Oncologic outcomes of screen-detected and non-screen-detected T1 colorectal cancers.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of T1 colorectal cancer (CRC) has increased with the implementation of CRC screening programs. It is unknown whether the outcomes and risk models for T1 CRC based on non-screen-detected patients can be extrapolated to screen-detected T1 CRC. This study aimed to compare the stage distribution and oncologic outcomes of T1 CRC patients within and outside the screening program. METHODS: Data from T1 CRC patients diagnosed between 2014 and 2017 were collected from 12 hospitals in the Netherlands. The presence of lymph node metastasis (LNM) at diagnosis was compared between screen-detected and non-screen-detected patients using multivariable logistic regression. Cox proportional hazard regression was used to analyze differences in the time to recurrence (TTR), metastasis-free survival (MFS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and overall survival. Additionally, the performance of conventional risk factors for LNM was evaluated across the groups. RESULTS: 1803 patients were included (1114 [62%] screen-detected), with median follow-up of 51 months (interquartile range 30). The proportion of LNM did not significantly differ between screen- and non-screen-detected patients (12.6% vs. 8.9%; odds ratio 1.41; 95%CI 0.89-2.23); a prediction model for LNM performed equally in both groups. The 3- and 5-year TTR, MFS, and CSS were similar for patients within and outside the screening program. However, overall survival was significantly longer in screen-detected T1 CRC patients (adjusted hazard ratio 0.51; 95%CI 0.38-0.68). CONCLUSIONS: Screen-detected and non-screen-detected T1 CRCs have similar stage distributions and oncologic outcomes and can therefore be treated equally. However, screen-detected T1 CRC patients exhibit a lower rate of non-CRC-related mortality, resulting in longer overall survival.

Impact of ≥ 0.1-mm free resection margins on local intramural residual cancer after local excision of T1 colorectal cancer.

Background and study aims A free resection margin (FRM) > 1 mm after local excision of a T1 colorectal cancer (CRC) is known to be associated with a low risk of local intramural residual cancer (LIRC). The risk is unclear, however, for FRMs between 0.1 to 1 mm. This study evaluated the risk of LIRC after local excision of T1 CRC with FRMs between 0.1 and 1 mm in the absence of lymphovascular invasion (LVI), poor differentiation and high-grade tumor budding (Bd2-3). Patients and methods Data from all consecutive patients with local excision of T1 CRC between 2014 and 2017 were collected from 11 hospitals. Patients with a FRM ≥ 0.1 mm without LVI and poor differentiation were included. The main outcome was risk of LIRC (composite of residual cancer in the local excision scar in adjuvant resection specimens or local recurrence during follow-up). Tumor budding was also assessed for cases with a FRM between 0.1 and 1mm. Results A total of 171 patients with a FRM between 0.1 and 1 mm and 351 patients with a FRM > 1 mm were included. LIRC occurred in five patients (2.9 %; 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.0-6.7 %) and two patients (0.6 %; 95 % CI 0.1-2.1 %), respectively. Assessment of tumor budding showed Bd2-3 in 80 % of cases with LIRC and in 16 % of control cases. Accordingly, in patients with a FRM between 0.1 and 1 mm without Bd2-3, LIRC was detected in one patient (0.8%; 95 % CI 0.1-4.4 %). Conclusions In this study, risks of LIRC were comparable for FRMs between 0.1 and 1 mm and > 1 mm in the absence of other histological risk factors.

Endoscopic Versus Surgical Step-Up Approach for Infected Necrotizing Pancreatitis (ExTENSION): Long-term Follow-up of a Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Previous randomized trials, including the Transluminal Endoscopic Step-Up Approach Versus Minimally Invasive Surgical Step-Up Approach in Patients With Infected Pancreatic Necrosis (TENSION) trial, demonstrated that the endoscopic step-up approach might be preferred over the surgical step-up approach in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis based on favorable short-term outcomes. We compared long-term clinical outcomes of both step-up approaches after a period of at least 5 years. METHODS: In this long-term follow-up study, we reevaluated all clinical data on 83 patients (of the originally 98 included patients) from the TENSION trial who were still alive after the initial 6-month follow-up. The primary end point, similar to the TENSION trial, was a composite of death and major complications. Secondary end points included individual major complications, pancreaticocutaneous fistula, reinterventions, pancreatic insufficiency, and quality of life. RESULTS: After a mean follow-up period of 7 years, the primary end point occurred in 27 patients (53%) in the endoscopy group and in 27 patients (57%) in the surgery group (risk ratio [RR], 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65-1.32; P = .688). Fewer pancreaticocutaneous fistulas were identified in the endoscopy group (8% vs 34%; RR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.08-0.83). After the initial 6-month follow-up, the endoscopy group needed fewer reinterventions than the surgery group (7% vs 24%; RR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.09-0.99). Pancreatic insufficiency and quality of life did not differ between groups. CONCLUSIONS: At long-term follow-up, the endoscopic step-up approach was not superior to the surgical step-up approach in reducing death or major complications in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis. However, patients assigned to the endoscopic approach developed overall fewer pancreaticocutaneous fistulas and needed fewer reinterventions after the initial 6-month follow-up. Netherlands Trial Register no: NL8571.

Full-Thickness Scar Resection After R1/Rx Excised T1 Colorectal Cancers as an Alternative to Completion Surgery.

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 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.

Colicky pain and related complications after cholecystectomy for mild gallstone pancreatitis.

BACKGROUND: Same-admission cholecystectomy is advised after gallstone pancreatitis to prevent recurrent pancreatitis, colicky pain and other complications, but data on the incidence of symptoms and complications after cholecystectomy are lacking. METHODS: This was a prospective cohort study during the previously published randomized controlled PONCHO trial on timing of cholecystectomy after mild gallstone pancreatitis. Data on healthcare consumption and questionnaires focusing on colicky pain and biliary complications were obtained during 6 months after cholecystectomy. Main outcomes were (i) postoperative colicky pain as reported in questionnaires and (ii) medical treatment for postoperative symptoms and gallstone related complications. RESULTS: Among 262 patients who underwent cholecystectomy after mild gallstone pancreatitis, 28 of 191 patients (14.7%) reported postoperative colicky pain. The majority of these were reported within 2 months after surgery and were single events. Overall, 25 patients (9.5%) required medical treatment for symptoms or gallstone related complications. Acute readmission was required in seven patients (2.7%). No predictors for the development of postoperative colicky pain were identified. DISCUSSION: Some 15% of patients experienced colicky pain after cholecystectomy for mild gallstone pancreatitis, which were mostly single events and rarely required readmission. These data may be used to better inform patients undergoing cholecystectomy for mild gallstone pancreatitis.

Pancreatitis of biliary origin, optimal timing of cholecystectomy (PONCHO trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: After an initial attack of biliary pancreatitis, cholecystectomy minimizes the risk of recurrent biliary pancreatitis and other gallstone-related complications. Guidelines advocate performing cholecystectomy within 2 to 4 weeks after discharge for mild biliary pancreatitis. During this waiting period, the patient is at risk of recurrent biliary events. In current clinical practice, surgeons usually postpone cholecystectomy for 6 weeks due to a perceived risk of a more difficult dissection in the early days following pancreatitis and for logistical reasons. We hypothesize that early laparoscopic cholecystectomy minimizes the risk of recurrent biliary pancreatitis or other complications of gallstone disease in patients with mild biliary pancreatitis without increasing the difficulty of dissection and the surgical complication rate compared with interval laparoscopic cholecystectomy. METHODS/DESIGN: PONCHO is a randomized controlled, parallel-group, assessor-blinded, superiority multicenter trial. Patients are randomly allocated to undergo early laparoscopic cholecystectomy, within 72 hours after randomization, or interval laparoscopic cholecystectomy, 25 to 30 days after randomization. During a 30-month period, 266 patients will be enrolled from 18 hospitals of the Dutch Pancreatitis Study Group. The primary endpoint is a composite endpoint of mortality and acute re-admissions for biliary events (that is, recurrent biliary pancreatitis, acute cholecystitis, symptomatic/obstructive choledocholithiasis requiring endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreaticography including cholangitis (with/without endoscopic sphincterotomy), and uncomplicated biliary colics) occurring within 6 months following randomization. Secondary endpoints include the individual endpoints of the composite endpoint, surgical and other complications, technical difficulty of cholecystectomy and costs. DISCUSSION: The PONCHO trial is designed to show that early laparoscopic cholecystectomy (within 72 hours) reduces the combined endpoint of mortality and re-admissions for biliary events as compared with interval laparoscopic cholecystectomy (between 25 and 30 days) after recovery of a first episode of mild biliary pancreatitis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials: ISRCTN72764151.

Nasoenteral feeding tube placement by nurses using an electromagnetic guidance system (with video).

BACKGROUND: The early institution of feeding in patients who need postpyloric feeding tubes is often hampered by a limited availability of endoscopists experienced in safe tube positioning. OBJECTIVE: To test the feasibility of having nurses place postpyloric feeding tubes by using a universal path finding system device. DESIGN: Prospective study. SETTING: Academic hospital. PATIENTS: The success rate and learning curve of a senior nurse placing postpyloric feeding tubes in 50 patients was studied, followed by a study in 160 patients on the success rates and learning curves of 4 inexperienced nurses instructed by the senior nurse. Finally, the success rate of postpyloric feeding tube placement by the senior nurse in 50 critically ill patients was investigated. INTERVENTION: Postpyloric feeding tube positioning by nurses using an electromagnetic universal path-finding system device enabling them to follow the path of the tip of the feeding tube on a monitor screen. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Success was defined by postpyloric positioning of the feeding tube. The ultimate aim was to reach at least the duodenojejunal flexure. RESULTS: In the first part, the senior nurse was successful in 72% of cases. There was a clear learning curve. In the second part, the 4 newly instructed nurses had a success rate of 89.4% without an evident learning curve. In the third part, successful feeding tube positioning was achieved in 78% of critically ill patients. Of the 217 successfully positioned tubes, 74% reached at least the duodenojejunal flexure. In half of the unsuccessful cases, an explanation for the failure was found at endoscopy. No complications were seen. LIMITATIONS: The generalization to less-specialized hospitals should be investigated. CONCLUSION: Postpyloric positioning of feeding tubes by nurses at the bedside without endoscopy is feasible and safe. Nurses may take over some of the tasks of doctors in a time of high endoscopic needs.