1
|
Zwager LW, Bastiaansen BAJ, Bronzwaer MES, van der Spek BW, Heine GDN, Haasnoot KJC, van der Sluis H, Perk LE, Boonstra JJ, Rietdijk ST, Wolters HJ, Weusten BLAM, Gilissen LPL, Ten Hove WR, Nagengast WB, Bekkering FC, Schwartz MP, Terhaar Sive Droste JS, Vlug MS, Houben MHMG, Rando Munoz FJ, Seerden TCJ, Beaumont H, de Ridder R, Dekker E, Fockens P. Endoscopic full-thickness resection (eFTR) of colorectal lesions: results from the Dutch colorectal eFTR registry. Endoscopy 2020; 52:1014-1023. [PMID: 32498100 DOI: 10.1055/a-1176-1107] [Citation(s) in RCA: 44] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/08/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Endoscopic full-thickness resection (eFTR) is a minimally invasive resection technique that allows definite diagnosis and treatment for complex colorectal lesions ≤ 30 mm unsuitable for conventional endoscopic resection. This study reports clinical outcomes from the Dutch colorectal eFTR registry. METHODS Consecutive patients undergoing eFTR in 20 hospitals were prospectively included. The primary outcome was technical success, defined as macroscopic complete en bloc resection. Secondary outcomes were: clinical success, defined as tumor-free resection margins (R0 resection); full-thickness resection rate; and adverse events. RESULTS : Between July 2015 and October 2018, 367 procedures were included. Indications were difficult polyps (non-lifting sign and/or difficult location; n = 133), primary resection of suspected T1 colorectal cancer (CRC; n = 71), re-resection after incomplete resection of T1 CRC (n = 150), and subepithelial tumors (n = 13). Technical success was achieved in 308 procedures (83.9 %). In 21 procedures (5.7 %), eFTR was not performed because the lesion could not be reached or retracted into the cap. In the remaining 346 procedures, R0 resection was achieved in 285 (82.4 %) and full-thickness resection in 288 (83.2 %). The median diameter of resected specimens was 23 mm. Overall adverse event rate was 9.3 % (n = 34/367): 10 patients (2.7 %) required emergency surgery for five delayed and two immediate perforations and three cases of appendicitis. CONCLUSION : eFTR is an effective and relatively safe en bloc resection technique for complex colorectal lesions with the potential to avoid surgery. Further studies assessing the role of eFTR in early CRC treatment with long-term outcomes are needed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Liselotte W Zwager
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, location AMC, Amsterdam Gastroenterology & Metabolism, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Barbara A J Bastiaansen
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, location AMC, Amsterdam Gastroenterology & Metabolism, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Maxime E S Bronzwaer
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, location AMC, Amsterdam Gastroenterology & Metabolism, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Bas W van der Spek
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Noordwest Hospital Group, Alkmaar, The Netherlands
| | - G Dimitri N Heine
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Noordwest Hospital Group, Alkmaar, The Netherlands
| | - Krijn J C Haasnoot
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Hedwig van der Sluis
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Isala Clinics, Zwolle, The Netherlands
| | - Lars E Perk
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Haaglanden Medical Center, The Hague, The Netherlands
| | - Jurjen J Boonstra
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Svend T Rietdijk
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Onze Lieve Vrouwe Gasthuis, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Hugo J Wolters
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Martini Hospital, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Bas L A M Weusten
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands
| | - Lennard P L Gilissen
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
| | - W Rogier Ten Hove
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Alrijne Medical Group, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Wouter B Nagengast
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Frank C Bekkering
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, IJsselland Hospital, Capelle aan den IJssel, The Netherlands
| | - M P Schwartz
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Meander Medical Center, Amersfoort, The Netherlands
| | | | - Marije S Vlug
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Dijklander Hospital, Hoorn, The Netherlands
| | - Martin H M G Houben
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Haga Teaching Hospital, The Hague, The Netherlands
| | - Francisco J Rando Munoz
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Nij Smellinghe Hospital, Drachten, The Netherlands
| | - Tom C J Seerden
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Amphia Hospital, Breda, The Netherlands
| | - Hanneke Beaumont
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, location VU, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Rogier de Ridder
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Evelien Dekker
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, location AMC, Amsterdam Gastroenterology & Metabolism, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Paul Fockens
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, location AMC, Amsterdam Gastroenterology & Metabolism, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | | |
Collapse
|
2
|
van den Broek FJC, de Graaf EJR, Dijkgraaf MGW, Reitsma JB, Haringsma J, Timmer R, Weusten BLAM, Gerhards MF, Consten ECJ, Schwartz MP, Boom MJ, Derksen EJ, Bijnen AB, Davids PHP, Hoff C, van Dullemen HM, Heine GDN, van der Linde K, Jansen JM, Mallant-Hent RCH, Breumelhof R, Geldof H, Hardwick JCH, Doornebosch PG, Depla ACTM, Ernst MF, van Munster IP, de Hingh IHJT, Schoon EJ, Bemelman WA, Fockens P, Dekker E. Transanal endoscopic microsurgery versus endoscopic mucosal resection for large rectal adenomas (TREND-study). BMC Surg 2009; 9:4. [PMID: 19284647 PMCID: PMC2664790 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2482-9-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 33] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/27/2009] [Accepted: 03/13/2009] [Indexed: 02/07/2023] Open
Abstract
Background Recent non-randomized studies suggest that extended endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is equally effective in removing large rectal adenomas as transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM). If equally effective, EMR might be a more cost-effective approach as this strategy does not require expensive equipment, general anesthesia and hospital admission. Furthermore, EMR appears to be associated with fewer complications. The aim of this study is to compare the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of TEM and EMR for the resection of large rectal adenomas. Methods/design Multicenter randomized trial among 15 hospitals in the Netherlands. Patients with a rectal adenoma ≥ 3 cm, located between 1–15 cm ab ano, will be randomized to a TEM- or EMR-treatment strategy. For TEM, patients will be treated under general anesthesia, adenomas will be dissected en-bloc by a full-thickness excision, and patients will be admitted to the hospital. For EMR, no or conscious sedation is used, lesions will be resected through the submucosal plane in a piecemeal fashion, and patients will be discharged from the hospital. Residual adenoma that is visible during the first surveillance endoscopy at 3 months will be removed endoscopically in both treatment strategies and is considered as part of the primary treatment. Primary outcome measure is the proportion of patients with recurrence after 3 months. Secondary outcome measures are: 2) number of days not spent in hospital from initial treatment until 2 years afterwards; 3) major and minor morbidity; 4) disease specific and general quality of life; 5) anorectal function; 6) health care utilization and costs. A cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis of EMR against TEM for large rectal adenomas will be performed from a societal perspective with respectively the costs per recurrence free patient and the cost per quality adjusted life year as outcome measures. Based on comparable recurrence rates for TEM and EMR of 3.3% and considering an upper-limit of 10% for EMR to be non-inferior (beta-error 0.2 and one-sided alpha-error 0.05), 89 patients are needed per group. Discussion The TREND study is the first randomized trial evaluating whether TEM or EMR is more cost-effective for the treatment of large rectal adenomas. Trial registration number (trialregister.nl) NTR1422
Collapse
|
3
|
Balkema S, Hamaker ME, Visser HPJ, Heine GDN, Beuers U. Haemolytic anaemia as a first sign of Wilson's disease. Neth J Med 2008; 66:344-347. [PMID: 18809982] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/26/2023]
Abstract
A 19-year-old female presented with haemolytic anaemia and subsequently developed liver failure. This raised suspicion of Wilson's disease, which was confirmed by Kayser-Fleischer rings, a low ceruloplasmin level, raised 24-hour urinary copper excretion and two mutations in the 'Wilson gene'. She was successfully treated with D-penicillamine and zinc. In young patients with unexplained haemolysis, liver dysfunction or neuro-psychiatric symptoms, Wilson's disease should be considered.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- S Balkema
- Department of Internal Medicine, Medical Centre Alkmaar, Alkmaar, the Netherlands.
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
4
|
Terhaar Sive Droste JS, Heine GDN, Craanen ME, Boot H, Mulder CJJ. On attitudes about colorectal cancer screening among gastrointestinal specialists and general practitioners in the Netherlands. World J Gastroenterol 2006; 12:5201-4. [PMID: 16937533 PMCID: PMC4088020 DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v12.i32.5201] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
AIM: To find out whether there are differences in attitudes about colorectal cancer (CRC) screening among gastrointestinal (GI) specialists and general practitioners (GPs) and which method is preferred in a national screening program
METHODS: Four hundred and twenty Dutch GI specialists in the Netherlands and 400 GPs in Amsterdam were questioned in 2004. Questions included demographics, affiliation, attitude towards screening both for the general population and themselves, methods of screening, family history and individual risk.
RESULTS: Eighty-four percent of the GI specialists returned the questionnaire in comparison to 32% of the GPs (P < 0.001). Among the GI specialists, 92% favoured population screening whereas 51% of GPs supported population screening (P < 0.001). Of the GI specialists 95% planned to be screened themselves, while 30% of GPs intended to do so (P < 0.001). Regarding the general population, 72% of the GI specialists preferred colonoscopy as the screening method compared to 27% of the GPs (P < 0.001). The method preferred for personal screening was colonoscopy in 97% of the GI specialists, while 29% of the GPs favoured colonoscopy (P < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: Screening for CRC is strongly supported by Dutch GI specialists and less by GPs. The major health issue is possibly misjudged by GPs. Since GPs play a crucial role in a successful national screening program, CRC awareness should be realized by increasing knowledge about the incidence and mortality, thus increasing awareness of the need for screening among GPs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J S Terhaar Sive Droste
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, VU University Medical Centre, PO Box 7057, 1007 MB, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
5
|
Hadithi M, Heine GDN, Jacobs MAJM, van Bodegraven AA, V Bodegraven AA, Mulder CJJ. A prospective study comparing video capsule endoscopy with double-balloon enteroscopy in patients with obscure gastrointestinal bleeding. Am J Gastroenterol 2006; 101:52-7. [PMID: 16405533 DOI: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2005.00346.x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 195] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Obscure gastrointestinal bleeding from jejunal and ileal lesions remains undiagnosed using traditional imaging techniques (radiologic, endoscopic). This prospective study compares the diagnostic detection rate of small-bowel lesions using wireless video capsule endoscopy (VCE) with the detection rate using double-balloon enteroscopy (DBE) in patients with obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (OGIB). Tolerance, adverse events, endoscopic interventions, and prognosis were described as secondary aims. METHODS Thirty-five consecutive patients with obscure gastrointestinal bleeding were evaluated (22 males and 13 females; mean age 63.2 yr; range, 19-86 yr). The detection rates of the Given M2A wireless VCE and DBE were compared. RESULTS Small-bowel abnormalities were detected using VCE in 28 (80%) of the 35 patients with OGIB, compared with 21 (60%) of the 35 patients using DBE (p = 0.01). Both examinations were well tolerated, but VCE was more acceptable to patients. No major adverse event occurred after either examination. Biopsies (n = 27), argon plasma coagulation (n = 19), tattoo injection (n = 8), and polypectomy (n = 2) were feasible with DBE when indicated in 27 of the 35 patients (77%). During a median (range) follow-up period of 5 (2-12) months, 26 (74%) patients remained clinically stable and did not require blood transfusions after DBE procedures. Eighteen (51%) of those who remained clinically stable had received APC therapy. CONCLUSIONS High detection rates of the causes of OGIB are feasible with VCE and DBE. Although the detection rate of VCE was superior, our results indicate that the procedures are complementary; an initial diagnostic imaging employing VCE might be followed by therapeutic and interventional DBE.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Muhammed Hadithi
- Small Bowel Diseases Unit, Department of Gastroenterology, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|