Preoperative re-endoscopy in colorectal cancer patients: an institutional experience and analysis of influencing factors

Recommendations for Optimal Endoscopic Localization of Colorectal Neoplasms: A Delphi Consensus of National Experts

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopy is the standard of care for diagnosis and evaluation of colorectal cancers before surgery. However, varied practices and heterogenous documentation affects communication between endoscopists and operating surgeons, hampering surgical planning.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to develop recommendations for the use of standardized localization and reporting practices for colorectal lesions identified during lower GI endoscopy.

DESIGN

A systematic review of existing endoscopy guidelines and thorough narrative review of the overall endoscopy literature were performed to identify existing practices recommended globally.

SETTING

An online Delphi process was used to establish consensus recommendations based on a literature review.

PATIENTS

Colorectal surgeons and gastroenterologists from across Canada who had previously demonstrated leadership in endoscopy, managed large endoscopy programs, produced high-impact publications in the field of endoscopy, or participated in the development of endoscopy guidelines were selected to participate.

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcomes measured were colorectal lesion localization and documentation practice recommendations important to planning surgical or advanced endoscopic excisions.

RESULTS

A total of 129 of 197 statements achieved consensus after 3 rounds of voting by 23 experts from across Canada. There was more than 90% participation in each round. Recommendations varied according to lesion location in the cecum, colon, or rectum and whether the referral was planned for surgical or advanced endoscopic resection. Recommendations were provided for appropriate documentation, indications, location, and method of tattoo placement, in addition to photograph and real-time 3-dimensional scope configuration device use.

LIMITATIONS

Because of a paucity of evidence, recommendations are based primarily on expert opinion. There may be bias, as all representatives were based in Canada.

CONCLUSIONS

Best practices to optimize endoscopic lesion localization and communication are not addressed in previous guidelines. This consensus involving national experts in colorectal surgery and gastroenterology provides a framework for efficient and effective colorectal lesion localization. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/C71 .

RECOMENDACIONES PARA LA LOCALIZACIN ENDOSCPICA PTIMA DE LAS NEOPLASIAS COLORRECTALES UN CONSENSO DELPHI DE EXPERTOS NACIONALES

ANTECEDENTES:La colonoscopia es el estándar de atención para el diagnóstico y la evaluación de los cánceres colorrectales antes de la cirugía. Sin embargo, las prácticas variadas y la documentación heterogénea afectan la comunicación entre los endoscopistas y los cirujanos operadores, lo que dificulta la planificación quirúrgica.OBJETIVO:Este estudio tuvo como objetivo desarrollar recomendaciones para el uso de prácticas estandarizadas de localización y notificación de lesiones colorrectales identificadas en la endoscopia gastrointestinal inferior.DISEÑO:Se realizó una revisión sistemática de las pautas de endoscopia existentes y una revisión narrativa exhaustiva de la literatura general sobre endoscopia para identificar las prácticas existentes recomendadas a nivel mundial. Se utilizó un proceso Delphi en línea para establecer recomendaciones de consenso basadas en la revisión de la literatura.PARTICIPANTES:Se seleccionaron para participar cirujanos colorrectales y gastroenterólogos de todo Canadá que previamente habían demostrado liderazgo en endoscopia, manejado grandes programas de endoscopia, producido publicaciones de alto impacto en el campo de la endoscopia o que habían participado en el desarrollo de pautas de endoscopia.RESULTADOS:Localización de lesiones colorrectales y recomendaciones prácticas de documentación importantes para planificar escisiones quirúrgicas o endoscópicas avanzadas.RESULTADOS:129 de 197 declaraciones lograron consenso después de tres rondas de votación de 23 expertos de todo Canadá. Hubo >90% de participación en cada ronda. Las recomendaciones variaron según la ubicación de la lesión en el ciego, colon o recto, y si se planificó la derivación para resección quirúrgica o endoscópica avanzada. Se proporcionaron recomendaciones para la documentación adecuada, las indicaciones, la ubicación y el método de colocación del tatuaje, además de la fotografía y el uso del dispositivo de configuración del alcance 3D en tiempo real.LIMITACIONES:Debido a la escasez de evidencia, las recomendaciones se basan principalmente en la opinión de expertos. Puede haber sesgo, ya que los representantes tenían su sede en Canadá.CONCLUSIONES:Las mejores prácticas para optimizar la localización y comunicación de lesiones endoscópicas no se abordan en las guías anteriores. Este consenso que involucra a expertos nacionales en cirugía colorrectal y gastroenterología proporciona un marco para la localización eficiente y efectiva de lesiones colorrectales. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/C71 . (Traducción-Dr. Mauricio Santamaria ).

Optimal endoscopic localization of colorectal neoplasms: a comparison of rural versus urban documentation practices

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopy is the gold standard for diagnosing colorectal neoplasms. However, colonoscopy is often repeated preoperatively due to non-standard documentation and inconsistent practices by index endoscopists. Repeat endoscopies result in treatment delays and can increase risks of complications. National consensus recommendations were recently developed for optimal endoscopic colorectal lesion localization. We aimed to assess baseline colonoscopy practice differences from the new recommendations with a focus on geographical variability in report quality between urban and rural referral sites.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of patients who underwent elective surgery for colorectal neoplasms at a single institution in Winnipeg between 2007-2020. We compared endoscopy report quality to the national recommendations with charts stratified by endoscopy location. Our primary outcomes were overall report documentation completeness and use of recommended practices.

RESULTS

One hundred ninety-four patients were included (97 rural, 97 urban). The mean overall compliance with the recommendations for urban endoscopies was marginally better compared to rural endoscopies (50% vs. 48%, p = 0.04). Sixty-eight percent of the reports complied with tattoo indications (72% urban; 63% rural, p = 0.16). On average, reports included 29% of recommended tattoo information (30% urban; 28% rural, p = 0.25) and demonstrated 74% appropriate tattoo technique (70% urban; 81% rural, p = 0.10). Twenty-one percent of reports included photographs of lesions in accordance with the national recommendations (28% urban; 13% rural, p = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopists frequently omit recommended practices for optimal colorectal lesion localization. Rural reports miss more recommended information compared to urban reports. Future research is needed to facilitate province-wide high-quality endoscopy reporting for patients regardless of endoscopy location.

Variability in Communication and Reporting Practices Between Gastroenterologists and General Surgeons Contributes to Repeat Preoperative Endoscopy for Colorectal Neoplasms: A Qualitative Analysis

BACKGROUND

Surgeons commonly repeat preoperative endoscopy before planned colorectal resections. The reasons for this are not entirely clear, and repeat endoscopy may lead to delays in curative resection, increased costs, and patient discomfort.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to determine practice patterns, localization techniques, and processes of communication undertaken by endoscopy specialists in a high-volume regional health authority.

DESIGN

This was a qualitative study involving standardized, semi-structured, in-depth interviews that were conducted in person. Data were analyzed using a thematic analysis approach.

SETTINGS

The study was conducted at Canadian tertiary and community facilities.

PARTICIPANTS

Ten general surgeons and 10 gastroenterologists were included using a convenience sampling technique.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Interview questions were developed to understand the perspectives and practice patterns of endoscopists when approaching patients diagnosed with colorectal lesions requiring surgical resection. The decision-making process to perform a repeat preoperative endoscopy was assessed.

RESULTS

Three key themes emerged: 1) patterns of communication, 2) feedback, and 3) trust. Thematic analysis revealed that poor communication and ambiguous documentation increased the likelihood of performing repeat preoperative endoscopy. Inconsistencies in tattooing practices and lesion location were important factors. Negative experiences and factors related to interprofessional trust emerged as key contributors to repeat preoperative endoscopy.

LIMITATIONS

The transferability of findings to health care systems outside Canada may be limited and requires further study.

CONCLUSIONS

Suboptimal endoscopic reporting contributes to gaps in communication among endoscopists. In addition, lack of consistent feedback and mutual trust may increase the likelihood of performing repeat preoperative lower endoscopy. Inconsistent tattooing practices pose significant concerns for accurate intraoperative lesion localization. Establishing collaborative work environments through joint educational initiatives may enhance communication and mitigate unnecessary repeat procedures. These results support the need for standardized guidelines and endoscopic reporting in the management of colorectal lesions. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B879 .

LA VARIABILIDAD EN LAS PRCTICAS DE COMUNICACIN Y PRESENTACIN DE INFORMES ENTRE GASTROENTERLOGOS Y CIRUJANOS GENERALES CONTRIBUYE A REPETIR LA ENDOSCOPIA PREOPERATORIA PARA LAS NEOPLASIAS COLORRECTALES UN ANLISIS CUALITATIVO

ANTECEDENTES:Los cirujanos suelen repetir la endoscopia preoperatoria antes de las resecciones colorrectales planificadas. Las razones de esto no están del todo claras y la repetición de la endoscopia puede provocar retrasos en la resección curativa, aumento de los costos y malestar del paciente.OBJETIVO:Nuestro objetivo fue determinar patrones de práctica, técnicas de localización y procesos de comunicación realizados por especialistas en endoscopia, en una autoridad sanitaria regional, de alto volumen.DISEÑO:Este fue un estudio cualitativo, que involucró entrevistas estandarizadas, semiestructuradas y en profundidad que se llevaron a cabo en persona. Los datos se analizaron mediante un enfoque de análisis temático.ENTORNO CLINICO:El estudio se llevó a cabo en instalaciones comunitarias y terciarias canadienses.PARTICIPANTES:Se incluyeron 10 cirujanos generales y 10 gastroenterólogos, utilizando una técnica de muestreo por conveniencia.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE VALORACION:Las preguntas de la entrevista se desarrollaron para comprender las perspectivas y los patrones de práctica de los endoscopistas, cuando se acercan a pacientes diagnosticados con lesiones colorrectales que requieren resección quirúrgica. Se evaluó el proceso de toma de decisiones para realizar una nueva endoscopia preoperatoria.RESULTADOS:Surgieron tres temas clave: 1) patrones de comunicación, 2) retroalimentación y 3) confianza. El análisis temático reveló que la pobre comunicación y la ambigua documentación aumentaron la probabilidad de realizar una nueva endoscopia preoperatoria. Las inconsistencias en las prácticas de tatuaje y la ubicación de las lesiones fueron factores importantes. Las experiencias pasadas negativas y los factores relacionados con la confianza interprofesional surgieron como contribuyentes clave para repetir la endoscopia preoperatoria.LIMITACIONES:La transferibilidad de los hallazgos a los sistemas de atención médica fuera de Canadá, puede ser limitada y requiere más estudios.CONCLUSIONES:Los informes endoscópicos subóptimos contribuyen a las brechas en la comunicación entre los endoscopistas. Además, la falta de retroalimentación consistente y la confianza mutua pueden aumentar la probabilidad de realizar una nueva endoscopia baja preoperatoria. Las prácticas inconsistentes de tatuaje, plantean preocupaciones importantes para la localización precisa de las lesiones intraoperatorias. El establecimiento de entornos de trabajo colaborativo a través de iniciativas educativas conjuntas pueden mejorar la comunicación y mitigar la repetición de procedimientos innecesarios. Estos resultados apoyan la necesidad de pautas estandarizadas e informes endoscópicos en el tratamiento de las lesiones colorrectales. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B879 . (Traducción-Dr. Fidel Ruiz Healy ).

Sampling error in the diagnosis of colorectal cancer is associated with delay to surgery: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Accurate histopathologic diagnosis of colorectal cancer is important for treatment decision-making and timely care. The aim of this study was to measure rates and predictors of sampling errors for biopsy specimens attained at flexible lower gastrointestinal endoscopy, and to determine whether these events lead to a delay in surgical care.

METHODS

This is a retrospective observational study of patients who underwent elective resection for colorectal adenocarcinoma between January 2007 and June 2020. Primary outcomes were proportion of incorrectly diagnosed colorectal adenocarcinomas at index endoscopy by histopathology, and time between endoscopy and surgery. Secondary outcomes were predictors of sampling error, and diagnostic yield of repeat endoscopy.

RESULTS

Sampling errors occurred in 217/962 (22.6%) flexible endoscopies for colorectal adenocarcinomas. Negative biopsies were associated with a longer median time to surgery (87.6 days, IQR 48.8-180.0) compared to true positive biopsies (64.0 days, IQR 38.0-119.0), p < 0.001. Controlling for lesion location, neoadjuvant therapy, endoscopist specialty, year, and repeat endoscopies, time to surgery remained 1.40-fold longer (p < 0.001) following sampling error. Repeat endoscopy occurred following 62/217 (28.6%) cases of sampling errors, yielding a correct diagnosis of cancer in 38/62 (61.3%) cases. On multivariable analysis, sampling errors were less likely to occur for lesions endoscopists described as suspicious for malignancy (OR 0.12, 95% CI 0.07-0.21) or simple polyps (OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.08-0.70) compared to endoscopically unresectable polyps.

CONCLUSIONS

Colorectal cancers are frequently improperly sampled, which may lead to treatment delays for these patients. When cancer is suspected, surgeons should take care to ensure timely management.

Rates and predictors of repeat preoperative endoscopy for elective colorectal resections: how can we avoid repeated procedures?

BACKGROUND

Despite limited endoscopy resources, repeat endoscopy prior to surgery is commonly practised. Our aim was to determine repeat preoperative endoscopy rates and factors influencing this practice at a high-volume Canadian tertiary centre.

METHOD

A retrospective cohort study was conducted on all patients undergoing elective colorectal resections for benign and malignant neoplasms at a tertiary centre in Winnipeg, Canada between 2007 and 2017. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to identify predictors of repeat preoperative endoscopy.

RESULTS

Of 1062 patients identified, mean age was 68 years and 56% were male. Rate of repeat preoperative endoscopy was 29%. On multivariable analysis, male sex (OR 1.68, CI 1.19-2.34, p = 0.003) and lesions located in the left colon (OR 2.73, CI 1.79-4.14, p < 0.001), rectosigmoid (OR 9.11, CI 2.14-38.8, p = 0.003), and rectum (OR 4.06, CI 2.58-6.38, p < 0.001) were at increased odds of undergoing repeat preoperative endoscopy. Patients with a tattoo placed at index endoscopy were at markedly lower odds of undergoing repeat preoperative endoscopy (OR 0.48, CI 0.34-0.68, p < 0.001). Index endoscopist specialty was not a significant predictor of repeat endoscopy (OR 0.76, CI 0.54-1.06, p = 0.09).

CONCLUSIONS

Repeat preoperative lower endoscopy is commonly practised and may be unnecessary if appropriate identification and documentation of lesions has been achieved. Tattooing of suspicious lesions is a key modifiable factor associated with reduced likelihood of repeat preoperative endoscopy. This study highlights the need for standardized guidelines and endoscopy reporting practices given the delays and costs associated with repeat preoperative endoscopy.

A single centre audit: repeat pre-operative colonoscopy

BACKGROUND

Repeat colonoscopy may be required for tumour localisation. The aim of the study is to explore the clinical settings it was used and benchmark the quality of initial colonoscopy against standardized guidelines for tumour localisation, tattooing and colonoscopy reporting amongst clinicians.

METHODS

A retrospective study from 2016 to 2021 has been performed on patients who underwent elective colorectal cancer resections at the Northern Hospital. Patient demographics, colonoscopic and operative details were retrieved from the Bi-National Colorectal Cancer Audit (BCCA) Registry database and hospital medical records.

PRIMARY OUTCOMES

changes in operative approach and delays to operation.

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

reasons for a repeat colonoscopy and complications from repeat colonoscopy.

RESULTS

A total of 339 patients were included in this study. 94 (28.6%) underwent a repeat colonoscopy. Re-scoping rate was 29.6% for surgeons, and 26.2% for non-operating endoscopists. Surgeons had a 5.9% localisation error rate, and non-operating endoscopist 6.95% (p = 0.673). Surgeons did not have a lower rate of repeat colonoscopy (p = 0.462). Repeat endoscopy was associated with a longer time to definitive operation (p < 0.001). No complications were associated with a repeat colonoscopy.

CONCLUSION

There was no difference in localisation error rates or repeat colonoscopy amongst surgeons (29.6%) and non-operating endoscopists (26.2%) (p = 0.462). This could be explained by the standardized endoscopy training in Australia governed by a common training board. Lack of tattooing at index colonoscopy and inadequate documentation often led to a repeat endoscopy, which was associated with a longer time to definitive operation. Standardized guidelines in tattooing of lesions and colonoscopy reporting should be implemented.

Repeat preoperative endoscopy after regional implementation of electronic synoptic endoscopy reporting: a retrospective comparative study

BACKGROUND

Repeat preoperative endoscopy is common for patients with colorectal neoplasms. This can result in treatment delays, patient discomfort, and risks of colonoscopy-related complications. Repeat preoperative endoscopy has been attributed to poor communication between endoscopists and surgeons. In January 2019, mandatory electronic synoptic reporting for endoscopy was implemented to include elements consistent with quality indicators proposed in national guidelines. The aim of the present study is to assess whether the repeat preoperative endoscopy rate for colorectal lesions changed following synoptic report implementation.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed of 1690 consecutive patients who underwent elective surgical resection for colorectal neoplasms from January 2007 to June 2020 at a tertiary hospital in Canada. Patients who had an index endoscopy documented via synoptic report were compared to those reported via narrative report. Primary outcomes were rates of repeat preoperative endoscopy and inclusion of colonoscopy quality indicators: photo-documentation, tattoo placement, and bowel preparation score.

RESULTS

In total, 1429 patients who underwent elective colorectal resection for colorectal cancers or polyps between January 2007 and June 2020 were included. 115 had index endoscopies recorded via synoptic report and 1314 by narrative report. The repeat preoperative endoscopy rate after endoscopies documented by narrative report was 29.07% (95% CI 26.63-31.61) and 25.22% (95% CI 17.58-34.17%) for synoptic report. Patients whose index endoscopies where performed by a practitioner other than their operating surgeon had a re-endoscopy rate of 36.03% (95% CI 32.82-39.33%) after narrative report and 38.81% (95% CI 27.14-51.50%) for synoptic report. Rates of tattoo placement, photo-documentation, and reporting of bowel preparation quality were all significantly increased with synoptic reports (p ≤ 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopy synoptic reports based on current guidelines were not associated with a decrease in rates of repeat pre-operative endoscopy at a high-volume colorectal cancer centre. Future study should examine guideline deficiencies for this purpose and make necessary modifications.

Predictors and rates of prior endoscopic tattoo localization amongst individuals undergoing elective colorectal resections for benign and malignant lesions

BACKGROUND

Appropriate tattooing of suspicious lesions during colonoscopy is critical for surgical planning. However, variability exists in tattoo placement, technique, and reporting. Our aim is to determine the rates and predictors of tattoo placement, tattoo location in relation to the lesion, and localization accuracy during lower endoscopy for individuals undergoing elective colorectal resections.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective chart review on all patients undergoing elective colorectal resections for benign and malignant neoplasms between 2007 and 2017 at a high volume Canadian tertiary centre. Patient demographics, endoscopic, and tumour-related characteristics were collected. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to identify predictors of tattoo localization.

RESULTS

Of the 1062 patients identified, laparoscopic resection occurred in 59% of patients. 57% of patients underwent tattooing for tumour localization at index endoscopy. Tattoos were placed distal (27%), both proximal and distal (4%), and just proximal (2%) to the lesion. However, in the majority of cases the tattoo location was not documented (67%). On multivariate analysis, patients who had lesions located in the transverse colon (OR: 1.93, 95% CI 1.04-3.59), had surgery performed after 2010 (2011-2014: OR: 1.88, 95% CI 1.31-2.68; 2015-2017: OR: 2.87, 95% CI 1.93-4.26), underwent laparoscopic resections (OR: 1.69, 95% CI 1.22-2.33), and had their index endoscopy performed in an urban setting (OR: 5.92, 95% CI 3.23-10.87), were at higher odds of having a tattoo placed at index endoscopy.

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic tattoo placement and location in relation to the lesion varies widely, with reports containing suboptimal documentation. Lesion location and laparoscopic procedures were significant predictors of tattoo placement. This study highlights the need for standardized tattooing practices and reporting amongst endoscopists. One of the focus of quality improvement efforts should be educational initiatives for rural endoscopists.

Endoscopic tattooing of colorectal neoplasms removed by laparoscopy: a proposal for selective marking

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Preoperative endoscopic tattooing is an effective procedure to identify small intraoperative neoplasms. However, there are no defined criteria with regard to the indications for endoscopic tattooing of these lesions at the time of diagnosis. The aim of this study was to establish endoscopic criteria that allow the selection of patients who will need a tattoo during the diagnostic colonoscopy.

METHODS

An ambispective study of patients undergoing laparoscopy due to a colorectal neoplasia who underwent endoscopic tattooing during the period from 2007-2013 and 2016-2017. According to the endoscopic description of the neoplasms, the classification was polypoid lesions, neoplasms occupying < 50% or ≥ 50% of the intestinal lumen and stenosing neoplasias.

RESULTS

Tattooing of the lesion was performed in 120 patients and the same lesions were identified during surgery in 114 (95%) cases. Most of the neoplasias described as polypoids and neoplasias that occupied < 50% of the intestinal lumen were not visualized during surgery and therefore required a tattoo (33 of 42 and 18 of 26 respectively, p = 0.0001, X2). On the other hand, stenosing lesions or neoplasias occupying ≥ 50% of the intestinal lumen were mostly identified during surgery (15 of 15 and 36 of 37 respectively, p = 0.0001, X2) without the need for a tattoo. Overall, the identification of neoplasms according to established criteria was 98%.

CONCLUSION

These results suggest that it is possible to establish endoscopic criteria that allow a successful selective tattooing during diagnostic endoscopy.

Diagnostic utility of staging abdominal computerized tomography and repeat endoscopy in detecting localization errors at initial endoscopy in colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopy has a reported localization error rate as high as 21% in detecting colorectal neoplasms. Preoperative repeat endoscopy has been shown to be protective against localization errors. There is a paucity of literature assessing the utility of staging computerized tomography (CT) and repeat endoscopy as diagnostic tools for detecting localization errors following initial endoscopy. The objective of this study is to determine the diagnostic characteristics of staging CT and repeat endoscopy in correcting localization errors at initial endoscopy.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted at a large tertiary academic center between January 2006 and August 2014. All patients undergoing surgical resection for CRC were identified. Group comparisons were conducted between (1) patients that underwent only staging CT (staging CT group), and (2) patients that underwent staging CT and repeat endoscopy (repeat endoscopy group). The primary outcome was localization error correction rate for errors at initial endoscopy.

RESULTS

594 patients were identified, 196 (33.0%) in the repeat endoscopy group, and 398 (77.0%) patients in the staging CT group. Error rates for each modality were as follows: initial endoscopy 8.8% (95% CI 6.5-11.0), staging CT 9.3% (95% CI 6.5-11.0), and repeat endoscopy 2.6% (95% CI 0.3-4.7); p < 0.01. Repeat endoscopy was superior to staging CT in correcting localization errors for left-sided / rectal lesions (81.2% vs. 33.3%; p < 0.01), right-sided lesions (80.0% vs. 54.5%; p = 0.21), and overall lesions (80.8% vs. 42.3%; p < 0.01). Repeat endoscopy compared to staging CT demonstrated relative risk reduction of 66.7% (95% CI 22-86%), absolute risk reduction of 38.5% (95% CI 14.2-62.8%), and odds ratio of 0.18 (95% CI 0.05-0.61) for correcting errors at initial endoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

Repeat endoscopy in colorectal cancer is superior to staging CT as a diagnostic tool for correcting localization-based errors at initial endoscopy.

Contribution of intraoperative colonoscopy in a colorectal surgery unit. Scand J Gastroenterol 2017;52:1292-1297. [PMID: 28768440 DOI: 10.1080/00365521.2017.1362465]

OBJECTIVES

Intraoperative colonoscopy (IC) is routinely used in colorectal surgery procedures, both oncologic and benign ones. Despite its extensive use there is a lack of literature addressing this important issue. The aims of this paper are to determine the contributions of this tool, especially considering changes in attitude from preoperative designed intervention.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study is a retrospective analysis of a prospective maintained database. Patients who underwent colorectal resection and IC during a four-year period (2009-2012). The indications for performing IC in our unit are: Incomplete preoperative colonoscopy, confirm the exact location of the tumor and polypectomy of any lesion distant from the planned resection segment.

RESULTS

The success rate in performing IC is 100%, including 42% of them made trans-anastomotic. No postoperative complications that were attributable to the endoscopy were detected. Routine practice led to a change in attitude in 5% of the patients analyzed; 2% of the global sample corresponded to synchronous tumors finding. Of those patients in whom polypectomies where achieved during the procedure a 14.3% of potentially malignant lesions were resected.

CONCLUSIONS

Intraoperative colonoscopy is a useful and safe tool that in view of these results should be taken into account at any colorectal surgery unit. Trans-anastomotic techniques do not raise morbidity.

Preoperative localization of colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Preoperative colorectal tumor localization is crucial for appropriate resection and treatment planning. As the localization accuracy of conventional colonoscopy is considered to be low, several localization techniques have been developed. We systematically reviewed the tumor localization error rates of several preoperative endoscopic techniques and synthesized information on risk factors for localization errors and procedure-related adverse events.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and the grey literature were searched. Studies were included if they reported tumor localization errors in patients with colorectal cancer undergoing resection with curative intent. Using random-effects models, pooled incidence of tumor localization errors were derived for conventional colonoscopy and colonoscopic tattooing. Due to the lack of comparative studies, a direct comparison of the pooled estimates was performed. Procedure-related adverse events, risk factors for localization errors, and the localization outcomes of other techniques such as colonoscopic clip placement, radioguided occult colonic lesion identification, and the use of magnetic endoscope imaging were also synthesized.

RESULTS

A total of 38 non-randomized controlled and observational studies were included in this review (2578 patients underwent conventional colonoscopy and 643 colonoscopic tattooing). The pooled incidence of localization errors with conventional colonoscopy was 15.4 % (95 % CI 12.0-18.7), whereas that of colonoscopic tattooing was 9.5 % (95 % CI 5.7-13.3), mean difference 5.9 % (95 % CI 0.65-11.14, p = 0.03). Adverse events secondary to tattooing were infrequent, and most were cases of ink spillage. Limited information was available for other localization techniques.

CONCLUSION

Conventional colonoscopy has a higher incidence of localization error compared to colonoscopic tattooing for localization of colorectal cancer. Colonoscopic tattooing is safe and leads to fewer tumor localization errors. Given the widespread adoption of laparoscopic resections for colorectal cancer, routine colonoscopic tattooing should be adopted. However, studies directly comparing different localization techniques are needed.

Preoperative repeat endoscopy for colorectal cancer: What is its role and when is it necessary?

SUMMARY

Many surgeons consider repeat endoscopy to be the standard of care for colorectal cancer; however, its utility in the preoperative setting is not well understood, especially given the lack of standardized guidelines on appropriate tumour localization and colonoscopic reporting. This often results in patients undergoing an unnecessary medical procedure during their preoperative evaluation. We discuss some of the issues surrounding the practice of preoperative repeat endoscopy as well as patient perspectives on the procedure. Our observations suggest that repeat endoscopy in the setting of colorectal cancer surgery may play a role in enabling transition of patient care between the initial endoscopist and the treating surgeon and in improving the patient experience. Patients with operable colorectal cancer appear to understand and support the current use of repeat endoscopy. However, improving preoperative care will require further research and ultimately the development of evidence-based clinical guidelines.

Discrepancy between gastroenterologists' and general surgeons' perspectives on repeat endoscopy in colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

A myriad of localization options are available to endoscopists for colorectal cancer (CRC); however, little is known about the use of such techniques and their relation to repeat endoscopy before CRC surgery. We examined the localization practices of gastroenterologists and compared their perceptions toward repeat endoscopy to those of general surgeons.

METHODS

We distributed a survey to practising gastroenterologists through a provincial repository. Univariate analysis was performed using the χ² test.

RESULTS

Gastroenterologists (n = 69) reported using anatomical landmarks (91.3%), tattooing (82.6%) and image capture (73.9%) for tumour localization. The majority said they would tattoo lesions that could not be removed by colonoscopy (91.3%), high-risk polyps (95.7%) and large lesions (84.1%). They were equally likely to tattoo lesions planned for laparoscopic (91.3%) or open (88.4%) resection. Rectal lesions were less likely to be tattooed (20.3%) than left-sided (89.9%) or right-sided (85.5%) lesions. Only 1.4% agreed that repeat endoscopy is the standard of care, whereas 38.9% (n = 68) of general surgeons agreed (p < 0.001). General surgeons were more likely to agree that an incomplete initial colonoscopy was an indication for repeat endoscopy (p = 0.040). Further, 56% of general surgeons indicated that the findings of repeat endoscopy often lead to changes in the operative plan.

CONCLUSION

Discrepancies exist between gastroenterologists and general surgeons with regards to perceptions toward repeat endoscopy and its indications. This is especially significant given that repeat endoscopy often leads to change in surgical management. Further research is needed to formulate practice recommendations that guide the use of repeat endoscopy, tattoo localization and quality reporting.

Practice parameters for early colon cancer management: Italian Society of Colorectal Surgery (Società Italiana di Chirurgia Colo-Rettale; SICCR) guidelines

Early colon cancer (ECC) has been defined as a carcinoma with invasion limited to the submucosa regardless of lymph node status and according to the Royal College of Pathologists as TNM stage T1 NX M0. As the potential risk of lymph node metastasis ranges from 6 to 17% and the preoperative assessment of lymph node metastasis is not reliable, the management of ECC is still controversial, varying from endoscopic to radical resection. A meeting on recent advances on the management of colorectal polyps endorsed by the Italian Society of Colorectal Surgery (SICCR) took place in April 2014, in Genoa (Italy). Based on this material the SICCR decided to issue guidelines updating the evidence and to write a position statement paper in order to define the diagnostic and therapeutic strategy for ECC treatment in context of the Italian healthcare system.

Preoperative endoscopy localization error rate in patients with colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Preoperative repeat endoscopy in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients is considered by many to be an integral component of surgical planning. Little is known, however, about the utility of re-endoscopy.

METHODS

A retrospective review of 342 consecutive patients undergoing elective surgical resection for CRC from January 2008 to December 2011 was performed. Patients were included if the initial endoscopist was different than the operating surgeon. A localization error was recorded if the final tumor location identified during surgery was in a different anatomical segment than that identified by endoscopy. The Chi-squared test was used to compare categorical variables. An error rate with a 95% confidence interval was obtained using the exact binomial distribution.

RESULTS

298 patients were identified, 118 (39.6%) of whom also underwent a preoperative re-endoscopy by the operating surgeon or partner. Nineteen patients had incorrect tumor localization at initial endoscopy, equivalent to a 6.4% error rate (95% CI 3.88-9.78). In comparison, there were two localization errors on re-endoscopy, 1.69% (95% CI 0.21-6.00). Re-endoscopy was found to be protective against localization errors (P < 0.05), correcting 10 of the 12 errors made at the initial endoscopy. The sensitivity of re-endoscopy as a diagnostic tool to detect errors was 83% with a corresponding specificity of 100%. The overall accuracy of re-endoscopy in preventing endoscopic localization errors was 92% (95% CI 81-100).

CONCLUSIONS

There is a small but important localization error rate in preoperative endoscopic evaluation of colorectal tumors. Re-endoscopy appears to be safe and may potentially identify and correct these errors and help with preoperative planning at the expense of delaying surgery. Further research is necessary to find ways to improve localization and identify which patients would benefit from re-endoscopy.