Is surveillance endoscopy necessary after colectomy in ulcerative colitis?

The incidence of malignancy in the residual rectum of IBD patients after colectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) who have had a total colectomy remain with their rectum in situ, and are therefore at risk of rectal carcinoma. It is not clear how high the incidence of rectal cancer is in this cohort. The primary objective of this meta-analysis was to estimate the incidence of rectal cancer in patients with ulcerative colitis or Crohn's disease who have undergone colectomy but have a residual rectum, and to identify the risk factors for its development. In doing so, we explore the current recommendations for screening processes for these patients.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was performed. Five databases (Medline, Embase, Pubmed, Cochrane Library and Scopus) were searched from inception to 29 October 2021, to identify studies adhering to the population, intervention, control and outcomes (PICO) criteria. The included studies were critically appraised, and the relevant data was extracted. Cancer incidence was estimated from the reported information. Risk stratification was analysed using RevMan. A narrative approach was undertaken for the exploration of the existing screening guidelines.

RESULTS

Data from 23 of the 24 identified studies was suitable for analysis. The pooled incidence of rectal carcinoma was calculated to be 1.3%. Subgroup analysis showed an incidence of 0.7% and 3.2% for patients with a de-functioned rectal stump and ileorectal anastomosis, respectively. Patients with a history of a colorectal carcinoma were more likely to have a subsequent diagnosis of rectal carcinoma (RR 7.2, 95% CI 2.4-21.1). Patients with previous colorectal dysplasia were also at higher risk (RR 5.1, 95% CI 3.1-8.2). No universal standardised guidance regarding screening for this cohort could be identified in the available literature.

CONCLUSIONS

The overall risk of malignancy was estimated to be 1.3%, which is lower than previously reported. There is a need for clear and standardised screening guidance for this group of patients.

Incidence and Risk Factors of Cancer in the Anal Transitional Zone and Ileal Pouch following Surgery for Ulcerative Colitis and Familial Adenomatous Polyposis

Proctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis is the intervention of choice for ulcerative colitis and familial adenomatous polyposis requiring surgery. One of the long-term complications is pouch cancer, having a poor prognosis. The risk of high-grade dysplasia and cancer in the anal transitional zone and ileal pouch after 20 years is estimated to be 2 to 4.5% and 3 to 10% in ulcerative colitis and familial polyposis, respectively. The risk factors for ulcerative colitis are the presence of pre-operative dysplasia or cancer, disease duration > 10 years and severe villous atrophy. For familial polyposis, the risk factors are the number of pre-operative polyps > 1000, surgery with stapled anastomosis and the duration of follow-up. In the case of ulcerative colitis, a pouchoscopy should be performed annually if one of the following is present: dysplasia and cancer at surgery, primary sclerosing cholangitis, villous atrophy and active pouchitis (every 5 years without any of these factors). In the case of familial polyposis, endoscopy is recommended every year including chromoendoscopy. Even if anal transitional zone and ileal pouch cancers seldom occur following proctectomy for ulcerative colitis and familial adenomatous polyposis, the high mortality rate associated with this complication warrants endoscopic monitoring.

Anorectal Function After Ileo-Rectal Anastomosis Is Better than Pelvic Pouch in Selected Ulcerative Colitis Patients

BACKGROUND

With a lifelong perspective, 12% of ulcerative colitis patients will need a colectomy. Further reconstruction via ileo-rectal anastomosis or pouch can be affected by patients' perspective of their quality of life after surgery.

AIM

To assess the function and quality of life after restorative procedures with either ileo-rectal anastomosis or ileal pouch-anal anastomosis in relation to the inflammatory activity on endoscopy and in biopsies.

METHOD

A total of 143 UC patients operated with subtotal colectomy and ileo-rectal anastomosis or pouches between 1992 and 2006 at Linköping University Hospital were invited to participate. Those who completed the validated questionnaires (Öresland score, SF-36, Short Health Scale) were offered an endoscopic evaluation including multiple biopsies. Associations between anorectal function and quality of life with type of restorative procedure and severity of endoscopic and histopathologic grading of inflammation were evaluated.

RESULTS

Some 77 (53.9%) eligible patients completed questionnaires, of these 68 (88.3%) underwent endoscopic evaluation after a median follow-up of 12.5 (range 3.5-19.4) years after restorative procedure. Patients with ileo-rectal anastomosis reported better overall Öresland score: median = 3 (IQR 2-5) for ileo-rectal anastomosis (n = 38) and 10 (IQR 5-15) for pouch patients (n = 39) (p < 0.001). Anorectal function (Öresland score) and endoscopic findings (Baron-Ginsberg score) were positively correlated in pouch patients (tau: 0.28, p = 0.006).

CONCLUSION

Patients operated with ileo-rectal anastomosis reported better continence compared to pouches. Minor differences were noted regarding the quality of life. Ileo-rectal anastomosis is a valid option for properly selected ulcerative colitis patients if strict postoperative endoscopic surveillance is carried out.

Segmental resection is a safe oncological alternative to total proctocolectomy in elderly patients with ulcerative colitis and malignancy

AIM

The standard approach for the surgical management of colorectal cancer (CRC) in the setting of ulcerative colitis (UC) involves total proctocolectomy (TPC). However, some patients also undergo a partial resection (PR). This may be an attractive option in older patients with a high risk for surgery. The aim of this study was to compare the risk of metachronous cancer after PR or TPC for CRC in the setting of UC.

METHOD

This was a retrospective cohort study conducted through the Nationwide Veterans Affairs Healthcare System (VA). Patients who had UC and underwent a PR or TPC for CRC were followed from the time of their surgery to their most recent clinical follow-up. The primary outcome was development of metachronous cancer in the PR group. Secondary outcomes included surgical and medical outcomes.

RESULTS

Fifty-nine patients were included: 24 (40.7%) underwent PR and 35 (59.3%) underwent TPC. The median age at cancer diagnosis was 73.0 and 61.7 years in PR and TPC groups, respectively (P < 0.0005). Amongst patients undergoing PR, 15 (60%) had no active UC at the time of surgery, whereas in patients undergoing TPC, at the time of surgery eight (23.5%) had no active UC (P = 0.005). No patient who underwent a partial colectomy developed a metachronous cancer in the retained colonic segment during the follow-up period (median 7 years).

CONCLUSION

Our study suggests that PR for CRC in the setting of UC may be a viable option in a selected cohort of patients, especially among the elderly.

Incidence of neoplasias and effectiveness of postoperative surveillance endoscopy for patients with ulcerative colitis: comparison of ileorectal anastomosis and ileal pouch-anal anastomosis

BACKGROUND

The incidence of neoplasia after surgery has not been sufficiently evaluated in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC), particularly in the Japanese population, and it is not clear whether surveillance endoscopy is effective in detecting dysplasia/cancer in the remnant rectum or pouch. The aims of this study were to assess and compare postoperative development of dysplasia/cancer in patients with UC who underwent ileorectal anastomosis (IRA) or ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) and to evaluate the effectiveness of postoperative surveillance endoscopy.

METHODS

One hundred twenty patients who received postoperative surveillance endoscopy were retrospectively reviewed for development of dysplasia/cancer in the remnant rectal mucosa or pouch.

RESULTS

Three hundred seventy-nine endoscopy sessions were conducted for 30 patients after IRA, while 548 pouch endoscopy sessions were conducted for 90 patients after IPAA. In the IRA group, 5 patients developed dysplasia/cancer during postoperative surveillance and in all cases, neoplasia was detected at an early stage. In the IRA group, no patient developed neoplasia within 10 years of diagnosis; the cumulative incidence of neoplasia after disease onset was 7.2, 12.0, and 23.9% at 15, 20, and 25 years, respectively. In one case after stapled IPAA, dysplasia was found at the ileal pouch; a subsequent 9 endoscopy sessions in 8 years did not detect any dysplasia. Neoplasia was found more frequently during postoperative surveillance in the IRA group than in the IPAA group (p = .0028). The cumulative incidence of neoplasia after IRA was 3.8, 8.7, and 21.7% at 10, 15, and 20 years, respectively, and that after IPAA was 1.6% at 20 years.

CONCLUSIONS

The cumulative incidence of neoplasia after IPAA was minimal. Those who underwent IRA had a greater risk of developing neoplasia than those who underwent IPAA, although postoperative surveillance endoscopy was able to detect dysplasia/cancer at an early stage. IRA can be the surgical procedure of choice only in selected cases in which it would be of benefit to the patient, with more careful surveillance.