Index of the Mayo Endoscopy and Ulcerative Colitis Endoscopy Index of Severity: are they equally valid?

INTRODUCTION: endoscopy plays an essential role in the management of patients with ulcerative colitis (UC), as it allows us to visualize and assess the severity of the disease. Different scores have been devised to standardize the findings because such assessments are not always objective. AIMS: the aim of this study was to assess the interobserver variability between the Index of Mayo Endoscopy (IME) and the Ulcerative Colitis Endoscopy Index of Severity (UCEIS), analyzing the severity of the endoscopic lesions in patients with UC. The secondary aim was to analyze if the cathartic preparation affected the degree of concordance amongst the endoscopists. MATERIAL AND METHODS: this was a single-cohort observational, comparative study in which a colonoscopy was performed in patients with UC, as the normal clinical practice. The results were classified according to the IME and the UCEIS by three endoscopic specialists. In order to assess the degree of interobserver correlation, the Kappa index for IME was used and the intraclass correlation coefficient was used for UCEIS. RESULTS: sixty-seven patients were included in the study. The average age was 51 (SD ± 16.7) and the average Mayo Clinic index was 3.07 (SD ± 2.54). The weighted Kappa index between endoscopists A and B for the IME was 0.8, 0.52 between A and C and 0.49 between B and C. The intraclass correlation coefficient for UCEIS was 0.922 between the three endoscopists (95 % CI: 0.832-0.959). A better interobserver correlation was found when the cathartic preparation was ≥ 8 based on the Boston Scale. CONCLUSIONS: there was a higher correlation between the different endoscopists for the UCEIS than for the IME. Thus, this should be considered to be the best index to use in the clinical practice. A good cleansing preparation is important to improve the interobserver correlation.

Better recurrence-free survival after stent bridge to surgery compared to emergency surgery for obstructive left-sided colonic cancer in patients with stage III status of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC): a bicentric retrospective study.

PURPOSE: Stenting as a bridge to surgery (SBTS) can transform an emergency surgery (ES) into an elective surgery in patients with symptomatic left-sided malignant colonic obstruction. Concerns have been raised regarding short-term morbidity and long-term oncologic outcomes, with contrasting results reported in the literature. Our main aim is to evaluate not only long-term oncologic outcomes but also short-term postoperative outcomes of stented patients who underwent elective surgery compared to those who had ES. METHODS: From January 2006 to May 2012, we retrospectively identified patients with confirmed left-sided colorectal cancer obstruction. This was done in two centers of reference of colorectal diseases in southern Spain with patients who were treated with curative intent either with ES or SBTS. The short- and long-term results were compared between both groups. RESULTS: There were 71 patients in the stenting group and 66 in the emergency surgery group, with similar demographic data. Initial stoma creation rates were lower in the SBTS group (16.9% vs. 54.5%, p < 0.005) and the primary anastomosis rate was higher in the same group (83.1% vs. 45.5%, p < 0.005). Five-year recurrence-free survival (RFS) rates were comparable between groups (75.3 vs. 59.8%, p = 0.220), but RFS rates at 5 years for AJCC pathologic stage III were higher in the stenting group (69.7% vs 30%, p = 0.004). Both groups were comparable regarding overall and cancer-specific survival outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The use of SBTS reduces ostomy rates in patients with obstructive colon malignancies. Long-term survival results are similar. Patients in the SBTS group with stage III AJCC status showed a higher 5-year recurrence-free survival rate than those in the ES group.

Comparison of the Mayo Endoscopy Score and the Ulcerative Colitis Endoscopy Index of Severity and the Ulcerative Colitis Colonoscopy Index of Severity.

Background and study aims: Endoscopy plays an essential role in managing patients with ulcerative colitis (UC), as it allows us to visualize and assess the severity of the disease. As such assessments are not always objective, different scores have been devised to standardize the findings. The main aim of this study was to assess the interobserver variability between the Mayo Endoscopy Score (MES), Ulcerative Colitis Endoscopy Index of Severity (UCEIS) and Ulcerative Colitis Colonoscopy Index of Severity (UCCIS) analyzing the severity of the endoscopic lesions in patients with ulcerative colitis. Patients and methods: This was a single-cohort observational study in which a colonoscopy was carried out on patients with UC, as normal clinical practice, and a video was recorded. The results from the video were classified according to the MES, UCEIS and UCCIS by three endoscopic specialists independently, and they were compared to each other. The Mayo Endoscopy Score (MES) was used to assess the clinical situation of the patient. The therapeutic impact was analyzed after colonoscopy was carried out. Results: Sixty-seven patients were included in the study. The average age was 51 (SD ±â€Š16.7) and the average MES was 3.07 (SD ±â€Š2.54). The weighted Kappa index between endoscopists A and B for the MES was 0.8; between A and C 0.52; and between B and C 0.49. The intraclass correlation coefficient for UCEIS was 0.92 among the three endoscopists (CI 95 %: 0.83-0.96) and 0.96 for UCCIS among the three endoscopists (CI 95 % 0.94-0.97). A change in treatment for 34.3 % of the patients was implemented on seeing the results of the colonoscopy. Conclusions: There was an adequate, but not perfect, correlation between the different endoscopists for MES, UCEIS, UCCIS. This was higher with the last two scores. Thus, there is still some subjectivity to be minimized through special training, on assessing the seriousness of the endoscopic lesions in patients with UC.

Application of colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) to evaluate the whole gastrointestinal tract: a comparative study of single-camera and dual-camera analysis.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) was developed for the evaluation of colorectal pathology. In this study, our aim was to assess if a dual-camera analysis using CCE allows better evaluation of the whole gastrointestinal (GI) tract compared to a single-camera analysis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We included 21 patients (12 males, mean age 56.20 years) submitted for a CCE examination. After standard colon preparation, the colon capsule endoscope (PillCam Colon™) was swallowed after reinitiation from its "sleep" mode. Four physicians performed the analysis: two reviewed both video streams at the same time (dual-camera analysis); one analyzed images from one side of the device ("camera 1"); and the other reviewed the opposite side ("camera 2"). We compared numbers of findings from different parts of the entire GI tract and level of agreement among reviewers. RESULTS: A complete evaluation of the GI tract was possible in all patients. Dual-camera analysis provided 16% and 5% more findings compared to camera 1 and camera 2 analysis, respectively. Overall agreement was 62.7% (kappa = 0.44, 95% CI: 0.373-0.510). Esophageal (kappa = 0.611) and colorectal (kappa = 0.595) findings had a good level of agreement, while small bowel (kappa = 0.405) showed moderate agreement. CONCLUSION: The use of dual-camera analysis with CCE for the evaluation of the GI tract is feasible and detects more abnormalities when compared with single-camera analysis.