Models of Follow-Up Care and Secondary Prevention Measures for Survivors of Colorectal Cancer: Evidence-Based Guidelines and Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: To provide recommendations for preferred models of follow-up care for stage I-IV colorectal (CRC) cancer survivors in Ontario; to identify signs and symptoms of potential recurrence and when to investigate; and to evaluate patient information and support needs during the post-treatment survivorship period. METHODS: Consistent with the Program in Evidence-Based Medicine's standardized approach, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and PROSPERO databases were systematically searched. The authors drafted recommendations and revised them based on the comments from internal and external reviewers. RESULTS: Four guidelines, three systematic reviews, three randomized controlled trials, and three cohort studies provided evidence to develop recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: Colorectal cancer follow-up care is complex and requires multidisciplinary, coordinated care delivered by the cancer specialist, primary care provider, and allied health professionals. While there is limited evidence to support a shared care model for follow-up, this approach is deemed to be best suited to meet patient needs; however, the roles and responsibilities of care providers need to be clearly defined, and patients need to know when and how to contact them. Although there is insufficient evidence to recommend any individual or combination of signs or symptoms as strong predictor(s) of recurrence, patients should be educated about these and know which care provider to contact if they develop any new or concerning symptoms. Psychosocial support and empathetic, effective, and coordinated communication are most valued by patients for their post-treatment follow-up care. Continuing professional education should emphasize the importance of communication skills and coordination of communication between the patient, family, and healthcare providers.

An Evidence-Based Guideline for Surveillance of Patients after Curative Treatment for Colon and Rectal Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To provide recommendations for a surveillance regimen that leads to the largest overall survival benefit for patients after curative treatment for Stage I-IV colon and rectal cancer. METHODS: Consistent with the Program in Evidence-Based Care's standard approach, guideline databases, i.e., MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and PROSPERO, were systematically searched. Then, we drafted recommendations and methodology experts performed an internal review of the resulting draft recommendations, which was followed by an external review by targeted experts and intended users. RESULTS: Four systematic reviews and two randomized controlled trials were identified that provided evidence for recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with stage I-III colon cancer, a medical history and physical examination should be performed every six months for three years; computed tomography (CT) of the chest-abdomen-pelvis (CT CAP) should be performed at one and three years, or one CT CAP could be performed at 18 months; the use of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) is optional if CT imaging is being performed; and surveillance colonoscopy should be performed one year after the initial surgery. The frequency of subsequent surveillance colonoscopy should be dictated by previous findings, but generally, colonoscopies should be performed every five years if the findings are normal. There was insufficient evidence to support these recommendations for patients with rectal cancer, Stage IV colon cancer, and patients over the age of 75 years. Patients should be informed of current recommendations and the treating physician should discuss the specific risks and benefits of each recommendation with their patients.

Follow-up of patients with curatively resected colorectal cancer: a practice guideline.

BACKGROUND: A systematic review was conducted to evaluate the literature regarding the impact of follow-up on colorectal cancer patient survival and, in a second phase, recommendations were developed. METHODS: The MEDLINE, CANCERLIT, and Cochrane Library databases, and abstracts published in the 1997 to 2002 proceedings of the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology were systematically searched for evidence. Study selection was limited to randomized trials and meta-analyses that examined different programs of follow-up after curative resection of colorectal cancer where five-year overall survival was reported. External review by Ontario practitioners was obtained through a mailed survey. Final approval of the practice guideline report was obtained from the Practice Guidelines Coordinating Committee. RESULTS: Six randomized trials and two published meta-analyses of follow-up were obtained. Of six randomized trials comparing one follow-up program to a more intense program, only two individual trials detected a statistically significant survival benefit favouring the more intense follow-up program. Pooling of all six randomized trials demonstrated a significant improvement in survival favouring more intense follow-up (Relative Risk Ratio 0.80 (95%CI, 0.70 to 0.91; p = 0.0008). Although the rate of recurrence was similar in both of the follow-up groups compared, asymptomatic recurrences and re-operations for cure of recurrences were more common in patients with more intensive follow-up. Trials including CEA monitoring and liver imaging also had significant results, whereas trials not including these tests did not. CONCLUSION: Follow-up programs for patients with curatively resected colorectal cancer do improve survival. These follow-up programs include frequent visits and performance of blood CEA, chest x-rays, liver imaging and colonoscopy, however, it is not clear which tests or frequency of visits is optimal. There is a suggestion that improved survival is due to diagnosis of recurrence at an earlier, asymptomatic stage which allows for more curative resection of recurrence. Based on this evidence and consideration of the biology of colorectal cancer and present practices, a guideline was developed. Patients should be made aware of the risk of disease recurrence or second bowel cancer, the potential benefits of follow-up and the uncertainties requiring further clinical trials. For patients at high-risk of recurrence (stages IIb and III) clinical assessment is recommended when symptoms occur or at least every 6 months the first 3 years and yearly for at least 5 years. At the time of those visits, patients may have blood CEA, chest x-ray and liver imaging. For patients at lower risk of recurrence (stages I and Ia) or those with co-morbidities impairing future surgery, only visits yearly or when symptoms occur. All patients should have a colonoscopy before or within 6 months of initial surgery, and repeated yearly if villous or tubular adenomas >1 cm are found; otherwise repeat every 3 to 5 years. All patients having recurrences should be assessed by a multidisciplinary team in a cancer centre.

Cancer-related pain management: a report of evidence-based recommendations to guide practice.

OBJECTIVES: Cancer may be associated with many symptoms, but pain is the one most feared by patients. Pain is experienced by one-third of patients receiving treatment for cancer and about two-thirds of those with advanced cancers. To aid in providing quality care and pain relief for cancer patients, Cancer Care Ontario's Cancer-related Pain Management Guideline Panel conducted a systematic review of guidelines to provide evidence-based and consensus recommendations for the management of cancer-related pain to guide the practice of healthcare providers. METHODS: Published and unpublished cancer-related pain management guidelines were sought by conducting an Internet search, which included health organizations and the National Guidelines Clearinghouse, the Guideline International Network, and the McMillan Group. Also, MEDLINE searches were conducted for guidelines published between the years 2000 and May 2006. RESULTS: Twenty-five guidelines were found and the quality of each guideline was evaluated using the Appraisal of Guideline Research and Evaluation Instrument and the utility of the guideline for recommendations was assessed. Using these 2 criteria, 8 relevant and high-quality pain guidelines were identified. From these guidelines, the Panel articulated core principles of the management of cancer pain and selected or adapted specific recommendations through consensus to become a part of the cancer-related pain guide for practice. DISCUSSION: The domains on which recommendations were drafted include: assessment of pain; assessors of pain; time and frequency of assessment; components of pain assessment; assessment of pain in special populations; plan of care; pharmacologic intervention; nonpharmacologic intervention; documentation; education; and outcome measures of cancer-pain management.

Cancer Care Ontario guaiac fecal occult blood test (FOBT) laboratory standards: evidentiary base and recommendations.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the evidence concerning gFOBT kits and to develop gFOBT standards to be implemented by the Ontario Colorectal Cancer (CRC) Screening Program (the "Program"). DESIGN AND METHODS: We evaluated 3 aspects of gFOBT kits: 1) performance factors; 2) usability factors; and 3) laboratory factors. We obtained information from the published literature, other countries that use gFOBT, the internet, and gFOBT kit manufacturers' instructions. RESULTS: The Program should use a single brand of gFOBT kit with sensitivity > or =40% and specificity > or =95% for the detection of CRC in repeated testing. The Program should regularly monitor gFOBT performance. Participants should not restrict their diets except for eliminating vitamin C supplements and citrus fruits and juices for 3 days prior to and during stool collection; participants should not discontinue taking aspirin (ASA) or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). The Program should use one or a limited number of labs; leak-proof envelopes should be used that protect samples during mailing; the lab should delay processing fecal samples for at least 48 h following stool collection; the lab should implement staff training and quality control protocols. CONCLUSIONS: The Program should monitor and report on its performance according to these standards, and should continually assess new evidence related to CRC screening methods.