Header
Research Article
Surveillance Following Lung Cancer Resection
Tu-Quynh H. Edwards1, Yong-Fang Kuo1,2 and Gulshan Sharma1*
1Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, USA 2Office of Biostatistics, University of Texas Medical Branch, USA

ABSTRACT
Background: Following curative surgery for non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC),patients remain at risk for recurrence or for development of second primary lung cancer (SPLC). While regular surveillance imaging may detect early stage recurrence or SPLC, its effectiveness has not been established, and current practice guidelines conflict in terms of optimal frequency and modalities of surveillance. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of surveillance following curative surgery for NSCLC in comparison with usual care.
Methods: Electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library) were searched for pertinent studies published between 1990 and 2010. Major search concepts included non-small cell lung carcinoma, surveillance, curative resection, recurrence, and second primary lung cancer. Baseline data and results were pooled. Outcomes examined included rate of detection of recurrence, presence of symptoms at recurrence, and site of recurrence.
Results: 18 studies were included in this analysis. No randomized controlled trials were identified. A total of 699 recurrences and 88 second primary lung cancers were detected among 2716 patients. Of these, 53.1% of cases were detected by surveillance protocol The majority of patients were symptomatic at detection (65.1%).Distant recurrence was more frequent than local recurrence (67% vs. 33%). Only 109 patients (13.9%) were offered a repeat surgery, primarily for SPLC.
KEYWORDS
Lung cancer; Surveillance; Non-small cell lung cancer; Outcomes; CT chest

ABBREVIATIONS
ACCP: American College of Chest Physicians; CINAHL: Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature; CT:Computed Tomography; MeSH: Medical Subject Headings; MRI: Magnetic Resonance Imaging; NCCN: National Comprehensive Cancer Network; NSCLC: Non-Small Cell Lung Carcinoma; PET: Positron Emission Tomography; PRISMA:Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses; RCT: Randomized Controlled Trial; SPLC: Second Primary Lung Cancer; TNM: Tumor-Node-Metastasis; US: United States
INTRODUCTION
Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death among men and women in the U.S. Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) comprises about 80% of primary lung cancers. An estimated 219,440 NSCLC cases were diagnosed in the U.S. in 2009 [1]. Curative-intent surgeries offer the best chance for survival in these patients. However, only 15% of patients have localized disease amenable to complete surgical resection at time of diagnosis [2].
Following curative surgery, patients remain at risk for recurrence or for development of second primary lung cancer (SPLC) [3]. Approximately 30%, 65%, and 80%, of patients undergoing resection for Tumor-Node-Metastasis (TNM) stage I, II, and III cancers, respectively, will have recurrence within 5 years [4-6]. Few of these recurrences are amenable to a subsequent curative resection. Second primary lung cancers will develop in approximately 2-3% of these patients each year, a risk that remains relatively constant in the first 5 years after primary resection [5,6-8].
Surveillance regimens following curative treatment for NSCLC generally consist of some combination of physical examination, laboratory studies, and imaging. No single modality is simultaneously sensitive, specific, safe, convenient, and costeffective. Thus, combining strategies is preferred so as to optimize detection of recurrence or SPLC, with the goal of facilitating potentially curative treatment or early palliation.
To date, no published prospective, randomized trials have evaluated surveillance in asymptomatic patients following curative resection for NSCLC. Likewise, no consensus among national guidelines exists for modes or frequency of surveillance. The American Society of Clinical Oncology recommends posttreatment surveillance with history and physical exam alone. In contrast, the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP), and American College of Radiologists recommend the use of chest X-ray and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) recommends use of computed tomography (CT) for surveillance [9,10]. None of these recommendations are based on level 1 evidence.
While periodic surveillance may benefit NSCLC survivors by detecting early stage recurrence or SPLC, it bears the potential harm inherent in disease screening. It has not been established if post-surgical surveillance affects cancer-related or overall mortality. Any perceived benefit may be attributable to leadtime bias. Additionally, the risk of adverse outcomes related to treatment of benign nodules is not insignificant. Furthermore, the cost of surveillance studies and associated treatments must be considered.
The purpose of this systematic review is to evaluate whether the use of surveillance following curative surgery for NSCLC is effective in diagnosing recurrent NSCLC or SPLC in asymptomatic patients, in comparison to usual care defined as symptom triggered workup for reoccurrence. This study aims to compare patterns of surveillance testing after curative surgical resection for NSCLC, and to examine the relationship between surveillance imaging and disease-free survival, overall survival, and cost.
METHODS
The PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews were used for this study [11,12]. Electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library) were searched for pertinent studies published between 1990-2010. Other sources of data included meeting abstracts, completed studies, and references cited in the studies were identified. Major search concepts included non-small cell lung cancer, surveillance, curative resection, recurrence, second primary lung cancer, CT, and chest X-Ray. These concepts and their synonyms were exploded to include all Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) Subheadings. No other search filters were used. Non-English results were included in the screening.
Cohort and case-control studies were examined. Surveillance modalities of interest included chest x-ray, physical exam, CT, and positron emission tomography (PET). The types of outcome measures studied included detection of recurrent NSCLC, detection of second primary lung cancer, site of recurrence or second primary, rates of asymptomatic presentation, and rates of second curative-intent resection.
All pertinent studies were retrieved and independently screened. Data from each study were extracted by the primary investigator. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias was used to evaluate each study. Although this tool was designed to aid assessment of randomized controlled trials, many aspects of the tool remained applicable. Individual studies were evaluated on the basis of generalizability, sample size, dropout rate, and statistical methodology. No studies were excluded on the basis of quality. Baseline data and results from the individual studies were pooled. Due to study heterogeneity, a formal metaanalysis could not be performed.
A flow diagram of the search strategy is shown in (Figure 1). The initial database search generated 64 records. An additional 5 records were identified during review of meeting abstracts, unpublished studies, and cited references. After duplicates were removed, 61 unique records were screened. Because they did not meet the study criteria, 31 records were excluded. The remaining 30 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. Four case studies, 2 editorials, 2 review articles, and 2 survey-based studies were excluded. One article employing computer-based economic modeling and 1 clinical trial design was also excluded. The 18 remaining original studies were included in the qualitative analysis. Characteristics, including study date, design, sample size, demographics, primary tumor characteristics, primary treatment, and rate of recurrence are shown in (Table 1)
RESULTS
Baseline characteristics
Baseline characteristics of the study population are summarized in (Table 2). Not all data were available for every patient. In total, 4119 patients were involved in these 18 studies. The median age of the study population was 63.3 years, and most male. Information on primary tumor histology was available for 3669 patients. The primary NSCLCs included 46.8% adenocarcinoma and 40% squamous cell carcinoma. Postresection stage information was available for 3776 patients. The stage distribution included 54.2% stage I, 18.9% stage II, 25.9% stage III tumors, and 0.4% stage IV tumors. Information on primary surgical treatment was available for 2243 patients. The most common surgical procedures were lobectomy (71.8%),followed by pneumonectomy (22.3%), and wedge resection (5.5%). Approximatly one quarter of the patients underwent adjuvant chemotherapy following their primary surgery.
Figure 1 Search results of studies included in the analyses.



Figure 1

Figure 1Search results of studies included in the analyses.

×
Surveillance protocols
Reported surveillance protocols are summarized in (Table 3). Although no 2 protocols were identical, there were notable trends. The most commonly employed modalities were physical exam, chest x-ray, and CT of the chest. Many protocols included physical exam and chest x-ray at every visit, with more advanced radiological modalities being used at less frequent intervals (e.g., every other visit) or as confirmatory studies. There was a trend toward more frequent monitoring in the first 2 years after surgery, with surveillance tapering thereafter. The majority of follow-up post resection was performed by thoracic surgeons.
Table 1 : Characteristics and results of included studies of surveillance following resection of non- small cell lung cancer.

Table 1

Characteristics and results of included studies of surveillance following resection of non- small cell lung cancer
Adeno = Adenocarcinoma; SCC = Squamous Cell Carcinoma; AS = Adenosquamous Cell Carcinoma; LCC = Large Cell Carcinoma; BAC = Bronchoalveolar Cell Carcinoma; Undiff = Undifferentiated; Unk = Unknown.

Author, year

Journal

Location

Study dates

Design

Number of patients

Gorich et al., 1990 [13]

Clinical Imaging

Germany

1986-1987

Prospective

17

Virgo et al., 1995 [14]

Annals of Surgery

USA

1982-1992

Retrospective

182

Walsh et al., 1995 [15]

Annals of Thoracic Surg

USA

1987- 1991

Retrospective

358

Inoue et al., 1995 [16]

J Nucl Med

USA

not given

Prospective

15

Bury et al., 1999 [17]

Eur Respir J

Belgium

1994- 1997

Prospective, consecutive series

44

Younes et al., 1999 [18]

Chest

Brazil

1983- 1993

Retrospective, case-control

130

Gilbert et al., 2000 [19]

Ann Thorac Surg

Canada

1988- 1997

Retrospective

245

Westeel et al., 2000 [20]

Rev Mal Respir

France

1980- 1993

Prospective, consecutive series

192

Weigel et al., 2000 [21]

Ann Surg Oncol

USA

1997- 1998

Prospective, consecutive series

25

Egermann et al., 2002 [22]

Eur Respir J

Switzerland

1980- 1997

Prospective, consecutive series

563

Lamont et al., 2002 [23]

Archives of Surgery

USA

1996- 2000

Retrospective

124

Chiu et al., 2003 [24]

J Thorac and CV Surg

Taiwan

2000

Prospective, consecutive series

43

Hellwig et al., 2005 [25]

Eur J Nucl Med and Mole Imag

Germany

1996- 2004

Prospective, consecutive series

62

Korst et al., 2005 [26]

J Thorac and CV Surg

USA

1994-2002

Retrospective

213

Aokage et al., 2006 [27]

Lung Cancer

Japan

1992- 2000

Retrospective, consecutive series

265

Benamore et al., 2007 [28]

J Thorac Oncol

Canada

not given

Retrospective, two-cohort

75

Cho and Lee, 2009 [29]

J Thorac and CV Surg

Korea

2003- 2006

Retrospective

86

Nakamura et al., 2010 [30]

Onkologie

Japan

1980-2008

Retrospective

1398

Author, year

Median age (Range)

Gender distribution (%)

Histology (%)

Stage Post-resection (%)

Primary Treatment (%)

Rate of recurrence (%)

Gorich et al., 1990 [13]

59 (41-79)

Male 15 (88.2) Female 2 (11.8)

Adeno 6 (35.3) SCC 10 (58.8) Other 1 (5.9)

1A 2 (11.7) 1B 3 (17.6) 2B 4 (23.5) 3A 7 (41.2)

Lobectomy 13 (76.6) Bilobectomy 2 (11.7) Pneumonectomy 2 (11.7)

16/17 (94.1)

Virgo et al., 1995 [14]

Not described

Not described

Not described

Not described

Not described

42/182 (23.1)

Walsh et al., 1995 [15]

63 (41-88)

Male 222 (62) Female 136 (48)

Adeno 175 (48.9) SCC 120 (33.5) LCC 15 (4.2) BAC 26 (7.3) Undiff 22 (6.1)

1A 85 (23.7) 1B 105 (29.3) 2A 16 (4.5) 2B 31 (8.7) 3A 111 (31) 3B 10 (2.8)

Wedge resection 68 (19) Lobectomy 229 (64) Pneumonectomy 61 (17)

135/358 (37.7)

Inoue et al., 1995 [16]

62 (37-80)

Male 8 (53.3) Female 7 (46.7)

Adeno 6 (40) SCC 7 (46.7) BAC 1 (6.7) Undiff 1 (6.7

Not described

Not described

8/15 (53.3)

Bury et al., 1999 [17]

Not described

Male 78 (61.9) Female 48 (38.1)

Not described

1 20 (45.5) 2 20 (45.5) 3 4 (9)

Surgery not described Adjuvant therapy 12 (27.3)

13/44 (29.5)

Younes et al., 1999 [18]

60 (range not described)

Male 111 (85.4) Female 19 (14.6)

Adeno 41 (31.5) SCC 80 (61.5) LCC 9 (7)

1 38 (29.2) 2 30 (23) 3A 57 (43.8) 3B 5 (3.8)

Lobectomy 80 (61.5) Bilobectomy 15 (11.5) Pneumonectomy 35 (27) Adjuvant therapy 52 (40)

32/130 (24.6)

Gilbert et al., 2000 [19]

64 (34-83)

Male 144 (58.8) Female 101 (41.2)

Adeno 124 (50.6) SCC 86 (35.1) LCC 27 (11) BAC 8 (3.3)

1A 88 (35.9) 1B 110 (44.9) 2A 17 (6.9) 2B 30 (12.3)

Wedge resection 18 (7.3) Lobectomy 167 (68.2) Bilobectomy 20 (8.2) Pneumonectomy 40 (16.3)

111/245 (45.3)

Westeel et al., 2000 [20]

60 (33-81)

Male 177 (92.2) Female 15 (7.8)

Adeno 43 (22) SCC 146 (76) LCC 4 (2)

1 86 (44.8) 2 36 (18.8) 3A 57 (29.7) 3B 9 (4.7) 4 4 (2.1)

Limited resection 3 (1.5) Lobectomy 71 (37) Bilobectomy 6 (3.1) Pneumonectomy 113 (58.9) Adjuvant therapy 68 (35.4)

136/192 (70.8)

Weigel et al., 2000 [21]

62 (38-80)

Male 17 (68) Female 8 (32)

Not described

3A 5 (20) Unk 20 (80)

Not described

3/25 (12)

Egermann et al., 2002 [22]

64 (28-85)

Male 441 (78.3) Female 122 (21.7)

Adeno 146 (25.9) SCC 314 (55.8) LCC 57 (10.1) BAC 33 (5.9) Undiff 13 (2.3)

1A 112 (19.9) 1B 192 (34.1) 2 173 (30.7) 3 86 (15.3)

Lobectomy 361 (64.2) Pneumonectomy 201 (35.8)

239/563 (42.5)

Lamont et al., 2002 [23]

66 (39-85)

Male 65 (52.4) Female 59 (47.6)

Not described

1 64 (51.6) 2 20 (16.1) 3 40 (32.3)

Wedge resection 25 (20.2) Lobectomy 88 (71) Bilobectomy 4 (3.2) Pneumonectomy 17 (13.7)

28/124 (22.6)

Chiu et al., 2003 [24]

71 (43-82)

Male 39 (90.7) Female 4 (9.3)

Adeno 26 (60.5) SCC 10 (23.3) AS 3 (7) LCC 4 (9.3)

1A 6 (14) 1B 20 (46.5) 2B 4 (9.3) 3A 9 (20.9) 3B 2 (4.7) 4 1 (2.3) Unk 1 (2.3)

Wedge resection 6 (14) Lobectomy 34 (79) Bilobectomy 2 (4.7) Pneumonectomy 1 (2.3)

14/43 (32.6)

Hellwig et al., 2005 [25]

62 (38-81)

Male 51 (82.3) Female 11 (17.7)

Adeno 24 (38.7) SCC 33 (53.2) LCC 1 (1.6) BAC 5 (8.1) Undiff 3 (4.8) Other 1 (1.6)

Not described

Surgery not described Adjuvant therapy 14 (22.6)

55/62 (88.7)

Korst et al., 2005 [26]

67 (range not described)

Male 101 (47.4) Female 112 (52.6)

Adeno 141 (66.2) SCC 41 (19.2) AS 2 (0.5) LCC 4 (1.9) BAC 11 (5.2) Undiff 14 (6.6)

1 2 (1) 1A 92 (43.2) 1B 56 (26.3) 2A 6 (2.7) 2B 18 (8.5) 3A 17 (8) 3B 9 (4.2) 4 10 (4.7) Unk 3 (1.4)

Segmentectomy 9 (4.2) Wedge resection 2 (1) Lobectomy 169 (79.3) Bilobectomy 12 (5.6) Sleeve lobectomy 2 (1) Pneumonectomy 15 (7) Completion pneumonectomy 1 (0.5)

25/213 (11.7)

Aokage et al., 2006 [27]

64 (31-84)

Male 152 (57.4) Female 113 (42.6)

Adeno 198 (75.7) SCC 39 (14.7) Other 28 (10.6)

1A 130 (49.1) 1B 65 (24.5) 2A 11 (4.2) 2B 30 (11.3) 3A 29 (10.9)

Limited resection 1 (0.4) Lobectomy 254 (95.8) Pneumonectomy 10 (3.8) Adjuvant therapy 4 (1.6)

25/213 (11.7) 59/265 (22.3)

Benamore et al., 2007 [28]

60 (range not described)

Male 45 (60) Female 30 (40)

Adeno 33 (44) SCC 2 8 (37.3) LCC 6 (8) AS 2 (2.7) Undiff 6 (8)

2B 13 (17.3) 3A 54 (72) 3B 8 (10.7)

Surgery not described Adjuvant therapy 46 (61.3)

45/75 (60)

Cho and Lee, 2009 [29]

61.2 (35-76)

Male 64 (74.4) Female 22 (25.6)

Adeno 31 (36) SCC 49 (57) BAC 4 (4.7) Other 2 (2.3)

1A 20 (23.3) 1B 36 (41.9) 2A 3 (3.5) 2B 12 (13.9) 3A 15 (17.4)

Lobectomy 83 (96.5) Pneumonectomy 3 (3.5) Adjuvant therapy 19 (22.1)

27/86 (31.4)

Nakamura et al., 2010 [30]

67 (25-95)

Male 1014 (72.5) Female 384 (27.5)

Adeno 722 (51.6) SCC 504 (36.1) Undiff 172 (12.3)

1 713 (51) 2 240 (17.2) 3 445 (31.8)

Surgery not described Adjuvant therapy 303 (21.7)

Not described

×
Detection of recurrent NSCLC or second primary lung cancer
Patient data from the studies were pooled for analysis. Not all data of interest were available for each patient. Summary measures are shown in (Table 4). A total of 699 recurrences (25.7%) and 88 SPLCs (3.2%) were detected among 2716 patients. Information on mode of detection was available for 392 cases. Of those, 208 (53.1%) were detected by surveillance protocol and 184 (46.9%) were detected by usual care (p=0.2195). Presence or absence of symptoms was available for 625 patients with recurrence or SPLC. Among those 625 patients, 407 (65.1%) were symptomatic at the time of detection and 218 (34.9%) were asymptomatic (p<0.001). Site of recurrence was available for 699 cases. Of those, 231 (33%) were local, 399 (57.1%) were distant, and 69 (9.9%) were both (p<0.001). Notably, of the 787 recurrences and SPLCs, only 109 (13.9%) were offered a second surgery. The majority of these surgeries (77%) were for SPLC.
Table 2 Patient Demographics, Tumor Characteristics, and Primary Treatment (N=4119).

Table 2

Patient Demographics, Tumor Characteristics, and Primary Treatment (N=4119).
Not all information was available for every patient. Sample sizes for subheadings are provided. † p<0.05

Characteristic

Number (%)

Total patients

4119

Median age, yr

63.3

Gender†

Male

2744 (66.7)

Female

1193 (33.3)

Histology (n=3669)

Adenocarcinoma

1716 (46.8)

Squamous Cell

1467 (40)

Adenosquamous

7 (0.2)

Large Cell

127 (3.5)

Bronchoalveolar Cell

88 (2.4)

Undifferentiated

232 (6.2)

Other

32 (0.9)

Stage Post-Resection (n=3776)

1

2045 (54.2)

2

714 (18.9)

3

979 (25.9)

4

15 (0.4)

unknown

23 (0.6)

Primary Treatment (n=2243)

Segmentectomy

9 (0.4)

Wedge Resection

123 (5.5)

Lobectomy

1549 (69)

Bilobectomy

61 (2.7)

Sleeve Lobectomy

2 (0.1)

Pneumonectomy

498 (22.2)

Completion Pneumonectomy

1 (0.1)

Adjuvant therapy

546 (24.3)

×
Disease-free interval
Younes and colleagues found no difference in disease-free interval between patients monitored via a surveillance protocol and those given usual care [18]. In a series of 239 patients with recurrent NSCLC or SPLC, Egermann and colleagues found no correlation between disease-free interval and duration of survival after the second curative surgery [22]. In contrast, Walsh and colleagues determined that a disease-free interval greater than 12 months was the most important predictor of survival after recurrence.
Survival
Associations between surveillance protocols, mode of presentation (asymptomatic or symptomatic), site of recurrence, and overall survival were conflicting. In a retrospective analysis of 182 patients, Virgo and colleagues found that patients intensively followed after primary resection survived an average of 192 days longer than those without intensive follow-up [14]. Walsh and colleagues found that mode of presentation and site of recurrence did not significantly affect survival in a series of 358 patients. Egermann and colleagues found no significant difference in survival between patients who underwent a second curative-intent resection for recurrent NSCLC or SPLC and those who did not [22].
Cost-effectiveness
Egermann and colleagues examined the cost associated with surveillance and second curative-intent treatment for a series of 563 patients [22]. A total of 239 cases of recurrence and SPLC were detected, with over 70% of the cases occurring in the first year after primary surgery. Only 23 patients were eligible for a second curative resection. Of these, 21 cases were identified as SPLC, and 15 were detected by surveillance. Taken together, the 23 patients gained a calculated benefit of 17 additional life-years. The associated cost per life-year gained was approximately 56,000 US dollars. Based on these cost estimates, the authors recommended a strategy consisting solely of chest X-ray every 6 months for the first 5 years after primary surgery.
Using Medicare fee schedules, Korst et al. compared the cost of surveillance CT scans and associated care in a cohort of 213 patients with a hypothetically identical cohort not subjected to surveillance scans [26]. The authors estimated that the cost in the surveillance group would be 16.6% higher than for the hypothetical usual care group.
Prognostic indicators
Nakamura and colleagues conducted the largest retrospective review to date, with a population of 1,398 patients treated between 1980-2008 [30]. Using univariate and multivariate analyses, they concluded that age less than 65 years, female sex, early stage disease (TNM stage I or II), lack of adjuvant therapy, and a Charlson Index score of 0-1 were all positive prognostic factors for survival. Similarly, Westeel and colleagues identified asymptomatic recurrence, female sex, performance status of 2 or less, and age 61 years or younger as favorable prognostic indicators [20]. In contrast, Gilbert and colleagues sought to identify factors that negatively impacted survival [19]. In their study of 245 patients with initial early stage NSCLC, negative prognostic factors included a disease-free interval of less than 12 months, advanced tumor stage at time of recurrence or SPLC, and presence of symptoms at detection of recurrence.
DISCUSSION
No current practice guidelines exist for surveillance following curative-intent surgery for NSCLC based on high-grade evidence. As a result, wide variation exists in both the type and frequency of surveillance investigations employed. Nonetheless, trends in results were noted both within studies and with the pooled data. Rates of recurrence and detection of SPLC are high. Evidence from these studies suggests that surveillance protocols do not appear significantly better at detecting these recurrences than usual care. This is supported by the finding that many patients are already symptomatic at presentation for work-up. Furthermore, recurrences are more likely to be distant. This may represent a failure of surveillance strategies that focus on lung alone, and do not take into account common sites of distant disease, such as bone. Alternatively, this may imply that many early "recurrences" actually represent progression of micrometastases undetected at time of primary staging and treatment.
Table 3 Surveillance Protocols followed in patients who underwent resection for non small cell lung cancer.

Table 3

Author, year

Follow-up Interval

Surveillance Protocol

Provider

Median Follow-up (mos)

Gorich et al., 1990 [13]

Some f/u between 2-6m

/CT, then PET for any suspicious CT finding

N/R

30

Virgo et al., 1995 [14]

Variable

Intensive = 4+visits, 1+CT, 4+blood tests, 4+CXRs, bronch, or sputum cytology in 12m; Nonintensive = none of the above

Thoracic surgeon

40

Walsh et al., 1995 [15]

Variable

Per physician discretion

Thoracic surgeon and Oncologist

76

Inoue et al., 1995 [16]

One time

FDG-PET in conjunction with CT or ; "positive" scans confirmed by other methods

N/R

N/R

Bury et al., 1999 [17]

q3m x 4y

PE q3m; CT and PET q6m6m

Pulmonologist

N/R

Youneset al., 1999 [18]

1,3w; 2,4,6m; then q3m up to 24m

PE q visit; at first 4 visits then q other visit; CT q6m; LFTs qy

Thoracic surgeon

N/R

Gilbert et al., 2000 [19 ]

q3-4 m x 2y; then q6m x 3y; then qy

PE, , CT, bone scan, abdominal US, or biopsy

Thoracic surgeon or Pulmonologist

41

Westeel et al., 2000 [20]

q3m x 3y; then q6m x 4y; then qy

PE/ q3m and CT/bronchoscopy q6m x3y; then PE/ q6m and CT scan qy x 4y; then qy

Thoracic surgeon and Pulmonologist

131

Weigel et al., 2000 [21]

One time

Fluorescence bronchoscopy

Thoracic surgeon

N/R

Egermann et al., 2002 [22]

q3m x 2y; then q6m x 3y; then qy x 5y

PE, CXR qvisit

Family doctor

48

Lamont et al., 2002 [23]

CT qy; q4m x 2y; then q6m x 3y

PE/ q4m x 2y; then PE/ q6m; CT qy

Thoracic surgeon

N/R

Chiu et al., 2003 [24]

q3m x 2y; then q6m x 3 y

PE, sputum cytology, serum , , LDCT

N/R

15.5

Hellwig et al., 2005 [25]

Variable

PET ordered for any suspicious CT lesion greater than 1.3cm found during routine surveillance

Thoracic surgeon or Pulmonologist

N/R

Korst et al., 2005 [26]

q3m x 1y; then q6m x 1y; then qy

PE qvisit; at 3, 9, 18m; CT at 6, 12m, then qy

Thoracic surgeon

79

Aokage et al., 2006 [27]

q3m x 1y; then q6m x 4y

PE//serum qvisit, abdominal US qy

Thoracic surgeon

72

Benamore et al., 2007 [28]

q3m x 2-3y; then q6m up to 5y

PE//bloodwork qvisit, CT or only for suspicion of relapse

N/R

36

Cho and Lee, 2009 [29]

q3m x 2y

PE//tumor marker q3mos, CT q 6mos; PET at 1 year post-op or for suspicion

Thoracic surgeon or Pulmonologist

31

Nakamura et al., 2010 [30]

Surgeon - 1m then q3-4m x 3y; Pulmonologist - q3-4m

Thoracic surgeon - PE/CXR qvisit; Pulmonologist - PE/ q3m and CT q6m

Thoracic surgeon or Pulmonologist

79

Table 3 Surveillance Protocols followed in patients who underwent resection for non small cell lung cancer.
q = Every; w = Week; m = month; y = year; PE = Physical Exam; CXR = Chest X-Ray; CT = Computed Tomography; PET = Positron Emission Tomography; US = ultrasound;CEA = Carcino Embryonic Antigen; MRI = Magnetic Resonance Imaging; LDCT = Low-Dose Computed Tomography; N/R = Not Reported

×
Only 1 study found a survival difference between patients under surveillance and those who received usual care. Several studies reported no significant difference in survival with active surveillance. These findings further argue against the utility of surveillance protocols. Any perceived benefit of active surveillance may be related to lead-time bias, without an associated survival advantage.
Additionally, the costs of surveillance tests and associated work-up are significantly higher than the cost of usual care. Even when a modest survival benefit of surveillance is assumed, the costs per life-year gained remain high. Given the prevalence of NSCLC, the cumulative cost of surveillance care represents a sizable expenditure.
Nonetheless, some nuances of the physician-patient relationship are not highlighted by these studies, which may influence the use of surveillance imaging. First, there is a gap between what a patient may want to know about disease progression or recurrence and what a physician is capable of treating or curing. Poor understanding of the prognosis associated with recurrence or SPLC may unduly increase the use of surveillance. Secondly, physicians may be motivated to apply surveillance strategies to improve patient satisfaction, for medicolegal purposes, or simply to assess the outcomes of the care they are providing.
Table 4 Recurrent Non-small Cell Lung Cancer and Second Primary Lung Cancer.

Table 4

Recurrent Non-small Cell Lung Cancer and Second Primary Lung Cancer
Not all information was available for each patient. "Number of eligible cases" represents total number of data points available for each outcome of interest, with corresponding percentages for each subgroup. †p<0.001 for differences between subgroups. *For comparison of subgroups of site of recurrence, "distant" and "local and distant" recurrence rates were summed and compared to the proportion of "local" recurrence.

Result (number of eligible cases)

Number (%)

Recurrent NSCLC (n=2716)

699 (25.7)

Second primary lung cancer (n=2716)

88 (3.2)

Status of recurrence or SPLC (number of eligible cases)

Number (%)

Found by protocol (n=392)

208 (53.1)

Found by usual care (n=392)

184 (46.9)

Asymptomatic (n=625)

218 (34.9)

Symptomatic (n=625)

407 (65.1) †

Site of recurrence (n=699)*

Local recurrence

231 (33)

Distant recurrence

399 (57.1) †

Local and distant

69 (9.9) †

×
Novel treatment strategies have improved survival in earlier stage NSCLC [31]. Adjuvant therapy with cisplatin-based chemotherapy agents have been shown to improve cure rates [32]. Similarly, concurrent chemoradiation therapy has been shown to improve survival, with increased benefit over radiation alone [33]. In addition, growing interest in genotyping and personalized medicine has led to the identification of genetic variants associated with response to treatment and with survival [34]. Given these advances beyond the mainstay of surgical resection, the role of surveillance imaging may be evolving and could be significant.
It is important to note that only 5 of the studies examined in this review involved the use of PET scans, and only 2 incorporated PET scans at regular intervals. PET scans have traditionally been utilized for secondary investigation of suspicious lesions, but as their availability has grown, so has their routine use. Since the majority of recurrent lung cancers are extrapulmonary, PET scans have become an attractive and viable option for whole body imaging in post-treatment surveillance. Nonetheless, the effectiveness of PET scans as a surveillance tool in comparison to x-ray and CT remains unclear. More studies using PET scans as a primary surveillance tool are needed to address this issue.
Taken alone, these studies argue against surveillance as efficacious and cost-effective in detecting recurrence following curative-intent surgery for primary NSCLC. However, this systematic review is limited by the strength of evidence currently available. The included studies were all cohort or case-control studies, mostly reflective of various institutions' anecdotal experience. Data for all study patients were incomplete, limiting the strength of the statistical analysis.
The recently published results of the large National Lung Screening Trial suggest a mortality benefit in high-risk patients screened annually with low-dose CT [35]. Although this study was focused on screening prior to diagnosis of a primary lung carcinoma, it calls into question again the potential benefit of surveillance following treatment for lung cancer. With routine screening, most patients will be diagnosed at an early stage potentially amenable to curative surgery increasing the number of patients in the surveillance pool. Evidence from randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) would be most useful in determining best practice guidelines for this area. One large RCT, currently underway in France, is expected to conclude in 2014, with 10 years of data to be collected [36]. While we await these results, we must continue to weigh the risks and benefits of routine surveillance in the context of patient-centered care, and to strive towards advances in the treatment of NSCLC.
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Tu-Quynh H. Edwards, MD, MS has no conflicts of interest to disclose.
Yong-Fang Kuo, PhD has no conflicts of interest to disclose.
Gulshan Sharma, MD, MPH has no conflicts of interest to disclose.
FINANCIAL/NONFINANCIAL DISCLOSURES
The authors have reported no potential conflicts of interest exist with any organizations whose services may be discussed in this article.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Sarah Toombs Smith PhD for help in preparation of the manuscript.
SOURCE OF FUNDING STATEMENT
Dr. Edwards was a student in the UTMB Clinical Science Graduate Program, which is supported in part by a Clinical and Translational Science Award (UL1RR029876) from the National Center for Research Resources, National Institutes of Health, at the time this research was conducted.
Dr. Edwards is a junior co-investigator member of the Comparative Effectiveness Research on Cancer in Texas (CERCIT) consortium, which is funded by the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas (CPRIT) [Grant RP101207]. Dr. Sharma is supported by K08-AG31583 mentored career development award from the NIA.

References
  1. World Health Organization. Global Burden of Lung Cancer, Fact sheet No. 297. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO Press; 2009:1-3.
  2. Lance Armstrong Foundation, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. A National Action Plan for Cancer Survivorship: Advancing Public Health Strategies. Atlanta, Georgia: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2004; 1-12.
  3. Johnson BE, Cortazar P, Chute JP. Second lung cancers in patients successfully treated for lung cancer. Semin Oncol. 1997; 24: 492-499.
  4. Immerman SC, Vanecko RM, Fry WA, Head LR, Shields TW. Site of recurrence in patients with stages I and II carcinoma of the lung resected for cure. Ann Thorac Surg. 1981; 32: 23-27.
  5. Pairolero PC, Williams DE, Bergstralh EJ, Piehler JM, Bernatz PE, Payne WS. Postsurgical stage I bronchogenic carcinoma: morbid implications of recurrent disease. Ann Thorac Surg. 1984; 38: 331-338.
  6. Iascone C, DeMeester TR, Albertucci M, Little AG, Golomb HM. Local recurrence of resectable non-oat cell carcinoma of the lung. A warning against conservative treatment for N0 and N1 disease. Cancer. 1986; 57: 471-476.
  7. Thomas PA Jr, Rubinstein L. Malignant disease appearing late after operation for T1 N0 non-small-cell lung cancer. The Lung Cancer Study Group. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1993; 106: 1053-1058.
  8. Martini N, Melamed MR. Multiple primary lung cancers. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1975; 70: 606-612.
  9. Rubins J, Unger M, Colice GL; American College of Chest Physicians. Follow-up and surveillance of the lung cancer patient following curative intent therapy: ACCP evidence-based clinical practice guideline (2nd edition). Chest. 2007.
  10. NCCN. Guidelines for Patients: Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer. 2010:18-38.
  11. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG; PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009; 62: 1006-1012.
  12. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2009.
  13. Görich J, Beyer-Enke SA, Flentje M, Zuna I, Vogt-Moykopf I, Van Kaick G. Evaluation of recurrent bronchogenic carcinoma by computed tomography. Clin Imaging. 1990; 14: 131-137.
  14. Virgo KS, McKirgan LW, Caputo MC, Mahurin DM, Chao LC, Caputo NA, et al. Post-treatment management options for patients with lung cancer. Ann Surg. 1995; 222: 700-710.
  15. Walsh GL, O'Connor M, Willis KM, Milas M, Wong RS, Nesbitt JC, et al. Is follow-up of lung cancer patients after resection medically indicated and cost-effective? Ann Thorac Surg. 1995; 60: 1563-1570.
  16. Inoue T, Kim EE, Komaki R, Wong FC, Bassa P, Wong WH, et al. Detecting recurrent or residual lung cancer with FDG-PET. J Nucl Med. 1995; 36: 788-793.
  17. Bury T, Corhay JL, Duysinx B, Daenen F, Ghaye B, Barthelemy N, et al. Value of FDG-PET in detecting residual or recurrent nonsmall cell lung cancer. Eur Respir J. 1999; 14: 1376-1380.
  18. Younes RN, Gross JL, Deheinzelin D. Follow-up in lung cancer: how often and for what purpose? Chest. 1999; 115: 1494-1499.
  19. Gilbert S, Reid KR, Lam MY, Petsikas D. Who should follow up lung cancer patients after operation? Ann Thorac Surg. 2000; 69: 1696-1700.
  20. Westeel V, Choma D, Clément F, Woronoff-Lemsi MC, Pugin JF, Dubiez A, et al. Relevance of an intensive postoperative follow-up after surgery for non-small cell lung cancer. Ann Thorac Surg. 2000; 70:1185-1190.
  21. Weigel TL, Yousem S, Dacic S, Kosco PJ, Siegfried J, Luketich JD. Fluorescence bronchoscopic surveillance after curative surgical resection for non-small-cell lung cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2000; 7: 176-80.
  22. Egermann U, Jaeggi K, Habicht JM, Perruchoud AP, Dalquen P, Solèr M. Regular follow-up after curative resection of nonsmall cell lung cancer: a real benefit for patients? Eur Respir J. 2002; 19: 464-468.
  23. Lamont JP, Kakuda JT, Smith D, Wagman LD, Grannis FW Jr. Systematic postoperative radiologic follow-up in patients with non-small cell lung cancer for detecting second primary lung cancer in stage IA. Arch Surg. 2002; 137: 935-938.
  24. Chiu CH, Chern MS, Wu MH, Hsu WH, Wu YC, Huang MH, et al.Usefulness of low-dose spiral CT of the chest in regular follow-up of postoperative non-small cell lung cancer patients: Preliminary report. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2003; 125: 1300-1305.
  25. Hellwig D, Gröschel A, Graeter TP, Hellwig AP, Nestle U, Schäfers HJ, et al. Diagnostic performance and prognostic impact of FDG-PET in suspected recurrence of surgically treated non-small cell lung cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2006; 33: 13-21.
  26. Korst RJ, Gold HT, Kent MS, Port JL, Lee PC, Altorki NK. Surveillance computed tomography after complete resection for non-small cell lung cancer: results and costs. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2005; 129: 652-660.
  27. Aokage K, Yoshida J, Nishimura M, Nishiwaki Y, Nagai K. Annual abdominal ultrasonographic examination after curative NSCLC resection. Lung Cancer. 2007; 57: 334-338.
  28. Benamore R, Shepherd FA, Leighl N, Pintilie M, Patel M, Feld R, et al. Does intensive follow-up alter outcome in patients with advanced lung cancer? J Thorac Oncol. 2007; 2: 273-281.
  29. Cho S, Lee EB. A follow-up of integrated positron emission tomography/computed tomography after curative resection of nonsmall-cell lung cancer in asymptomatic patients. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2010; 139: 1447-1451.
  30. Nakamura R, Kurishima K, Kobayashi N, Ishikawa S, Goto Y, Sakai M,et al. Postoperative follow-up for patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Onkologie. 2010; 33: 14-18.
  31. Breathnach OS, Freidlin B, Conley B, Green MR, Johnson DH, Gandara DR, et al. Twenty-two years of phase III trials for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: sobering results. J Clin Oncol. 2001; 19: 1734-1742.
  32. Pignon JP, Tribodet H, Scagliotti GV, Douillard JY, Shepherd FA, Stephens RJ, et al. Lung adjuvant cisplatin evaluation: a pooled analysis by the LACE Collaborative Group. J Clin Oncol. 2008; 26: 3552-3559.
  33. Curran WJ, Scott CB, Langer CJ, Komaki R, Lee JS, Hauser S, Movsas B, Wasserman T, Sause W, Cox JD. Long-term benefit is observed in a phase III comparison of sequential vs. concurrent chemo-radiation for patients with unresected NSCLC: RTOG 9410 [abstract]. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2003; 22:621.
  34. Hu Z, Chen J, Tian T, Zhou X, Gu H, Xu L, et al. Genetic variants of miRNA sequences and non-small cell lung cancer survival. J Clin Invest. 2008; 118: 2600-2608.
  35. National Lung Screening Trial Research Team, Aberle DR, Adams AM, Berg CD, Black WC, Clapp JD, et al. Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening. N Engl J Med. 2011; 365:395-409.
  36. Westeel V, Lebitasy MP, Mercier M, Girard P, Barlesi F, Blanchon F,et al. [IFCT-0302 trial: randomised study comparing two follow-up schedules in completely resected non-small cell lung cancer]. Rev Mal Respir. 2007; 24: 645-652.

Cite this article:Edwards TQH, Kuo YF, Sharma G (2013) Surveillance Following Lung Cancer Resection. Clin Res Pulmonol 1: 1001.
Right Table
Footer
Content:   Home  |  Aims & Scope  |  Early Online  |  Current Issue  | 
Journal Info:   Editorial Board  |  Article Processing Charges  |  FAQs
Contact Us
2952 Market Street, Suite 140
San Diego, California 92102, USA
Tel: 1-619-373-8030
Fax: 1-619-793-4845
Toll free number: 1-800-762-9856
Copyright © 2013 JSciMed Central. All rights reserved.