Non-prostatic pathology on prostate needle-biopsy – colorectal carcinoid: a case report

Introduction: Prostate needle-biopsies are among the most common specimens in routine histopathological practice; in 15% colorectal tissue is also present. Rectal pathology is described to be found in 17% of this coincidentally obtained material. Case presentation: We present a case in which colorectal carcinoid was found in the rectal mucosa obtained via transrectal prostate biopsies in a screening program for prostate cancer in a 71-year old Caucasian male. To the best of our knowledge, this was the first time that such a coincidental finding was discovered. Besides a colonoscopy with polypectomy, this coincidental detection remained without any further clinical consequences for this patient until today. Conclusion: As there is a considerable chance that abnormalities are found in the rectal tissue of prostate biopsies, it is advisable for all pathologists to include this tissue in the histology evaluation and look for potential irregularities in this simultaneously collected material

Revisiting the Role of Immunotherapy for Colorectal Cancer Treatment in Patients with Constitutional Mismatch Repair Deficiency

Patients with constitutional mismatch repair deficiency syndrome (CMMRD) usually develop multiple tumors at a young age. Chemotherapy was previously shown to be less effective in these tumors. Recent reports suggest immunotherapeutic treatment in CMMRD-associated tumors. Here, we present a CMMRD patient, successfully treated with immunotherapy for metastasized colorectal cancer (CRC). A young adolescent male was diagnosed with T2N2M1 cecum carcinoma with liver metastases. He received four initial doses of nivolumab (3 mg/kg) with ipilimumab (1 ml/ kg) every three weeks, followed by 41 doses of nivolumab alone every two weeks. A complete response was achieved; also pathological assessment of removed liver metastases was indicative of a complete response. At the time of writing, 14 months after end of treatment, the CRC had not recurred. Immunotherapeutic treatment resulted in a complete response of the primary CRC and metastases. Immunotherapy as first line treatment should be strongly considered in treatment of CMMRD-associated CRC

Intralesional steroid injections to prevent refractory strictures in patients with oesophageal atresia: study protocol for an international, multicentre randomised controlled trial (STEPS-EA trial)

INTRODUCTION: Anastomotic stricture formation is the most common postoperative complication after oesophageal atresia (OA) repair. The standard of care is endoscopic dilatation. A possible adjuvant treatment is intralesional steroid injection, which is thought to inhibit scar tissue formation and thereby to prevent stricture recurrence. We hypothesise that this intervention could prevent refractory strictures and reduce the total number of dilatations needed in these children. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is an international multicentre randomised controlled trial. Children with OA type C (n=110) will be randomised into intralesional steroid injection followed by balloon dilatation or dilatation only. Randomisation and intervention will take place when a third dilatation is performed. The indication for dilatation will be confirmed with an oesophagram. One radiologist-blinded for randomisation-will review all oesophagrams. The primary outcome parameter is the total number of dilatations needed with <28 days' interval, which will be analysed with a linear-by-linear χ2 association test. Secondary outcome parameters include the level of dysphagia, the luminal oesophageal diameter and stricture length (measured on the oesophagrams), the influence of comedication on stricture formation, systemic effects of intralesional steroids (cortisol levels, length and weight) and the cost-effectiveness. Patients will undergo a second oesophagram; length and weight will be measured repeatedly; a scalp hair sample will be collected; and three questionnaires will be administered. The follow-up period will be 6 months, with evaluation at 2-3 weeks, 3 and 6 months after the intervention. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Patients will be included after written parental informed consent. The risks and burden associated with this trial are minimal. The institutional review board of the Erasmus Medical Centre approved this protocol (MEC-2018-1586/NL65364.078.18). The results of the trial will be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal and will be presented at international conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: 2018-002863-24 and NTR7726/NL7484.status: publishe

Guaiac-based faecal occult blood tests versus faecal immunochemical tests for colorectal cancer screening in average-risk individuals.

BACKGROUND Worldwide, many countries have adopted colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programmes, often based on faecal occult blood tests (FOBTs). CRC screening aims to detect advanced neoplasia (AN), which is defined as CRC or advanced adenomas. FOBTs fall into two categories based on detection technique and the detected blood component: qualitative guaiac-based FOBTs (gFOBTs) and faecal immunochemical tests (FITs), which can be qualitative and quantitative. Screening with gFOBTs reduces CRC-related mortality. OBJECTIVES To compare the diagnostic test accuracy of gFOBT and FIT screening for detecting advanced colorectal neoplasia in average-risk individuals. SEARCH METHODS We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, BIOSIS Citation Index, Science Citation Index Expanded, and Google Scholar. We searched the reference lists and PubMed-related articles of included studies to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA We included prospective and retrospective studies that provided the number of true positives, false positives, false negatives, and true negatives for gFOBTs, FITs, or both, with colonoscopy as reference standard. We excluded case-control studies. We included studies in which all participants underwent both index test and reference standard ("reference standard: all"), and studies in which only participants with a positive index test underwent the reference standard while participants with a negative test were followed for at least one year for development of interval carcinomas ("reference standard: positive"). The target population consisted of asymptomatic, average-risk individuals undergoing CRC screening. The target conditions were CRC and advanced neoplasia (advanced adenomas and CRC combined). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently screened and selected studies for inclusion. In case of disagreement, a third review author made the final decision. We used the Rutter and Gatsonis hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic model to explore differences between tests and identify potential sources of heterogeneity, and the bivariate hierarchical model to estimate sensitivity and specificity at common thresholds: 10 µg haemoglobin (Hb)/g faeces and 20 µg Hb/g faeces. We performed indirect comparisons of the accuracy of the two tests and direct comparisons when both index tests were evaluated in the same population. MAIN RESULTS We ran the initial search on 25 June 2019, which yielded 63 studies for inclusion. We ran a top-up search on 14 September 2021, which yielded one potentially eligible study, currently awaiting classification. We included a total of 33 "reference standard: all" published articles involving 104,640 participants. Six studies evaluated only gFOBTs, 23 studies evaluated only FITs, and four studies included both gFOBTs and FITs. The cut-off for positivity of FITs varied between 2.4 μg and 50 µg Hb/g faeces. For each Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS)-2 domain, we assessed risk of bias as high in less than 20% of studies. The summary curve showed that FITs had a higher discriminative ability than gFOBTs for AN (P < 0.001) and CRC (P = 0.004). For the detection of AN, the summary sensitivity of gFOBTs was 15% (95% confidence interval (CI) 12% to 20%), which was significantly lower than FITs at both 10 μg and 20 μg Hb/g cut-offs with summary sensitivities of 33% (95% CI 27% to 40%; P < 0.001) and 26% (95% CI 21% to 31%, P = 0.002), respectively. Results were simulated in a hypothetical cohort of 10,000 screening participants with 1% CRC prevalence and 10% AN prevalence. Out of 1000 participants with AN, gFOBTs missed 850, while FITs missed 670 (10 μg Hb/g cut-off) and 740 (20 μg Hb/g cut-off). No significant differences in summary specificity for AN detection were found between gFOBTs (94%; 95% CI 92% to 96%), and FITs at 10 μg Hb/g cut-off (93%; 95% CI 90% to 95%) and at 20 μg Hb/g cut-off (97%; 95% CI 95% to 98%). So, among 9000 participants without AN, 540 were offered (unnecessary) colonoscopy with gFOBTs compared to 630 (10 μg Hb/g) and 270 (20 μg Hb/g) with FITs. Similarly, for the detection of CRC, the summary sensitivity of gFOBTs, 39% (95% CI 25% to 55%), was significantly lower than FITs at 10 μg and 20 μg Hb/g cut-offs: 76% (95% CI 57% to 88%: P = 0.001) and 65% (95% CI 46% to 80%; P = 0.035), respectively. So, out of 100 participants with CRC, gFOBTs missed 61, and FITs missed 24 (10 μg Hb/g) and 35 (20 μg Hb/g). No significant differences in summary specificity for CRC were found between gFOBTs (94%; 95% CI 91% to 96%), and FITs at the 10 μg Hb/g cut-off (94%; 95% CI 87% to 97%) and 20 μg Hb/g cut-off (96%; 95% CI 91% to 98%). So, out of 9900 participants without CRC, 594 were offered (unnecessary) colonoscopy with gFOBTs versus 594 (10 μg Hb/g) and 396 (20 μg Hb/g) with FITs. In five studies that compared FITs and gFOBTs in the same population, FITs showed a higher discriminative ability for AN than gFOBTs (P = 0.003). We included a total of 30 "reference standard: positive" studies involving 3,664,934 participants. Of these, eight were gFOBT-only studies, 18 were FIT-only studies, and four studies combined both gFOBTs and FITs. The cut-off for positivity of FITs varied between 5 µg to 250 µg Hb/g faeces. For each QUADAS-2 domain, we assessed risk of bias as high in less than 20% of studies. The summary curve showed that FITs had a higher discriminative ability for detecting CRC than gFOBTs (P < 0.001). The summary sensitivity for CRC of gFOBTs, 59% (95% CI 55% to 64%), was significantly lower than FITs at the 10 μg Hb/g cut-off, 89% (95% CI 80% to 95%; P < 0.001) and the 20 μg Hb/g cut-off, 89% (95% CI 85% to 92%; P < 0.001). So, in the hypothetical cohort with 100 participants with CRC, gFOBTs missed 41, while FITs missed 11 (10 μg Hb/g) and 11 (20 μg Hb/g). The summary specificity of gFOBTs was 98% (95% CI 98% to 99%), which was higher than FITs at both 10 μg and 20 μg Hb/g cut-offs: 94% (95% CI 92% to 95%; P < 0.001) and 95% (95% CI 94% to 96%; P < 0.001), respectively. So, out of 9900 participants without CRC, 198 were offered (unnecessary) colonoscopy with gFOBTs compared to 594 (10 μg Hb/g) and 495 (20 μg Hb/g) with FITs. At a specificity of 90% and 95%, FITs had a higher sensitivity than gFOBTs. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS FITs are superior to gFOBTs in detecting AN and CRC in average-risk individuals. Specificity of both tests was similar in "reference standard: all" studies, whereas specificity was significantly higher for gFOBTs than FITs in "reference standard: positive" studies. However, at pre-specified specificities, the sensitivity of FITs was significantly higher than gFOBTs

Red Flag Signs and Symptoms for Patients With Early-Onset Colorectal Cancer

ImportanceEarly-onset colorectal cancer (EOCRC), defined as a diagnosis at younger than age 50 years, is increasing, and so-called red flag signs and symptoms among these individuals are often missed, leading to diagnostic delays. Improved recognition of presenting signs and symptoms associated with EOCRC could facilitate more timely diagnosis and impact clinical outcomes.ObjectiveTo report the frequency of presenting red flag signs and symptoms among individuals with EOCRC, to examine their association with EOCRC risk, and to measure variation in time to diagnosis from sign or symptom presentation.Data sourcesPubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Science were searched from database inception through May 2023.Study selectionStudies that reported on sign and symptom presentation or time from sign and symptom presentation to diagnosis for patients younger than age 50 years diagnosed with nonhereditary CRC were included.Data extraction and synthesisData extraction and quality assessment were performed independently in duplicate for all included studies using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses reporting guidelines. Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal tools were used to measure risk of bias. Data on frequency of signs and symptoms were pooled using a random-effects model.Main outcomes and measuresOutcomes of interest were pooled proportions of signs and symptoms in patients with EOCRC, estimates for association of signs and symptoms with EOCRC risk, and time from sign or symptom presentation to EOCRC diagnosis.ResultsOf the 12 859 unique articles initially retrieved, 81 studies with 24 908 126 patients younger than 50 years were included. The most common presenting signs and symptoms, reported by 78 included studies, were hematochezia (pooled prevalence, 45% [95% CI, 40%-50%]), abdominal pain (pooled prevalence, 40% [95% CI, 35%-45%]), and altered bowel habits (pooled prevalence, 27% [95% CI, 22%-33%]). Hematochezia (estimate range, 5.2-54.0), abdominal pain (estimate range, 1.3-6.0), and anemia (estimate range, 2.1-10.8) were associated with higher EOCRC likelihood. Time from signs and symptoms presentation to EOCRC diagnosis was a mean (range) of 6.4 (1.8-13.7) months (23 studies) and a median (range) of 4 (2.0-8.7) months (16 studies).Conclusions and relevanceIn this systematic review and meta-analysis of patients with EOCRC, nearly half of individuals presented with hematochezia and abdominal pain and one-quarter with altered bowel habits. Hematochezia was associated with at least 5-fold increased EOCRC risk. Delays in diagnosis of 4 to 6 months were common. These findings highlight the need to identify concerning EOCRC signs and symptoms and complete timely diagnostic workup, particularly for individuals without an alternative diagnosis or sign or symptom resolution

Population-Based colonoscopy screening for colorectal cancer : A randomized clinical trial

Importance: Although some countries have implemented widespread colonoscopy screening, most European countries have not introduced it because of uncertainty regarding participation rates, procedure-related pain and discomfort, endoscopist performance, and effectiveness. To our knowledge, no randomized trials on colonoscopy screening currently exist. Objective: To investigate participation rate, adenoma yield, performance, and adverse events of population-based colonoscopy screening in several European countries. Design, Setting, and Population: A population-based randomized clinical trialwas conducted among 94 959 men and women aged 55 to 64 years of average risk for colon cancer in Poland, Norway, the Netherlands, and Sweden from June 8, 2009, to June 23, 2014. Interventions Colonoscopy screening or no screening. Main outcomes and Measures: Participation in colonoscopy screening, cancer and adenoma yield, and participant experience. Study outcomes were compared by country and endoscopist. Results: Of 31 420 eligible participants randomized to the colonoscopy group, 12 574 (40.0%) underwent screening. Participation rates were 60.7%in Norway (5354 of 8816), 39.8%in Sweden (486 of 1222), 33.0%in Poland (6004 of 18 188), and 22.9% in the Netherlands (730 of 3194) (P <.001). The cecum intubation rate was 97.2%(12 217 of 12 574), with 9726 participants (77.4%) not receiving sedation. Of the 12 574 participants undergoing colonoscopy screening, we observed 1 perforation (0.01%), 2 postpolypectomy serosal burns (0.02%), and 18 cases of bleeding owing to polypectomy (0.14%). Sixty-two individuals (0.5%) were diagnosed with colorectal cancer and 3861 (30.7%) had adenomas, of which 1304 (10.4%) were high-risk adenomas. Detection rates were similar in the proximal and distal colon. Performance differed significantly between endoscopists; recommended benchmarks for cecal intubation (95%) and adenoma detection (25%) were not met by 6 (17.1%) and 10 of 35 endoscopists (28.6%), respectively. Moderate or severe abdominal pain after colonoscopy was reported by 601 of 3611 participants (16.7%) examined with standard air insufflation vs 214 of 5144 participants (4.2%) examined with carbon dioxide (CO2) insufflation (P <.001). Conclusions and Relevance: Colonoscopy screening entails high detection rates in the proximal and distal colon. Participation rates and endoscopist performance vary significantly. Postprocedure abdominal pain is common with standard air insufflation and can be significantly reduced by using CO2

Imaging alternatives to colonoscopy: CT colonography and colon capsule. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) Guideline – Update 2020

1. ESGE/ESGAR recommend computed tomographic colonography (CTC) as the radiological examination of choice for the diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. ESGE/ESGAR do not recommend barium enema in this setting. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 2. ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC, preferably the same or next day, if colonoscopy is incomplete. The timing depends on an interdisciplinary decision including endoscopic and radiological factors. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. ESGE/ESGAR suggests that, in centers with expertise in and availability of colon capsule endoscopy (CCE), CCE preferably the same or the next day may be considered if colonoscopy is incomplete. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 3. When colonoscopy is contraindicated or not possible, ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an acceptable and equally sensitive alternative for patients with alarm symptoms. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. Because of lack of direct evidence, ESGE/ESGAR do not recommend CCE in this situation. Very low quality evidence. ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an acceptable alternative to colonoscopy for patients with non-alarm symptoms. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. In centers with availability, ESGE/ESGAR suggests that CCE may be considered in patients with non-alarm symptoms. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 4. Where there is no organized fecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based population colorectal screening program, ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an option for colorectal cancer screening, providing the screenee is adequately informed about test characteristics, benefits, and risks, and depending on local service- and patient-related factors. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. ESGE/ESGAR do not suggest CCE as a first-line screening test for colorectal cancer. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 5. ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC in the case of a positive fecal occult blood test (FOBT) or FIT with incomplete or unfeasible colonoscopy, within organized population screening programs. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. ESGE/ESGAR also suggest the use of CCE in this setting based on availability. Weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 6. ESGE/ESGAR suggest CTC with intravenous contrast medium injection for surveillance after curative-intent resection of colorectal cancer only in patients in whom colonoscopy is contraindicated or unfeasible. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. There is insufficient evidence to recommend CCE in this setting. Very low quality evidence. 7. ESGE/ESGAR suggest CTC in patients with high risk polyps undergoing surveillance after polypectomy only when colonoscopy is unfeasible. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. There is insufficient evidence to recommend CCE in post-polypectomy surveillance. Very low quality evidence. 8. ESGE/ESGAR recommend against CTC in patients with acute colonic inflammation and in those who have recently undergone colorectal surgery, pending a multidisciplinary evaluation. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 9. ESGE/ESGAR recommend referral for endoscopic polypectomy in patients with at least one polyp ≥6 mm detected at CTC or CCE. Follow-up CTC may be clinically considered for 6–9-mm CTC-detected lesions if patients do not undergo polypectomy because of patient choice, comorbidity, and/or low risk profile for advanced neoplasia. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.Source and scop

Imaging alternatives to colonoscopy:CT colonography and colon capsule. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) Guideline – Update 2020

1. ESGE/ESGAR recommend computed tomographic colonography (CTC) as the radiological examination of choice for the diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. ESGE/ESGAR do not recommend barium enema in this setting. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 2. ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC, preferably the same or next day, if colonoscopy is incomplete. The timing depends on an interdisciplinary decision including endoscopic and radiological factors. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. ESGE/ESGAR suggests that, in centers with expertise in and availability of colon capsule endoscopy (CCE), CCE preferably the same or the next day may be considered if colonoscopy is incomplete. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 3. When colonoscopy is contraindicated or not possible, ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an acceptable and equally sensitive alternative for patients with alarm symptoms. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. Because of lack of direct evidence, ESGE/ESGAR do not recommend CCE in this situation. Very low quality evidence. ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an acceptable alternative to colonoscopy for patients with non-alarm symptoms. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. In centers with availability, ESGE/ESGAR suggests that CCE may be considered in patients with non-alarm symptoms. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 4. Where there is no organized fecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based population colorectal screening program, ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an option for colorectal cancer screening, providing the screenee is adequately informed about test characteristics, benefits, and risks, and depending on local service- and patient-related factors. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. ESGE/ESGAR do not suggest CCE as a first-line screening test for colorectal cancer. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 5. ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC in the case of a positive fecal occult blood test (FOBT) or FIT with incomplete or unfeasible colonoscopy, within organized population screening programs. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. ESGE/ESGAR also suggest the use of CCE in this setting based on availability. Weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 6. ESGE/ESGAR suggest CTC with intravenous contrast medium injection for surveillance after curative-intent resection of colorectal cancer only in patients in whom colonoscopy is contraindicated or unfeasible. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. There is insufficient evidence to recommend CCE in this setting. Very low quality evidence. 7. ESGE/ESGAR suggest CTC in patients with high risk polyps undergoing surveillance after polypectomy only when colonoscopy is unfeasible. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. There is insufficient evidence to recommend CCE in post-polypectomy surveillance. Very low quality evidence. 8. ESGE/ESGAR recommend against CTC in patients with acute colonic inflammation and in those who have recently undergone colorectal surgery, pending a multidisciplinary evaluation. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 9. ESGE/ESGAR recommend referral for endoscopic polypectomy in patients with at least one polyp ≥6 mm detected at CTC or CCE. Follow-up CTC may be clinically considered for 6–9-mm CTC-detected lesions if patients do not undergo polypectomy because of patient choice, comorbidity, and/or low risk profile for advanced neoplasia. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.Source and scope</p

Early diagnosis is associated with improved clinical outcomes in benign esophageal perforation: an individual patient data meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Time of diagnosis (TOD) of benign esophageal perforation is regarded as an important risk factor for clinical outcome, although convincing evidence is lacking. The aim of this study is to assess whether time between onset of perforation and diagnosis is associated with clinical outcome in patients with iatrogenic esophageal perforation (IEP) and Boerhaave's syndrome (BS). METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane library through June 2018 to identify studies. Authors were invited to share individual patient data and a meta-analysis was performed (PROSPERO: CRD42018093473). Patients were subdivided in early (≤ 24 h) and late (> 24 h) TOD and compared with mixed effects multivariable analysis while adjusting age, gender, location of perforation, initial treatment and center. Primary outcome was overall mortality. Secondary outcomes were length of hospital stay, re-interventions and ICU admission. RESULTS: Our meta-analysis included IPD of 25 studies including 576 patients with IEP and 384 with BS. In IEP, early TOD was not associated with overall mortality (8% vs. 13%, OR 2.1, 95% CI 0.8-5.1), but was associated with a 23% decrease in ICU admissions (46% vs. 69%, OR 3.0, 95% CI 1.2-7.2), a 22% decrease in re-interventions (23% vs. 45%, OR 2.8, 95% CI 1.2-6.7) and a 36% decrease in length of hospital stay (14 vs. 22 days, p  24 h) in benign esophageal perforations, particularly in IEP, is associated with improved clinical outcome.status: publishe