Colonic stent vs surgical resection of the primary tumor. Effect on survival from stage-IV obstructive colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: the impact of surgical primary tumor resection on survival of obstructive metastatic colorectal cancer remains controversial. The primary goal of this study was to analyze survival in patients with obstructive metastatic colorectal cancer after treatment with either resection surgery or a colonic stent. MATERIAL AND METHODS: a prospective study was performed of all patients with stage-IV colorectal cancer and obstructive manifestations, diagnosed from 2005 to 2012 and managed with either resection surgery or a colonic stent. Cases with a perforation, abscess, right colon or distal rectal malignancy, multiple colorectal cancer or derivative surgery were excluded. RESULTS: a total of 95 patients were included, 49 were managed with resection surgery and 46 with a colonic stent. The colonic stent group had a higher Charlson index (9.5 ± 2.1 vs 8.6 ± 1.5, p = 0.01), a shorter time to oral intake (0.9 ± 1.1 vs 16.4 ± 53.5 days, p = 0.05), a shorter hospital stay (4 ± 4.8 vs 16.7 ± 15.5 days, p = 0.0001), less need for stomata (11.1 % vs 32.7 %, p = 0.01), fewer early complications (4.3 % vs 46.9 %, p = 0.0001) and more late complications (33.3 % vs 6.4 %, p = 0.001). Undergoing chemotherapy (p = 0.008) was the only independent factor related to increased survival. In the subgroup of patients managed with chemotherapy, surgical primary tumor resection was an independent factor associated with increased survival. CONCLUSION: both treatments are effective for resolving obstructive manifestations in patients diagnosed with stage-IV obstructive colorectal cancer. Resection surgery has no positive impact on survival and thus cannot be recommended as a therapy of choice.

Routine lower gastrointestinal endoscopy for radiographically confirmed acute diverticulitis. In whom and when is it indicated?

INTRODUCTION: international guidelines recommend a routine colonoscopy to rule out advanced neoplasm after an acute diverticulitis event. However, in recent years, this recommendation has been called into question following the advent of computerized tomography (CT), particularly with regard to uncomplicated diverticulitis. Furthermore, colonoscopy is associated with a risk and additional costs. OBJECTIVE: to understand the diagnostic yield, quality and safety of colonoscopy in the setting of acute diverticulitis. METHODS: this was a retrospective study of all patients diagnosed with acute diverticulitis via CT between 2005 and 2013, who subsequently underwent a colonoscopy. RESULTS: two hundred and sixteen patients diagnosed with acute diverticulitis via CT were enrolled. These included 58 cases with complicated diverticulitis (27%) and 158 with uncomplicated diverticulitis (73%). An advanced neoplasm was found in 12 patients (5.6%); 11.7% were complicated and 3.2% were uncomplicated (p = 0.02). No major complications were identified. The quality was low but improved over time; the complete procedure rate was 88%, an effective preparation was achieved in 75% and excision of polyps < 2 cm was performed in 78% of cases. The optimum colonoscopy quality cu-off was 9.5 weeks. CONCLUSION: routine colonoscopy is advisable after a complicated diverticulitis event but its recommendation is unclear with regard to uncomplicated episodes. Colonoscopy is safe even when performed early. The overall quality is low but may be optimized via a subsequent endoscopy, two months after a diverticulitis diagnosis.