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

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

[1]  G. Fiorentini,et al.  Multidisciplinary approach of colorectal cancer liver metastases , 2017, World journal of clinical oncology.

[2]  Georgina Charlesworth,et al.  Development of a core outcome set for disease modification trials in mild to moderate dementia: a systematic review, patient and public consultation and consensus recommendations. , 2017, Health technology assessment.

[3]  D. Mant,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. , 2017, Health technology assessment.

[4]  T. Treasure,et al.  Meta-analysis of colorectal cancer follow-up after potentially curative resection , 2016, The British journal of surgery.

[5]  J Ricke,et al.  ESMO consensus guidelines for the management of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. , 2016, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[6]  M. Haider,et al.  Effect of PET before liver resection on surgical management for colorectal adenocarcinoma metastases: a randomized clinical trial. , 2014, JAMA.

[7]  H. Nielsen,et al.  Positron emission tomography/computed tomography for optimized colon cancer staging and follow up , 2013, Scandinavian journal of gastroenterology.

[8]  B. Hillner,et al.  The Lack of Evidence for PET or PET/CT Surveillance of Patients with Treated Lymphoma, Colorectal Cancer, and Head and Neck Cancer: A Systematic Review , 2013, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[9]  Physician follow-up and observation of guidelines in the post treatment surveillance of colorectal cancer. , 2013, Surgery.

[10]  B. Kahan,et al.  Assessing potential sources of clustering in individually randomised trials , 2013, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[11]  I. Adalet,et al.  The utility of FDG-PET/CT as an effective tool for detecting recurrent colorectal cancer regardless of serum CEA levels , 2012, Annals of Nuclear Medicine.

[12]  M. A. van den Bosch,et al.  Preoperative Imaging of Colorectal Liver Metastases After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: A Meta-Analysis , 2012, Annals of Surgical Oncology.

[13]  Sukru Mehmet Erturk,et al.  PET/CT pattern analysis for surgical staple line recurrence in patients with colorectal cancer. , 2010, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[14]  E. Oevermann,et al.  Intensified surveillance after surgery for colorectal cancer significantly improves survival , 2010, European journal of medical research.

[15]  I. Sobhani,et al.  Early detection of recurrence by 18FDG-PET in the follow-up of patients with colorectal cancer , 2008, British Journal of Cancer.

[16]  J. Tjandra,et al.  Follow-Up After Curative Resection of Colorectal Cancer: A Meta-Analysis , 2007, Diseases of the colon and rectum.

[17]  Thomas J. Smith,et al.  Initial hormonal management of androgen-sensitive metastatic, recurrent, or progressive prostate cancer: 2006 update of an American Society of Clinical Oncology practice guideline. , 2007, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[18]  F. Granath,et al.  Loco-regional Recurrence from Colon Cancer: A Population-based Study , 2007, Annals of Surgical Oncology.

[19]  A. Lacy,et al.  Postoperative surveillance in patients with colorectal cancer who have undergone curative resection: a prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial. , 2006, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[20]  Bruce D Minsky,et al.  Colorectal cancer surveillance: 2005 update of an American Society of Clinical Oncology practice guideline. , 2005, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[21]  David K Whynes,et al.  Cost effectiveness analysis of intensive versus conventional follow up after curative resection for colorectal cancer , 2004, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[22]  C. Earle,et al.  Follow-up of patients with curatively resected colorectal cancer: a practice guideline , 2003, BMC Cancer.

[23]  J. Meyerhardt,et al.  Follow-up strategies after curative resection of colorectal cancer. , 2003, Seminars in oncology.

[24]  M. Jeffery,et al.  Follow-up strategies for patients treated for non-metastatic colorectal cancer. , 2016, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[25]  G. Ravera,et al.  Efficacy and cost of risk-adapted follow-up in patients after colorectal cancer surgery: a prospective, randomized and controlled trial. , 2002, European journal of surgical oncology : the journal of the European Society of Surgical Oncology and the British Association of Surgical Oncology.

[26]  W. Oyen,et al.  Value of positron emission tomography with [F-18]fluorodeoxyglucose in patients with colorectal liver metastases: a prospective study. , 2002, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[27]  B. Siegel,et al.  Survival of Patients Evaluated by FDG-PET Before Hepatic Resection for Metastatic Colorectal Carcinoma: A Prospective Database Study , 2001, Annals of surgery.