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