Evaluating adherence to post-treatment follow-up of colorectal cancer at a reference center in Mexico: A retrospective analysis.

Abstract

51 Background: Adequate post-treatment surveillance for colorectal cancer (CRC) is recommended by all major societies with the intention to improve overall survival. However, compliance is variable and has not been studied in our country. Our aim was to evaluate the adherence to post-treatment surveillance NCCN guidelines for CRC at our Institution in Mexico City. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed charts from patients with stage I-III CRC who were diagnosed between January 2014 and December 2016. Adherence to surveillance was evaluated for the first 3 years after completion of oncologic treatment or until recurrence, whichever came first. We used an adherence composite definition previously defined by Cooper et al, where adequate compliance with guidelines was considered if patients had ≥2 physician visits per year for 3 years, ≥2 CEA tests per year for 2 years, and at least one colonoscopy in the 3-years surveillance period. Results: We included 90 patients. Mean age at diagnosis was 62 ± 12.5 years, 53% (n=48) were male, 68% (n=62) had colon cancer and 31% (n=28) rectal cancer. According to AJCC7 19% (n=17) were Stage I, 39% (n=35) II, and 42%(n=38) III. Median score for Charslon index at diagnosis was 4 (IQR 3-6). Results of follow-up adherence are presented in Table. Just 12% (n=11) of patients had a PET/CT or any other non-indicated imaging study for surveillance. Recurrence rate at the 3rd year of surveillance was 6.6% (n=6). A bivariate analysis was performed to find clinical and demographic factors associated to adherence and individual components of surveillance, we did not find any significative association. Conclusions: At our institution compliance with follow-up guidelines for CRC is good and higher than reported by other centers, though individual components have a decreasing trend in adherence every year. This could be explained because in our Institution cancer surveillance is performed by a medical oncologist. The main limitation of our study is that it involves an individual reference center in Mexico; thus, extrapolating data may not be feasible. [Table: see text]