A prospective analysis of false positive events in a National Colon Cancer Surveillance Program

Knut Magne Augestad, Jan Norum, Johnie Rose, Rolv-Ole Lindsetmo, Knut Magne Augestad, Jan Norum, Johnie Rose, Rolv-Ole Lindsetmo

Abstract

Background: The survival benefits of colon cancer surveillance programs are well delineated, but less is known about the magnitude of false positive testing. The objective of this study was to estimate the false positive rate and positive predictive value of testing as part of a surveillance program based on national guidelines, and to estimate the degree of testing and resource use needed to identify a curable recurrence.

Methods: Analysis of clinically significant events leading to suspicion of cancer recurrence, false positive events, true cancer recurrences, time to confirmation of diagnosis, and resource use (radiology, blood samples, colonoscopies, consultations) among patients included in a randomised colon cancer surveillance trial.

Results: 110 patients surgically treated for colon cancer were followed according to national guidelines for 1884 surveillance months. 1105 tests (503 blood samples, 278 chest x-rays, 209 liver ultrasounds, 115 colonoscopies) and 1186 health care consultations were performed. Of the 48 events leading to suspicion of cancer recurrence, 34 (71%) represented false positives. Thirty-one (65%) were initiated by new symptoms, and 17 (35%) were initiated by test results. Fourteen patients had true cancer recurrence; 7 resections of recurrent disease were performed, 4 of which were successful R0 metastasis Resections. 276 tests and 296 healthcare consultations were needed per R0 resection; the cost per R0 surgery was £ 103207. There was a 29% probability (positive predictive value) of recurrent cancer when a diagnostic work-up was initiated based on surveillance testing or patient complaints.

Conclusion: We observed a high false positive rate and low positive predictive value for significant clinical events suggestive of possible colorectal cancer relapse in the setting of a post-treatment surveillance program based on national guidelines. Providers and their patients should have an appreciation for the modest positive predictive value inherent in colorectal cancer surveillance programs in order to make informed choices, which maximize quality of life during survivorship. Better means of tailoring surveillance programs based on patient risk would likely lead to more effective and cost-effective post-treatment follow-up.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00572143. Date of trial registration: 11th of December 2007.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
A sensitivity analysis varying the major cost factors. The base case per R0 resection was set as origo (£103,000). Variance in the number of successful R0 metastases resections has a major impact on overall cost (range £ 82,566 to £ 123, 847).

References

    1. Larsen I. Cancer registry of Norway. Cancer Norway. 2011;14:1–90. Available from:
    1. Tjandra J, Chan MKY. Follow-up after curative resection of colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis. Dis Colon Rectum. 2007;14:1783–1799. doi: 10.1007/s10350-007-9030-5.
    1. Jeffery M, Hickey BE, Hider PN. Follow-up strategies for patients treated for non-metastatic colorectal cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;14:1–25.
    1. Marshall KG. Prevention. How much harm? How much benefit? 1. Influence of reporting methods on perception of benefits. Can Med Assoc J. 1996;14:1493.
    1. Marshall KG. Prevention. How much harm? How much benefit? 2. Ten potential pitfalls in determining the clinical significance of benefits. Can Med Assoc J. 1996;14:1837.
    1. Marshall KG. Prevention. How much harm? How much benefit? 3. Physical, psychological and social harm. Can Med Assoc J. 1996;14:169.
    1. Independent UK Panel on Breast Cancer Screening. The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review. Lancet. 2012;14:1778–1786.
    1. Augestad KM, Norum J, Dehof S, Aspevik R, Ringberg U, Nestvold T, Vonen B, Skrøvseth SO, Lindsetmo R-O. Cost-effectiveness and quality of life in surgeon versus general practitioner-organised colon cancer surveillance: a randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open. 2013;14(4) doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2012-002391.
    1. Augestad KM, Vonen B, Aspevik R, Nestvold T, Ringberg U, Johnsen R, Norum J, Lindsetmo R-O. Should the surgeon or the general practitioner (GP) follow up patients after surgery for colon cancer? A randomized controlled trial protocol focusing on quality of life, cost-effectiveness and serious clinical events. BMC Health Serv Res. 2008;14:137. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-8-137.
    1. Roset M. Sample size cacluations using EQ-5D. Qual Life Res. 1999;14:1–11.
    1. Njor SH, Olsen AH, Blichert-Toft M, Schwartz W, Vejborg I, Lynge E. Overdiagnosis in screening mammography in Denmark: population based cohort study. BMJ. 2013;14:f1064–f1064. doi: 10.1136/bmj.f1064.
    1. Wattchow DA, Weller DP, Esterman A, Pilotto LS, McGorm K, Hammett Z, Platell C, Silagy C. General practice vs surgical-based follow-up for patients with colon cancer: randomised controlled trial. Br J Cancer. 2006;14:1116–1121. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6603052.
    1. Gall CA, Weller D, Esterman A, Pilotto L, McGorm K, Hammett Z, Wattchow D. Patient satisfaction and health-related quality of life after treatment for colon cancer. Dis Colon Rectum. 2007;14:801–809. doi: 10.1007/s10350-006-0815-8.
    1. Mitchell A, Ferguson DW, Gill J. Depression and anxiety in long-term cancer survivors compared with spouses and healthy controls: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14:1–12. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(12)70595-8.
    1. Kievit J. Follow-up of patients with colorectal cancer: numbers needed to test and treat. Eur J Cancer. 2002;14:986–999. doi: 10.1016/S0959-8049(02)00061-8.
    1. Körner H, Søreide K, Stokkeland PJ, Søreide JA. Systematic follow-up after curative surgery for colorectal cancer in Norway: a population-based audit of effectiveness, costs, and compliance. J Gastrointest Surg. 2005;14:320–328. doi: 10.1016/j.gassur.2004.09.023.
    1. Loprinzi C, Hayes DD, Smith TT. Doc, shouldn’t we be getting some tests? J Clin Oncol. 2003;14:108s–111s. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2003.01.190.
    1. Körner H, Søreide K, Stokkeland PJ, Søreide JA. Diagnostic accuracy of serum-carcinoembryonic antigen in recurrent colorectal cancer: a receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2006;14:417–423.
    1. Grossmann I, Avenarius JKA, Mastboom WJB, Klaase JM. Preoperative staging with chest ct in patients with colorectal carcinoma: not as a routine procedure. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;14:2045–2050. doi: 10.1245/s10434-010-0962-y.
    1. Mirkin JN. Benefits and harms of CT screening for lung cancer: a systematic review. JAMA: J Am Med Assoc. 2012;14:2418–2429. doi: 10.1001/jama.2012.5521.
    1. van den Bergh K, Essink-Bot M, Borsboom G, Scholten E, van Klaveren R, de Koning H. Long-term effects of lung cancer computed tomography screening on health-related quality of life: the NELSON trial. Eur Respir J. 2011;14:154–161. doi: 10.1183/09031936.00123410.
    1. Brewer NT, Salz T. Systematic review: the long-term effects of false-positive mammograms. Ann Intern Med. 2007;14:502–510. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-146-7-200704030-00006.
    1. Søreide K. Endoscopic surveillance after curative surgery for sporadic colorectal cancer: patient-tailored, tumor-targeted or biology-driven? Scand J Gastroenterol. 2010;14:1255–1261.

Source: PubMed

3
Předplatit