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

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

The incidence of T1 colorectal cancers (CRC) has increased with the implementation of CRC screening programs. It is unknown if outcomes and and risk models for T1 CRC patients, based on non-screen-detected cases, can be extrapolated to screen-detected T1 CRC. This study aims to compare stage distribution and oncological outcomes of T1 CRC patients within and outside the screening program.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Data from T1 CRC patients diagnosed between 2014-2017 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 employed to analyze differences in time to recurrence (TTR), metastasis-free survival (MFS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and overall survival (OS). Additionally, the performance of conventional risk factors for LNM was evaluated in both groups.

RESULTS

1803 patients were included, of which 1114 (62%) were screen-detected. Median follow-up was 51 months (IQR 30). The proportion of LNM did not significantly differ between screen- and non-screen-detected patients (12.6% vs 8.9%; OR 1.41; 95% CI 0.89-2.23), and a prediction model for LNM performed equally in both groups. Three and 5-year TTR, MFS, and CSS were similar for patients within and outside the screening program. However, OS was significantly higher in screen-detected T1 CRC patients (adjusted HR 0.51; 95% CI 0.38-0.68).

CONCLUSIONS

Screen-detected and non-screen-detected T1 CRCs have similar stage distributions and oncological outcomes and can therefore be treated equally. However, screen-detected T1 CRC patients exhibit a lower rate of non-CRC-related mortality, resulting in higher OS.

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.

An online self-test added to colorectal cancer screening can increase the effectiveness of familial cancer risk assessment without increasing distress

AIM

Most people who are at increased familial colorectal cancer (FCRC) risk are not identified, despite the need for enhanced surveillance colonoscopy for effective CRC prevention. An online self-test may enhance this identification. We assessed whether taking an online self-test to identify increased FCRC risk increases anxiety, distress or CRC risk perception in population-based CRC screening.

METHOD

After the precolonoscopy consultation, patients who had a positive immunohistochemical occult faecal blood test (iFOBT+) in population-based CRC screening were invited by email to take an online self-test at home which returned details of family history. Anxiety (STAI-DY), distress (HADS) and CRC risk perception were assessed immediately before and after taking the online self-test and 2 weeks later.

RESULTS

Of 250 participants invited, 177 (71%) completed the online self-test and psychological questionnaires and 153 (61%) completed questionnaires 2 weeks later. The median age was 65 years (range 61-75). The FCRC risk was increased in 17 participants (9.6%). Of these, 12 (6.8%) had a highly increased FCRC risk and may benefit from germline genetic testing for Lynch syndrome. In 7 of 17 participants (40%) the self-test obtained novel information on family history. Anxiety and distress levels were, and remained, below a clinically relevant level. Perception of CRC risk remained unchanged. Most participants (83%) would recommend the online self-test to others.

CONCLUSION

Of those with a iFOBT+, 9.6% had a previously unidentified increasedFCRC risk and require an enhanced surveillance colonoscopy instead of iFOBT. As screening for this risk did not increase anxiety or distress, and was highly acceptable, we recommend adding the online self-test to population-based CRC screening.

Colicky pain and related complications after cholecystectomy for mild gallstone pancreatitis

BACKGROUND

Same-admission cholecystectomy is advised after gallstone pancreatitis to prevent recurrent pancreatitis, colicky pain and other complications, but data on the incidence of symptoms and complications after cholecystectomy are lacking.

METHODS

This was a prospective cohort study during the previously published randomized controlled PONCHO trial on timing of cholecystectomy after mild gallstone pancreatitis. Data on healthcare consumption and questionnaires focusing on colicky pain and biliary complications were obtained during 6 months after cholecystectomy. Main outcomes were (i) postoperative colicky pain as reported in questionnaires and (ii) medical treatment for postoperative symptoms and gallstone related complications.

RESULTS

Among 262 patients who underwent cholecystectomy after mild gallstone pancreatitis, 28 of 191 patients (14.7%) reported postoperative colicky pain. The majority of these were reported within 2 months after surgery and were single events. Overall, 25 patients (9.5%) required medical treatment for symptoms or gallstone related complications. Acute readmission was required in seven patients (2.7%). No predictors for the development of postoperative colicky pain were identified.

DISCUSSION

Some 15% of patients experienced colicky pain after cholecystectomy for mild gallstone pancreatitis, which were mostly single events and rarely required readmission. These data may be used to better inform patients undergoing cholecystectomy for mild gallstone pancreatitis.

Pancreatitis of biliary origin, optimal timing of cholecystectomy (PONCHO trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

After an initial attack of biliary pancreatitis, cholecystectomy minimizes the risk of recurrent biliary pancreatitis and other gallstone-related complications. Guidelines advocate performing cholecystectomy within 2 to 4 weeks after discharge for mild biliary pancreatitis. During this waiting period, the patient is at risk of recurrent biliary events. In current clinical practice, surgeons usually postpone cholecystectomy for 6 weeks due to a perceived risk of a more difficult dissection in the early days following pancreatitis and for logistical reasons. We hypothesize that early laparoscopic cholecystectomy minimizes the risk of recurrent biliary pancreatitis or other complications of gallstone disease in patients with mild biliary pancreatitis without increasing the difficulty of dissection and the surgical complication rate compared with interval laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Methods/Design

PONCHO is a randomized controlled, parallel-group, assessor-blinded, superiority multicenter trial. Patients are randomly allocated to undergo early laparoscopic cholecystectomy, within 72 hours after randomization, or interval laparoscopic cholecystectomy, 25 to 30 days after randomization. During a 30-month period, 266 patients will be enrolled from 18 hospitals of the Dutch Pancreatitis Study Group. The primary endpoint is a composite endpoint of mortality and acute re-admissions for biliary events (that is, recurrent biliary pancreatitis, acute cholecystitis, symptomatic/obstructive choledocholithiasis requiring endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreaticography including cholangitis (with/without endoscopic sphincterotomy), and uncomplicated biliary colics) occurring within 6 months following randomization. Secondary endpoints include the individual endpoints of the composite endpoint, surgical and other complications, technical difficulty of cholecystectomy and costs.

Discussion

The PONCHO trial is designed to show that early laparoscopic cholecystectomy (within 72 hours) reduces the combined endpoint of mortality and re-admissions for biliary events as compared with interval laparoscopic cholecystectomy (between 25 and 30 days) after recovery of a first episode of mild biliary pancreatitis.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials: ISRCTN72764151

Nasoenteral feeding tube placement by nurses using an electromagnetic guidance system (with video)

BACKGROUND

The early institution of feeding in patients who need postpyloric feeding tubes is often hampered by a limited availability of endoscopists experienced in safe tube positioning.

OBJECTIVE

To test the feasibility of having nurses place postpyloric feeding tubes by using a universal path finding system device.

DESIGN

Prospective study.

SETTING

Academic hospital.

PATIENTS

The success rate and learning curve of a senior nurse placing postpyloric feeding tubes in 50 patients was studied, followed by a study in 160 patients on the success rates and learning curves of 4 inexperienced nurses instructed by the senior nurse. Finally, the success rate of postpyloric feeding tube placement by the senior nurse in 50 critically ill patients was investigated.

INTERVENTION

Postpyloric feeding tube positioning by nurses using an electromagnetic universal path-finding system device enabling them to follow the path of the tip of the feeding tube on a monitor screen.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Success was defined by postpyloric positioning of the feeding tube. The ultimate aim was to reach at least the duodenojejunal flexure.

RESULTS

In the first part, the senior nurse was successful in 72% of cases. There was a clear learning curve. In the second part, the 4 newly instructed nurses had a success rate of 89.4% without an evident learning curve. In the third part, successful feeding tube positioning was achieved in 78% of critically ill patients. Of the 217 successfully positioned tubes, 74% reached at least the duodenojejunal flexure. In half of the unsuccessful cases, an explanation for the failure was found at endoscopy. No complications were seen.

LIMITATIONS

The generalization to less-specialized hospitals should be investigated.

CONCLUSION

Postpyloric positioning of feeding tubes by nurses at the bedside without endoscopy is feasible and safe. Nurses may take over some of the tasks of doctors in a time of high endoscopic needs.