RESUMEN
Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common cancers worldwide and its global incidence is rapidly increasing among adults younger than 50 years, especially in the 20-39 age group. Once a curative resection is achieved, surveillance is mandatory. Colonoscopy has a pivotal role aimed at resecting premalignant neoplasms and detecting cancer at a curable stage. In the current review, an update on the role of surveillance colonoscopy after CRC is provided, considered the most recent international guidelines and evidence published on this issue. In particular, several questions have been answered, why, how and how often colonoscopy should be performed, whether intensive surveillance is more effective than standard surveillance, how endoscopically resected T1 cancer should be followed, the different management existing between colon and rectal cancer, and, finally, how to improve the endoscopic surveillance. In a period of resource constraints, appropriateness will be mandatory, thus understanding how to optimize the role of colonoscopy in the surveillance of patients with a history of CRC is of crucial importance. Improving the quality of colonoscopy and identifying risk factors for recurrent and new-onset CRC, will allow us to individualize the surveillance program while sparing health care cost.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias Colorrectales , Adulto , Humanos , Neoplasias Colorrectales/patología , Colonoscopía , Factores de Riesgo , Incidencia , Vigilancia de la PoblaciónRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a common neoplasm in Western countries. Prioritizing access to colonoscopy appears of critical relevance. Alarm features are considered to increase the likelihood of CRC. Our aim was to assess the diagnostic performance of alarm features for CRC diagnosis. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting the diagnostic accuracy of alarm features (rectal bleeding, anemia, change in bowel habit, and weight loss) for CRC, published up to September 2021.âColonoscopy was required as the reference diagnostic test. Diagnostic accuracy measures were pooled by a bivariate mixed-effects regression model. The number needed to scope (NNS; i.âe. the number of patients who need to undergo colonoscopy to diagnose one CRC) according to each alarm feature was calculated. RESULTS: 31 studies with 45 100 patients (mean age 31-88 years; men 36â%-63â%) were included. The prevalence of CRC ranged from 0.2â% to 22â%. Sensitivity was suboptimal, ranging from 12.4â% for weight loss to 49â% for rectal bleeding, whereas specificity ranged from 69.8â% for rectal bleeding to 91.9â% for weight loss. Taken individually, rectal bleeding and anemia would be the only practical alarm features mandating colonoscopy (NNS 5.3 and 6.7, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: When considered independently, alarm features have variable accuracy for CRC, given the high heterogeneity of study populations reflected by wide variability in CRC prevalence. Rectal bleeding and anemia are the most practical to select patients for colonoscopy. Integration of alarm features in a comprehensive evaluation of patients should be considered.
Asunto(s)
Anemia , Neoplasias Colorrectales , Masculino , Humanos , Adulto , Persona de Mediana Edad , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Neoplasias Colorrectales/diagnóstico , Recto , Colonoscopía , Hemorragia Gastrointestinal/etiología , Anemia/etiología , Pérdida de Peso , Detección Precoz del CáncerRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Few studies focused on minor adverse events which may develop after colonoscopy. AIMS: To investigate the incidence and factors associated to post-colonoscopy symptoms. METHODS: This is a prospective study conducted in 10 Italian hospitals. The main outcome was a cumulative score combining 10 gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms occurring the week following colonoscopy. The analyses were conducted via multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 793 subjects included in the analysis, 361 (45.5%) complained the new onset of at least one GI symptom after the exam; one symptom was reported by 202 (25.5%), two or more symptoms by 159 (20.1%). Newly developed symptoms more frequently reported were epigastric/abdominal bloating (32.2%), pain (17.3%), and dyspeptic symptoms (17.9%). Symptoms were associated with female sex (odds ratio [OR]=2.54), increasing number of symptoms developed during bowel preparation intake (OR=1.35) and somatic symptoms (OR=1.27). An inverse association was observed with better mood (OR=0.74). A high-risk profile was identified, represented by women with bad mood and somatic symptoms (OR=8.81). CONCLUSION: About half of the patients develop de novo GI symptoms following colonoscopy. Improving bowel preparation tolerability may reduce the incidence of post-colonoscopy symptoms, especially in more vulnerable patients.
Asunto(s)
Enfermedades Gastrointestinales , Síntomas sin Explicación Médica , Femenino , Humanos , Incidencia , Estudios Prospectivos , Factores Protectores , Colonoscopía/efectos adversos , Catárticos/efectos adversos , Polietilenglicoles , Factores de RiesgoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Symptoms developing during bowel preparation are major concerns among subjects who refuse the procedure. AIMS: We aimed to explore the determinants of symptoms occurring during preparation among patients undergoing elective colonoscopy. METHODS: This is a prospective multicenter study conducted in 10 Italian hospitals. A multidimensional approach collecting socio-demographic, clinical, psychological and occupational information before colonoscopy through validated instruments was used. Outcome was a four-category cumulative score based on symptoms occurring during preparation, according to the Mayo Clinic Bowel Prep Tolerability Questionnaire, weighted by intensity. Missing values were addressed through multiple imputation. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated through multivariate logistic regression models. RESULTS: 1137 subjects were enrolled. Severe symptoms were associated with female sex (OR=3.64, 95%CI 1.94-6.83), heavier working hours (OR=1.13, 95% CI=1.01-1.25), previous gastrointestinal symptoms (OR=7.81, 95% CI 2.36-25.8 for high score), somatic symptoms (OR=2.19, 95% CI=1.06-4.49 for multiple symptoms), day-before regimen (OR=2.71, 95%CI 1.28-5.73). On the other hand, age ≥60 years (OR=0.10, 95% CI 0.02-0.44) and good mood (p=0.042) were protective factors. A high-risk profile was identified, including women with low mood and somatic symptoms (OR=15.5, 95%CI 4.56-52.7). CONCLUSIONS: We identified previously unreported determinants of symptoms burdening bowel preparation and identified a particularly vulnerable phenotype. Symptoms during preparation especially impact heavier working activity.
Asunto(s)
Catárticos , Síntomas sin Explicación Médica , Femenino , Humanos , Catárticos/efectos adversos , Estudios Prospectivos , Polietilenglicoles , Colonoscopía/efectos adversos , Colonoscopía/métodosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Patients undergoing colonoscopy are often in the workforce. Therefore, colonoscopy may affect patients' work productivity in terms of missed working days and/or reduced working efficiency. We aimed to investigate the impact of colonoscopy on work productivity and factors influencing this impact. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, observational, multicenter study in 10 Italian hospitals between 2016 and 2017. We collected information on individual characteristics, work productivity, symptoms, and conditions before, during, and after the procedure from patients undergoing colonoscopy for several indications using validated tools. Outcomes were interference of preparation with work, absenteeism, and impaired work performance after the procedure. We fitted multivariate logistic regression models to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for potential predictors of the outcomes. RESULTS: Among 1137 subjects in the study, 30.5% reported at least 1 outcome. Impaired work performance was associated with bowel preparation regimen (full dose on the day of colonoscopy vs split dose: OR, 4.04; 95% CI, 1.43-11.5), symptoms during bowel preparation (high symptom score: OR, 3.21; 95% CI, 1.15-8.95), and pain during the procedure (OR, 2.47; 95% CI, 1.40-4.35). Increasing number of working hours and less comfortable jobs were associated with absenteeism (P for trend = .06) and impairment of working performance (P for trend = .01) and GI symptoms both before and after colonoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: Occupational and individual characteristics of patients should be considered when scheduling colonoscopy because this procedure may impair work productivity in up to one-third of patients. Split-dose bowel preparation, performing a painless colonoscopy, and preventing the occurrence of GI symptoms may minimize the impact of colonoscopy on work productivity.
Asunto(s)
Catárticos , Polietilenglicoles , Colonoscopía/métodos , Humanos , Oportunidad Relativa , Estudios ProspectivosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage is suggested as the first approach in the management of symptomatic and complex walled-off pancreatic necrosis. Dual approach with percutaneous drainage could be the best choice when the necrosis is deep extended till the pelvic paracolic gutter; however, the available catheter could not be large enough to drain solid necrosis neither to perform necrosectomy, entailing a higher need for surgery. Therefore, percutaneous endoscopic necrosectomy through a large bore percutaneous self-expandable metal stent has been proposed. CASE PRESENTATION: In this study, we present the case of a 61-year-old man admitted to our hospital with a history of sepsis and persistent multiorgan failure secondary to walled-off pancreatic necrosis due to acute necrotizing pancreatitis. Firstly, the patient underwent transgastric endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage using a lumen-apposing metal stent and three sessions of direct endoscopic necrosectomy. Because of recurrence of multiorgan failure and the presence of the necrosis deeper to the pelvic paracolic gutter at computed tomography scan, we decided to perform percutaneous endoscopic necrosectomy using an esophageal self-expandable metal stent. After four sessions of necrosectomy, the collection was resolved without complications. Therefore, we perform a revision of the literature, in order to provide the state-of-art on this technique. The available data are, to date, derived by case reports and case series, which showed high rates both of technical and clinical success. However, a not negligible rate of adverse events has been reported, mainly represented by fistulas and abdominal pain. CONCLUSION: Dual approach, using lumen apposing metal stent and percutaneous self-expandable metal stent, is a compelling option of treatment for patients affected by symptomatic, complex walled-off pancreatic necrosis, allowing to directly remove large amounts of necrosis avoiding surgery. Percutaneous endoscopic necrosectomy seems a promising technique that could be part of the step-up-approach, before emergency surgery. However, to date, it should be reserved in referral centers, where a multidisciplinary team is disposable.
Asunto(s)
Drenaje/métodos , Endosonografía , Pancreatitis Aguda Necrotizante/cirugía , Stents , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Pancreatitis Aguda Necrotizante/diagnóstico por imagen , Stents Metálicos Autoexpandibles , Tomografía Computarizada por Rayos XRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy demands a considerable amount of resources, and little is known about its diagnostic yield among inpatients. AIMS: To assess indications, diagnostic yield and findings of colonoscopy for inpatients, and to identify risk factors for relevant findings and cancer. METHODS: Multicentre, prospective, observational study including 12 hospitals. Consecutive adult inpatients undergoing colonoscopy were evaluated from February through November 2019. RESULTS: 1,302 inpatients underwent colonoscopy. Diagnostic yield for relevant findings and cancer was 586 (45%) and 112 (8.6%), respectively. Adequate colon cleansing was achieved in 896 (68.8%) patients. Split-dose/same-day regimen was adopted in 847 (65%) patients. Factors associated to relevant findings were age ≥70 years (RR 1.32), male gender (RR 1.11), blood loss (RR 1.22) and adequate cleansing (RR 1.63). Age ≥70 years (RR 2.08), no previous colonoscopy (RR 2.69) and split-dose/same-day regimen (RR 1.59) significantly increased cancer detection. Implementing adequate cleansing and split-dose/same-day regimen in all patients would increase the diagnostic yield for any relevant findings and cancer from 43% to 70% and from 6% to 10%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Relevant colorectal diseases and cancer were frequent among inpatients. Factors associated with detection of relevant findings were identified. Adequate colon cleansing and split-dose/same-day regimen significantly increased colonoscopy diagnostic yield.
Asunto(s)
Catárticos , Colonoscopía , Pacientes Internos , Adulto , Anciano , Colon/diagnóstico por imagen , Femenino , Humanos , Italia , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Polietilenglicoles , Estudios ProspectivosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy is frequently performed in industrialised countries. Inappropriate colonoscopies might lead to unnecessary exams, increasing risks and costs. AIM: To estimate the impact of colonoscopy appropriateness in terms of gain in additional diagnoses and sparing of unnecessary exams. METHODS: Systematic review including studies reporting the prevalence of relevant findings, colorectal cancer (CRC) and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) according to colonoscopy appropriateness as defined by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and European Panel on Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies with 19,822 patients were included. Colonoscopy was appropriate in 15,162 (71%, CI 64%-78%). Appropriateness significantly increased the probability of relevant findings (34% vs. 18%; RR 1.81, CI 1.53-2.14), CRC (7% vs. 2%; RR 3.62, CI 2.44-5.37) and IBD (6% vs. 4%; RR 1.86, CI 1.09-3.19). Appropriateness had sensitivity 88% (CI 85%-91%), 97% (CI 93%-98%) and 89% (CI 80%-94%), and specificity 24% (CI 20%-29%), 22% (CI 18%-26%) and 24% (CI 20%-28%) for relevant findings, CRC and IBD, respectively. On average, performing colonoscopy with appropriate indication would find 15 (CI 10-21) more relevant findings, five (CI 3-9) more CRCs and three (CI 1-9) more diagnoses of IBD per 100 patients, and save 24 (CI 20-29), 22 (CI 18-26) and 24 (CI 20-28) examinations per 100 patients for relevant findings, CRC and IBD, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Appropriateness affects the diagnostic yield of colonoscopy for CRC, IBD and relevant findings. Appropriateness criteria are useful, although integrated with clinical evaluation of the patient.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias Colorrectales , Enfermedades Inflamatorias del Intestino , Colonoscopía , Neoplasias Colorrectales/diagnóstico , Neoplasias Colorrectales/epidemiología , Humanos , Enfermedades Inflamatorias del Intestino/diagnóstico , Enfermedades Inflamatorias del Intestino/epidemiología , ProbabilidadRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Inpatients are at risk for inadequate colon cleansing. Experts recommend 4L-polyethylene-glycol (PEG) solution. A higher colon cleansing adequacy rate for a hyperosmolar 1L-PEG plus ascorbate prep has been recently reported. AIMS: We aimed to determine whether 1L-PEG outperforms 4L-PEG among inpatients. METHODS: post-hoc analysis of a large Italian multicenter prospective observational study among inpatients (QIPS study). We performed a propensity score matching between 1L-PEG and 4L-PEG group. The primary outcome was the rate of adequate colon cleansing as assessed by unblinded endoscopists through Boston scale. Secondary outcome was the safety profile. RESULTS: Among 1,004 patients undergoing colonoscopy, 724 (72%) were prescribed 4L-PEG and 280 (28%) 1L-PEG. The overall adequate colon cleansing rate was 69.2% (nâ¯=â¯695). We matched 274 pairs of patients with similar distribution of confounders. The rate of patients with adequate colon cleansing was higher in 1L-PEG than in 4L-PEG group (84.3% vs. 77.4%, pâ¯=â¯0.039). No different shift in serum concentration of electrolytes (namely Na+, K+, Ca2+), creatinine and hematocrit were observed for both preparations. CONCLUSION: We found a higher rate of adequate colon cleansing for colonoscopy with the 1L-PEG bowel prep vs. 4L-PEG, with apparent similar safety profile, among inpatients. A confirmatory randomized trial is needed. (ClinicalTrials.gov no: NCT04310332).
Asunto(s)
Catárticos/administración & dosificación , Colonoscopía , Neoplasias Colorrectales/diagnóstico , Polietilenglicoles/administración & dosificación , Adulto , Anciano , Femenino , Humanos , Italia , Modelos Logísticos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Cooperación del Paciente , Satisfacción del Paciente , Cuidados Preoperatorios , Puntaje de Propensión , Estudios ProspectivosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Patients with prior colon cancer have increased risk of metachronous colorectal neoplasms; therefore, endoscopic surveillance is indicated. Current recommendations are not risk-stratified. We investigated predictive factors for colorectal neoplasms to build a model to spare colonoscopies for low-risk patients. METHODS: This was a multicenter, retrospective study including patients who underwent surgery for colon cancer in 2001â-â2008 (derivation cohort) and 2009â-â2013 (validation cohort). A predictive model for neoplasm occurrence at second surveillance colonoscopy was developed and validated. RESULTS: 421 and 203 patients were included in derivation and validation cohort, respectively. At second surveillance colonoscopy, 112 (26.6â%) and 55 (27.1â%) patients had metachronous neoplasms in derivation and validation groups; three cancers were detected in the latter. History of left-sided colon cancer (OR 1.64, 95â%CI 1.02â-â2.64), ≥â1 advanced adenoma at index colonoscopy (OR 1.90, 95â%CI 1.05â-â3.43), and ≥â1 adenoma at first surveillance colonoscopy (OR 2.06, 95â%CI 1.29â-â3.27) were independently predictive of metachronous colorectal neoplasms at second surveillance colonoscopy. For patients without such risk factors, diagnostic accuracy parameters were: 89.3â% (95â%CI 82.0â%-94.3â%) and 78.2â% (95â%CI 65.0â%-88.2â%) sensitivity, and 28.5â% (95â%CI 23.5â%-33.9â%) and 33.8â% (95â%CI 26.2â%-42.0â%) specificity in derivation and validation group, respectively. No cancer would be missed. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with prior left-sided colon cancer or ≥â1 advanced adenoma at index colonoscopy or ≥â1 adenoma at first surveillance colonoscopy had a significantly higher risk of neoplasms at second surveillance colonoscopy; patients without such factors had much lower risk and could safely skip the second surveillance colonoscopy. A prospective, multicenter validation study is needed.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias del Colon , Neoplasias Colorrectales , Neoplasias Primarias Secundarias , Neoplasias del Colon/epidemiología , Colonoscopía , Humanos , Neoplasias Primarias Secundarias/epidemiología , Estudios Prospectivos , Estudios Retrospectivos , Factores de RiesgoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy has become the standard for tissue sampling. A new 20G ProCore™ (PC) needle has been developed to overcome the limitations of tissue acquisition of the smaller needles (22G, 25G) and the rigidity of the larger one (19G). The aim of this study is to assess the performance of the 20G PC needle. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients who underwent EUS-guided tissue acquisition with the 20G PC needle of pancreatic and extra-pancreatic mass lesions were retrospectively identified at three Italian centers (Bologna, Fermo, and Palermo). Diagnostic adequacy, accuracy, and tissue core acquisition were the outcome measures. All the cases were performed without rapid on-site evaluation. RESULTS: A total of 384 patients with pancreatic (62.2%) and extra-pancreatic lesions were included in the study. For pancreatic lesions, adequacy, accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity were 92.4%, 91.5%, 90.8%, and 100%, respectively, with a number needed to misdiagnose (NNM) of 11.8. The tissue core was obtained in 72% of cases. Transduodenal approach was performed in 150 pancreatic lesions; adequacy, accuracy, and tissue core acquisition were 88.7%, 90%, and 66%, respectively (NNM 10). For extrapancreatic lesions, adequacy, accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and tissue core sampling were 95.3%, 95.3%, 92.6%, 100%, and 84.5% (NNM 21.3). CONCLUSIONS: The 20G PC needle showed high diagnostic adequacy and accuracy, regardless the access route.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: A forward-viewing linear (FVL) echoendoscope has been developed with the aim of overcoming some of the limitations of standard curved linear-array (CLA) echoendoscopes. There are no existing studies comparing the performance of the two echoendoscopes for endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) of solid lesions other than subepithelial lesions. METHODS: This was a prospective, multicenter, randomized trial with a noninferiority design comparing FVL vs. CLA echoendoscopes in patients with solid lesions of the gastrointestinal tract or adjacent organs. Primary outcomes were successful identification of the lesion and success of EUS-TA. Secondary outcomes were safety, sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy of the two different scopes for EUS-TA. RESULTS: 126 patients with solid lesions were randomly assigned to the CLA group (63 patients) or the FVL group (63 patients). The two groups were homogeneous with no differences in terms of needle type used, mean number of passes, and site of EUS-TA. No differences were observed between the FVL vs. CLA scopes in identification of the lesion (96.8â% vs. 98.4â%; Pâ>â0.99) and technical success of EUS-TA (92.1â% vs. 96.8â%; Pâ=â0.44). No adverse events occurred. Overall, diagnostic accuracy (77.8â% vs. 84.1â%), sensitivity (76.6â% vs. 84.1â%), and specificity (81.3â% vs. 84.2â%) did not differ between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Our results strongly suggest that the FVL echoendoscope is noninferior to the CLA scope for the detection and performance of EUS-TA in patients with solid lesions of the gastrointestinal tract and adjacent organs. In addition, the FVL scope has the same diagnostic yield, accuracy, and safety as the CLA scope.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias del Sistema Digestivo , Biopsia por Aspiración con Aguja Fina Guiada por Ultrasonido Endoscópico , Endosonografía , Investigación sobre la Eficacia Comparativa , Errores Diagnósticos/prevención & control , Neoplasias del Sistema Digestivo/diagnóstico por imagen , Neoplasias del Sistema Digestivo/patología , Biopsia por Aspiración con Aguja Fina Guiada por Ultrasonido Endoscópico/instrumentación , Biopsia por Aspiración con Aguja Fina Guiada por Ultrasonido Endoscópico/métodos , Endosonografía/instrumentación , Endosonografía/métodos , Humanos , Reproducibilidad de los Resultados , Sensibilidad y Especificidad , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Water-aided colonoscopy techniques, such as water immersion (WI) and water exchange (WE), have shown different results regarding adenoma detection rate (ADR). We determined the impact of WI and WE on ADR and other procedural outcomes versus gas (air, AI; CO2) insufflation colonoscopy. METHODS: A systematic search of multiple databases for randomized controlled trials comparing WI and/or WE with AI and/or CO2 and reporting ADR was conducted. A network meta-analysis with mixed comparisons was performed. Primary outcome was ADR (overall, in the right side of the colon and by colonoscopy indication). RESULTS: Seventeen randomized controlled trials (10,350 patients) were included. WE showed a significantly higher overall ADR versus WI (odds ratio [OR], 1.31; 95% credible interval [CrI], 1.12-1.55) versus AI (OR, 1.40; CrI, 1.22-1.62) versus CO2 (OR, 1.48; 95% CrI, 1.15-1.86). WE achieved the highest ADR also in the right side of the colon and in colorectal cancer screening cases (both significant vs AI and WI) as well as in patients taking a split-dose preparation (significant vs all the other techniques). The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale cleanliness score (vs AI and WI) was significantly higher for WE. Both WI and WE showed increased proportion of unsedated examinations and decreased real-time insertion pain, with WE being the least-painful insertion technique. Withdrawal time was comparable across techniques, but WE showed the longest insertion time (3-5 additional minutes). CONCLUSIONS: WE significantly increases overall ADR, ADR in screening cases, and in the right side of the colon; it also improves colon cleanliness but requires a longer insertion time.
Asunto(s)
Adenoma/diagnóstico por imagen , Aire , Dióxido de Carbono , Colonoscopía/métodos , Neoplasias Colorrectales/diagnóstico por imagen , Sedación Profunda , Agua , Colonoscopía/efectos adversos , Humanos , Inmersión , Insuflación , Metaanálisis en Red , Tempo Operativo , Dolor Asociado a Procedimientos Médicos/etiología , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como AsuntoRESUMEN
The management of benign esophageal strictures is challenging. The first strategy includes endoscopic dilation using bougies or balloons. Although the immediate success rate of these is up to 90%, about 30-40% of patients experience recurrent dysphagia within the first year of follow-up. The management of refractory stenosis involves repeated sessions of endoscopic dilation. In order to obtain long-lasting functional results, alternative treatments have been developed, such as the use of self-expanding stents, particularly indicated in subgroups of patients with post-surgical stenosis or post-radiation therapy. If this approach fails, other possibilities are represented by self-decoding, PEG/J-tube positioning and, finally, reconstructive surgery.
Asunto(s)
Dilatación/métodos , Estenosis Esofágica/terapia , Esofagoscopía/métodos , Trastornos de Deglución/epidemiología , Trastornos de Deglución/etiología , Estenosis Esofágica/patología , Humanos , Procedimientos de Cirugía Plástica/métodos , Recurrencia , Stents , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
Pelvic cancers are among the most frequently diagnosed neoplasms and radiotherapy represents one of the main treatment options. The irradiation field usually encompasses healthy intestinal tissue, especially of distal large bowel, thus inducing gastrointestinal (GI) radiation-induced toxicity. Indeed, up to half of radiation-treated patients say that their quality of life is affected by GI symptoms (e.g., rectal bleeding, diarrhoea). The constellation of GI symptoms - from transient to long-term, from mild to very severe - experienced by patients who underwent radiation treatment for a pelvic tumor have been comprised in the definition of pelvic radiation disease (PRD). A correct and evidence-based therapeutic approach of patients experiencing GI radiation-induced toxicity is mandatory. Therapeutic non-surgical strategies for PRD can be summarized in two broad categories, i.e., medical and endoscopic. Of note, most of the studies have investigated the management of radiation-induced rectal bleeding. Patients with clinically significant bleeding (i.e., causing chronic anemia) should firstly be considered for medical management (i.e., sucralfate enemas, metronidazole and hyperbaric oxygen); in case of failure, endoscopic treatment should be implemented. This latter should be considered the first choice in case of acute, transfusion requiring, bleeding. More well-performed, high quality studies should be performed, especially the role of medical treatments should be better investigated as well as the comparative studies between endoscopic and hyperbaric oxygen treatments.