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
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2018 Apr 1;29(4):931-937.
doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdy031.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) monitoring by 6-monthly 18FDG-PET/CT: an open-label multicentre randomised trial

Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Colorectal cancer (CRC) monitoring by 6-monthly 18FDG-PET/CT: an open-label multicentre randomised trial

I Sobhani et al. Ann Oncol. .

Abstract

Background: [18F]2-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (18FDG-PET/CT) has high sensitivity for detecting recurrences of colorectal cancer (CRC). Our objective was to determine whether adding routine 6-monthly 18FDG-PET/CT to our usual monitoring strategy improved patient outcomes and to assess the effect on costs.

Patients and methods: In this open-label multicentre trial, patients in remission of CRC (stage II perforated, stage III, or stage IV) after curative surgery were randomly assigned (1 : 1) to usual monitoring alone (3-monthly physical and tumour marker assays, 6-monthly liver ultrasound and chest radiograph, and 6-monthly whole-body computed tomography) or with 6-monthly 18FDG-PET/CT, for 3 years. A multidisciplinary committee reviewed each patient's data every 3 months and classified the recurrence status as yes/no/doubtful. Recurrences were treated with curative surgery alone if feasible and with chemotherapy otherwise. The primary end point was treatment failure defined as unresectable recurrence or death. Relative risks were estimated, and survival was analysed using the Kaplan-Meier method, log-rank test, and Cox models. Direct costs were compared.

Results: Of the 239 enrolled patients, 120 were in the intervention arm and 119 in the control arm. The failure rate was 29.2% (31 unresectable recurrences and 4 deaths) in the intervention group and 23.7% (27 unresectable recurrences and 1 death) in the control group (relative risk = 1.23; 95% confidence interval, 0.80-1.88; P = 0.34). The multivariate analysis also showed no significant difference (hazards ratio, 1.33; 95% confidence interval, 0.8-2.19; P = 0.27). Median time to diagnosis of unresectable recurrence (months) was significantly shorter in the intervention group [7 (3-20) versus 14.3 (7.3-27), P = 0.016]. Mean cost/patient was higher in the intervention group (18 192 ± 27 679 € versus 11 131 ± 13 €, P < 0.033).

Conclusion: 18FDG-PET/CT, when added every 6 months, increased costs without decreasing treatment failure rates in patients in remission of CRC. The control group had very close follow-up, and any additional improvement (if present) would be small and hard to detect.

Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT00624260.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Patient flow diagram. LoFU, lost to follow-up.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Probability of survival. (A) Probability of overall survival. (B) Probability of unresectable recurrence-free survival. Included patients in remission over follow-up period as well as patients with resectable recurrences.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Cost effectiveness. Cost effectiveness of adding 18FDG-PET/CT to standard monitoring, assessed based on overall survival (A) and on death or unresectable metastasis (B). The scatterplots (from bootstrap replications of the initial sample) illustrate the uncertainty regarding costs and outcomes.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Mant D, Gray A, Pugh S. et al. 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. Health Technol Assess 2017; 21(32): 1–86. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Mokhles F, Macbeth V, Farewell F. et al. Meta-analysis of colorectal cancer followup after potentially curative resection. Br J Surg 2016; 103(10): 1259–1268. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Rodriguez-Moranta F, Salo J, Arcusa A. et al. Postoperative surveillance in patients with colorectal cancer who have undergone curative resection: a prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial. J Clin Oncol 2006; 24(3): 386–393. - PubMed
    1. Sobhani I, Tiret E, Lebtahi R. et al. Early detection of recurrence by 18FDG-PET in the follow-up of patients with colorectal cancer. Br J Cancer 2008; 98(5): 875–880. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Figueredo A, Rumble RB, Maroun J. et al. Follow-up of patients with curatively resected colorectal cancer: a practice guideline. BMC Cancer 2003; 3(1): 26. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

Substances

Associated data