INTRODUCTION: In spite of advances in curative management of esophageal cancer, a significant proportion of patients have early recurrence following resection. The role of CT-guided surveillance remains undefined. This study aims to determine if follow-up can be personalised, to allow detection of clinically relevant recurrence, while reducing low-yield surveillance for patients. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted encompassing patients undergoing esophagectomy with curative intent from 1st March 2018-31st May 2022. Routine 3-monthly CT scanning was conducted for 2 years, followed by 6-monthly surveillance for 1 year, and annual surveillance to 5 years. Disease characteristics, time to recurrence and time to death were recorded and interrogated to determine their impact on recurrence and personalization of surveillance. RESULTS: In total, 190 patients underwent surveillance. Seventy-one (37 %) developed recurrence, with most in the first two years. Those who recurred were younger (63 vs 67, p < 0.001), had higher pathologic staging (p < 0.001), higher tumour regression grade (p = 0.005), higher lymph node ratio (p < 0.001) and high-risk histology (p < 0.001). Most recurrences detected were asymptomatic (94 %). A personalised surveillance score was devised. With strict criteria, 12 % of patients could be excluded from surveillance without compromising detection of asymptomatic recurrence. By broadening criteria, a larger portion of patients could avoid imaging, with a small number of asymptomatic recurrences missed. This would require significant balancing of the risk-benefit ratio for individuals. CONCLUSION: Intensive surveillance post-resection of esophageal cancer will detect most recurrences while asymptomatic, potentially facilitating intervention. In select patients, routine surveillance could be excluded without compromising oncologic or patient outcomes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bolger et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: