Oncologic outcomes of screen-detected and non-screen-detected T1 colorectal cancers

Background:The incidence of T1 colorectal cancer (CRC) has increased with the implementation of CRC screening programs. It is unknown whether the outcomes and risk models for T1 CRC based on non-screen-detected patients can be extrapolated to screen-detected T1 CRC. This study aimed to compare the stage distribution and oncologic outcomes of T1 CRC patients within and outside the screening program. Methods: Data from T1 CRC patients diagnosed between 2014 and 2017 were collected from 12 hospitals in the Netherlands. The presence of lymph node metastasis (LNM) at diagnosis was compared between screen-detected and non-screen-detected patients using multivariable logistic regression. Cox proportional hazard regression was used to analyze differences in the time to recurrence (TTR), metastasis-free survival (MFS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and overall survival. Additionally, the performance of conventional risk factors for LNM was evaluated across the groups. Results: 1803 patients were included (1114 [62%] screendetected), with median follow-up of 51 months (interquartile range 30). The proportion of LNM did not significantly differ between screen- and non-screen-detected patients (12.6% vs. 8.9%; odds ratio 1.41; 95%CI 0.89-2.23); a prediction model for LNM performed equally in both groups. The 3- and 5-year TTR, MFS, and CSS were similar for patients within and outside the screening program. However, overall survival was significantly longer in screen-detected T1 CRC patients (adjusted hazard ratio 0.51; 95%CI 0.38- 0.68). Conclusions: Screen-detected and non-screen-detected T1 CRCs have similar stage distributions and oncologic outcomes and can therefore be treated equally. However, screen-detected T1 CRC patients exhibit a lower rate of non-CRC-related mortality, resulting in longer overall survival.</p

Endoscopic Versus Surgical Step-Up Approach for Infected Necrotizing Pancreatitis (ExTENSION):Long-term Follow-up of a Randomized Trial

Background & Aims: Previous randomized trials, including the Transluminal Endoscopic Step-Up Approach Versus Minimally Invasive Surgical Step-Up Approach in Patients With Infected Pancreatic Necrosis (TENSION) trial, demonstrated that the endoscopic step-up approach might be preferred over the surgical step-up approach in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis based on favorable short-term outcomes. We compared long-term clinical outcomes of both step-up approaches after a period of at least 5 years. Methods: In this long-term follow-up study, we reevaluated all clinical data on 83 patients (of the originally 98 included patients) from the TENSION trial who were still alive after the initial 6-month follow-up. The primary end point, similar to the TENSION trial, was a composite of death and major complications. Secondary end points included individual major complications, pancreaticocutaneous fistula, reinterventions, pancreatic insufficiency, and quality of life. Results: After a mean follow-up period of 7 years, the primary end point occurred in 27 patients (53%) in the endoscopy group and in 27 patients (57%) in the surgery group (risk ratio [RR], 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65–1.32; P = .688). Fewer pancreaticocutaneous fistulas were identified in the endoscopy group (8% vs 34%; RR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.08–0.83). After the initial 6-month follow-up, the endoscopy group needed fewer reinterventions than the surgery group (7% vs 24%; RR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.09–0.99). Pancreatic insufficiency and quality of life did not differ between groups. Conclusions: At long-term follow-up, the endoscopic step-up approach was not superior to the surgical step-up approach in reducing death or major complications in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis. However, patients assigned to the endoscopic approach developed overall fewer pancreaticocutaneous fistulas and needed fewer reinterventions after the initial 6-month follow-up. Netherlands Trial Register no: NL8571

Preoptimisation in patients with acute obstructive colon cancer (PREOCC) - a prospective registration study protocol

BACKGROUND: Postoperative mortality and morbidity rates are high in patients with obstructing colon cancer (OCC). Different treatment options have been evaluated over the years, mainly for left sided OCC. Optimising the preoperative health condition in elective colorectal cancer (CRC) treatment shows promising results. The aim of this study is to determine whether preoptimisation is feasible in patients with OCC, with a special interest/focus on right-sided OCC, and if, ultimately, optimisation reduces mortality and morbidity (stoma rates, major and minor complications) rates in OCC. METHODS: This is a prospective registration study including all patients presenting with OCC in our hospital. Patients with OCC, treated with curative intent, will be screened for eligibility to receive preoptimisation before surgery. The preoptimisation protocol includes; decompression of the small bowel with a NG-tube for right sided obstruction and SEMS or decompressing ileostomy or colostomy, proximal to the site of obstruction, for left sided colonic obstructions. For the additional work-up, additional nutrition by means of parenteral feeding (for patients who are dependent on a NG tube) or oral/enteral nutrition (in case the obstruction is relieved) is provided. Physiotherapy with attention to both cardio and muscle training prior surgical resection is provided. The primary endpoint is complication-free survival (CFS) at the 90 day period after hospitalisation. Secondary outcomes include pre- and postoperative complications, patient- and tumour characteristics, surgical procedures, total in hospital stay, creation of decompressing and/or permanent ileo- or colostomy and long-term (oncological) outcomes. DISCUSSION: Preoptimisation is expected to improve the preoperative health condition of patients and thereby reduce postoperative complications. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial Registry: NL8266 date of registration: 06-jan-2020. STUDY STATUS: Open for inclusion

Tumor Seeding During Colonoscopy as a Possible Cause for Metachronous Colorectal Cancer

Contains fulltext : 209389.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access

Patient selection for urgent endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography by endoscopic ultrasound in predicted severe acute biliary pancreatitis (APEC-2):A multicentre prospective study

Objective: Routine urgent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy (ES) does not improve outcome in patients with predicted severe acute biliary pancreatitis. Improved patient selection for ERCP by means of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) for stone/sludge detection may challenge these findings. Design: A multicentre, prospective cohort study included patients with predicted severe acute biliary pancreatitis without cholangitis. Patients underwent urgent EUS, followed by ERCP with ES in case of common bile duct stones/sludge, within 24 hours after hospital presentation and within 72 hours after symptom onset. The primary endpoint was a composite of major complications or mortality within 6 months after inclusion. The historical control group was the conservative treatment arm (n=113) of the randomised APEC trial (Acute biliary Pancreatitis: urgent ERCP with sphincterotomy versus conservative treatment, patient inclusion 2013-2017) applying the same study design. Results: Overall, 83 patients underwent urgent EUS at a median of 21 hours (IQR 17-23) after hospital presentation and at a median of 29 hours (IQR 23-41) after start of symptoms. Gallstones/sludge in the bile ducts were detected by EUS in 48/83 patients (58%), all of whom underwent immediate ERCP with ES. The primary endpoint occurred in 34/83 patients (41%) in the urgent EUS-guided ERCP group. This was not different from the 44% rate (50/113 patients) in the historical conservative treatment group (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.29; p=0.65). Sensitivity analysis to correct for baseline differences using a logistic regression model also showed no significant beneficial effect of the intervention on the primary outcome (adjusted OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.90, p=0.92). Conclusion: In patients with predicted severe acute biliary pancreatitis without cholangitis, urgent EUS-guided ERCP with ES did not reduce the composite endpoint of major complications or mortality, as compared with conservative treatment in a historical control group. Trial registration number: ISRCTN15545919.</p

Histologic Factors Associated With Need for Surgery in Patients With Pedunculated T1 Colorectal Carcinomas

Background & Aims: Most patients with pedunculated T1 colorectal tumors referred for surgery are not found to have lymph node metastases, and were therefore unnecessarily placed at risk for surgery-associated complications. We aimed to identify histologic factors associated with need for surgery in patients with pedunculated T1 colorectal tumors. Methods: We performed a cohort-nested matched case–control study of 708 patients diagnosed with pedunculated T1 colorectal tumors at 13 hospitals in The Netherlands, from January 1, 2000 through December 31, 2014, followed for a median of 44 months (interquartile range, 20–80 months). We identified 37 patients (5.2%) who required surgery (due to lymph node, intramural, or distant metastases). These patients were matched with patients with pedunculated T1 colorectal tumors without a need for surgery (no metastases, controls, n = 111). Blinded pathologists analyzed specimens from each tumor, stained with H&E. We evaluated associations between histologic factors and patient need for surgery using univariable conditional logistic regression analysis. We used multivariable least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO; an online version of the LASSO model is available at: http://t1crc.com/calculator/) regression to develop models for identification of patients with tumors requiring surgery, and tested the accuracy of our model by projecting our case–control data toward the entire cohort (708 patients). We compared our model with previously developed strategies to identify high-risk tumors: conventional model 1 (based on poor differentiation, lymphovascular invasion, or Haggitt level 4) and conventional model 2 (based on poor differentiation, lymphovascular invasion, Haggitt level 4, or tumor budding). Results: We identified 5 histologic factors that differentiated cases from controls: lymphovascular invasion, Haggitt level 4 invasion, muscularis mucosae type B (incompletely or completely disrupted), poorly differentiated clusters and tumor budding, which identified patients who required surgery with an area under the curve (AUC) value of 0.83 (95% confidence interval, 0.76–0.90). When we used a clinically plausible predicted probability threshold of ≥4.0%, 67.5% (478 of 708) of patients were predicted to not need surgery. This threshold identified patients who required surgery with 83.8% sensitivity (95% confidence interval, 68.0%–93.8%) and 70.3% specificity (95% confidence interval, 60.9%–78.6%). Conventional models 1 and 2 identified patients who required surgery with lower AUC values (AUC, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.60–0.74; P =.002 and AUC, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.58–0.70; P <.001, respectively) than our LASSO model. When we applied our LASSO model with a predicted probability threshold of ≥4.0%, the percentage of missed cases (tumors mistakenly assigned as low risk) was comparable (6 of 478 [1.3%]) to that of conventional model 1 (4 of 307 [1.3%]) and conventional model 2 (3 of 244 [1.2%]). However, the percentage of patients referred for surgery based on our LASSO model was much lower (32.5%, n = 230) than that for conventional model 1 (56.6%, n = 401) or conventional model 2 (65.5%, n = 464). Conclusions: In a cohort-nested matched case–control study of 708 patients with pedunculated T1 colorectal carcinomas, we developed a model based on histologic features of tumors that identifies patients who require surgery (due to high risk of metastasis) with greater accuracy than previous models. Our model might be used to identify patients most likely to benefit from adjuvant surgery

Aggressive fluid hydration plus non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs versus non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs alone for post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (FLUYT): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled trial

Background: Pancreatitis is the most common complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Prophylactic rectal administration of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) is considered as standard of care to reduce the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis. It has been suggested that aggressive hydration might further reduce this risk. Guidelines already recommend aggressive hydration in patients who are unable to receive rectal NSAIDs, although it is laborious and time consuming. We aimed to evaluate the added value of aggressive hydration in patients receiving prophylactic rectal NSAIDs. Methods: FLUYT, a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled trial done across 22 Dutch hospitals, included patients aged between 18 and 85 years with moderate to high risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by a web-based module with varying block sizes to a combination of aggressive hydration and rectal NSAIDs (100 mg diclofenac or indomethacin; aggressive hydration group) or rectal NSAIDs (100 mg diclofenac or indomethacin) alone (control group). Randomisation was stratified according to treatment centre. Aggressive hydration comprised 20 mL/kg intravenous Ringer's lactate solution within 60 min from the start of ERCP, followed by 3 mL/kg per h for 8 h. The control group received normal intravenous saline with a maximum of 1·5 mL/kg per h and 3 L per 24 h. The primary endpoint was post-ERCP pancreatitis and was analysed on a modified intention-to-treat basis (including all patients who underwent randomisation and an ERCP and for whom data regarding the primary outcome were available). The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN13659155. Findings: Between June 5, 2015, and June 6, 2019, 826 patients were randomly assigned, of whom 388 in the aggressive hydration group and 425 in the control group were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. Post-ERCP pancreatitis occurred in 30 (8%) patients in the aggressive hydration group and in 39 (9%) patients in the control group (relative risk 0·84, 95% CI 0·53–1·33, p=0·53). There were no differences in serious adverse events, including hydration-related complications (relative risk 0·99, 95% CI 0·59–1·64; p=1·00), ERCP-related complications (0·90, 0·62–1·31; p=0·62), intensive care unit admission (0·37, 0·07–1·80; p=0·22), and 30-day mortality (0·95, 0·50–1·83; p=1·00). Interpretation: Aggressive periprocedural hydration did not reduce the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis in patients with moderate to high risk of developing this complication who routinely received prophylactic rectal NSAIDs. Therefore, the burden of laborious and time-consuming aggressive periprocedural hydration to further reduce the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis is not justified. Funding: Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development and Radboud University Medical Center

Endoscopic Versus Surgical Step-Up Approach for Infected Necrotizing Pancreatitis (ExTENSION): Long-term Follow-up of a Randomized Trial

Background & Aims: Previous randomized trials, including the Transluminal Endoscopic Step-Up Approach Versus Minimally Invasive Surgical Step-Up Approach in Patients With Infected Pancreatic Necrosis (TENSION) trial, demonstrated that the endoscopic step-up approach might be preferred over the surgical step-up approach in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis based on favorable short-term outcomes. We compared long-term clinical outcomes of both step-up approaches after a period of at least 5 years. Methods: In this long-term follow-up study, we reevaluated all clinical data on 83 patients (of the originally 98 included patients) from the TENSION trial who were still alive after the initial 6-month follow-up. The primary end point, similar to the TENSION trial, was a composite of death and major complications. Secondary end points included individual major complications, pancreaticocutaneous fistula, reinterventions, pancreatic insufficiency, and quality of life. Results: After a mean follow-up period of 7 years, the primary end point occurred in 27 patients (53%) in the endoscopy group and in 27 patients (57%) in the surgery group (risk ratio [RR], 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65–1.32; P = .688). Fewer pancreaticocutaneous fistulas were identified in the endoscopy group (8% vs 34%; RR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.08–0.83). After the initial 6-month follow-up, the endoscopy group needed fewer reinterventions than the surgery group (7% vs 24%; RR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.09–0.99). Pancreatic insufficiency and quality of life did not differ between groups. Conclusions: At long-term follow-up, the endoscopic step-up approach was not superior to the surgical step-up approach in reducing death or major complications in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis. However, patients assigned to the endoscopic approach developed overall fewer pancreaticocutaneous fistulas and needed fewer reinterventions after the initial 6-month follow-up. Netherlands Trial Register no: NL8571