BackgroundShared decision-making has become of increased importance in choosing the most suitable treatment strategy for early rectal cancer, however, clinical decision-making is still primarily... Show moreBackgroundShared decision-making has become of increased importance in choosing the most suitable treatment strategy for early rectal cancer, however, clinical decision-making is still primarily based on physicians' perspectives. Balancing quality of life and oncological outcomes is difficult, and guidance on patients' involvement in this subject in early rectal cancer is limited. Therefore, this study aimed to explore preferences and priorities of patients as well as physicians' perspectives in treatment for early rectal cancer.MethodsIn this qualitative study, semi-structured interviews were performed with early rectal cancer patients (n = 10) and healthcare providers (n = 10). Participants were asked which factors influenced their preferences and how important these factors were. Thematic analyses were performed. In addition, participants were asked to rank the discussed factors according to importance to gain additional insights.ResultsPatients addressed the following relevant factors: the risk of an ostomy, risk of poor bowel function and treatment related complications. Healthcare providers emphasized oncological outcomes as tumour recurrence, risk of an ostomy and poor bowel function. Patients perceived absolute risks of adverse outcome to be lower than healthcare providers and were quite willing undergo organ preservation to achieve a better prospect of quality of life.ConclusionPatients' preferences in treatment of early rectal cancer vary between patients and frequently differ from assumptions of preferences by healthcare providers. To optimize future shared decision-making, healthcare providers should be aware of these differences and should invite patients to explore and address their priorities more explicitly during consultation. Factors deemed important by both physicians and patients should be expressed during consultation to decide on a tailored treatment strategy. Show less
BackgroundMalignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) is a debilitating condition that frequently occurs in patients with malignancies of the distal stomach and (peri)ampullary region. The standard... Show moreBackgroundMalignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) is a debilitating condition that frequently occurs in patients with malignancies of the distal stomach and (peri)ampullary region. The standard palliative treatment for patients with a reasonable life expectancy and adequate performance status is a laparoscopic surgical gastrojejunostomy (SGJ). Recently, endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) emerged as a promising alternative to the surgical approach. The present study aims to compare these treatment modalities in terms of efficacy, safety, and costs.MethodsThe ENDURO-study is a multicentre, open-label, parallel-group randomized controlled trial. In total, ninety-six patients with gastric outlet obstruction caused by an irresectable or metastasized malignancy will be 1:1 randomized to either SGJ or EUS-GE. The primary endpoint is time to tolerate at least soft solids. The co-primary endpoint is the proportion of patients with persisting or recurring symptoms of gastric outlet obstruction for which a reintervention is required. Secondary endpoints are technical and clinical success, quality of life, gastroenterostomy dysfunction, reinterventions, time to reintervention, adverse events, quality of life, time to start chemotherapy, length of hospital stay, readmissions, weight, survival, and costs.DiscussionThe ENDURO-study assesses whether EUS-GE, as compared to SGJ, results in a faster resumption of solid oral intake and is non-inferior regarding reinterventions for persistent or recurrent obstructive symptoms in patients with malignant GOO. This trial aims to guide future treatment strategies and to improve quality of life in a palliative setting. Show less
Dekkers, N.; Dang, H.; Vork, K.; Langers, A.M.J.; Kraan, J. van der; Westerterp, M.; ... ; Boonstra, J.J. 2023
T1 colorectal cancers (T1CRC) are increasingly being treated by endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). After ESD of a T1CRC, completion surgery is indicated in a subgroup of patients. Currently,... Show moreT1 colorectal cancers (T1CRC) are increasingly being treated by endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). After ESD of a T1CRC, completion surgery is indicated in a subgroup of patients. Currently, the influence of ESD on surgical morbidity and mortality is unknown. The aim of this study was to compare 90-day morbidity and mortality of completion surgery after ESD to primary surgery. The completion surgery group consisted of suspected T1CRC patients from a multicenter prospective ESD database (2014–2020). The primary surgery group consisted of pT1CRC patients from a nationwide surgical registry (2017–2019). Patients with rectal or sigmoidal cancers were selected. Patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy were excluded. Propensity score adjustment was used to correct for confounders. In total, 411 patients were included: 54 in the completion surgery group (39 pT1, 15 pT2) and 357 in the primary surgery group with pT1CRC. Adverse event rate was 24.1% after completion surgery and 21.3% after primary surgery. After completion surgery 90-day mortality did not occur, though one patient died in the primary surgery group. After propensity score adjustment, lymph node yield did not differ significantly between the groups. Among other morbidity-related outcomes, stoma rate (OR 1.298 95%-CI 0.587-2.872, p = 0.519) and adverse event rate (OR 1.162; 95%-CI 0.570-2.370, p = 0.679) also did not differ significantly. A subgroup analysis was performed in patients undergoing rectal surgery. In this subgroup (37 completion and 136 primary surgery), these morbidity outcomes also did not differ significantly. In conclusion, this study suggests that ESD does not compromise morbidity or 90-day mortality of completion surgery. Show less
Smits, L.J.H.; Lieshout, A.S. van; Bosker, R.J.I.; Crobach, S.; Graaf, E.J.R. de; Hage, M.; ... ; TESAR Res Grp 2023
Introduction: In early rectal cancer, organ sparing treatment strategies such as local excision have gained popularity. The necessity of radical surgery is based on the histopathological evaluation... Show moreIntroduction: In early rectal cancer, organ sparing treatment strategies such as local excision have gained popularity. The necessity of radical surgery is based on the histopathological evaluation of the local excision specimen. This study aimed to describe diagnostic variability between pathologists, and its impact on treatment allocation in patients with locally excised early rectal cancer. Materials and methods: Patients with locally excised pT1-2 rectal cancer were included in this prospective cohort study. Both quantitative measures and histopathological risk factors (i.e. poor differentiation, deep submucosal invasion, and lymphatic- or venous invasion) were evaluated. Interobserver variability was reported by both percentages and Fleiss' Kappa- (k) or intra-class correlation coefficients. Results: A total of 126 patients were included. Ninety-four percent of the original histopathological reports contained all required parameters. In 73 of the 126 (57.9%) patients, at least one discordant parameter was observed, which regarded histopathological risk factors for lymph node metastases in 36 patients (28.6%). Interobserver agreement among different variables varied between 74% and 95% or k 0.530-0.962. The assessment of lymphovascular invasion showed discordances in 26% (k 1/4 0.530, 95% CI 0.375-0.684) of the cases. In fourteen (11%) patients, discordances led to a change in treatment strategy. Conclusion: This study demonstrated that there is substantial interobserver variability between pathologists, especially in the assessment of lymphovascular invasion. Pathologists play a key role in treatment allocation after local excision of early rectal cancer, therefore interobserver variability needs to be reduced to decrease the number of patients that are over- or undertreated. & COPY; 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Show less
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
Introduction Organ preservation is associated with superior functional outcome and quality of life (QoL) compared with total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer. Only 10% of patients are... Show moreIntroduction Organ preservation is associated with superior functional outcome and quality of life (QoL) compared with total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer. Only 10% of patients are eligible for organ preservation following short-course radiotherapy (SCRT, 25 Gy in five fractions) and a prolonged interval (4–8 weeks) to response evaluation. The organ preservation rate could potentially be increased by dose-escalated radiotherapy. Online adaptive magnetic resonance-guided radiotherapy (MRgRT) is anticipated to reduce radiation-induced toxicity and enable radiotherapy dose escalation. This trial aims to establish the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of dose-escalated SCRT using online adaptive MRgRT.Methods and analysis The preRADAR is a multicentre phase I trial with a 6+3 dose-escalation design. Patients with intermediate-risk rectal cancer (cT3c-d(MRF-)N1M0 or cT1-3(MRF-)N1M0) interested in organ preservation are eligible. Patients are treated with a radiotherapy boost of 2×5 Gy (level 0), 3×5 Gy (level 1), 4×5 Gy (level 2) or 5×5 Gy (level 3) on the gross tumour volume in the week following standard SCRT using online adaptive MRgRT. The trial starts on dose level 1. The primary endpoint is the MTD based on the incidence of dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) per dose level. DLT is a composite of maximum one in nine severe radiation-induced toxicities and maximum one in three severe postoperative complications, in patients treated with TME or local excision within 26 weeks following start of treatment. Secondary endpoints include the organ preservation rate, non-DLT, oncological outcomes, patient-reported QoL and functional outcomes up to 2 years following start of treatment. Imaging and laboratory biomarkers are explored for early response prediction.Ethics and dissemination The trial protocol has been approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of the University Medical Centre Utrecht. The primary and secondary trial results will be published in international peer-reviewed journals. Show less
Zwager, L.W.; Moons, L.M.G.; Sarasqueta, A.F.; Lacle, M.M.; Albers, S.C.; Hompes, R.; ... ; Dutch eFTR Working Group 2022
Background: T1 colorectal cancer (CRC) without histological high-risk factors for lymph node metastasis (LNM) can potentially be cured by endoscopic resection, which is associated with... Show moreBackground: T1 colorectal cancer (CRC) without histological high-risk factors for lymph node metastasis (LNM) can potentially be cured by endoscopic resection, which is associated with significantly lower morbidity, mortality and costs compared to radical surgery. An important prerequisite for endoscopic resection as definite treatment is the histological confirmation of tumour-free resection margins. Incomplete resection with involved (R1) or indeterminate (Rx) margins is considered a strong risk factor for residual disease and local recurrence. Therefore, international guidelines recommend additional surgery in case of R1/Rx resection, even in absence of high-risk factors for LNM. Endoscopic full-thickness resection (eFTR) is a relatively new technique that allows transmural resection of colorectal lesions. Local scar excision after prior R1/Rx resection of low-risk T1 CRC could offer an attractive minimal invasive strategy to achieve confirmation about radicality of the previous resection or a second attempt for radical resection of residual luminal cancer. However, oncologic safety has not been established and long-term data are lacking. Besides, surveillance varies widely and requires standardization. Methods/design: In this nationwide, multicenter, prospective cohort study we aim to assess feasibility and oncological safety of completion eFTR following incomplete resection of low-risk T1 CRC. The primary endpoint is to assess the 2 and 5 year luminal local tumor recurrence rate. Secondary study endpoints are to assess feasibility, percentage of curative eFTR-resections, presence of scar tissue and/or complete scar excision at histopathology, safety of eFTR compared to surgery, 2 and 5 year nodal and/or distant tumor recurrence rate and 5-year disease-specific and overall-survival rate. Discussion: Since the implementation of CRC screening programs, the diagnostic rate of T1 CRC is steadily increasing. A significant proportion is not recognized as cancer before endoscopic resection and is therefore resected through conventional techniques primarily reserved for benign polyps. As such, precise histological assessment is often hampered due to cauterization and fragmentation and frequently leads to treatment dilemmas. This first prospective trial will potentially demonstrate the effectiveness and oncological safety of completion eFTR for patients who have undergone a previous incomplete T1 CRC resection. Hereby, substantial surgical overtreatment may be avoided, leading to treatment optimization and organ preservation. Show less
BackgroundT1 colorectal cancer (CRC) without histological high-risk factors for lymph node metastasis (LNM) can potentially be cured by endoscopic resection, which is associated with significantly... Show moreBackgroundT1 colorectal cancer (CRC) without histological high-risk factors for lymph node metastasis (LNM) can potentially be cured by endoscopic resection, which is associated with significantly lower morbidity, mortality and costs compared to radical surgery. An important prerequisite for endoscopic resection as definite treatment is the histological confirmation of tumour-free resection margins. Incomplete resection with involved (R1) or indeterminate (Rx) margins is considered a strong risk factor for residual disease and local recurrence. Therefore, international guidelines recommend additional surgery in case of R1/Rx resection, even in absence of high-risk factors for LNM. Endoscopic full-thickness resection (eFTR) is a relatively new technique that allows transmural resection of colorectal lesions. Local scar excision after prior R1/Rx resection of low-risk T1 CRC could offer an attractive minimal invasive strategy to achieve confirmation about radicality of the previous resection or a second attempt for radical resection of residual luminal cancer. However, oncologic safety has not been established and long-term data are lacking. Besides, surveillance varies widely and requires standardization.Methods/designIn this nationwide, multicenter, prospective cohort study we aim to assess feasibility and oncological safety of completion eFTR following incomplete resection of low-risk T1 CRC. The primary endpoint is to assess the 2 and 5 year luminal local tumor recurrence rate. Secondary study endpoints are to assess feasibility, percentage of curative eFTR-resections, presence of scar tissue and/or complete scar excision at histopathology, safety of eFTR compared to surgery, 2 and 5 year nodal and/or distant tumor recurrence rate and 5-year disease-specific and overall-survival rate.DiscussionSince the implementation of CRC screening programs, the diagnostic rate of T1 CRC is steadily increasing. A significant proportion is not recognized as cancer before endoscopic resection and is therefore resected through conventional techniques primarily reserved for benign polyps. As such, precise histological assessment is often hampered due to cauterization and fragmentation and frequently leads to treatment dilemmas. This first prospective trial will potentially demonstrate the effectiveness and oncological safety of completion eFTR for patients who have undergone a previous incomplete T1 CRC resection. Hereby, substantial surgical overtreatment may be avoided, leading to treatment optimization and organ preservation. 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
INTRODUCTION: Local full-thickness resections of the scar (FTRS) after local excision of a T1 colorectal cancer (CRC) with uncertain resection margins is proposed as an alternative strategy to... Show moreINTRODUCTION: Local full-thickness resections of the scar (FTRS) after local excision of a T1 colorectal cancer (CRC) with uncertain resection margins is proposed as an alternative strategy to completion surgery (CS), provided that no local intramural residual cancer (LIRC) is found. However, a comparison on long-term oncological outcome between both strategies is missing.METHODS: A large cohort of patients with consecutive T1 CRC between 2000 and 2017 was used. Patients were selected if they underwent a macroscopically complete local excision of a T1 CRC but positive or unassessable (R1/Rx) resection margins at histology and without lymphovascular invasion or poor differentiation. Patients treated with CS or FTRS were compared on the presence of CRC recurrence, a 5-year overall survival, disease-free survival, and metastasis-free survival.RESULTS: Of 3,697 patients with a T1 CRC, 434 met the inclusion criteria (mean age 66 years, 61% men). Three hundred thirty-four patients underwent CS, and 100 patients underwent FTRS. The median follow-up period was 64 months. CRC recurrence was seen in 7 patients who underwent CS (2.2%, 95% CI 0.9%-4.6%) and in 8 patients who underwent FTRS (9.0%, 95% CI 3.9%-17.7%). Disease-free survival was lower in FTRS strategy (96.8% vs 89.9%, P=0.019), but 5 of the 8 FTRS recurrences could be treated with salvage surgery. The metastasis-free survival (CS 96.8% vs FTRS 92.1%, P=0.10) and overall survival (CS 95.6% vs FTRS 94.4%, P=0.55) did not differ significantly between both strategies.DISCUSSION: FTRS after local excision of a T1 CRC with R1/Rx resection margins as a sole risk factor, followed by surveillance and salvage surgery in case of CRC recurrence, could be a valid alternative strategy to CS. Show less
Main Recommendations: 1 ESGE recommends endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) as the best tool to characterize subepithelial lesion (SEL) features (size, location, originating layer, echogenicity, shape... Show moreMain Recommendations: 1 ESGE recommends endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) as the best tool to characterize subepithelial lesion (SEL) features (size, location, originating layer, echogenicity, shape), but EUS alone is not able to distinguish among all types of SEL. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 2 ESGE suggests providing tissue diagnosis for all SELs with features suggestive of gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) if they are of size > 20 mm, or have high risk stigmata, or require surgical resection or oncological treatment. Weak recommendation, very low quality evidence. 3 ESGE recommends EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) or mucosal incision-assisted biopsy (MIAB) equally for tissue diagnosis of SELs >= 20 mm in size. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 4 ESGE recommends against surveillance of asymptomatic gastrointestinal (GI) tract leiomyomas, lipomas, heterotopic pancreas, granular cell tumors, schwannomas, and glomus tumors, if the diagnosis is clear. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 5 ESGE suggests surveillance of asymptomatic esophageal and gastric SELs without definite diagnosis, with esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) at 3-6 months, and then at 2-3-year intervals for lesions < 10 mm in size, and at 1-2-year intervals for lesions 10-20 mm in size. For asymptomatic SELs > 20 mm in size that are not resected, ESGE suggests surveillance with EGD plus EUS at 6 months and then at 6-12-month intervals. Weak recommendation, very low quality evidence. 6 ESGE recommends endoscopic resection for type 1 gastric neuroendocrine neoplasms (g-NENs) if they grow larger than 10 mm. The choice of resection technique should depend on size, depth of invasion, and location in the stomach. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 7 ESGE suggests considering removal of histologically proven gastric GISTs smaller than 20 mm as an alternative to surveillance. The decision to resect should be discussed in a multidisciplinary meeting. The choice of technique should depend on size, location, and local expertise. Weak recommendation, very low quality evidence. 8 ESGE suggests that, to avoid unnecessary follow-up, endoscopic resection is an option for gastric SELs smaller than 20 mm and of unknown histology after failure of attempts to obtain diagnosis. Weak recommendation, very low quality evidence. 9 ESGE recommends basing the surveillance strategy on the type and completeness of resection. After curative resection of benign SELs no follow-up is advised, except for type 1 gastric NEN for which surveillance at 1-2 years is advised. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 10 For lower or upper GI NEN with a positive or indeterminate margin at resection, ESGE recommends repeating endoscopy at 3-6 months and another attempt at endoscopic resection in the case of residual disease. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. Show less
Background Current risk stratification models for early invasive (T1) colorectal cancer are not able to discriminate accurately between prognostic favourable and unfavourable tumours, resulting in... Show moreBackground Current risk stratification models for early invasive (T1) colorectal cancer are not able to discriminate accurately between prognostic favourable and unfavourable tumours, resulting in over-treatment of a large (>80%) proportion of T1 colorectal cancer patients. The tumour-stroma ratio (TSR), which is a measure for the relative amount of desmoplastic tumour stroma, is reported to be a strong independent prognostic factor in advanced-stage colorectal cancer, with a high stromal content being associated with worse prognosis and survival. We aimed to investigate whether the TSR predicts clinical outcome in patients with non-pedunculated T1 colorectal cancer.Methods Haematoxylin and eosin (H&E)-stained tumour tissue slides from a retrospective multicentre case cohort of patients with nonpedunculated surgically treated T1 colorectal cancer were assessed for TSR by two independent observers who were blinded for clinical outcomes. The primary end point was adverse outcome, which was defined as the presence of lymph node metastasis in the resection specimen or colorectal cancer recurrence during follow-up.Results All 261 patients in the case cohort had H&E slides available for TSR scoring. Of these, 183 were scored as stroma-low, and 78 were scored as stroma-high. There was moderate inter-observer agreement kappa = 0.42). In total, 41 patients had lymph node metastasis, 17 patients had recurrent cancer and five had both. Stroma-high tumours were not associated with an increased risk for an adverse outcome (adjusted hazard ratio = 0.66, 95% confidence interval 0.37-1.18; p = 0.163).Conclusions Our study emphasises that existing prognosticators may not be simply extrapolated to T1 colorectal cancers, even though their prognostic value has been widely validated in more advanced-stage tumours. Show less
BackgroundEndoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for large colorectal polyps is in most cases the preferred treatment to prevent progression to colorectal carcinoma. The most common complication after... Show moreBackgroundEndoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for large colorectal polyps is in most cases the preferred treatment to prevent progression to colorectal carcinoma. The most common complication after EMR is delayed bleeding, occurring in 7% overall and in approximately 10% of polyps >= 2cm in the proximal colon. Previous research has suggested that prophylactic clipping of the mucosal defect after EMR may reduce the incidence of delayed bleeding in polyps with a high bleeding risk.MethodsThe CLIPPER trial is a multicenter, parallel-group, single blinded, randomized controlled superiority study. A total of 356 patients undergoing EMR for large (>= 2cm) non-pedunculated polyps in the proximal colon will be included and randomized to the clip group or the control group. Prophylactic clipping will be performed in the intervention group to close the resection defect after the EMR with a distance of <1cm between the clips. Primary outcome is delayed bleeding within 30days after EMR. Secondary outcomes are recurrent or residual polyps and clip artifacts during surveillance colonoscopy after 6months, as well as cost-effectiveness of prophylactic clipping and severity of delayed bleeding.DiscussionThe CLIPPER trial is a pragmatic study performed in the Netherlands and is powered to determine the real-time efficacy and cost-effectiveness of prophylactic clipping after EMR of proximal colon polyps 2cm in the Netherlands. This study will also generate new data on the achievability of complete closure and the effects of clip placement on scar surveillance after EMR, in order to further promote the debate on the role of prophylactic clipping in everyday clinical practice.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT03309683. Registered on 13 October 2017. Start recruitment: 05 March 2018. Planned completion of recruitment: 31 August 2021. Show less
Advanced colorectal cancer (CRC) consensus molecular subtype 4 (CMS4) or CRC with a low immunoscore is associated with shorter survival times. Non-metastatic CRC with microsatellite instability ... Show moreAdvanced colorectal cancer (CRC) consensus molecular subtype 4 (CMS4) or CRC with a low immunoscore is associated with shorter survival times. Non-metastatic CRC with microsatellite instability (MSI) is associated with a lower risk of recurrence. We evaluated outcome (lymph node metastases [LNM] or cancer recurrence) in these tumor subtypes in patients with surgically-removed non-pedunculated T1 CRC by performing a multicenter case-cohort study. We included all patients in 13 hospitals in the Netherlands from 2000-2014 (n = 651). We randomly selected a subgroup of patients (n = 223) and all patients with LNM or recurrence (n = 63), and median follow-up of 44 months. We centrally reviewed tumor-slides, and constructed and immunostained tissue microarrays determining MSI, CMS (MSI/CMS1, CMS2/3, or CMS4), and immunoscore (I-low/I-high). We used weighted Cox proportional hazard models to evaluate the association of MSI, CMS, and immunoscore with LNM or recurrence, adjusting for conventional histologic risk factors. In the randomly selected subgroup of patients, 7.1% of tumors were MSI/CMS1, 91.0% CMS2/3, 1.8% CMS4, and 25% I-low. In the case-cohort, patients with CMS4 tumors had an increased risk for LNM or recurrence compared with patients with tumors of other CMSs (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 3.97; 95% CI, 1.12-14.06;P = 0.03). Albeit not significant, tumors with MSI had a lower risk for LNM or recurrence than other tumor subtypes (adjusted HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.12-2.30;P = 0.39), whereas tumors with a low immunoscore had an increased risk for LNM or recurrence (adjusted HR, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.68-2.48;P = 0.43). In conclusion, in a case-cohort study of patients with non-pedunculated T1 CRC, MSI, and immunoscore were not significantly associated with adverse outcome after surgery. CMS4 substantially increased the risk of adverse outcome. However, CMS4 is rare in T1 CRCs, limiting its value for determining the risk in patients. Show less
Ven, S.E.M. van de; Backes, Y.; Hilbink, M.; Seerden, T.C.J.; Kessels, K.; Cappel, W.H.D.T.N.; ... ; Dutch T1 CRC Working Grp 2020
Background: The decision to perform surgery for patients with T1 colorectal cancer hinges on the estimated risk of lymph node metastasis, residual tumour and risks of surgery. The aim of this... Show moreBackground: The decision to perform surgery for patients with T1 colorectal cancer hinges on the estimated risk of lymph node metastasis, residual tumour and risks of surgery. The aim of this observational study was to compare surgical outcomes for T1 colorectal cancer with those for more advanced colorectal cancer.Methods: This was a population-based cohort study of patients treated surgically for pT1 -3 colorectal cancer between 2009 and 2016, using data from the Dutch ColoRectal Audit. Postoperative complications (overall, surgical, severe complications and mortality) were compared using multivariable logistic regression. A risk stratification table was developed based on factors independently associated with severe complications (reintervention and/or mortality) after elective surgery.Results: Of 39 813 patients, 5170 had pT1 colorectal cancer. No statistically significant differences were observed between patients with pT1 and pT2-3 disease in the rate of severe complications (8.3 versus 9.5 per cent respectively; odds ratio (OR) 0.89, 95 per cent c.i. 0.80 to 1.01, P=0.061), surgical complications (12.6 versus 13.5 per cent; OR 0.93, 0.84 to 1.02, P = 0.119) or mortality (1.7 versus 2.5 per cent; OR 0.94, 0.74 to 1.19, P=0.604). Male sex, higher ASA grade, previous abdominal surgery, open approach and type of procedure were associated with a higher severe complication rate in patients with pT1 colorectal cancer.Conclusion: Elective bowel resection was associated with similar morbidity and mortality rates in patients with pT1 and those with pT2-3 colorectal carcinoma. Show less
