Advertisement

The Evaluation of Serial Marker Measurements for Monitoring Patients at Risk of Recurrent Cancer: Application to Colorectal Cancer

  • Mitchell H. Gail
Part of the Developments in Oncology book series (DION, volume 42)

Summary

In this chapter, three aspects of serial monitoring of cancer patients after resection are reviewed: (1) demonstrating that the marker profile is associated with increased risk of recurrence, (2) assessing the possible benefit of surgery in the marker-positive patient without other evidence of disease, and (3) evaluating the potential benefit of the marker for the entire population of patients with resected tumors. Points (2) and (3) are discussed with reference to colorectal cancer.

For demonstrating an association of marker profile with risk of recurrence, new statistical methods that take the time of recurrence into account are recommended, and design features for ideal clinical studies are discussed.

Available data suggest that second-look surgery following resection of colorectal cancer will improve five-year survival rates for the carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) marker-positive, clinically negative patient from about 12% to about 21%, but the clinical evidence is scanty, especially regarding survival rates in patients with repeat resections. Sample size calculations for a clinical trial comparing immediate second-look surgery with watchful waiting suggest that such a trial is not feasible and indicate a need for more of the preliminary type of data used in this paper. The desirability of surgery for the marker-positive, clinically negative patient requires periodic reassessment because improvements in diagnostic technique are rapidly changing the definition of “clinically negative.” The surgeon may encounter a decreasing proportion of untreatable recurrences and an increasing proportion of recurrence-free patients in future operations on marker-positive, “clinically negative” patients.

An extension of these analyses to all patients with resected disease shows that very little survival benefit is lost by eliminating or reducing conventional clinical follow-up. Instead, one can rely on a combined program of education to alert patients to important symptoms and of periodic CEA monitoring. This program captures practically all the survival benefit that could be obtained from a much more costly and inconvenient program, including both CEA monitoring and clinical follow-up.

Keywords

Watchful Waiting Marker Profile Marker Measurement Repeat Resection Recurrent Colorectal Cancer 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Gail MH: Evaluating serial cancer marker studies in patients at risk of recurrent disease. Biometrics 37: 67–78, 1981.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cox DR: Regression models and life tables (with discussion). J Royal Stat Soc 187–220, 1972.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Schoenfeld D: The asymptotic properties of nonparametric tests for comparing survival distributions. Biometrika 68: 316–319, 1981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mantel N, Byar DP: Evaluation of response-time data involving transient states: An illustration using heart transplant data. J Am Stat Assoc 69: 81–86, 1974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mantel N, Haenszel W: Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. J Natl Cancer Inst 22: 719–748, 1959.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gail MH, Eagan RT, Feld R, Ginsberg R, Goodell B, Hill L, Holmes EC, Lukeman JM, Mountain CP, Oldham RK, Pearson FG, Wright PW, and Lake WH: Prognostic factors in patients with resected stage I non-small cell lung cancer: A report from the Lung Cancer Study Group. Cancer 1802–1813, 1984.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lavin PT, Day J, Holyoke D, Mittelman A, Chu TM: Statistical evaluation of baseline and follow-up carcinoembryonic antigen in patients with resectable colorectal carcinoma. Cancer 47: 823–826, 1981.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Steele G Jr, Ellenberg S, Ramming K, O’Connell M, Moertel C, Lessner H, Bruckner H, Horton J, Schein P, Zamcheck N, Novak J, Holyoke ED: CEA monitoring among patients in multi-institutional adjuvant G.I. therapy protocols. Ann Surg 196: 162–169, 1982.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wanebo HJ: Are carcinoembryonic antigen levels of value in the curative management of colorectal cancer. Surgery 89: 290–295, 1981.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Minton JP, Martin EW: The use of serial CEA determination to predict recurrence of colon cancer and when to do a second-look operation. Cancer 42: 1422–1427, 1978.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Evans JT, Mittelman, A, Chu M, Holyoke ED; Pre- and postoperative uses of CEA. Cancer 42: 1419–1422. 1978.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Steele G, Zamcheck N, Wilson RE, Mayer R, Lokich J, Rao P, Mattz J: Results of CEA-initiated “second-look” surgery for recurrent colorectal cancer. Am J Surg 139: 1980.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wanebo HJ, Stearns M, Schwartz MK: Use of CEA as an indicator of early recurrence and as a guide to a selected second-look procedure in patients with colorectal cancer. Ann Surg 188: 481–493, 1978.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Attiyeh FF, Stearns MW: Second-look laparotomy based on CEA elevations in colorectal cancer. Cancer 2119–2125, 1981.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gerard A: Carcinoma of the colon and rectum: prognostic factors and criteria of response. In: MJ Staquet (ed), Cancer therapy: Prognostic factors and criteria of response. Raven Press, New York, 1975, pp 199–227.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gail M, Gart JJ: The determination of sample sizes for use with the exact conditional test in 2 x 2 comparative trials. Biometrics 29: 1973.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cochrane JPS, Williams JT, Faber RG, Slack WW: Value of outpatient follow-up after curative surgery for carcinoma of the large bowel. Br Med J 1: 593–595, 1980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bacon HE, Berkeley JL: The rationale of re-resection for recurrent cancer of the colon and rectum. Dis Colon Rectum 2: 549–554, 1959.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ekmann C, Gustavson J, Henning A: Value of a follow-up study of recurrent carcinoma of the colon and rectum. Surg Gynecol Obstet 145: 895–897, 1977.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Polk HC, Spratt JS: Recurrent colorectal carcinoma: Detection, treatment, and other considerations. Surgery 69: 9–23, 1971.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tong D, Russell AH, Dawson LE, Wisbeck W: Second laparotomy for proximal colon cancer. Am J Surg 145: 382–386, 1983.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    MacKay AM, Patel S, Carter S, Stevens U, Laurence DJR, Cooper EH, Neville AM: Role of serial CEA assays in detection of recurrent and metastatic colorectal carcinoma. Br Med J 4: 382–385, 1974.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mack J-P, Jaeger PH, Bertholet M-M, Ruegsegger CH, Loosli RM, Pettaval J: Detection of recurrence of large bowel carcinomas by radioimmunoassay or circulating carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA). Lancet ii: 535–540, 1974.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sugarbaker PH, Zamcheck N, Moore FD: Assessment of serial carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) assays in postoperative detection of recurrent colorectal cancer. Cancer 38: 2310–2315, 1976.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Beart RW, Metzger PP, O’Connell MJ, Schutt AJ: Postoperative screening of patients with carcinoma of the colon. Dis Colon Rectum 585–588, 1981.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wangensteen OH, Lewis FJ, Arhelger SW, Muller JJ, MacLean LD: An interim report upon the “second look” procedure for cancer of the stomach, colon and rectum and for “limited intraperitoneal carcinosis. ” Surg Gynecol Obstet 99: 257–267, 1954.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gunderson LL, Sosin H: Areas of failure found at re-operation (second or symptomatic look) following curative surgery for adenocarcinoma of the rectum. Cancer 34: 1278–1292, 1974.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gastrointestinal Tumor Study Group: Adjuvant therapy of colon cancer — results of a prospectively randomized trial. N Eng J Med 310: 737–743, 1984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Moertel CG, Schutt AJ, Go VJ: Carcinoembryonic antigen test for recurrent colorectal carcinoma: Inadequacy for early detection. J Am Med Assoc 239: 1065–1066, 1978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Martinus Nijhoff Publishing, Boston 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mitchell H. Gail

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations