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)
Competing Interest Statement
BWL has received funding from Cancer Alliances and NHS England for training MDTs in assessment and quality improvement methods in the United Kingdom; and honoraria for public speaking from Parsek. BWL received consultancy fees from Digital Surgery Ltd, MDOUTLOOK; and honoraria from Astra Zeneca and Astellas. GDS has received educational grants from Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Intuitive Surgical; consultancy fees from Pfizer, Merck, EUSA Pharma, and CMR Surgical; travel expenses from Pfizer; and speaker fees from Pfizer and MSD. GDS is the clinical lead (urology) of the National Kidney Cancer Audit and a topic advisor for the NICE kidney cancer guideline.
Funding Statement
The work was supported by the International Alliance for Cancer Early Detection, a partnership between Cancer Research UK, Canary Center at Stanford University, the University of Cambridge, OHSU Knight Cancer Institute, University College London, and the University of Manchester. HH is funded by a CRUK International Alliance for Cancer Early Detection (ACED) Pathway Award (EDDAPA-2022/100001). GS is funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) under its Research for Patient Benefit (RfPB) Programme (Grant Reference Number NIHR205404). JAUS is funded by an NIHR Advanced Fellowship (NIHR300861). GDS is supported by The Mark Foundation for Cancer Research, the Cancer Research UK Cambridge Centre (C9685/A25177 and CTRQQR-2021\100012), and NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre (NIHR203312). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, the Sergey Brin Family Foundation, California Institute of Technology, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Imperial College London, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford University, University of Washington, and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
Subject Area
Reviews and Context
0
Comment
0
TRIP Peer Reviews
0
Community Reviews
0
Automated Services
0
Blogs/Media
Author Videos