Imaging of colorectal polyps and early rectal cancer

Diagnostic performance of endorectal ultrasound combined with shear wave elastography for rectal tumors staging

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to analyze the performance of endorectal ultrasound (ERUS) combined with shear wave elastography (SWE) for rectal tumor staging.

METHODS

Forty patients with rectal tumors who had surgery were enrolled. They underwent ERUS and SWE examinations before surgery. Pathological results were used as the gold standard for tumor staging. The stiffness values of the rectal tumor, peritumoral fat, distal normal intestinal wall, and distal perirectal fat were analyzed. The diagnostic accuracy of ERUS stage, tumor SWE stage, ERUS combined with tumor SWE stage, and ERUS combined with peritumoral fat SWE stage were compared and evaluated by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve to select the best staging index.

RESULTS

From T1 to T3 stage, the maximum elasticity (Emax) of the rectal tumor increased gradually (p < 0.05). The cut-off values of adenoma/T1 and T2, T2 and T3 tumors were 36.75 and 85.15kPa, respectively. The diagnostic coincidence rate of tumor SWE stage was higher than that of ERUS stage. Overall diagnostic accuracy of ERUS combined with peritumoral fat SWE Emax restaging was significantly higher than that of ERUS.

CONCLUSIONS

ERUS combined with peritumoral fat SWE Emax for tumor restaging can effectively distinguish between stage T2 and T3 rectal tumors, which provides an effective imaging basis for clinical decisions.

Low-volume reduced bowel preparation regimen for CT colonography: a randomized noninferiority trial

PURPOSE

To determine whether the quality of a low-volume reduced bowel preparation (LV-RBP) for CT Colonography (CTC) is noninferior to full-volume reduced bowel preparation (FV-RBP) regimen.

METHODS

In this randomized controlled trial, consecutive participants referred for CTC were randomly assigned to receive LV-RBP (52.5 g of PMF104 in 500 mL of water) or FV-RBP (105 g of PMF104 in 1000 mL of water). Images were independently reviewed by five blinded readers who rated the quality of bowel preparation from 0 (best score) to 3 (worst score). The primary outcome was the noninferiority of LV-RBP to FV-RBP in the proportion of colonic segments scored 0 for cleansing quality, with noninferiority margin of 10%. Volume of residual fluids, colonic distension, lesions and polyps detection rates and patient tolerability were secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

From March 2019 to January 2020, 110 participants (mean age 65 years ± 14 [standard deviation]; 74 women) were allocated to LV-RBP (n = 55) or FV-RBP (n = 55) arms. There were 92% segment scored 0 in colon cleansing quality in LV-RBP and 94% in FV-RBP for prone scans, and 94% vs 92% for supine scans. Risk difference was - 2.1 (95% CI -5.9 to 1.7) and 1.5 (95% CI -2.4 to 5.4) for prone and supine positions, respectively. Residual fluids and colonic distension were also noninferior in LV-RBP. LV-RBP was associated with a lower number of evacuations during preparation (7 ± 5 vs 10 ± 6, p = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

The LV-RBP for CTC demonstrated noninferior quality of colon cleansing with improved gastrointestinal tolerability compared to FV-RBP regimen.

Management of complex polyps of the colon and rectum

PUPRPOSE

Benign polyps that are technically challenging and unsafe to remove via polypectomy are known as complex polyps. Concerns regarding safety and completeness of resection dictate they undergo advanced endoscopic techniques, such as endoscopic mucosal resection or surgery. We provide a comprehensive overview of complex polyps and current treatment options.

METHODS

A review of the English literature was conducted to identifyarticles describing the management of complex polyps of the colon and rectum.

RESULTS

Endoscopic mucosal resection is the standard of care for the majority of complex polyps. Only polyps that fail endoscopic mucosal resection or are highly suspicious of invasive cancer but which cannot be removed endoscopically warrant surgery.

CONCLUSION

Several factors influence the treatment of a complex polyp; therefore, there cannot be a "one-size-fitsall" approach. Treatment should be tailored to the lesion's characteristics, the risk of adverse events, and the resources available to the treating physician.