Background: The role of radiological staging and surveillance imaging is under debate for T1 colorectal cancer (CRC) as the risk of distant metastases is low and imaging may lead to the detection... Show moreBackground: The role of radiological staging and surveillance imaging is under debate for T1 colorectal cancer (CRC) as the risk of distant metastases is low and imaging may lead to the detection of incidental findings. Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the yield of radiological staging and surveillance imaging for T1 CRC. Methods: In this retrospective multicenter cohort study, all patients of 10 Dutch hospitals with histologically proven T1 CRC who underwent radiological staging in the period 2000-2014 were included. Clinical characteristics, pathological, endoscopic, surgical and imaging reports at baseline and during follow-up were recorded and analyzed. Patients were classified as high-risk T1 CRC if at least one of the histological risk factors (lymphovascular invasion, poor tumor differentiation, deep submucosal invasion or positive resection margins) was present and as low-risk when all risk factors were absent. Results: Of the 628 included patients, 3 (0.5%) had synchronous distant metastases, 13 (2.1%) malignant incidental findings and 129 (20.5%) benign incidental findings at baseline staging. Radiological surveillance was performed among 336 (53.5%) patients. The 5-year cumulative incidence of distant recurrence, malignant and benign incidental findings were 2.4% (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.1%-5.4%), 2.5% (95% CI: 0.6%-10.4%) and 18.3% (95% CI: 13.4%-24.7%), respectively. No distant metastatic events occurred among low-risk T1 CRC patients. Conclusion: The risk of synchronous distant metastases and distant recurrence in T1 CRC is low, while there is a substantial risk of detecting incidental findings. Radiological staging seems unnecessary prior to local excision of suspected T1 CRC and after local excision of low-risk T1 CRC. Radiological surveillance should not be performed in patients with low-risk T1 CRC. Show less
BackgroundThe role of radiological staging and surveillance imaging is under debate for T1 colorectal cancer (CRC) as the risk of distant metastases is low and imaging may lead to the detection of... Show moreBackgroundThe role of radiological staging and surveillance imaging is under debate for T1 colorectal cancer (CRC) as the risk of distant metastases is low and imaging may lead to the detection of incidental findings.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to evaluate the yield of radiological staging and surveillance imaging for T1 CRC.MethodsIn this retrospective multicenter cohort study, all patients of 10 Dutch hospitals with histologically proven T1 CRC who underwent radiological staging in the period 2000–2014 were included. Clinical characteristics, pathological, endoscopic, surgical and imaging reports at baseline and during follow-up were recorded and analyzed. Patients were classified as high-risk T1 CRC if at least one of the histological risk factors (lymphovascular invasion, poor tumor differentiation, deep submucosal invasion or positive resection margins) was present and as low-risk when all risk factors were absent.ResultsOf the 628 included patients, 3 (0.5%) had synchronous distant metastases, 13 (2.1%) malignant incidental findings and 129 (20.5%) benign incidental findings at baseline staging. Radiological surveillance was performed among 336 (53.5%) patients. The 5-year cumulative incidence of distant recurrence, malignant and benign incidental findings were 2.4% (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.1%–5.4%), 2.5% (95% CI: 0.6%–10.4%) and 18.3% (95% CI: 13.4%–24.7%), respectively. No distant metastatic events occurred among low-risk T1 CRC patients.ConclusionThe risk of synchronous distant metastases and distant recurrence in T1 CRC is low, while there is a substantial risk of detecting incidental findings. Radiological staging seems unnecessary prior to local excision of suspected T1 CRC and after local excision of low-risk T1 CRC. Radiological surveillance should not be performed in patients with low-risk T1 CRC. Show less
Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a modified CAL-WR. Summary Background Data: The use of segmental colectomy in patients with endoscopically unresectable... Show moreObjective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a modified CAL-WR. Summary Background Data: The use of segmental colectomy in patients with endoscopically unresectable colonic lesions results in significant morbidity and mortality. CAL-WR is an alternative procedure that may reduce morbidity. Methods: This prospective multicenter study was performed in 13 Dutch hospitals between January 2017 and December 2019. Inclusion criteria were (1) colonic lesions inaccessible using current endoscopic resection techniques (judged by an expert panel), (2) non-lifting residual/recurrent adenomatous tissue after previous polypectomy or (3) an undetermined resection margin after endoscopic removal of a low-risk pathological T1 (pT1) colon carcinoma. Thirty-day morbidity, technical success rate and radicality were evaluated. Results: Of the 118 patients included (56% male, mean age 66 years, standard deviation +/- 8 years), 66 (56%) had complex lesions unsuitable for endoscopic removal, 34 (29%) had non-lifting residual/recurrent adenoma after previous polypectomy and 18 (15%) had uncertain resection margins after polypectomy of a pT1 colon carcinoma. CAL-WR was technically successful in 93% and R-0 resection was achieved in 91% of patients. Minor complications (Clavien-Dindo i-ii) were noted in 7 patients (6%) and an additional oncologic segmental resection was performed in 12 cases (11%). Residual tissue at the scar was observed in 5% of patients during endoscopic follow-up. Conclusions: CAL-WR is an effective, organ-preserving approach that results in minor complications and circumvents the need for major surgery. CAL-WR, therefore, deserves consideration when endoscopic excision of circumscribed lesions is impossible or incomplete. Show less
Aim: Controversies on therapeutic strategy for large bowel obstruction by primary colorectal cancer mainly concern acute conditions, being essentially different from subacute obstruction. Clearly... Show moreAim: Controversies on therapeutic strategy for large bowel obstruction by primary colorectal cancer mainly concern acute conditions, being essentially different from subacute obstruction. Clearly defining acute obstruction is important for design and interpretation of studies as well as for guidelines and daily practice. This systematic review aimed to evaluate definitions of obstruction by colorectal cancer in prospective studies.Method: A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library. Eligibility criteria included randomized or prospective observational design, publication between 2000 and 2019, and the inclusion of patients with an obstruction caused by colorectal cancer. Provided definitions of obstruction were extracted with assessment of common elements.Results: A total of 16 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 99 prospective observational studies were included. Obstruction was specified as acute in 28 studies, complete/emergency in five, (sub)acute or similar terms in four and unspecified in 78. Five of 16 RCTs (31%) and 37 of 99 cohort studies (37%) provided a definition. The definitions included any combination of clinical symptoms, physical signs, endoscopic features and radiological imaging findings in 25 studies. The definition was only based on clinical symptoms in 11 and radiological imaging in six studies. Definitions included a radiological component in 100% of evaluable RCTs (5/5) vs. 54% of prospective observational studies (20/37, P = 0.07).Conclusion: In this systematic review, the majority of prospective studies did not define obstruction by colorectal cancer and its urgency, whereas provided definitions varied hugely. Radiological confirmation seems to be an essential component in defining acute obstruction. Show less
Background The optimal timing of resection after decompression of left-sided obstructive colon cancer is unknown. Revised expert-based guideline recommendations have shifted from an interval of 5... Show moreBackground The optimal timing of resection after decompression of left-sided obstructive colon cancer is unknown. Revised expert-based guideline recommendations have shifted from an interval of 5-10 days to approximately 2 weeks following self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) placement, and recommendations after decompressing stoma are lacking. We aimed to evaluate the recommended bridging intervals after SEMS and explore the timing of resection after decompressing stoma.Methods This nationwide study included patients registered between 2009 and 2016 in the prospective, mandatory Dutch ColoRectal Audit. Additional data were collected through patient records in 75 hospitals. Only patients who underwent either SEMS placement or decompressing stoma as a bridge to surgery were selected. Technical SEMS failure and unsuccessful decompression within 48 hours were exclusion criteria.Results 510 patients were included (182 SEMS, 328 decompressing stoma). Median bridging interval was 23 days (interquartile range [IQR] 13-31) for SEMS and 36 days (IQR 22-65) for decompressing stoma. Following SEMS placement, no significant differences in post-resection complications, hospital stay, or laparoscopic resections were observed with resection after 11-17 days compared with 5-10 days. Of SEMS-related complications, 48% occurred in patients operated on beyond 17 days. Compared with resection within 14 days, an interval of 14-28 days following decompressing stoma resulted in significantly more laparoscopic resections, more primary anastomoses, and shorter hospital stays. No impact of bridging interval on mortality, disease-free survival, or overall survival was demonstrated.Conclusions Based on an overview of the data with balancing of surgical outcomes and timing of adverse events, a bridging interval of approximately 2 weeks seems appropriate after SEMS placement, while waiting 2-4 weeks after decompressing stoma further optimizes surgical conditions for laparoscopic resection with restoration of bowel continuity. Show less
