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

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.

Partial breast irradiation for early breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Breast-conserving therapy for women with breast cancer consists of local excision of the tumour (achieving clear margins) followed by radiotherapy (RT). RT is given to sterilize tumour cells that may remain after surgery to decrease the risk of local tumour recurrence. Most true recurrences occur in the same quadrant as the original tumour. Whole breast radiotherapy (WBRT) may not protect against the development of a new primary cancer developing in other quadrants of the breast. In this Cochrane review, we investigated the delivery of radiation to a limited volume of the breast around the tumour bed (partial breast irradiation (PBI)) sometimes with a shortened treatment duration (accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI)). OBJECTIVES: To determine whether PBI/APBI is equivalent to or better than conventional or hypo-fractionated WBRT after breast-conserving therapy for early-stage breast cancer. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group Specialized Register (4 May 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2015, Issue 5), MEDLINE (January 1966 to 4 May 2015), EMBASE (1980 to 4 May 2015), CINAHL (4 May 2015) and Current Contents (4 May 2015). We searched the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Register (5 May 2015), the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (4 May 2015) and ClinicalTrials.gov (17 June 2015). We searched for grey literature: OpenGrey (17 June 2015), reference lists of articles, several conference proceedings and published abstracts, and applied no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) without confounding, that evaluated conservative surgery plus PBI/APBI versus conservative surgery plus WBRT. Published and unpublished trials were eligible. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors (BH and ML) performed data extraction and used Cochrane's 'Risk of bias' tool, and resolved any disagreements through discussion. We entered data into Review Manager 5 for analysis. MAIN RESULTS: We included seven RCTs and studied 7586 women of the 8955 enrolled.Local recurrence-free survival appeared worse for women receiving PBI/APBI compared to WBRT (hazard ratio (HR) 1.62, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.11 to 2.35; six studies, 6820 participants, low-quality evidence). Cosmesis (physician-reported) appeared worse with PBI/APBI (odds ratio (OR) 1.51, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.95, five studies, 1720 participants, low-quality evidence). Overall survival did not differ with PBI/APBI (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.09, five studies, 6718 participants, high-quality evidence).Late radiation toxicity (subcutaneous fibrosis) appeared worse with PBI/APBI (OR 6.58, 95% CI 3.08 to 14.06, one study, 766 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Acute skin toxicity appeared reduced with PBI/APBI (OR 0.04, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.09, two studies, 608 participants). Telangiectasia (OR 26.56, 95% CI 3.59 to 196.51, 1 study, 766 participants) and radiological fat necrosis (OR 1.58, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.43, three studies, 1319 participants) appeared worse with PBI/APBI. Late skin toxicity (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.39, two studies, 608 participants) and breast pain (OR 2.17, 95% CI 0.56 to 8.44, one study, 766 participants) appeared not to differ with PBI/APBI.'Elsewhere primaries' (new primaries in the ipsilateral breast) appeared more frequent with PBI/APBI (OR 3.97, 95% CI 1.51 to 10.41, three studies, 3009 participants).We found no clear evidence of a difference for the comparison of PBI/APBI with WBRT for the outcomes of: cause-specific survival (HR 1.08, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.58, five studies, 6718 participants, moderate-quality evidence), distant metastasis-free survival (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.37, four studies, 3267 participants, moderate-quality evidence), relapse-free survival (HR 1.36, 95% CI 0.88 to 2.09, three studies, 3811 participants), loco-regional recurrence-free survival (HR 1.80, 95% CI 1.00 to 3.25, two studies, 3553 participants) or mastectomy rates (OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.87, three studies, 4817 participants, low-quality evidence). Compliance was met: more than 90% of the women in all studies received the RT they were assigned to receive. We found no data for the outcomes of costs, quality of life or consumer preference. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: It appeared that local recurrence and 'elsewhere primaries' (new primaries in the ipsilateral breast) are increased with PBI/APBI (the difference was small), but we found no evidence of detriment to other oncological outcomes. It appeared that cosmetic outcomes and some late effects were worse with PBI/APBI but its use was associated with less acute skin toxicity. The limitations of the data currently available mean that we cannot make definitive conclusions about the efficacy and safety or ways to deliver of PBI/APBI. We await completion of ongoing trials.

Fraction size in radiation therapy for breast conservation in early breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Shortening the duration of radiation therapy would benefit women with early breast cancer treated with breast conserving surgery. It may also improve access to radiation therapy by improving efficiency in radiation oncology departments globally. This can only happen if the shorter treatment is as effective and safe as conventional radiation therapy. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2008 and updated in 2009. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of altered radiation fraction size for women with early breast cancer who have had breast conserving surgery. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Specialised Register (23 May 2015), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 4), MEDLINE (Jan 1996 to May 2015), EMBASE (Jan 1980 to May 2015), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal (June 2010 to May 2015) and ClinicalTrials.gov (16 April 2015), reference lists of articles and relevant conference proceedings. No language or publication constraints were applied. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of altered fraction size versus conventional fractionation for radiation therapy in women with early breast cancer who had undergone breast conserving surgery. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors performed data extraction independently, with disagreements resolved by discussion. We sought missing data from trial authors. MAIN RESULTS: We studied 8228 women in nine studies. Eight out of nine studies were at low or unclear risk of bias. Altered fraction size (delivering radiation therapy in larger amounts each day but over fewer days than with conventional fractionation) did not have a clinically meaningful effect on: local recurrence-free survival (Hazard Ratio (HR) 0.94, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.15, 7095 women, four studies, high-quality evidence), cosmetic outcome (Risk ratio (RR) 0.90, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.01, 2103 women, four studies, high-quality evidence) or overall survival (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.03, 5685 women, three studies, high-quality evidence). Acute radiation skin toxicity (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.45, 357 women, two studies) was reduced with altered fraction size. Late radiation subcutaneous toxicity did not differ with altered fraction size (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.05, 5130 women, four studies, high-quality evidence). Breast cancer-specific survival (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.06, 5685 women, three studies, high quality evidence) and relapse-free survival (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.05, 5685 women, three studies, moderate-quality evidence) did not differ with altered fraction size. We found no data for mastectomy rate. Altered fraction size was associated with less patient-reported (P < 0.001) and physician-reported (P = 0.009) fatigue at six months (287 women, one study). We found no difference in the issue of altered fractionation for patient-reported outcomes of: physical well-being (P = 0.46), functional well-being (P = 0.38), emotional well-being (P = 0.58), social well-being (P = 0.32), breast cancer concerns (P = 0.94; 287 women, one study). We found no data with respect to costs. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found that using altered fraction size regimens (greater than 2 Gy per fraction) does not have a clinically meaningful effect on local recurrence, is associated with decreased acute toxicity and does not seem to affect breast appearance, late toxicity or patient-reported quality-of-life measures for selected women treated with breast conserving therapy. These are mostly women with node negative tumours smaller than 3 cm and negative pathological margins.

Partial breast irradiation for early breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Breast conserving therapy for women with breast cancer consists of local excision of the tumour (achieving clear margins) followed by radiation therapy (RT). RT is given to sterilize tumour cells that may remain after surgery to decrease the risk of local tumour recurrence. Most true recurrences occur in the same quadrant as the original tumour. Whole breast RT may not protect against the development of a new primary cancer developing in other quadrants of the breast. In this Cochrane Review, we investigated the role of delivering radiation to a limited volume of the breast around the tumour bed (partial breast irradiation: PBI) sometimes with a shortened treatment duration (accelerated partial breast irradiation: APBI). OBJECTIVES: To determine whether PBI/APBI is equivalent to or better than conventional or hypofractionated WBRT after breast conservation therapy for early-stage breast cancer. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group Specialised Register (07 November 2013), CENTRAL (2014, Issue 3), MEDLINE (January 1966 to 11 April 2014), EMBASE (1980 to 11 April 2014), CINAHL (11 April 2014) and Current Contents (11 April 2014). Also we searched the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Register, the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (07 November 2013) and US clinical trials registry (www.clinicaltrials.gov) (22 April 2014). We searched for grey literature: Open Grey (23 April 2014), reference lists of articles, a number of conference proceedings and published abstracts, and did not apply any language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) without confounding and evaluating conservative surgery plus PBI/APBI versus conservative surgery plus whole breast RT. We included both published and unpublished trials. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors (ML, DF and BH) performed data extraction and resolved any disagreements through discussion. We entered data into Review Manager for analysis. BH and ML assessed trials, graded the methodological quality using Cochrane's Risk of Bias tool and resolved any disagreements through discussion. MAIN RESULTS: We included four RCTs that had 2253 women. Two older trials examined RT techniques which do not reflect current practice and one trial had a short follow-up. We downgraded the quality of the evidence for our key outcomes due to risk of bias. Taken together with other GRADE recommendations, the quality of evidence for our outcomes was very low to low. For the comparison of partial breast irradiation/accelerated breast irradiation (PBI/APBI) with whole breast irradiation (WBRT), local recurrence-free survival appeared worse (Hazard Ratio (HR) 1.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.23 to 2.45; three trials, 1140 participants, very low quality evidence). Cosmesis appeared improved with PBI/APBI in a single trial (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.72; one trial, 241 participants, very low quality evidence), but late toxicity (telangiectasia OR 4.41, 95% CI 3.21 to 6.05; very low quality evidence, 708 participants) and subcutaneous fibrosis (OR 4.27, 95% CI 3.04 to 6.01; one trial, 710 participants, very low quality evidence) appeared increased in another trial. We found no clear evidence of a difference for the comparison of PBI/APBI versus WBRT for the outcomes of: overall survival (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.18; three trials, 1140 participants, very low quality evidence), cause-specific survival (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.22; two trials, 966 participants, low evidence quality), distant metastasis-free survival (HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.28; 1140 participants, low quality evidence), subsequent mastectomy rate (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.21; 258 participants, low quality evidence) and relapse-free survival (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.85; 258 participants, low quality evidence). We found no data for the outcomes of acute toxicity, new ipsilateral breast primaries, costs, quality of life or consumer preference. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The limitations of the data currently available mean that we cannot make definitive conclusions about the efficacy and safety or ways to deliver of PBI/APBI. We await completion of ongoing trials.

Adjuvant radiotherapy following radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Men who have a radical prostatectomy (RP) for prostate cancer that does not involve lymph nodes, but extends beyond the prostate capsule into the seminal vesicles or to surgical margins, are at increased risk of relapse. In men with these high risk factors, radiotherapy (RT) directed at the prostate bed after surgery may reduce this risk, and be curative. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of adjuvant RT following RP for prostate cancer in men with high risk features compared with RP. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Prostatic Diseases and Urological Cancers Specialised Register (23 February 2011), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE (January 1966 to February 2011), PDQ® (Physician Data Query) trial registry databases for ongoing studies (2 November 2010), reference lists from selected studies and reviews, and handsearched relevant conference proceedings. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCT) comparing RP followed by RT with RP alone. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed the studies for inclusion and bias and extracted data for analysis. Authors were contacted to clarify data and obtain missing information. MAIN RESULTS: We found three RCTs involving 1815 men. Adjuvant RT following prostatectomy did not affect overall survival at 5 years (RD (risk difference) 0.00; 95% CI -0.03 to 0.03), but improved survival at 10 years (RD -0.11; 95% CI -0.20 to -0.02). Adjuvant RT did not improve prostate cancer-specific mortality at 5 years (RD -0.01; 95% CI -0.03 to 0.00). Adjuvant RT did not reduce metastatic disease at 5 years (RD -0.00; 95% CI -0.04 to 0.03), but reduced it at 10 years (RD -0.11; 95% CI -0.20 to -0.01). It improved local control at 5 and 10 years (RD -0.10; 95% CI -0.13 to -0.06 and RD -0.14; 95% CI -0.21 to -0.07, respectively), and biochemical progression-free survival at 5 years and 10 years (RD -0.16; 95% CI -0.21 to -0.11 and RD -0.29; 95% CI -0.39 to -0.19, respectively). There were no data for clinical disease-free survival. Adjuvant RT increased acute and late gastrointestinal toxicity [do you have the rd for this?], urinary stricture (RD 0.05; 95% CI 0.01 to 0.09) and incontinence (RD 0.04; 95% CI 0.01 to 0.08). It did not increase erectile dysfunction or degrade quality of life (RD 0.01; 95% CI -0.06 to -0.26), but with limited data. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Adjuvant RT after RP improves overall survival and reduces the rate of distant metastases, but these effects are only evident with longer follow up. At 5 and 10 years it improves local control and reduces the risk of biochemical failure, although the latter is not a clinical endpoint. Moderate or severe acute and late toxicity is minimal. There is an increased risk of urinary stricture and incontinence, but no detriment to quality of life, based on limited data. Given that the majority of men who have undergone a RP have a longer life expectancy, radiotherapy should be considered for those with high-risk features following radical prostatectomy. The optimal timing is unclear.