Oops, you're using an old version of your browser so some of the features on this page may not be displaying properly.

MINIMAL Requirements: Google Chrome 24+Mozilla Firefox 20+Internet Explorer 11Opera 15–18Apple Safari 7SeaMonkey 2.15-2.23

Scheduled use of CEA and CT follow-up to detect recurrence of colorectal cancer: 6-12 year results from the FACS randomised controlled trial

Date

09 Oct 2016

Session

Gastrointestinal tumours, colorectal 1

Presenters

Sian Pugh

Citation

Annals of Oncology (2016) 27 (6): 149-206. 10.1093/annonc/mdw370

Authors

S.A. Pugh1, D. Mant2, B. Shinkins3, J. Mellor4, R. Perera2, J. Primrose1

Author affiliations

  • 1 University Surgery, University of Southampton, SO16 6YD - Southampton/GB
  • 2 Nuffield Department Of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, OX2 6GG - Oxford/GB
  • 3 Academic Unit Of Health Economics, University of Leeds-Institute of Health Sciences, LS2 9LJ - Leeds/GB
  • 4 Southampton Clinical Trials Unit, University of Southampton, SO16 6YD - Southampton/GB
More

Resources

Abstract 2317

Background

The FACS trial examined the use of CT imaging and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) measurements in the follow-up of patients with curatively treated colorectal cancer (R0 resection, stages I-III). The interim analysis showed that all intensive strategies (CEA, CT and CEA + CT) identified more recurrences treatable surgically with curative intent compared to minimum follow-up. There was no advantage in using both CT and CEA. This mature analysis reports overall survival (OS) results up to 12 years post randomisation comparing intensive (INT) to minimum (MIN) follow-up.

Methods

1202 participants were randomised to 1 of 4 groups: regular CEA, regular CT imaging (chest abdomen pelvis), CEA + CT or minimum follow-up (symptomatic follow-up +/- single CT). Primary endpoint: surgical treatment of recurrence with curative intent. Follow-up concluded at 5 years, thereafter OS monitoring continued using registry data (median follow-up 8.7 years).

Results

Intensive follow-up identified more recurrences treatable with curative intent (INT 68/901 7.5% vs MIN 8/301 2.7%, p = 0.003). There was no difference in OS between groups (p = 0.45) but numerically more patients with recurrence were still alive in intensive groups (INT 43/901 4.8% vs MIN 7/301 2.3%, p= 0.07). Analysis by site of primary tumour revealed a similar proportion of curatively treatable recurrences in those with rectal tumours irrespective of follow-up (INT 27/275 9.8% vs MIN 6/87 6.9% p = 0.41). By contrast in those with a colonic tumour treatable recurrence was more commonly detected by intensive follow-up (left colon INT 24/327 7.3% vs MIN 1/108 0.9% p = 0.01; right colon INT 14/282 5.0% vs MIN 0/104 0% p = 0.02). In participants with recurrence, OS benefit was only seen in those with a left colonic tumour (median OS: INT 4.4 years vs MIN 3.1 years p = 0.03).

Conclusions

Intensive follow-up increased the detection of treatable recurrence although further analysis suggested this was only the case for colonic tumours. Furthermore, only patients with recurrence from a left colonic tumour derived a survival advantage. This highlights the heterogeneous biology of colorectal cancer. It is unlikely that a survival benefit for the whole cohort will ever be shown.

Clinical trial identification

ISRCTN 41458548

Legal entity responsible for the study

University of Southampton

Funding

NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme

Disclosure

All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Resources from the same session

This site uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential, while others help us improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.

For more detailed information on the cookies we use, please check our Privacy Policy.

Customise settings