Administration of adjuvant chemotherapy in older patients with Stage III colon cancer: an observational study.

AIM: According to established guidelines, patients with Stage III colon cancer should receive adjuvant chemotherapy. However, a significant proportion do not. This study assessed factors associated with the administration of adjuvant chemotherapy and causes of death. METHODS: Patients with Stage III colon cancer who underwent surgery between 2000 and 2009 were selected from two hospitals in the Netherlands. Patient characteristics including comorbidities and treatment preferences, tumour characteristics and follow-up were extracted from the medical records. The patient and tumour characteristics of patients who did receive chemotherapy were compared with those who did not using chi-squared analysis. Differences between the groups in causes of death were recorded together with the duration of follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 348 patients were included. The median age was 73 years (range 33-93). Over half of the patients received adjuvant chemotherapy (50.6%). Patients who did not receive adjuvant chemotherapy were significantly older (P < 0.001), had more comorbidities (P < 0.001) and were more often living alone (P < 0.001). Patients who received no adjuvant chemotherapy had a reduced overall survival, and the cause of death was more often attributed to other causes (60%) than colon cancer (40%). For patients who received chemotherapy, the cause of death was usually attributed to colon cancer (71%). CONCLUSION: Patients who did not receive adjuvant chemotherapy had a worse overall survival and the majority died due to other causes than colon cancer. In our aging society it will become even more important to develop tools to estimate remaining life expectancy in order to improve the selection of older patients for adjuvant treatments.

Adherence to surveillance guidelines for colorectal adenomatous polyps in the elderly.

OBJECTIVE: Determining adherence to recommended surveillance intervals after polypectomy in elderly patients. DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study including 531 patients aged above 70 years undergoing polypectomy between 2009-2011 in a large Dutch teaching hospital, identified using the hospital's pathology registry. Outcomes of the index colonoscopy were reviewed. The interval until the next colonoscopy was assessed and compared both to the advised interval according to the Dutch guidelines and the gastroenterologist's recommendation. Reasons for deviating from the guideline were assessed. RESULTS: The initial recommendation of the gastroenterologist for the surveillance interval was in accordance to the guideline in 59.1% of the patients. In 21.8% the gastroenterologist's advice was not documented. In 15.8% of the patients the gastroenterologist recommended to perform surveillance endoscopy earlier than the guideline, mainly based on polyp characteristics. The gastroenterologist advised endoscopy when the guideline advised no surveillance at all in 1.0%, later than the guideline recommendation in 1.2%, or did not recommend surveillance when the guideline advised to continue in 1.0%. Actual surveillance intervals were in accordance to the guideline in 54.4% and in accordance to the initial advice of the gastroenterologist in 58.4% of the patients. CONCLUSION: Only in 41% of patients was the gastroenterologist's recommendation regarding surveillance after polypectomy either absent (21.8%) or not in accordance to the guideline (19.2%). Future research should focus on developing an evidence-based decision algorithm for elderly patients to support gastroenterologists and patients in the choices regarding cessation of surveillance at a certain level of frailty, comorbidity or remaining life-expectancy.