Small Bowel Adenocarcinoma in a Patient with Coeliac Disease: Case Report and Review of the Literature

Coeliac disease (CD) is an autoimmune disorder which leads to chronic inflammation of the gut. Furthermore, CD is associated with upper gastrointestinal malignancies, particularly lymphoma of the small intestine. Besides lymphoma, an increased frequency of associated small bowel carcinoma has been described. Here we report the case of a 70-year-old male suffering from CD who was treated with a gluten-free diet presenting with complaints of nausea, vomiting and weight loss of about 8 kg in two months. He underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy, which identified distention of the stomach and duodenum and in the pars horizontalis a distinct obstruction was suggestive. However, histopathological examination showed a normal mucosal membrane. Additionally, a computed tomography scan of the abdomen was performed which showed an expanded stomach and duodenum up to the ligament of Treitz. During an explorative laparotomy a small tumor was palpated near the ligament of Treitz. Subsequently, a duodenal segment resection was performed. After surgery, the patient recovered well and left our hospital in good condition

Detection of Colorectal Cancer by Serum and Tissue Protein Profiling: A Prospective Study in a Population at Risk

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most common cause of cancer-related death in Europe and its prognosis is largely dependent on stage at diagnosis. Currently, there are no suitable tumour markers for early detection of CRC. In a retrospective study we previously found discriminative CRC serum protein profiles with surface enhanced laser desorption ionisation—time of flight mass spectrometry (SELDI-TOF MS). We now aimed at prospective validation of these profiles. Additionally, we assessed their applicability for follow-up after surgery and investigated tissue protein profiles of patients with CRC and adenomatous polyps (AP). Serum and tissue samples were collected from patients without known malignancy with an indication for colonoscopy and patients with AP and CRC during colonoscopy. Serum samples of controls (CON; n = 359), patients with AP (n = 177) and CRC (n = 73), as well as tissue samples from AP (n = 52) and CRC (n = 47) were analysed as described previously. Peak intensities were compared by non-parametric testing. Discriminative power of differentially expressed proteins was assessed with support vector machines (SVM). We confirmed the decreased serum levels of apolipoprotein C-1 in CRC in the current population. No differences were observed between CON and AP. Apolipoprotein C-I levels did not change significantly within 1 month post-surgery, although a gradual return to normal levels was observed. Several proteins differed between AP and CRC tissue, among which a peak with similar mass as apolipoprotein C-1. This peak was increased in CRC compared to AP. Although we prospectively validated the serum decrease of apolipoprotein C-1 in CRC, serum protein profiles did not yield SVM classifiers with suitable sensitivity and specificity for classification of our patient groups

CT colonography and colonoscopy: Assessment of patient preference in a 5-week follow-up study

PURPOSE: To prospectively evaluate short- and midterm patient preference of computed tomographic (CT) colonography relative to colonoscopy in patients at increased risk for colorectal cancer and to elucidate determinants of preference. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Consecutive patients at increased risk for colorectal cancer underwent CT colonography prior to scheduled colonoscopy. Patient experience and preference were assessed both directly after the examinations and 5 weeks after the examinations. Differences in pain, embarrassment, discomfort, and preference were assessed with the Wilcoxon signed rank sum test or a binomial test. Potential determinants of preference were investigated with logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: Data for 249 patients were included. Fewer patients experienced severe or extreme pain during CT colonography (seven [3%] of 245) than during colonoscopy (81 [34%] of 241) (P <.001). Directly after both examinations, 168 (71%) of 236 patients preferred CT colonography; 5 weeks later, 141 (61%) of 233 patients preferred CT colonography (P <.001). Initially, a painful colonoscopy examination (odds ratio, 0.17; 95% confidence interval [Cl]: 0.08, 0.38) was a determinant of CT colonography preference. Similarly, a painful (odds ratio, 3.70; 95% Cl: 1.54, 8.92) or an embarrassing (odds ratio, 4.46; 95% Cl: 1.18, 16.88) CT colonography examination was a determinant of colonoscopy preference. After 5 weeks, the presence of polyps emerged as a determinant of colonoscopy preference (odds ratio, 1.94; 95% Cl: 1.02, 3.70), while the role of experiences waned. CONCLUSION: Patients preferred CT colonography to colonoscopy; however, this preference decreased in time, while outcome considerations gradually replaced temporary experiences of inconvenience. (C) RSNA, 200

Computed tomographic colonography compared with colonoscopy in patients at increased risk for colorectal cancer

Background & Aims: To date, computed tomographic (CT) colonography has been compared with an imperfect test, colonoscopy, and has been mainly assessed in patients with positive screening test results or symptoms. Therefore, the available data may not apply to screening of patients with a personal or family history of colorectal polyps or cancer (increased risk). We prospectively investigated the ability of CT colonography to identify individuals with large (greater than or equal to10 mm) colorectal polyps in consecutive patients at increased risk for colorectal cancer. Methods: A total of 249 consecutive patients at increased risk for colorectal cancer underwent CT colonography before colonoscopy. Two reviewers interpreted CT colonography examinations independently. Sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values were determined after meticulous matching of CT colonography with colonoscopy. Unexplained large false-positive findings were verified with a second-look colonoscopy. Results: In total, 31 patients (12%) had 48 large polyps at colonoscopy. This included 8 patients with 8 large polyps that were overlooked initially and detected at the second-look colonoscopy. In 6 of 8 patients, the missed polyp was the only large lesion. With CT colonography, 84% of patients (26/31) with large polyp(s) were identified, paired for a specificity of 92% (200-201/218). Positive and negative predictive values were 59%-60% (26/43-44) and 98% (200-201/205-206), respectively. CT colonography detected 75%-77% (36-37/48) of large polyps, with 9 of the missed lesions being flat. Conclusions: CT colonography and colonoscopy have a similar ability to identify individuals with large polyps in patients at increased risk for colorectal cancer. The large proportion of missed flat lesions warrants further stud

MR Colonography with limited bowel preparation: Patient acceptance compared with that of full-preparation Colonoscopy

Purpose: To prospectively evaluate participants' experience and preference of magnetic resonance (MR) colonography with limited bowel preparation compared with full-preparation colonoscopy in participants at increased risk for colorectal cancer. Materials and Methods: This study had institutional review board approval; all participants gave written informed consent. In this multicenter study, consecutive participants undergoing conventional colonoscopy because of a personal or family history of colorectal cancer or adenomatous polyps underwent MR colonography 2 weeks prior to colonoscopy. They all followed a low-fiber diet and were given lactulose and an oral contrast agent (fecal tagging with gadolinium) 2 days before colonography. Before imaging, spasmolytics were administered intravenously, and a water-gadolinium chelate mixture was administered rectally for distention of the colon. Breath-hold T1- and T2-weighted sequences were performed in the prone and supine positions. Participant experience in terms of, for example, pain and burden was determined by using a five-point scale and was evaluated with a Wilcoxon signed rank test; participant preference was determined by using a seven-point scale and was evaluated with the X 2 statistic after dichotomizing. Results: Two hundred nine participants (77 women, 132 men; mean age, 58 years: range, 23-84 years) were included. One hundred forty-eight participants received sedatives (midazolam) and/or analgesics (fentanyl) during colonoscopy. Participants rated the MR colonography bowel preparation as less burdensome (P <.001) compared with the colonoscopy bowel preparation (10% and 71% of participants rated the respective examinations moderately to extremely burdensome). Participants also experienced less pain at MR colonography (P <.001) and found MR colonography less burdensome (P <.001). Immediately after both examinations, 69% of participants preferred MR colonography, 22% preferred colonoscopy, and 9% were indifferent (P <.001, 69% vs 22%). After 5 weeks, 65% preferred MR colonography and 26% preferred colonoscopy (P <.001). Conclusion: Participants preferred MR colonography without extensive cleansing to colonoscopy immediately after both examinations and 5 weeks later. Experience of the bowel preparation and of the procedure was rated bette