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

BMC Health Services Research

Rolv-Ole Lindsetmo¹  Johnie Rose²  Jan Norum¹  Knut Magne Augestad³ 

[1] Institute of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Tromsø – The Artic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway;Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Cleveland, OH, USA;Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, University Hospital of North Norway, Tromsø, Norway

关键词: Cost-effectiveness;    Metastases resection;    Positive predictive value;    False positive test;    Follow-up;    Surveillance;    Colorectal cancer;   

Others  :  1133223
DOI  :  10.1186/1472-6963-14-137

 received in 2013-11-06, accepted in 2014-03-25,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

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: 11^th of December 2007.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Augestad et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Larsen I: Cancer registry of Norway. Cancer Norway 2011, 2013:1-90. Available from: http://www.kreftregisteret.no/no/Generelt/Publikasjoner/Cancer-in-Norway/Cancer-in-Norway-2011/ webcite
• [2]Tjandra J, Chan MKY: Follow-up after curative resection of colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis. Dis Colon Rectum 2007, 50:1783-1799.
• [3]Jeffery M, Hickey BE, Hider PN: Follow-up strategies for patients treated for non-metastatic colorectal cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007, 1:1-25.
• [4]Marshall KG: Prevention. How much harm? How much benefit? 1. Influence of reporting methods on perception of benefits. Can Med Assoc J 1996, 154:1493.
• [5]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, 154:1837.
• [6]Marshall KG: Prevention. How much harm? How much benefit? 3. Physical, psychological and social harm. Can Med Assoc J 1996, 155:169.
• [7]Independent UK Panel on Breast Cancer Screening: The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review. Lancet 2012, 380:1778-1786.
• [8]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., 3(4) doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2012-002391
• [9]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, 8:137. BioMed Central Full Text
• [10]Roset M: Sample size cacluations using EQ-5D. Qual Life Res 1999, 8:1-11.
• [11]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, 346:f1064-f1064.
• [12]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, 94:1116-1121.
• [13]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, 50:801-809.
• [14]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.
• [15]Kievit J: Follow-up of patients with colorectal cancer: numbers needed to test and treat. Eur J Cancer 2002, 38:986-999.
• [16]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, 9:320-328.
• [17]Loprinzi C, Hayes DD, Smith TT: Doc, shouldn’t we be getting some tests? J Clin Oncol 2003, 21:108s-111s.
• [18]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.
• [19]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, 17:2045-2050.
• [20]Mirkin JN: Benefits and harms of CT screening for lung cancer: a systematic review. JAMA: J Am Med Assoc 2012, 307:2418-2429.
• [21]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, 38:154-161.
• [22]Brewer NT, Salz T: Systematic review: the long-term effects of false-positive mammograms. Ann Intern Med 2007, 146:502-510.
• [23]Søreide K: Endoscopic surveillance after curative surgery for sporadic colorectal cancer: patient-tailored, tumor-targeted or biology-driven? Scand J Gastroenterol 2010, 45:1255-1261.