Recommendations on surveillance for recurrence in asymptomatic patients following surgery in 16 common cancer types: a systematic review

Hannah Harrison,Bhumi Ketankumar Shah,Faris Khan,Carley Batley,Chiara Re,Sabrina Helena Rossi,Georgia Stimpson,Eamonn Gilmore,Eleanor White,Sofia Kler-Sangha,Aufia Expressivo,Z. Sienna Pan,Tanzil Rujeedawa,Benjamin L. Lamb,Laura Succony,Shi Lam,Bincy M. Zacharia,Rececca Lucey,Alexander J. P. Fulton,Dimana Kaludova,Anita Balakrishnan,Juliet A. Usher-Smith,Grant D. Stewart

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.09.19.24313975

2024-09-22

Abstract:Objectives To identify and compare guidelines which make recommendations surveillance for the detection of recurrence for 16 common solid cancers after initial treatment with curative intent in asymptomatic patients. Design We conducted a systematic review, combining search results from two electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE) and one guideline organisation website (NICE), as well as using expert consultation and manual searching. Screening and data extraction were carried out by multiple reviewers. We collected data from each guideline on the recommendations for surveillance and the use of risk-stratification. Findings were compared between cancer types and regions. Text mining was used to extract statements commenting on the evidence for surveillance. Results We identified 123 guidelines across 16 cancer types. Almost all guidelines (n=115, 93.5%) recommend routine surveillance for recurrent disease in asymptomatic patients after initial treatment. Around half (n=59, 51.3%) recommend indefinite or lifelong surveillance. The most common modality of surveillance was cross-sectional imaging. Risk-stratification of the frequency, length, and mode of surveillance was widespread, with most of the guidelines (n=92, 74.8%) recommending that surveillance be adapted based on assessment of patient risk. More than a third of the included guidelines (n=50, 39.0%) provided incomplete or vague recommendations about surveillance. For fourteen of the included cancers, we found statements in the guidelines indicating that there is no evidence that surveillance improves survival. Conclusions Although specific details of follow-up schedules vary, common challenges were identified across the 16 included cancer types. These include heterogeneity between recommendations for the same cancer type, vague or non-specific recommendation and a lack of cited evidence to support use of surveillance to improve outcomes for patients. Challenges in generating evidence in this area remain, however, increased availability to linked health records may provide a way forward for researchers. Registration Protocol published on PROSPERO in 2021 (ID: CRD42021289625)

Oncology

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

### Problems the paper attempts to solve

This paper aims to identify and compare the guideline recommendations for recurrence monitoring of asymptomatic patients after initial treatment for 16 common solid tumors. Specifically, the research objectives include:

1. **Identifying guidelines**: Identify these guidelines through a systematic review, combining multiple databases (such as MEDLINE, EMBASE) and a guideline - organization website (NICE), as well as expert consultation and manual search.
2. **Comparing recommendations**: Analyze the specific recommendations regarding recurrence monitoring in these guidelines, including the type, frequency, duration of monitoring, and the application of risk stratification.
3. **Evaluating evidence**: Examine the evidence provided in the guidelines to determine whether monitoring can improve the clinical outcomes of patients.

### Main findings

- **Most guidelines recommend routine monitoring**: Almost all guidelines (115/123, 93.5%) recommend routine recurrence monitoring for asymptomatic patients.
- **Monitoring modalities**: The most common monitoring method is cross - sectional imaging (89/123, 72.4%), especially CT scans (67/123, 54.5%).
- **Risk stratification**: Most guidelines (92/123, 74.8%) suggest adjusting the frequency, length, and modality of monitoring according to the patient's risk assessment.
- **Monitoring duration**: Approximately half of the guidelines (59/123, 51.3%) recommend indefinite or lifelong monitoring.
- **Insufficient evidence**: More than one - third of the guidelines (50/123, 39.0%) provide incomplete or ambiguous monitoring recommendations. For 14 types of cancer, the guidelines mention that there is no evidence indicating that monitoring can improve survival rates.

### Conclusions

Although there are differences in the details of follow - up regimens for different cancer types, the common challenges include:
- Heterogeneity among guidelines.
- Ambiguous or non - specific recommendations.
- Lack of cited evidence to support the use of monitoring to improve patient outcomes.

Future research needs to address these challenges, and in particular, the use of linked health record data may provide a way forward for researchers.