Background: The CEAwatch randomized trial showed that follow-up with intensive carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) monitoring (CEAwatch protocol) was better than care as usual (CAU) for early postoperative detection of colorectal cancer recurrence. The aim of this study was to calculate overall survival (OS) and disease-specific survival (DSS). Methods: For all patients with recurrence, OS and DSS were compared between patients detected by the CEAwatch protocol versus CAU, and by the method of detection of recurrence, using Cox regression models. Results: Some 238 patients with recurrence were analysed (7·5 per cent); a total of 108 recurrences were detected by CEA blood test, 64 (55·2 per cent) within the CEAwatch protocol and 44 (41·9 per cent) in the CAU group (P = 0·007). Only 16 recurrences (13·8 per cent) were detected by patient self-report in the CEAwatch group, compared with 33 (31·4 per cent) in the CAU group. There was no significant improvement in either OS or DSS with the CEAwatch protocol compared with CAU: hazard ratio 0·73 (95 per cent 0·46 to 1·17) and 0·78 (0·48 to 1·28) respectively. There were no differences in survival when recurrence was detected by CT versus CEA measurement, but both of these methods yielded better survival outcomes than detection by patient self-report. Conclusion: There was no direct survival benefit in favour of the intensive programme, but the CEAwatch protocol led to a higher proportion of recurrences being detected by CEA-based blood test and reduced the number detected by patient self-report. This is important because detection of recurrence by blood test was associated with significantly better survival than patient self-report, indirectly supporting use of the CEAwatch protocol.@en

Aim Colon cancer resection in a nonelective setting is associated with high rates of morbidity and mortality. The aim of this retrospective study is to identify risk factors for overall mortality after colon cancer resection with a special focus on nonelective resection. Method Data were obtained from the Dutch Surgical Colorectal Audit. Patients undergoing colon cancer resection in the Netherlands between January 2009 and December 2013 were included. Patient, treatment and tumour factors were analysed in relation to the urgency of surgery. The primary outcome was 30-day postoperative mortality. Results The study included 30 907 patients. A nonelective colon cancer resection was performed in 5934 (19.2%) patients. There was a 4.4% overall mortality rate, with significantly more deaths after nonelective surgery (8.5% vs 3.4%, P < 0.001). Older patients, male patients and patients with high comorbidity, advanced tumours, perforated tumours, a tumour in the right or transverse colon and postoperative anastomotic leakage were at risk of postoperative death. In nonelective resections, a right-sided tumour and postoperative anastomotic leakage were associated with high mortality. Conclusion Nonelective colon cancer resection is associated with high mortality. In particular, right-sided resections and patients with tumour perforation are at particularly high risk. The optimization of patients prior to surgery and expeditious operation after diagnosis might prevent the need for a nonelective resection.@en

Objective: To determine if composite measures based on process indicators are consistent with short-term outcome indicators in surgical colorectal cancer care. Design: Longitudinal analysis of consistency between composite measures based on process indicators and outcome indicators for 85 Dutch hospitals. Setting: The Dutch Surgical Colorectal Audit database, the Netherlands. Participants: 4732 elective patients with colon carcinoma and 2239 with rectum carcinoma treated in 85 hospitals were included in the analyses. Main outcome measures: All available process indicators were aggregated into five different composite measures. The association of the different composite measures with risk-adjusted postoperative mortality and morbidity was analysed at the patient and hospital level. Results: At the patient level, only one of the composite measures was negatively associated with morbidity for rectum carcinoma. At the hospital level, a strong negative association was found between composite measures and hospital mortality and morbidity rates for rectum carcinoma (p<0.05), and hospital morbidity rates for colon carcinoma. Conclusions: For individual patients, a high score on the composite measures based on process indicators is not associated with better short-term outcome. However, at the hospital level, a good score on the composite measures based on process indicators was consistent with more favourable risk-adjusted short-term outcome rates.

@en

Background: Carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) as a marker in the follow-up after curative resection of colorectal carcinoma (CRC) is often omitted from follow-up despite guideline recommendations. One reason is the assumption that when a normal CEA value exists before curative resection of CRC, it will neither rise during follow-up. This study investigates this relationship. Method: Data were derived from a study initiated to evaluate treatment regimes for rectal carcinoma (Dutch TME trial, n = 1861) from which 954 were eligible for analysis. Recurrent disease occurred in 272 of these patients (29.5%). The pre-operative CEA value was compared to CEA values during follow-up, using threshold values of 2.5 and 5.0 ng/ml. Results: Normal pre-operative CEA values were present in 63% (CEA < 5.0) and 39% (CEA < 2.5) of patients with recurrent disease. Patients with a normal pre-operative CEA and recurrent disease had elevated CEA values during follow-up in 41% (CEA < 5.0), 50% (CEA < 2.5) and in 60% with both threshold values when the last measurement was done within 3 months before recurrent disease was diagnosed. Conclusion: A normal pre-operative CEA is common in patients with rectal carcinoma. CEA does rise due to recurrent disease in at least 50% of patients with normal pre-operative values. Serial post-operative CEA testing cannot be discarded based on a normal pre-operative serum CEA.

@en

Objective: Follow-up after curative resection of colorectal carcinoma (CRC) has been subjected to debate concerning its effectiveness to reduce cancer mortality. Current national and international guidelines advise CEA measurements every 3 months during 3 years after surgery. The common clinical practice and opinion about follow-up for colorectal carcinoma, was evaluated by means of a survey among Dutch general surgeons. Method: A web-based survey of follow-up after treatment of CRC was sent to all registered Dutch general surgeons. A reply from 246 surgeons treating patients for colorectal carcinoma in 105 out of 118 hospitals was received (response rate 91%). Questions related to actual follow-up protocol, opinion about serum CEA monitoring, liver and/or lung metastasectomy, and motivation to participate in a new trial concerning follow-up. Results: For the majority of surgeons the length of follow-up was influenced by age of the patient (62%) and physical condition (76%) prohibiting hepatic metastasectomy. The generally accepted follow-up protocol consisted of CEA measurements every 3 months in the first year and six-monthly thereafter, and ultrasound examination of the liver every 6 months. Nearly all surgeons (92%) were willing to participate in a new study of follow-up protocol. Conclusion: The adherence to national guidelines for the follow-up of colorectal carcinoma is low. The indistinctness about follow-up after curative treatment of colorectal carcinoma also affects clinical practice. Recent advancements in imaging techniques, liver and lung surgery have changed circumstances, which are not yet anticipated upon in current guidelines. Renewal of follow-up based upon scientific evidence is required.@en