Advertisement

Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®

, Volume 472, Issue 5, pp 1568–1575 | Cite as

Does Intensity of Surveillance Affect Survival After Surgery for Sarcomas? Results of a Randomized Noninferiority Trial

  • Ajay Puri
  • Ashish Gulia
  • Rohini Hawaldar
  • Priya Ranganathan
  • Rajendra A. Badwe
Clinical Research

Abstract

Background

Whether current postoperative surveillance regimes result in improved overall survival (OS) of patients with extremity sarcomas is unknown.

Questions/purposes

We hypothesized that a less intensive followup protocol would not be inferior to the conventional followup protocol in terms of OS. We (1) assessed OS of patients to determine if less intensive followup regimens led to worsened survival and asked (2) whether chest radiograph followup group was inferior to CT scan followup group in detecting pulmonary metastasis; and (3) whether less frequent (6-monthly) followup interval was inferior to more frequent (3-monthly) followup in detecting pulmonary metastasis and local recurrence.

Methods

A prospective randomized single-center noninferiority trial was conducted between January 2006 and June 2010. On the basis of 3-year survival of 60% with intensive, more frequent followup, 500 nonmetastatic patients were randomized to demonstrate noninferiority by a margin (delta) of 10% (hazard ratio [HR], 1.36). The primary end point was OS at 3 years. The secondary objective was to compare disease-free survival (DFS) (time to recurrence) at 3 years. At minimum followup of 30 months (median, 42 months; range, 30–81 months), 178 deaths were documented.

Results

Three-year OS and DFS for all patients was 67% and 52%, respectively. Three-year OS was 67% and 66% in chest radiography and CT groups, respectively (HR, 0.9; upper 90% confidence interval [CI], 1.13). DFS rate was 54% and 49% in chest radiography and CT groups, respectively (HR, 0.82; upper 90% CI, 0.97). Three-year OS was 64% and 69% in 6-monthly and 3-monthly groups, respectively (HR, 1.2; upper 90% CI, 1.47). DFS was 51% and 52% in 6-monthly and 3-monthly groups, respectively (HR, 1.01; upper 90% CI, 1.2). Almost 90% of local recurrences were identified by patients themselves.

Conclusions

Inexpensive imaging detects the vast majority of recurrent disease in patients with sarcoma without deleterious effects on eventual outcomes. Patient education regarding self-examination will detect most instances of local recurrence although this was not directly assessed in this study. Although less frequent visits adequately detected metastasis and local recurrence, this trial could not conclusively demonstrate noninferiority in OS for a 6-monthly interval of followup visits against 3-monthly visits.

Level of Evidence

Level I, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Keywords

Overall Survival Sarcoma Local Recurrence Soft Tissue Sarcoma Pulmonary Metastasis 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Dr C. S. Pramesh for his assistance in analysis and interpretation of the data and review of the manuscript. We also thank all consultants, fellows, and trial coordinators of the Bone & Soft Tissue–Disease Management Group for their assistance during the conduct of the trial.

References

  1. 1.
    Beitler AL, Virgo KS, Johnson FE, Gibbs JF, Kraybill WG. Current follow-up strategies after potentially curative resection of extremity sarcomas: results of a survey of the members of the society of surgical oncology. Cancer. 2000;88:777–785.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Berrington de González A, Mahesh M, Kim KP, Bhargavan M, Lewis R, Mettler F, Land C. Projected cancer risks from computed tomographic scans performed in the United States in 2007. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169:2071–2077.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cho HS, Park IH, Jeong WJ, Han I, Kim HS. Prognostic value of computed tomography for monitoring pulmonary metastases in soft tissue sarcoma patients after surgical management: a retrospective cohort study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18:3392–3398.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chou YS, Liu CY, Chen WM, Chen TH, Chen PC, Wu HT, Chiou HJ, Shiau CY, Wu YC, Liu CL, Chao TC, Tzeng CH, Yen CC. Follow-up after primary treatment of soft tissue sarcoma of extremities: impact of frequency of follow-up imaging on disease-specific survival. J Surg Oncol. 2012;106:155–161.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cool P, Grimer R, Rees R. Surveillance in patients with sarcoma of the extremities. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2005;31:1020–1024.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Emens LA, Davidson NE. The follow-up of breast cancer. Semin Oncol. 2003;30:338–348.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fung-Kee-Fung M, Dodge J, Elit L, Lukka H, Chambers A, Oliver T. Follow-up after primary therapy for endometrial cancer: a systematic review. Gynecol Oncol. 2006;101:520–529.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gerrand CH, Billingham LJ, Woll PJ, Grimer RJ. Follow up after primary treatment of soft tissue sarcoma: a survey of current practice in the United Kingdom. Sarcoma. 2007;2007:34128.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Goel A, Christy ME, Virgo KS, Kraybill WG, Johnson FE. Costs of follow-up after potentially curative treatment for extremity soft-tissue sarcoma. Int J Oncol. 2004;25:429–435.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Johnson FE, Sakata K, Sarkar S, Audisio RA, Kraybill WG, Gibbs JF, Beitler AL, Virgo KS. Patient surveillance after treatment for soft-tissue sarcoma. Int J Oncol. 2011;38:233–239.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kane JM 3rd. Surveillance strategies for patients following surgical resection of soft tissue sarcomas. Curr Opin Oncol. 2004;16:328–332.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Korholz D, Verheyen J, Kemperdick HF, Gobel U. Evaluation of follow-up investigations in osteosarcoma patients: suggestions for an effective follow-up program. Med Pediatr Oncol. 1998;30:52–58.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lack EE, Steinberg SM, White DE, Kinsella T, Glatstein E, Chang AE, Rosenberg SA. Extremity soft tissue sarcomas: analysis of prognostic variables in 300 cases and evaluation of tumor necrosis as a factor in stratifying higher-grade sarcomas. J Surg Oncol. 1989;41:263–273.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Meyerhardt JA, Mayer RJ. Follow-up strategies after curative resection of colorectal cancer. Semin Oncol. 2003;30:349–360.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Meyers MO, Yeh JJ, Frank J, Long P, Deal AM, Amos KD, Ollila DW. Method of detection of initial recurrence of stage II/III cutaneous melanoma: analysis of the utility of follow-up staging. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16:941–947.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pocock SJ. The pros and cons of noninferiority trials. Fundam Clin Pharmacol. 2003;17:483–490.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Postovsky S, Barzilai M, Meller I, Kollander Y, Futerman B, Ben Arush MW. Does regular follow-up influence the survival of patients with sarcoma after recurrence? The Miri Shitrit pediatric oncology department experience. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol. 2008;30:189–195.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sawamura C, Matsumoto S, Shimoji T, Okawa A, Ae K. How long should we follow patients with soft tissue sarcomas? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013 May 29 [Epub ahead of print].Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Smith TJ, Hillner BE. Bending the cost curve in cancer care. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:2060–2065.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    The ESMO/European Sarcoma Network Working Group. Bone sarcomas: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2012;23(Suppl 7):vii100–109.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Whooley BP, Gibbs JF, Mooney MM, McGrath BE, Kraybill WG. Primary extremity sarcoma: what is the appropriate follow-up? Ann Surg Oncol. 2000;7:9–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Whooley BP, Mooney MM, Gibbs JF, Kraybill WG. Effective follow-up strategies in soft tissue sarcoma. Semin Surg Oncol. 1999;17:83–87.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons® 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ajay Puri
    • 1
  • Ashish Gulia
    • 1
  • Rohini Hawaldar
    • 2
  • Priya Ranganathan
    • 3
  • Rajendra A. Badwe
    • 4
  1. 1.Orthopaedic OncologyTata Memorial HospitalMumbaiIndia
  2. 2.Tata Memorial HospitalMumbaiIndia
  3. 3.Anaesthesiology, Critical Care and PainTata Memorial HospitalMumbaiIndia
  4. 4.Surgical OncologyTata Memorial HospitalMumbaiIndia

Personalised recommendations