Positron emission tomography for the detection of colorectal adenomas

Background: 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) has been reported to detect colorectal adenomas. Aims: This study aimed at evaluating the sensitivity of 18F-FDG PET with computed tomography image fusion (PET/CT) for detecting colorectal adenomas. Methods: We retrospectively compared the results of 92 18F-FDG PET/CT studies followed by colonoscopy. Colonoscopy and histology were considered as the gold standard. Results: One hundred fifty-seven lesions were observed. All the 12 malignancies were identified by 18F-FDG PET/CT but only 27 out of 119 resected adenomas (sensitivity 22.7%) and none of the hyperplastic polyps were detected. At the univariate and multivariate analyses there was a significant statistical association between adenomas sized more than 10 mm, presence of villous component and high-grade dysplasia and the ability of 18F-FDG PET/CT to detect adenomas. 18F-FDG PET/CT showed an overall sensitivity of 29.8%, a specificity of 81.1%, a positive predictive value (PPV) of 84.8% and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 24.6% for the neoplastic colorectal lesions globally considered. Conclusion: 18F-FDG PET/CT has a low sensitivity for detecting adenomas. However, because of the specificity and PPV of the technique for neoplastic colorectal lesions, the presence of a focal colorectal FDG uptake justifies the patient undergoing colonoscopy. © 2009 Editrice Gastroenterologica Italiana S.r.l

Surgical outcome after docetaxel-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy in locally-advanced gastric cancer

AIM: To investigate feasibility, morbidity and surgical mortality of a docetaxel-based chemotherapy regimen randomly administered before or after gastrectomy in patients suffering from locally-advanced resectable gastric cancer

Pre- and post-procedural quality indicators for colonoscopy. A nationwide survey

BACKGROUND: The provision of high-quality colonoscopy can be assessed by evaluating technical aspects of the procedure and, at individual center level, by comparing structural indicators and institutional policies for managing peri-procedural issues with guideline recommendations. AIM: To assess the colonoscopy quality (CQ) in Italy at center level. METHODS: Gastroenterologists participating in a nationwide colonoscopy education initiative provided information on structural indicators of their centers and on institutional policies by answering 10 multiple-choice clinical scenarios. Practice variation across centers and compliance with guidelines were analyzed. RESULTS: Data from 282 Italian centers were evaluated. Overall, a significant proportion of centers did not meet CQ standards as concerns endoscopy facilities and equipments (e.g., dedicated recovery room, dirty-to-clean path, reporting software). CQ assurance programs were implemented in only 25% of centers. Concerning peri-procedural issues, main discrepancies with guidelines were recorded in the underuse of split-dose preparation (routinely adopted by 18% of centers), the routine request of coagulation tests prior to colonoscopy (30%), the routine interruption of aspirin for polypectomy (18%), and the adoption of 3-year surveillance for low-risk adenoma (49%). CONCLUSIONS: Present survey shows a significant variation in the CQ of endoscopy centers in Italy on many items of colonoscopy practice that should be targeted for future interventions

Evaluation of Clensia®, a new low-volume PEG bowel preparation in colonoscopy: Multicentre randomized controlled trial versus 4L PEG

Abstract Background Success of colonoscopy is linked to the adequacy of bowel cleansing. Polyethylene glycol 4 L (PEG 4 L) solutions are widely used for colonic cleansing but with limitations concerning tolerability and acceptability. Aim To demonstrate the equivalence of a new low-volume PEG containing citrates and simeticone (Clensia) versus a standard PEG 4 L. Methods In this, multicentre, randomised, observer-blind trial, patients received either Clensia 2 L or PEG 4 L solution. Primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with colon cleansing evaluated as excellent or good. Results 422 patients received Clensia (n = 213) or PEG 4 L (n = 209). Rate of excellent/good bowel cleansing was 73.6% and 72.3% in Clensia and PEG 4 L group respectively. Clensia was demonstrated to be equivalent to PEG 4 L. No SAEs were observed. Clensia showed better gastrointestinal tolerability (37.0% vs 25.4%). The acceptability was significantly better with Clensia in terms of proportion of subjects who felt no distress (Clensia 72.8% vs PEG 4 L 63%, P = 0.0314) and willingness-to-repeat (93.9% vs 82.2%, P = 0.0002). The rate of optimal compliance was similar with both formulations (91.1% for Clensia vs 90.9% for PEG 4 L, P = 0.9388). Conclusions The low-volume Clensia is equally effective and safe in bowel cleansing compared to the standard PEG 4 L, with better gastrointestinal tolerability and acceptability