Selected stage IV rectal cancer patients managed by the watch-and-wait approach after pelvic radiotherapy:a good alternative to total mesorectal excision surgery?

Aim: The aim of this study was to assess the clinical and oncological outcome of a selected group of stage IV rectal cancer patients managed by the watch-and-wait approach following a (near-)complete response of the primary rectal tumour after radiotherapy. Method: Patients registered in the Dutch watch-and-wait registry since 2004 were selected when diagnosed with synchronous stage IV rectal cancer. Data on patient characteristics, treatment details, follow-up and survival were collected. The 2-year local regrowth rate, organ-preservation rate, colostomy-free rate, metastatic progression-free rate and 2- and 5-year overall survival were analysed. Results: After a median follow-up period of 35 months, local regrowth was observed in 17 patients (40.5%). Nine patients underwent subsequent total mesorectal excision, resulting in a permanent colostomy in four patients. The 2-year local regrowth rate was 39.9%, the 2-year organ-preservation rate was 77.1%, the 2-year colostomy-free rate was 88.1%, and the 2-year metastatic progression-free rate was 46.7%. The 2- and 5-year overall survival rates were 92.0% and 67.5%. Conclusion: The watch-and-wait approach can be considered as an alternative to total mesorectal excision in a selected group of stage IV rectal cancer patients with a (near-)complete response following pelvic radiotherapy. Despite a relatively high regrowth rate, total mesorectal excision and a permanent colostomy can be avoided in the majority of these patients.</p

Selected stage IV rectal cancer patients managed by the watch-and-wait approach after pelvic radiotherapy:a good alternative to total mesorectal excision surgery?

Aim: The aim of this study was to assess the clinical and oncological outcome of a selected group of stage IV rectal cancer patients managed by the watch-and-wait approach following a (near-)complete response of the primary rectal tumour after radiotherapy. Method: Patients registered in the Dutch watch-and-wait registry since 2004 were selected when diagnosed with synchronous stage IV rectal cancer. Data on patient characteristics, treatment details, follow-up and survival were collected. The 2-year local regrowth rate, organ-preservation rate, colostomy-free rate, metastatic progression-free rate and 2- and 5-year overall survival were analysed. Results: After a median follow-up period of 35 months, local regrowth was observed in 17 patients (40.5%). Nine patients underwent subsequent total mesorectal excision, resulting in a permanent colostomy in four patients. The 2-year local regrowth rate was 39.9%, the 2-year organ-preservation rate was 77.1%, the 2-year colostomy-free rate was 88.1%, and the 2-year metastatic progression-free rate was 46.7%. The 2- and 5-year overall survival rates were 92.0% and 67.5%. Conclusion: The watch-and-wait approach can be considered as an alternative to total mesorectal excision in a selected group of stage IV rectal cancer patients with a (near-)complete response following pelvic radiotherapy. Despite a relatively high regrowth rate, total mesorectal excision and a permanent colostomy can be avoided in the majority of these patients.</p

English translation and cross-cultural validation of the patient-reported outcome measurement-haemorrhoidal impact and satisfaction score (PROM-HISS)

Funding Information: The authors would like to thank the following persons for their contribution to the translation of the PROM-HISS: Ms Sadé Assmann, Ms Isabel Senden, Mr Robert Colin Parker, and Mrs Tamara Boerma. The first author of this study was funded by a grant from The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMw 852002023).Peer reviewe

A randomized physiotherapy trial in patients with fecal incontinence: design of the PhysioFIT-study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Fecal incontinence (FI) is defined as the recurrent involuntary excretion of feces in inappropriate places or at inappropriate times. It is a major and highly embarrassing health care problem which affects about 2 to 24% of the adult population. The prevalence increases with age in both men and women.</p> <p>Physiotherapy interventions are often considered a first-line approach due to its safe and non-invasive nature when dietary and pharmaceutical treatment fails or in addition to this treatment regime. Two physiotherapy interventions, rectal balloon training (RBT) and pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) are widely used in the management of FI. However, their effectiveness remains uncertain since well-designed trials on the effectiveness of RBT and PFMT versus PFMT alone in FI have never been published.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>A two-armed randomized controlled clinical trial will be conducted. One hundred and six patients are randomized to receive either PFMT combined with RBT or PFMT alone. Physicians in the University Hospital Maastricht include eligible participants. Inclusion criteria are (1) adults (aged ≥ 18 years), (2) with fecal incontinence complaints due to different etiologies persisting for at least six months, (3) having a Vaizey incontinence score of at least 12, (4) and failure of conservative treatment (including dietary adaptations and pharmacological agents). Baseline measurements consist of the Vaizey incontinence score, medical history, physical examination, medication use, anorectal manometry, rectal capacity measurement, anorectal sensation, anal endosonography, defecography, symptom diary, Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life scale (FIQL) and the PREFAB-score. Follow-up measurements are scheduled at three, six and 12 months after inclusion. Skilled and registered physiotherapists experienced in women's health perform physiotherapy treatment. Twelve sessions are administered during three months according to a standardized protocol.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>This section discusses the decision to publish a trial protocol, the actions taken to minimize bias and confounding in the design, explains the choice for two treatment groups, discusses the secondary goals of this study and indicates the impact of this trial on clinical practice.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>The Netherlands Trial Register ISRCTN78640169.</p

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of rubber band ligation versus sutured mucopexy versus haemorrhoidectomy in patients with recurrent haemorrhoidal disease (Napoleon trial):Study protocol for a multicentre randomized controlled trial

Background: Currently, there is no consensus regarding the best treatment option in recurrent haemorrhoidal disease (HD), due to a lack of solid evidence. The Napoleon trial aims to provide high-level evidence on the comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of repeat rubber band ligation (RBL) versus sutured mucopexy versus haemorrhoidectomy in patients with recurrent HD. Methods: This is a multicentre randomized controlled trial. Patients with recurrent HD grade II and III, >= 18 years of age and who had at least two RBL treatments in the last three years are eligible for inclusion. Exclusion criteria include previous rectal or anal surgery, rectal radiation, pre-existing sphincter injury or otherwise pathologies of the colon and rectum, pregnancy, presence of hypercoagulability disorders, and medically unfit for surgery (ASA > III). Between June 2020 and May 2022, 558 patients will be randomized to receive either: (1) RBL, (2) sutured mucopexy, or (3) haemorrhoidectomy. The primary outcomes are recurrence after 52 weeks and patient-reported symptoms measured by the PROM-HISS. Secondary outcomes are impact on daily life, treatment satisfaction, early and late complication rates, health-related quality of life, costs and cost-effectiveness, and budget impact. Cost-effectiveness will be expressed in societal costs per Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY) (based on EQ-5D-5L), and healthcare costs per recurrence avoided. Discussion: The best treatment option for recurrent HD remains unknown. The comparison of three generally accepted treatment strategies in a randomized controlled trial will provide high-level evidence on the most (cost) effective treatment

Guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of Faecal Incontinence-A UEG/ESCP/ESNM/ESPCG collaboration

INTRODUCTION The goal of this project was to create an up-to-date joint European clinical practice guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of faecal incontinence (FI), using the best available evidence. These guidelines are intended to help guide all medical professionals treating adult patients with FI (e.g., general practitioners, surgeons, gastroenterologists, other healthcare workers) and any patients who are interested in information regarding the diagnosis and management of FI. METHODS These guidelines have been created in cooperation with members from the United European Gastroenterology (UEG), European Society of Coloproctology (ESCP), European Society of Neurogastroenterology and Motility (ESNM) and the European Society for Primary Care Gastroenterology (ESPCG). These members made up the guideline development group (GDG). Additionally, a patient advisory board (PAB) was created to reflect and comment on the draft guidelines from a patient perspective. Relevant review questions were established by the GDG along with a set of outcomes most important for decision making. A systematic literature search was performed using these review questions and outcomes as a framework. For each predefined review question, the study or studies with the highest level of study design were included. If evidence of a higher-level study design was available, no lower level of evidence was sought or included. Data from the studies were extracted by two reviewers for each predefined important outcome within each review question. Where possible, forest plots were created. After summarising the results for each review question, a systematic quality assessment using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations) approach was performed. For each review question, we assessed the quality of evidence for every predetermined important outcome. After evidence review and quality assessment were completed, recommendations could be formulated. The wording used for each recommendation was dependent on the level of quality of evidence. Lower levels of evidence resulted in weaker recommendations and higher levels of evidence resulted in stronger recommendations. Recommendations were discussed within the GDG to reach consensus. RESULTS These guidelines contain 45 recommendations on the classification, diagnosis and management of FI in adult patients. CONCLUSION These multidisciplinary European guidelines provide an up-to-date comprehensive evidence-based framework with recommendations on the diagnosis and management of adult patients who suffer from FI