Follow-up after curative treatment for colorectal cancer (CRC) puts pressure on outpatient services due to the growing number of CRC survivors. The aim of this state-of-the-art review was to evaluate setting, manner and provider of follow-up. Moreover, perceptions of CRC survivors and health care providers regarding standard and alternative follow-up were examined. After a comprehensive literature search of the PubMed database, 69 articles were included reporting on CRC follow-up in the hospital, primary care and home setting. Hospital-based follow-up is most common and has been provided by surgeons, medical oncologists, and gastroenterologists, as well as nurses. Primary care-based follow-up has been provided by general practitioners or nurses. Even though most hospital-or primary care-based follow-up care requires patients to visit the clinic, telephone-based care has proven to be a feasible alternative. Most patients perceived follow-up as positive; valuing screening and detection for disease recurrence and appreciating support for physical and psychosocial symptoms. Hospital-based follow-up performed by the medical specialist or nurse is highly preferred by patients and health care providers. However, willingness of both patients and health care providers for alternative, primary care or remote follow-up exists. Nurse-led and GP-led follow-up have proven to be cost-effective alternatives compared to specialist-led follow-up. If proven safe and acceptable, remote follow-up can become a cost-effective alternative. To decrease the personal and financial burden of follow-up for a growing number of colorectal cancer survivors, a more acceptable, flexible and dynamic care follow-up mode consisting of enhanced communication and role definitions among clinicians is warranted.

Introduction: Colorectal cancer (CRC) follow-up has a major impact on outpatient services. The aim was to examine patient acceptability and costs of a new remote follow-up regimen for patients with CRC. Material and methods: All patients with stage I-III CRC and having completed at least one-year of followup at Radboud University Medical Center located in Nijmegen, The Netherlands, were considered for remote follow-up. Enrolled patients received the EORTC-C30 (Quality of Life, QoL), Cancer Worry Scale (Fear of Cancer Recurrence, FCR), (e)Health literacy and patient satisfaction questionnaires. Follow-up use and costs were evaluated. Results: A total of 118 patients with stage I-III CRC have been followed according to the new remote follow-up regimen. Median length of follow-up at start of remote follow-up was 34 months (interquartile range of 24e41) and all patients were sufficiently health literate. Overall satisfaction towards remote follow-up at 6-and 12-months was rated 7.8 and 7.5 out of 10. Satisfaction with the online selfmanagement information was rated 8 out of 10. Over a one-year period, QoL remained high and patients experienced low FCR. More than 70% of the patients self-organized their care, while the others sought contact by telephone, MyChart or hospital visits. Remote follow-up for the total cohort led to V22,408 cost-savings over one-year compared to standard hospital follow-up. Conclusions: Implementation of remote follow-up for patients with stage I-III CRC is feasible, comes with high patient satisfaction and considerable cost-savings. Short-term results did not show differences in QoL or FCR during the course of remote follow-up.

No abstract

Background In current practice, rates of locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) are low due to the use of the total mesorectal excision (TME) in combination with various neoadjuvant treatment strategies. However, the literature on LRRC mainly consists of single- and multicenter retrospective cohort studies, which are prone to selection bias. The aim of this study is to provide a nationwide, population-based overview of LRRC after TME in the Netherlands. Patients and Methods In total, 1431 patients with nonmetastasized primary rectal cancer diagnosed in the first six months of 2015 and treated with TME were included from the nationwide, population-based Netherlands Cancer Registry. Data on disease recurrence were collected for patients diagnosed in these 6 months only. Competing risk cumulative incidence, competing risk regression, and Kaplan–Meier analyses were performed to assess incidence, risk factors, treatment, and overall survival (OS) of LRRC. Results Three-year cumulative incidence of LRRC was 6.4%; synchronous distant metastases (LRRC-M1) were present in 44.9% of patients with LRRC. Distal localization, R1–2 margin, (y)pT3-4, and (y)pN1-2 were associated with an increased LRRC rate. No differences in LRRC treatment and OS were found between patients who had been treated with or without prior n(C)RT. Curative-intent treatment was given to 42.9% of patients with LRRC, and 3-year OS thereafter was 70%. Conclusions Nationwide LRRC incidence was low. A high proportion of patients with LRRC underwent curative-intent treatment, and OS of this group was high in comparison with previous studies. Additionally, n(C)RT for primary rectal cancer was not associated with differences in treatment and OS of LRRC.

Background The reported outcomes of locoregionally recurrent colon cancer (LRCC) are poor, but the literature about LRCC is scarce and aged. Recent population-based studies to provide current insight into LRCC are warranted. This study aimed to provide an overview of the incidence, risk factors, treatment, and overall survival (OS) of patients with LRCC after curative resection of stage I–III primary colon cancer. Methods Data on disease recurrence were collected for all patients with a diagnosis of non-metastasized primary colon cancer in the Netherlands during the first 6 months of 2015. Patients who underwent surgical resection (N = 3544) were included in this study. The 3-year cumulative incidence, risk factors, treatment, and OS for patients with LRCC were determined. Results The 3-year cumulative incidence of LRCC was 3.8%. Synchronous distant metastases (LRCC-M1) were diagnosed in 62.7% of the patients. The risk factors for LRCC were age of 70 years or older, pT4, pN1-2, and R1-2. Adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with a decreased risk of LRCC for high-risk stage II and stage III patients [hazard ratio (HR), 0.47; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.31–0.93]. The median OS for the patients with LRCC was 13.1 months (95% CI 9.1–18.3 months). Curative-intent treatment was given to 22.4% of the LRCC patients, and the subsequent 3 years OS was 71% (95% CI 58–87%). The patients treated with palliative treatment and best supportive care showed 3-year OS rates of 15% (95% CI 7.0–31%) and 3.7% (95% CI 1.0–14%), respectively. Conclusions The cumulative incidence of LRCC was low, and adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with a decreased risk for LRCC among targeted patients. Curative-intent treatment was given to nearly 1 in 4 LRCC patients, and the OS for this group was high.