Health Survey: translation, validation and norming. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 1998;51(11):1025‐36. - PubMed
    1. Araghizadeh FY, Timmcke AE, Opelka FG, Hicks TC, Beck DE. Colonoscopic perforations. Diseases of the Colon and Rectum 2001;44(5):713‐6. - PubMed

References to other published versions of this review

    1. Jeffery M, Hickey BE, Hider PN. Follow‐up strategies for patients treated for non‐metastatic colorectal cancer . Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2007, Issue 1. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002200.pub2] - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources