Dataset Information

The Association Between Treatment Interval and Survival in Patients With Colon or Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Surgery for colon or rectal cancer is associated with a high incidence of complications, especially in patients with a low aerobic fitness. Those patients might benefit from a comprehensive preoperative workup including prehabilitation. However, time between diagnosis and treatment is often limited due to current treatment guidelines. To date, it is unclear whether the treatment interval can be extended without compromising survival.

Methods

A systematic review concerning the association between treatment intervals and survival in patients who underwent elective curative surgery for colon or rectal cancer was performed. A search up to December 2020 was conducted in PubMed, Cinahl and Embase. Original research articles were eligible. Quality assessment was performed using the Downs and Black checklist.

Results

Eleven observational studies were included (897 947 patients). In colon cancer, treatment intervals that were statistically significant associated with reduced overall survival or cancer-specific survival ranged between > 30 and > 84 days. In rectal cancer, only one out of four studies showed that treatment intervals > 49 days was associated with reduced cancer-specific survival.

Conclusions

This systematic review identified that studies investigating the association between treatment intervals and survival are heterogeneous with regard to treatment interval definitions, treatment interval time intervals and used outcome measures. These aspects need standardization before a reliable estimate of an optimal treatment interval can be made. In addition, further research should focus on establishing optimal treatment intervals in patients at high risk for postoperative complications, as particularly these patients might benefit from extended diagnosis to treatment intervals permitting comprehensive preoperative preparation.

SUBMITTER: Franssen RFW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8322003 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceThe results from the recent International Duration Evaluation of Adjuvant Therapy (IDEA) collaboration have led some clinicians to adopt shorter durations of adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with stage III colon cancer. The extent to which these findings are supported by other data is unknown.ObjectiveTo conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized and observational studies investigating the association between the duration of adjuvant chemotherapy and survival among individuals diagnosed as having stage II and III colon cancer (PROSPERO protocol CRD42018108711]).Data sourcesAbstracts published in English between 2003 and 2018 within the MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and CINAHL databases were reviewed by 2 authors. Also searched were conference proceedings and the indexes of high-impact oncology journals.Study selectionStudies were excluded if they did not present original data; focused on animal populations, on cancers in sites other than the colon, or on patients with stage 0, I, or IV disease; did not examine a 5-flourouracil-based monotherapy or combination therapy; or did not evaluate the association between treatment duration and survival. The search identified 2341 articles, from which 2 randomized trials and 20 observational studies were included in the meta-analysis.Data extraction and synthesisThis study followed the PRISMA and MOOSE reporting guidelines. The risk of bias was assessed by 2 authors using the Cochrane and Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tools. The results were synthesized using a random-effects model.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary and secondary outcomes were overall survival and disease-free survival, respectively. It was hypothesized a priori that 3 months of chemotherapy would be as effective as 6 months of chemotherapy.ResultsTwenty-two studies were included in the meta-analysis, representing 43 671 patients. The inclusion of patients with stage II disease or with rectal cancer was identified as a source of heterogeneity. After restricting the analysis to patients with stage III colon cancer, there was no association between the duration of chemotherapy and overall survival among studies involving FOLFOX (leucovorin calcium [folinic acid], fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin) or CAPOX (capecitabine plus oxaliplatin) regimens (hazard ratio [HR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.58-1.09). Among studies focused exclusively on monotherapy, the standard 6-month regimen relative to a 3-month regimen was associated with improved survival (HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.52-0.68).Conclusions and relevanceShortened durations of chemotherapy may reduce survival among patients with stage III colon cancer prescribed monotherapy but not a combination regimen.

Project description:BACKGROUND:In early diagnosis studies on symptomatic cancer, survival was the most recommended outcome. The magnitude and impact of the patient interval and primary care interval is well-known in oral cancer; however, the hospital interval and its influence on surviving this neoplasia are not well known. AIMS:To quantify the interval between the first contact with the specialist and the start of treatment for patients with oral cancer and to evaluate whether there was a link between this interval and disease survival. METHODS:We designed a hospital-based study that included 228 patients diagnosed with oral/oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma between 1998 and 2008 at A Coruña University Hospital (Spain) who were followed up until 2016. The data were extracted retrospectively from hospital medical charts. The study interval was defined in the context of the "pathways to treatment" model as the interval from the first specialist visit (start point) to the start of treatment (end point). We calculated the total interval (from first symptom to treatment) to evaluate the relative length of the hospital interval, and we considered the variables age, sex, location, comorbidity and tumour classification stage. Survival time was defined as the interval from the first treatment to death or censoring. RESULTS:The median hospital interval was 20 days, with an interquartile range of 15-29.1 days. The most relevant prognostic variable was the tumour stage (III-IV: Exp. ß = 2.8, p = 0.001). The hospital interval was part of the multivariate model, and its association with mortality showed a V-shaped association, where patients with short hospital intervals (3-18 days) and those with long hospital intervals (26-55 days) had significantly higher mortality than those with medium hospital intervals (19-25 days). CONCLUSION:The hospital interval represents a relevant interval for the patient's path towards treatment, has prognostic implications and is subject to a severity bias (waiting time paradox) that should be avoided.

Project description:ImportanceDelays in the delivery of care for head and neck cancer (HNC) are a key driver of poor oncologic outcomes and thus represent an important therapeutic target.ObjectiveTo synthesize information about the association between delays in the delivery of care for HNC and oncologic outcomes.Evidence reviewA systematic review of the English-language literature in PubMed/MEDLINE and Scopus published between January 1, 2007, and February 28, 2018, was performed to identify articles addressing the association between treatment delays and oncologic outcomes for patients with HNC. Articles that were included (1) addressed cancer of the oral cavity, oropharynx, hypopharynx, or larynx; (2) discussed patients treated in 2004 or later; (3) analyzed time of diagnosis to treatment initiation (DTI), time from surgery to the initiation of postoperative radiotherapy, and/or treatment package time (TPT; the time from surgery through the completion of postoperative radiotherapy); (4) included a clear definition of treatment delay; and (5) analyzed the association between the treatment time interval and an oncologic outcome measure. Quality assessment was performed using the Institute of Health Economics Quality Appraisal Checklist for Case Series Studies.FindingsA total of 18 studies met inclusion criteria and formed the basis of the systematic review. Nine studies used the National Cancer Database and 6 studies were single-institution retrospective reviews. Of the 13 studies assessing DTI, 9 found an association between longer DTI and poorer overall survival; proposed DTI delay thresholds ranged from more than 20 days to 120 days or more. Four of the 5 studies assessing time from surgery to the initiation of postoperative radiotherapy (and all 4 studies assessing guideline-adherent time to postoperative radiotherapy) found an association between a timely progression from surgery to the initiation of postoperative radiotherapy and improved overall or recurrence-free survival. Of the 5 studies examining TPT, 4 found that prolonged TPT correlated with poorer overall survival; proposed thresholds for prolonged TPT ranged from 77 days or more to more than 100 days.Conclusions and relevanceTimely care regarding initiation of treatment, postoperative radiotherapy, and TPT is associated with survival for patients with HNC, although significant heterogeneity exists for defining delayed DTI and TPT. Further research is required to standardize optimal time goals, identify barriers to timely care for each interval, and design interventions to minimize delays.

Project description:ImportanceOncologic outcomes among patients with rectal cancer after developing local recurrence and/or distant metastases remain poorly studied.ObjectiveTo analyze the trend of overall survival after treatment failure for patients with rectal cancer within three consecutive phase 2 or 3 trials of the German Rectal Cancer Study Group.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study is a post hoc analysis of 3 randomized phase 2 or 3 trials (CAO/ARO/AIO-94, -04, and -12 trials, conducted in Germany) that included 1948 patients with locally advanced rectal adenocarcinoma. The CAO/ARO/AIO-94 trial recruited patients between February 1995 and September 2002, the CAO/ARO/AIO-04 trial recruited patients between July 2006 and February 2010, and the CAO/ARO/AIO-12 trial recruited patients between June 2015 and January 2018. Statistical analysis was conducted between September 2022 and March 2023.ExposuresA total of 119 of 391 patients in the CAO/ARO/AIO-94 trial group A, 295 of 1236 patients in the CAO/ARO/AIO-04 trial, and 69 of 306 in the CAO/ARO/AIO-12 trial experienced treatment failure (R2 resection or local recurrence or distant metastases) and were included in further analyses.Main outcomes and measuresCharacteristics of treatment failure and overall survival were assessed in all 3 trial cohorts.ResultsOf the 1948 patients treated in the 3 trials, 15 were excluded because of missing data. Of the remaining 1933 patients (median age, 62.5 years [range, 19-84 years]; 1363 men [71%] and 570 women [29%]) with locally advanced rectal adenocarcinoma (cT3 or 4 or cN+) treated within 3 consecutive clinical trials, 483 experienced treatment failure and were analyzed. After a median follow-up of 36 months (IQR, 24-51 months) for all patients, overall survival after treatment failure was significantly improved in the CAO/ARO/AIO-04 trial (at 3 years, 44% [IQR, 37%-51%]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.61 [95% CI, 0.47-0.79]) and further improved in the CAO/ARO/AIO-12 trial (at 3 years, 73% [IQR, 60%-87%]; HR, 0.32 [95% CI, 0.18-0.54]) compared with the CAO/ARO/AIO-94 trial (at 3 years, 30% [IQR, 22%-39%]) (both P < .001). Distant metastasis was the main reason for treatment failure throughout a 5-year follow-up (range, 67%-87%), and the relative risk for treatment failure was highest in the first 18 months in all 3 trials. ypTNM stage was significantly associated with the risk and time interval to treatment failure. Improvement in overall survival after treatment failure was independent of sex.Conclusions and relevanceThis cohort study suggests that advancements in salvage strategies during the past decades have likely improved overall survival among patients with rectal cancer who experienced treatment failure.

Project description:BackgroundThe best strategy for surveillance testing in stage II and III colon cancer patients following curative treatment is unknown. Previous randomized controlled trials have suffered from design limitations and yielded conflicting evidence. This observational comparative effectiveness research study was conducted to provide new evidence on the relationship between post-treatment surveillance testing and survival by overcoming the limitations of previous clinical trials.MethodsThis was a retrospective cohort study of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database combined with Medicare claims (SEER-Medicare). Stage II and III colon cancer patients diagnosed from 2002 to 2009 and between 66 to 84 years of age were eligible. Adherence to surveillance testing guidelines-including carcinoembryonic antigen, computed tomography, and colonoscopy-was assessed for each year of follow-up and overall for up to three years post-treatment. Patients were categorized as More Adherent and Less Adherent according to testing guidelines. Patients who received no surveillance testing were excluded. The primary outcome was 5-year cancer-specific survival; 5-year overall survival was the secondary outcome. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) using generalized boosted models was employed to balance covariates between the two surveillance groups. IPTW-adjusted survival curves comparing the two groups were performed by the Kaplan-Meier method. Weighted Cox regression was used to obtain hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the relative risk of death for the Less Adherent group versus the More Adherent group.ResultsThere were 17,860 stage II and III colon cancer cases available for analysis. Compared to More Adherent patients, Less Adherent patients experienced slightly better 5-year cancer-specific survival (HR = 0.83, 95% CI 0.76-0.90) and worse 5-year noncancer-specific survival (HR = 1.61, 95% CI 1.43-1.82) for years 2 to 5 of follow-up. There was no difference between the groups in overall survival (HR = 1.04, 95% CI 0.98-1.10).ConclusionsMore surveillance testing did not improve 5-year cancer-specific survival compared to less testing and there was no difference between the groups in overall survival. The results of this study support a risk-stratified, shared decision-making surveillance strategy to optimize clinical and patient-centered outcomes for colon cancer patients in the survivorship phase of care.

Project description:BackgroundThere is growing interest in using patient-reported outcome measures to support value-based care in colorectal surgery. To draw valid conclusions regarding patient-reported outcomes data, measures with robust measurement properties are required.ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to assess the use and quality of patient-reported outcome measures in colorectal surgery.Data sourcesThree major databases were searched for studies using patient-reported outcome measures in the context of colorectal surgery.Study selectionArticles that used patient-reported outcome measures as outcome for colorectal surgical intervention in a comparative effectiveness analysis were included. Exclusion criteria included articles older than 11 years, non-English language, age <18 years, fewer than 40 patients, case reports, review articles, and studies without comparison.Main outcome measuresThis was a quality assessment using a previously reported checklist of psychometric properties.ResultsFrom 2007 to 2018, 368 studies were deemed to meet inclusion criteria. These studies used 165 distinct patient-reported outcome measures. Thirty were used 5 or more times and were selected for quality assessment. Overall, the measures were generally high quality, with 21 (70%) scoring ≥14 on an 18-point scale. Notable weaknesses included management of missing data (14%) and description of literacy level (0%).LimitationsThe study was limited by its use of original articles for quality assessment. Measures were selected for quality analysis based on frequency of use rather than other factors, such as impact of the article or number of patients in the study.ConclusionsPatient-reported outcome measures are widely used in colorectal research. There was a wide range of measures available, and many were used only once. The most frequently used measures are generally high quality, but a majority lack details on how to deal with missing data and information on literacy levels. As the use of patient-reported outcome measures to assess colorectal surgical intervention increases, researchers and practitioners need to become more knowledgeable about the measures available and their quality.