Clinical value of alarm features for colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis.

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. Colonoscopy 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. e. 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 36 %-63 %) were included. The prevalence of CRC ranged from 0.2 % to 22 %. Sensitivity was suboptimal, ranging from 12.4 % for weight loss to 49 % for rectal bleeding, whereas specificity ranged from 69.8 % for rectal bleeding to 91.9 % 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.

Impact of colonoscopy on working productivity: a prospective multicenter observational study.

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.

How to identify patients who are less likely to have metachronous neoplasms after a colon cancer: a predictive model.

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 2001 - 2008 (derivation cohort) and 2009 - 2013 (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 (26.6 %) and 55 (27.1 %) 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, 95 %CI 1.02 - 2.64), ≥ 1 advanced adenoma at index colonoscopy (OR 1.90, 95 %CI 1.05 - 3.43), and ≥ 1 adenoma at first surveillance colonoscopy (OR 2.06, 95 %CI 1.29 - 3.27) were independently predictive of metachronous colorectal neoplasms at second surveillance colonoscopy. For patients without such risk factors, diagnostic accuracy parameters were: 89.3 % (95 %CI 82.0 %-94.3 %) and 78.2 % (95 %CI 65.0 %-88.2 %) sensitivity, and 28.5 % (95 %CI 23.5 %-33.9 %) and 33.8 % (95 %CI 26.2 %-42.0 %) specificity in derivation and validation group, respectively. No cancer would be missed. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with prior left-sided colon cancer or ≥ 1 advanced adenoma at index colonoscopy or ≥ 1 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.

Higher adenoma recurrence rate after left- versus right-sided colectomy for colon cancer.

BACKGROUND: Patients with history of colonic resection for cancer have an increased risk of the development of metachronous malignant and premalignant lesions. Scanty data are reported on detection rates of premalignant lesions during colonoscopy surveillance in this setting. OBJECTIVE: To assess the risk of metachronous precancerous lesions developing in patients with previous colonic surgery for cancer according to the resection type. DESIGN: Retrospective study. SETTING: Two academic centers in Italy. PATIENTS: A total of 441 patients; 256 with previous left-sided colectomy (LCR) (LCR group) and 185 with previous right-sided colectomy (RCR) (RCR group). INTERVENTIONS: Second surveillance colonoscopy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Polyp and adenoma detection rates. RESULTS: At least 1 adenoma was diagnosed in 76 of 256 patients (30% adenoma detection rate) and in 35 of 185 patients (19% adenoma detection rate) in the LCR and RCR groups, respectively (P=.014), yielding an odds ratio of 1.83 (95% confidence interval, 1.16-2.89). Corresponding figures for the polyp detection rate were 39% and 25%, respectively (P=.002; odds ratio 1.97; 95% confidence interval, 1.30-3.00). LIMITATIONS: Retrospective study with colonoscopy baseline information missing. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who have undergone LCR are at higher risk of the development of adenomas than those who have undergone RCR. If this result is confirmed by large prospective studies, surveillance programs could be targeted according to the type of colonic resection, with longer intervals for patients with previous RCR compared with LCR.

Split dosing with a low-volume preparation is not inferior to split dosing with a high-volume preparation for bowel cleansing in patients with a history of colorectal resection: a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIM: The study compared the efficacy of bowel cleansing using a low-volume mixed preparation (15 mg bisacodyl plus 2 L polyethylene glycol [PEG] solution) versus a standard high-volume preparation (4 L PEG) in patients with previous colorectal resection. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 120 patients with prior colorectal resection for cancer undergoing surveillance colonoscopy were randomized to receive either a split-dose low-volume (n = 60) or high-volume (n = 60) preparation for bowel cleansing. The quality of bowel preparation, rated according to a modified Ottawa Bowel Preparation scale (mOBPS), represented the primary outcome measure. Tolerability, safety, and lesion detection rates were secondary outcomes. RESULTS: No significant difference was observed between the low-volume and high-volume preparations in achievement of adequate cleansing (i. e. mOBPS ≤ 4; low-volume vs. high-volume group, 85.0 % vs. 81.7 %, P = 0.624). The low-volume preparation showed a higher success rate for cleansing of the right colon (P = 0.025); better tolerability in terms of intake of the whole amount of the preparation (P < 0.001) was also observed. According to the logistic regression analysis, the only predictors of unsuccessful cleansing were previous left colectomy (P = 0.012) and a longer elapsed time since the intervention (P = 0.034). Lesion detection rates were comparable between the groups. No serious adverse events were reported. CONCLUSION: A low-volume preparation is not inferior to a high-volume preparation for adequate bowel cleansing in patients with prior colorectal resection for cancer. If larger, multicenter, prospective studies confirm our findings, a low-volume preparation will represent a more tolerable option for such patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrial.gov identifier NCT01887158.

The role of K-ras gene mutation analysis in EUS-guided FNA cytology specimens for the differential diagnosis of pancreatic solid masses: a meta-analysis of prospective studies.

BACKGROUND: Differential diagnosis of pancreatic solid masses with EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA) is still challenging in about 15% of cases. Mutation of the K-ras gene is present in over 75% of pancreatic adenocarcinomas (PADC). OBJECTIVE: To assess the accuracy of K-ras gene mutation analysis for diagnosing PADC. DESIGN: We systematically searched the electronic databases for relevant studies published. Data from selected studies underwent meta-analysis by use of a bivariate model providing a pooled value for sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio, and summary receiver operating characteristic curve. SETTING: Meta-analysis of 8 prospective studies. PATIENTS: Total of 931 patients undergoing EUS-FNA for diagnosis of pancreatic solid masses. INTERVENTION: K-ras mutation analysis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Diagnostic accuracy of K-ras mutation analysis and of combined diagnostic strategy by using EUS-FNA and K-ras mutation analysis in the diagnosis of PADC. RESULTS: The pooled sensitivity of EUS-FNA for the differential diagnosis of PADC was 80.6%, and the specificity was 97%. Estimated sensitivity and specificity were 76.8% and 93.3% for K-ras gene analysis, respectively, and 88.7% and 92% for combined EUS-FNA plus K-ras mutation analysis. Overall, K-ras mutation testing applied to cases that were inconclusive by EUS-FNA reduced the false-negative rate by 55.6%, with a false-positive rate of 10.7%. Not repeating EUS-FNA in cases in which mutation testing of the K-ras gene is inconclusive would reduce the repeat-biopsy rate from 12.5% to 6.8%. LIMITATIONS: Small number of studies and between-study heterogeneity. CONCLUSION: K-ras mutation analysis can be useful in the diagnostic work-up of pancreatic masses, in particular when tissue obtained by EUS-FNA is insufficient, and the diagnosis inconclusive.

Management of radiation-induced rectal bleeding.

Pelvic radiation disease is one of the major complication after radiotherapy for pelvic cancers. The most commonly reported symptom is rectal bleeding which affects patients' quality of life. Therapeutic strategies for rectal bleeding are generally ignored and include medical, endoscopic, and hyperbaric oxygen treatments. Most cases of radiation-induced bleeding are mild and self-limiting, and treatment is normally not indicated. In cases of clinically significant bleeding (i.e. anaemia), medical therapies, including stool softeners, sucralfate enemas, and metronidazole, should be considered as first-line treatment options. In cases of failure, endoscopic therapy, mainly represented by argon plasma coagulation and hyperbaric oxygen treatments, are valid and complementary second-line treatment strategies. Although current treatment options are not always supported by high-quality studies, patients should be reassured that treatment options exist and success is achieved in most cases if the patient is referred to a dedicated centre.

Endoscopic surveillance after surgery for colorectal cancer.

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.

Determinants of symptom burden related to bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

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.

Incidence, risk and protective factors of symptoms after colonoscopy.

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.

Systematic review with meta-analysis: the appropriateness of colonoscopy increases the probability of relevant findings and cancer while reducing unnecessary exams.

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.

The diagnostic yield of colonoscopy in hospitalized patients. An observational multicenter prospective study.

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.

Meta-analysis: can Helicobacter pylori eradication treatment reduce the risk for gastric cancer?

BACKGROUND: Helicobacter pylori infection is associated with gastric cancer, but the effect of eradication treatment on gastric cancer risk is not well defined. PURPOSE: To determine whether H. pylori eradication treatment can reduce the risk for gastric cancer. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, and online clinical trial registers through 31 January 2009, without language restrictions. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized trials that compared eradication treatment with no treatment in H. pylori-positive patients and that assessed gastric cancer or progression of preneoplastic lesions during follow-up. DATA EXTRACTION: Two authors independently reviewed articles and extracted data. DATA SYNTHESIS: Seven studies met inclusion criteria, 1 of which was excluded from pooled analysis because of clinical and methodological heterogeneity. All studies were performed in areas with high incidence of gastric cancer, mostly in Asia. Overall, 37 of 3388 (1.1%) treated patients developed gastric cancer compared with 56 of 3307 (1.7%) untreated (control) participants. In a pooled analysis of 6 studies with a total of 6695 participants followed from 4 to 10 years, the relative risk for gastric cancer was 0.65 (95% CI, 0.43 to 0.98). LIMITATIONS: All studies but 1 were performed in Asia. Only 2 assessed gastric cancer incidence, and only 2 were double-blinded. CONCLUSION: Helicobacter pylori eradication treatment seems to reduce gastric cancer risk.

[The association between Helicobacter pylori and gastric cancer: the role of infection's eradication. Recent advances]. / Associazione tra cancro gastrico ed Helicobacter pylori: ruolo dell'eradicazione dell'infezione. Recenti acquisizioni.

The association between Helicobacter pylori and gastric cancer has been firmly established. Eradication of H. pylori seems to modestly reduce gastric cancer risk as well as to induce regression of preneoplastic lesions. However, gastric cancer can still occur despite eradication and endoscopic follow-up might still be needed.

1L- vs. 4L-Polyethylene glycol for bowel preparation before colonoscopy among inpatients: A propensity score-matching analysis.

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% (n = 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%, p = 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).

Does stent placement for advanced colon cancer increase the risk of perforation during bevacizumab-based therapy?

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Data on the safety of bevacizumab-based therapies for patients carrying a self-expandable metallic stent (SEMS) for occlusive colon cancer are lacking. We report 2 cases of colon perforation observed in our case series of patients with SEMS for occlusive colon cancer. METHODS: Patients with occlusive symptoms caused by colon cancer received a colonic stent under endoscopic and radiologic guidance. RESULTS: Over a 10-month period, 28 patients with occlusive colon cancer were treated with stent placement. The stent was placed as a bridge to surgery in 12 patients who were treated surgically within 4 to 78 days after the endoscopic procedures, without any stent-related complications. Seven patients did not receive any other antitumor treatment as a result of concomitant comorbidities. Nine patients with both primary tumor and metastatic lesions were treated with medical therapy. Over a median follow-up period of 131 days colonic perforation occurred in the 2 patients treated with a combination of capecitabine and oxaliplatin plus bevacizumab. CONCLUSIONS: Further studies are needed to clarify whether SEMS placement increases the risk of perforation caused by bevacizumab-based therapies.

Can a wire-guided cannulation technique increase bile duct cannulation rate and prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis?: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVES: The most common technique used to achieve primary deep biliary cannulation is the standard contrast-assisted method. To increase the success rate and reduce the risk of complications, a wire-guided cannulation strategy has been proposed. Prospective studies provided conflicting results as to whether the wire-guided cannulation technique increases the cannulation rate and reduces post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (post-ERCP) pancreatitis risk compared with the standard method. The objective of this study was to carry out a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compares primary biliary cannulation and post-ERCP pancreatitis rates with the wire-guided method and the standard cannulation technique. METHODS: Literature searches of electronic databases and online clinical trial registers up to March 2009 were conducted to identify RCTs comparing primary cannulation and post-ERCP pancreatitis rates with the wire-guided method and the standard cannulation technique. A meta-analysis of these clinical trials was performed. RESULTS: Five RCTs were included. Overall, the primary cannulation rates reported with the wire-guided cannulation technique and the standard method were 85.3 and 74.9%, respectively. The pooled analysis of all the selected studies comparing the wire-guided cannulation technique with the standard method yielded an odds ratio (OR) of 2.05 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.27-3.31). The pooled analysis comparing the post-ERCP pancreatitis rates for the wire-guided-cannulation groups with those for the standard-method groups yielded an OR of 0.23 (95% CI: 0.13-0.41). CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis shows that the wire-guided technique increases the primary cannulation rate and reduces the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis compared with the standard contrast-injection method. Further large, well-performed, randomized controlled studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Effects of probiotics for the prevention and treatment of radiation-induced diarrhea.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Probiotic supplementation seems to provide beneficial effects in the prevention and treatment of radiation-induced diarrhea. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the efficacy of probiotic supplementation for prevention and treatment of radiation-induced diarrhea. METHODS: Two reviewers independently searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar and on-line clinical trials registers (up to January 2009) for randomized controlled trials that evaluated the efficacy of probiotic supplementation for the prevention and treatment of radiation-induced diarrhea. Each clinical trial was separately evaluated for study characteristics, methodologic quality and outcomes. Results of the randomized controlled trials were pooled in a meta-analysis. RESULTS: Four randomized controlled trials were included. Three clinical trials, with a total of 632 subjects, evaluated the preventive effects of probiotic supplementation and 1 study evaluated the therapeutic role. Random effects meta-analysis of the preventive trials did not show significant differences between probiotic supplementation and control groups (odds ratio 0.47; 95% confidence interval: 0.13-1.67). However, the few available trials and the presence of significant clinical and statistical heterogeneity limited the analysis. Similarly, the therapeutic clinical trial did not show significant differences between active and placebo groups. No major adverse events owing to probiotic supplementation were reported in any study. CONCLUSIONS: Probiotic supplementation showed beneficial effect in the prevention and treatment of radiation-induced diarrhea in experimental animal studies. Encouraging results have been observed in humans; however, the few available clinical studies do not allow firm conclusions. More well-performed, randomized placebo-controlled studies are needed.