Predicting rectal cancer T stage using circumferential tumor extent determined by computed tomography colonography

SummaryBackground and aimPatients with stage T3 or T4 rectal cancer are candidates for neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy. The aim of this study is to clarify the usefulness of circumferential tumor extent determined by computed tomography (CT) colonography in differentiating T3 or T4 from T1 or T2 rectal cancer.MethodsSeventy consecutive rectal cancer patients who underwent curative-intent surgery were enrolled in this study. All patients underwent colonoscopy and CT colonography on the same day. The circumferential tumor extent was estimated in 10% increments. The pathological T stage was used as the reference.ResultsThe median circumferential tumor extent evaluated by colonoscopy for T1 (n = 6), T2 (n = 21), and T3/T4 (n = 43) were 10%, 30%, and 80%, respectively (T1/T2 vs. T3/T4, p < 0.0001). The median circumferential tumor extent evaluated by CT colonography for T1, T2, and T3/T4 is 10%, 30%, and 70%, respectively (T1/T2 vs. T3/T4, p < 0.0001). The correlation coefficient between colonoscopy and CT colonography was very high (0.94). By defining a circumferential tumor extent ≥50% by CT colonography as the criterion for stage T3 or T4, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and accuracy were 72%, 88%, 91%, and 79%, respectively.ConclusionCircumferential tumor extent ≥50% determined by CT colonography is a simple and potentially useful marker to identify candidates for neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy

Predicting rectal cancer T stage using circumferential tumor extent determined by computed tomography colonography

Patients with stage T3 or T4 rectal cancer are candidates for neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy. The aim of this study is to clarify the usefulness of circumferential tumor extent determined by computed tomography (CT) colonography in differentiating T3 or T4 from T1 or T2 rectal cancer. Seventy consecutive rectal cancer patients who underwent curative-intent surgery were enrolled in this study. All patients underwent colonoscopy and CT colonography on the same day. The circumferential tumor extent was estimated in 10% increments. The pathological T stage was used as the reference. The median circumferential tumor extent evaluated by colonoscopy for T1 (n = 6), T2 (n = 21), and T3/T4 (n = 43) were 10%, 30%, and 80%, respectively (T1/T2 vs. T3/T4, p < 0.0001). The median circumferential tumor extent evaluated by CT colonography for T1, T2, and T3/T4 is 10%, 30%, and 70%, respectively (T1/T2 vs. T3/T4, p < 0.0001). The correlation coefficient between colonoscopy and CT colonography was very high (0.94). By defining a circumferential tumor extent ≥50% by CT colonography as the criterion for stage T3 or T4, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and accuracy were 72%, 88%, 91%, and 79%, respectively. Circumferential tumor extent ≥50% determined by CT colonography is a simple and potentially useful marker to identify candidates for neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy

Ultrathin versus pediatric instruments for colonoscopy in older female patients: a randomized trial

Background and Aim: Small-caliber endoscopes such as gastroscopes or pediatric colonoscopes are occasionally required to negotiate fixed or angulated colons. However, the use of a new ultrathin instrument (diameter 7.0 mm) narrower than other conventional colonoscopes has not been evaluated. The aim of the present study was to compare the use compare the use of an ultrathin colonoscope (UTC) with a pediatric colonoscope (PDC) for colonoscopy in older female patients. Methods: A prospective, randomized, controlled trial was conducted in a single academic endoscopy unit. A total of 77 female patients aged ≥70 years undergoing unsedated colonoscopy were randomized to colonoscopy with a UTC (n = 39) or PDC (n = 38). Primary outcome measurement was the degree of pain using a numerical rating scale, and secondary outcomes were cecal intubation rate, ileal intubation rate, time to cecum and adenoma detection rate. Results: There was a significant difference in reported pain using the numerical rating scale (median, UTC 1 vs PDC 4, P < 0.0001). Cecal intubation rates were 97.4% in UTC and 92.1% in PDC (P = 0.36), and ileal intubation rates were 82.0% and 89.4% (P = 0.76), respectively. However, median times to cecum were significantly longer using UTC compared with PDC (15.2 min vs 11.1 min, P = 0.022). Adenoma detection rates were 30.7% in UTC and 26.3% in PDC (P = 0.80). Conclusions: Colonoscopy using UTC was almost equivalent to that of PDC in older female patients, with significantly less pain compared with PDC. UTC may be an alternative to PDC for the difficult colon

Morphometric study of the blood supply of pedunculated colon polyps: What is the optimal position on the stalk for snare resection?

Background and study aims: Bleeding after colonoscopic resection of pedunculated polyps cannot be easily predicted. The aims of this study were to evaluate the blood supply in pedunculated polyps and to clarify the optimal position on the polyp stalk for snare placement to prevent post-polypectomy hemorrhage

Double-balloon colonoscopy carried out by a trainee after incomplete conventional colonoscopy

Background and Aim It has been reported that double-balloon colonoscopy (DBC) is useful for patients after failed colonoscopy. In most cases previously reported, expert colonoscopists have carried out DBC. However, DBC may not require significant expertise. The objective of the present study is to assess DBC carried out by an inexperienced colonoscopist in patients referred after previously incomplete colonoscopy. Methods In a single center between June 2011 and September 2012, we enrolled 28 consecutive patients referred following incomplete conventional colonoscopy. The reported reasons for previous failed colonoscopy were severe pain during the procedure in 15, long redundant colon in 13 and sigmoid fixation in eight. Under instruction by an experienced colonoscopist, all procedures were carried out by a gastroenterology trainee with little colonoscopy experience. A double-balloon instrument with carbon dioxide insufflation was used under fluoroscopicguidance, with i.v. sedation. Cecal intubation rate, time to cecum and patient-reported pain using a visual analog scale (0 to 10) were evaluated. Results The trainee achieved a cecal intubation in all patients (100%) without primary involvement by the experienced colonoscopist. Time to cecum ranged from 6min to 66min (median time to cecum 15min 55s). No patients required additional sedation. Visual analogue pain scores ranged from 0/10 to 10/10 (median score 2.5/10). There were no complications. Conclusion DBC may enable inexperienced colonoscopists to achieve total colonoscopy after previously incomplete conventional colonoscopy