Location of colorectal cancer: colonoscopy versus surgery. Yield of colonoscopy in predicting actual location

The relationship between colon polyps and colonic diverticulosis: a retrospective review

Background

Colonic diverticulosis and colon polyps are common findings on colonoscopy. There is currently no consensus regarding a possible connection between the development of polyps and diverticulosis. Multiple research studies have sought to analyze whether the presence of both conditions is associated with the development of colorectal cancer. Our study aims to add to this body of data and to better assess the relationship between diverticulosis and colon polyps.

Methods

A retrospective chart review was performed of all patients who underwent screening and diagnostic colonoscopies between January 2011 and December 2020. Data collection included patient demographics; number, pathology, and location of colon polyps; incidence of colon cancer; and presence and location of colonic diverticulosis.

Results

Our study demonstrated that the overall presence of diverticulosis in any location increases the likelihood of having nearby colon polyps, regardless of subtype. The presence of left colonic diverticulosis was particularly associated with adjacent adenomatous and non-adenomatous colon polyps.

Conclusions

Colonic diverticulosis in any location may lead to an increased incidence of adenomatous colon polyps. It is important to perform careful examination of the mucosa surrounding colon diverticulosis to avoid missing colon polyps.

Impact of routine preoperative 18 FDG PET/CT on the surgical management of primary colorectal cancer

OBJECTIVES

Determine the usefulness of [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (¹⁸ FDG-PET/CT) in the preoperative setting of colorectal cancer (CRC), assessing its impact on changes in management strategy.

METHODS

Retrospective study of CRC patients who underwent preoperative ¹⁸ FDG-PET/CT and CT staging scans in a single referral center. The agreement between ¹⁸ FDG-PET/CT, contrast-enhanced CT, and colonoscopy for the surgical location was compared using the κ coefficient. Maximum standardized uptake (SUV_max ) value was obtained. Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

One hundred ninety-five patients were included. ¹⁸ FDG-PET/CT improved tumor localization in 84.6% (165/195) of cases (κ value 0.798, p < 0.001), thus correcting endoscopic errors 69.7% (30/43) of the time. In patients with incomplete colonoscopies, ¹⁸ FDG-PET/CT detected synchronous tumors in 2.5% (5/195) patients, overlooked by CT staging scans. Based on extracolonic ¹⁸ FDG-uptake, the second primary malignancy was diagnosed in 7(3.6%,7/195) patients and total accuracy for lymph node and distant metastasis was 66.1% and 98.4%, respectively. The treatment plan was altered in 30 (15.4%, 30/196) patients. There was a significant association between the SUV_max and tumor size (odds ratio [OR] 4.254, p = 0.003) and the depth of tumor invasion (OR 1.696, p = 0.026).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on its ability to aid in preoperative evaluation and definitively alter surgical treatment planning, ¹⁸ FDG-PET/CT should be further evaluated in primary CRC.

When and How To Use Endoscopic Tattooing in the Colon: An International Delphi Agreement

BACKGROUND & AIMS

There is a lack of clinical studies to establish indications and methodology for tattooing, therefore technique and practice of tattooing is very variable. We aimed to establish a consensus on the indications and appropriate techniques for colonic tattoo through a modified Delphi process.

METHODS

The baseline questionnaire was classified into 3 areas: where tattooing should not be used (1 domain, 6 questions), where tattooing should be used (4 domains, 20 questions), and how to perform tattooing (1 domain 20 questions). A total of 29 experts participated in the 3 rounds of the Delphi process.

RESULTS

A total of 15 statements were approved. The statements that achieved the highest agreement were as follows: tattooing should always be used after endoscopic resection of a lesion with suspicion of submucosal invasion (agreement score, 4.59; degree of consensus, 97%). For a colorectal lesion that is left in situ but considered suitable for endoscopic resection, tattooing may be used if the lesion is considered difficult to detect at a subsequent endoscopy (agreement score, 4.62; degree of consensus, 100%). A tattoo should never be injected directly into or underneath a lesion that might be removed endoscopically at a later point in time (agreement score, 4.79; degree of consensus, 97%). Details of the tattoo injection should be stated clearly in the endoscopy report (agreement score, 4.76; degree of consensus, 100%).

CONCLUSIONS

This expert consensus has developed different statements about where tattooing should not be used, when it should be used, and how that should be done.

Transanal total mesorectal excision: how are we doing so far?

AIM

This subgroup analysis of a prospective multicentre cohort study aims to compare postoperative morbidity between transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LaTME).

METHOD

The study was designed as a subgroup analysis of a prospective multicentre cohort study. Patients undergoing TaTME or LaTME for rectal cancer were selected. All patients were followed up until the first visit to the outpatient clinic after hospital discharge. Postoperative complications were classified according to the Clavien-Dindo classification and the comprehensive complication index (CCI). Propensity score matching was performed.

RESULTS

In total, 220 patients were selected from the overall prospective multicentre cohort study. After propensity score matching, 48 patients from each group were compared. The median tumour height for TaTME was 10.0 cm (6.0-10.8) and for LaTME was 9.5 cm (7.0-12.0) (P = 0.459). The duration of surgery and anaesthesia were both significantly longer for TaTME (221 vs 180 min, P < 0.001, and 264 vs 217 min, P < 0.001). TaTME was not converted to laparotomy whilst surgery in five patients undergoing LaTME was converted to laparotomy (0.0% vs 10.4%, P = 0.056). No statistically significant differences were observed for Clavien-Dindo classification, CCI, readmissions, reoperations and mortality.

CONCLUSION

The study showed that TaTME is a safe and feasible approach for rectal cancer resection. This new technique obtained similar postoperative morbidity to LaTME.