Early Versus Standard Colonoscopy: A Randomized Controlled Trial in Patients With Acute Lower Gastrointestinal Bleeding: Results of the BLEED Study.

GOALS: The aim of our study was to examine differences in length of hospital stay (LOHS) between patients with lower gastrointestinal bleeding who received either an early colonoscopy (within 24 h of presentation) or a standard colonoscopy (within 1 to 3 d). BACKGROUND: Diagnostic management of lower gastrointestinal bleeding has been extensively debated in recent literature, especially whether colonoscopy within 24 hours of presentation is feasible and safe. STUDY: In this single center, nonblinded, randomized controlled trial, patients presenting at the emergency department with acute hematochezia were eligible if they required hospital admission. A total of 132 patients were included. Primary outcome was LOHS. Secondary outcomes included yield of colonoscopy, blood transfusion requirements, recurrent bleedings, complications, interventions related to complications, and 30-day mortality. The follow-up period was 1 month. RESULTS: In total, 63 patients were randomized for <24 hours colonoscopy and 69 for standard colonoscopy. In the intention to treat analysis, LOHS was significantly lower in patients that underwent an early colonoscopy, compared with the standard group: median 2.0 days (inter quartile range, 2.0 to 4.0) versus median 3.0 days (inter quartile range, 2.0 to 4.0) (P=0.009). Recurrent bleedings and hospital readmissions were significantly more frequent in the <24-hour group: 13% versus 3% (P=0.04) and 11% versus 2% (P=0.02), respectively. No difference was observed regarding the number of patients diagnosed with a confirmed or presumptive bleeding source. In both groups, blood transfusion rate was similar and 30-day mortality was 0. CONCLUSIONS: Early colonoscopy reduces LOHS, but also results in lower clinical efficacy compared with standard colonoscopy.

Minimal impact of adjuvant exemestane or tamoxifen treatment on mammographic breast density in postmenopausal breast cancer patients: a Dutch TEAM trial analysis.

BACKGROUND: Mammographic breast density is one of the strongest independent risk factors for developing breast cancer. We examined the effect of exemestane and tamoxifen on breast density in Dutch postmenopausal early breast cancer patients participating in the Tamoxifen Exemestane Adjuvant Multinational (TEAM) trial. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Analogue mammograms of selected TEAM participants before start, and after one and two (and if available after three) years of adjuvant endocrine therapy were collected centrally and reviewed. Study endpoints were change in breast density over time, and correlations between breast density and locoregional recurrence (LRR), distance recurrence (DR), and contralateral breast cancer (CBC). RESULTS: Mammograms of 378 patients (181 tamoxifen, 197 exemestane) were included in the current per protocol analyses. Baseline breast density was low (breast density score<50% in 75% of patients) and not different between patients randomised to exemestane or tamoxifen (coefficient 0.16, standard error 0.17). Breast density did not change during treatment in exemestane (p=0.25) or tamoxifen users (p=0.59). No relation was observed between breast density and the occurrence of a LRR [hazards ratio (HR) 0.87, 95% CI 0.45-1.68, p=0.67], a DR (HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.77-1.35, p=0.90), or CBC (HR 1.31, 95% CI 0.63-2.72, p=0.48). CONCLUSION: The in general low breast density score in early postmenopausal breast cancer patients did not substantially change over time, and this pattern was not different between tamoxifen and exemestane users. Breast density was not a predictive marker for efficacy of adjuvant endocrine therapy.