Understanding colorectal cancer patient follow-up: a qualitative interview study.

PURPOSE: There are increasing numbers of patients who have been treated for colorectal cancer (CRC) who struggle with ongoing physical and psychological symptoms. 'Cancer survivor' is often used to describe these patients but this terminology remains controversial. This study sought to understand the follow-up experience of CRC patients in the UK and identify the terminology they prefer following diagnosis and treatment. METHODS: Purposeful sampling of patients from specialist CRC follow-up clinics was performed until data saturation was achieved. Two 1:1 semi-structured qualitative interviews were performed for each participant. Data were analysed thematically. RESULTS: Seventeen participants, median age = 62, 53% male were interviewed. Several themes were identified. Of note, fear of cancer recurrence dominates patients' agendas at follow-up appointments. There are also clinical and administrative barriers to discussing symptoms including being embarrassed, feeling that their symptoms were not relevant or not having enough time to discuss issues. However, there are several methods which may improve this, such as through the use of video consultations and questionnaires. In addition, patients identified inadequate holistic support despite significant psychological and social distress. Our data suggest that labelling a diverse group of patients as 'cancer survivors' can be problematic. CONCLUSION: It is important that clinicians systematically screen patients for symptoms that are known to occur following treatment. Clinicians and patients should have routine access to pathways and programmes that can support patients in navigating their life after cancer therapy.

The FOCCUS study: a prospective evaluation of the frequency, severity and treatable causes of gastrointestinal symptoms during and after chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: The underlying mechanisms of chemotherapy-induced gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms are poorly researched. This study characterised the nature, frequency, severity and treatable causes for GI symptoms prospectively in patients undergoing chemotherapy for GI malignancy. METHODS: Patients receiving chemotherapy for a GI malignancy were assessed pre-chemotherapy, then monthly for 1 year using the Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale, a validated patient-reported outcome measure. Patients with new, troublesome GI symptoms were offered investigations to diagnose the cause(s). Their oncologist was alerted when investigations were abnormal. RESULTS: A total of 241 patients, 60% male, median age 63 years (range 30-88), were enrolled; 122 patients were withdrawn, 93%, because of progressive disease or death. During the study, > 20% patients reported chronic faecal incontinence and > 10% reported moderate or severe problems with taste, dysphagia, belching, heartburn, early satiety, appetite, nausea, abdominal cramps, peri-rectal pain, rectal flatulence, borborygmi, urgency of defecation or tenesmus. Thirty percent reported continuing passage of hard stools and 30% on-going diarrhoea. Moderate or severe fatigue affected 40% participants at its peak and persisted in 15% at 1 year. Toxicity dictated change in chemotherapy for 13-29% patients/month. Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events underestimated gastrointestinal morbidity. Pre-chemotherapy screening identified previously undiagnosed pathology: exocrine pancreatic insufficiency (9%), vitamin B12 deficiency (12%) and thyroid dysfunction (20%). Patients often refused investigations to diagnose their chemotherapy-induced symptoms; however, for every three investigations performed, one treatable cause was diagnosed: particularly small intestinal bacterial overgrowth (54%), bile acid malabsorption (43%), previously not described after chemotherapy, and unsuspected urinary tract infection (17%). CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing chemotherapy for GI malignancy commonly have difficult GI symptoms requiring active management which does not occur routinely. The underlying causes for these symptoms are often treatable or curable. Randomised trials are urgently needed to show whether timely investigation and treatment of symptoms improve quality of life and survival. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02121626.

A proposed tailored investigational algorithm for women treated for gynaecological cancer with long-term gastrointestinal consequences.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Long-term changes in gastrointestinal function impacting quality of life after treatment for cancer are common. Peer reviewed guidance to investigate and manage GI dysfunction following cancer treatment has been published. This study reviewed gastrointestinal symptoms of women previously treated for gynaecological cancer and considered whether suggested algorithms could be amended to optimise management for this cohort. METHODS: Demographic and clinical data recorded for patients attending a specialist consequences of cancer treatment gastroenterology service prospectively are reported using median and range. The Wilcoxon signed rank test analysed changes in symptoms between initial assessment to discharge from the service. RESULTS: Between April 2013 and March 2016, 220 women, with a median age of 57 years (range 24-83 years), treated for gynaecological cancer (cervical (50%)), endometrial (28%), ovarian (15%), vaginal or vulval (7%) attended. Twelve gastrointestinal symptoms were statistically significantly reduced by time of discharge from the specialist gastroenterology clinic including bowel frequency ≥ 4/day (88%), type 6 or 7 stool consistency (36%), urgency (31%) and incontinence (21%). General quality of life improved from a median score of 4 at first assessment to a median of 6 at discharge (p < 0.001). A median of four (range, 1-9) diagnoses were made. CONCLUSION: Women with gastrointestinal symptoms after cancer treatment benefit from a systematic management approach. After excluding disease recurrence, a proposed investigational algorithm and the oncology team includes FBC, U&Es, LFTs, thyroid function test, vitamin B12, vitamin D, a hydrogen methane breath test and a SeHCAT scan. If rectal bleeding is present, iron studies, flexible sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy should be performed. Patients with normal investigations or symptoms not responding to treatment require gastroenterology input.

Bowel dysfunction in survivors of gynaecologic malignancies.

PURPOSE: To assess the prevalence of bowel dysfunctions after treatment for gynaecological cancer and the impact on the quality of life. METHODS: We identified a cohort of 217 eligible women treated with radiotherapy (RT) with curative intention, alone or as combined treatment, for gynaecological malignancies at three institutions in Catalonia (Spain). Demographic, diagnosis and treatment modality were reviewed. Patients were sent validated questionnaires to assess bowel function and a set of questions asking on the changes after RT in bowel function, urinary function, sexuality, pain and lymphoedema. RESULTS: Questionnaires were returned by 109 patients (50.2%) with a mean age of 65 ± 11 years. Of them, 71.8% had been treated for endometrial cancer and 28.2% for cervical cancer. Overall, 42.7% of patients reported bowel dysfunction, affecting their quality of life in 36% of cases. Symptoms were more frequent in patients who had undergone external beam RT compared to brachytherapy. The most common symptom was defecatory urgency which was reported by more than 40% of patients according to the St Mark's score, although it was less common in other questionnaires. Overall, faecal incontinence ranged between 10 and 15%, and usual loose stools and diarrhoea were reported by 13.5% and 5.1%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Prevalence of bowel symptoms after treatment of gynaecological malignancies is high. A systematic evaluation using validated questionnaires should be performed in order to allow the decision-making process and also because there are a number of treatments available to improve the quality of life of cancer survivors.

Interventions to reduce acute and late adverse gastrointestinal effects of pelvic radiotherapy for primary pelvic cancers.

BACKGROUND: An increasing number of people survive cancer but a significant proportion have gastrointestinal side effects as a result of radiotherapy (RT), which impairs their quality of life (QoL). OBJECTIVES: To determine which prophylactic interventions reduce the incidence, severity or both of adverse gastrointestinal effects among adults receiving radiotherapy to treat primary pelvic cancers. SEARCH METHODS: We conducted searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase in September 2016 and updated them on 2 November 2017. We also searched clinical trial registries. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions to prevent adverse gastrointestinal effects of pelvic radiotherapy among adults receiving radiotherapy to treat primary pelvic cancers, including radiotherapy techniques, other aspects of radiotherapy delivery, pharmacological interventions and non-pharmacological interventions. Studies needed a sample size of 20 or more participants and needed to evaluate gastrointestinal toxicity outcomes. We excluded studies that evaluated dosimetric parameters only. We also excluded trials of interventions to treat acute gastrointestinal symptoms, trials of altered fractionation and dose escalation schedules, and trials of pre- versus postoperative radiotherapy regimens, to restrict the vast scope of the review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodology. We used the random-effects statistical model for all meta-analyses, and the GRADE system to rate the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 92 RCTs involving more than 10,000 men and women undergoing pelvic radiotherapy. Trials involved 44 different interventions, including radiotherapy techniques (11 trials, 4 interventions/comparisons), other aspects of radiotherapy delivery (14 trials, 10 interventions), pharmacological interventions (38 trials, 16 interventions), and non-pharmacological interventions (29 trials, 13 interventions). Most studies (79/92) had design limitations. Thirteen studies had a low risk of bias, 50 studies had an unclear risk of bias and 29 studies had a high risk of bias. Main findings include the following:Radiotherapy techniques: Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) versus 3D conformal RT (3DCRT) may reduce acute (risk ratio (RR) 0.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 0.88; participants = 444; studies = 4; I2 = 77%; low-certainty evidence) and late gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity grade 2+ (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.65; participants = 332; studies = 2; I2 = 0%; low-certainty evidence). Conformal RT (3DCRT or IMRT) versus conventional RT reduces acute GI toxicity grade 2+ (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.82; participants = 307; studies = 2; I2 = 0%; high-certainty evidence) and probably leads to less late GI toxicity grade 2+ (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.09; participants = 517; studies = 3; I2 = 44%; moderate-certainty evidence). When brachytherapy (BT) is used instead of external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) in early endometrial cancer, evidence indicates that it reduces acute GI toxicity (grade 2+) (RR 0.02, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.18; participants = 423; studies = 1; high-certainty evidence).Other aspects of radiotherapy delivery: There is probably little or no difference in acute GI toxicity grade 2+ with reduced radiation dose volume (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.81; participants = 211; studies = 1; moderate-certainty evidence) and maybe no difference in late GI toxicity grade 2+ (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.15 to 6.97; participants = 107; studies = 1; low-certainty evidence). Evening delivery of RT may reduce acute GI toxicity (diarrhoea) grade 2+ during RT compared with morning delivery of RT (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.76; participants = 294; studies = 2; I2 = 0%; low-certainty evidence). There may be no difference in acute (RR 2.22, 95% CI 0.62 to 7.93, participants = 110; studies = 1) and late GI toxicity grade 2+ (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.65; participants = 81; studies = 1) between a bladder volume preparation of 1080 mls and that of 540 mls (low-certainty evidence). Low-certainty evidence on balloon and hydrogel spacers suggests that these interventions for prostate cancer RT may make little or no difference to GI outcomes.Pharmacological interventions: Evidence for any beneficial effects of aminosalicylates, sucralfate, amifostine, corticosteroid enemas, bile acid sequestrants, famotidine and selenium is of a low or very low certainty. However, evidence on certain aminosalicylates (mesalazine, olsalazine), misoprostol suppositories, oral magnesium oxide and octreotide injections suggests that these agents may worsen GI symptoms, such as diarrhoea or rectal bleeding.Non-pharmacological interventions: Low-certainty evidence suggests that protein supplements (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.74; participants = 74; studies = 1), dietary counselling (RR 0.04, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.60; participants = 74; studies = 1) and probiotics (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.82; participants = 923; studies = 5; I2 = 91%) may reduce acute RT-related diarrhoea (grade 2+). Dietary counselling may also reduce diarrhoeal symptoms in the long term (at five years, RR 0.05, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.78; participants = 61; studies = 1). Low-certainty evidence from one study (108 participants) suggests that a high-fibre diet may have a beneficial effect on GI symptoms (mean difference (MD) 6.10, 95% CI 1.71 to 10.49) and quality of life (MD 20.50, 95% CI 9.97 to 31.03) at one year. High-certainty evidence indicates that glutamine supplements do not prevent RT-induced diarrhoea. Evidence on various other non-pharmacological interventions, such as green tea tablets, is lacking.Quality of life was rarely and inconsistently reported across included studies, and the available data were seldom adequate for meta-analysis. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Conformal radiotherapy techniques are an improvement on older radiotherapy techniques. IMRT may be better than 3DCRT in terms of GI toxicity, but the evidence to support this is uncertain. There is no high-quality evidence to support the use of any other prophylactic intervention evaluated. However, evidence on some potential interventions shows that they probably have no role to play in reducing RT-related GI toxicity. More RCTs are needed for interventions with limited evidence suggesting potential benefits.

Hyperbaric oxygen for patients with chronic bowel dysfunction after pelvic radiotherapy (HOT2): a randomised, double-blind, sham-controlled phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Hyperbaric oxygen has been used as a therapy for patients experiencing chronic intestinal syndromes after pelvic radiotherapy for decades, yet the evidence to support the use of this therapy is based almost exclusively on non-randomised studies. We aimed to provide conclusive results for the clinical benefits of hyperbaric oxygen in patients with chronic bowel dysfunction after radiotherapy for pelvic malignancies. METHODS: HOT2 was a double-blind, sham-controlled, phase 3 randomised study of patients (≥18 years) with chronic gastrointestinal symptoms for 12 months or more after radiotherapy and which persisted despite at least 3 months of optimal medical therapy and no evidence of cancer recurrence. Participants were stratified by participating hyperbaric centre and randomly assigned (2:1) by a computer-generated list (block size nine or 12) to receive treatment with hyperbaric oxygen therapy or sham. Participants in the active treatment group breathed 100% oxygen at 2·4 atmospheres of absolute pressure (ATA) and the control group breathed 21% oxygen at 1·3 ATA; both treatment groups received 90-min air pressure exposures once daily for 5 days per week for a total of 8 weeks (total of 40 exposures). Staff at the participating hyperbaric medicine facilities knew the allocated treatment, but patients, clinicians, nurse practitioners, and other health-care professionals associated with patients' care were masked to treatment allocation. Primary endpoints were changes in the bowel component of the modified Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (IBDQ) score and the IBDQ rectal bleeding score 12 months after start of treatment relative to baseline. The primary outcome was analysed in a modified intention-to-treat population, excluding patients who did not provide IBDQ scores within a predetermined time-frame. All patients have completed 12 months of follow-up and the final analysis is complete. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN86894066. FINDINGS: Between Aug 14, 2009, and Oct 23, 2012, 84 participants were randomly assigned: 55 to hyperbaric oxygen and 29 to sham control. 75 (89%) participants received 40 pressure exposures, all participants returned the IBDQ at baseline, 75 (89%) participants returned the IBDQ at 2 weeks post-treatment, and 79 (94%) participants returned the IBDQ at 12 months post-start of treatment. Patients were excluded from analyses of co-primary endpoints if they had missing IBDQ scores for intestinal function or rectal bleeding at baseline or at 12 months. In an analysis of 46 participants in the active treatment group and 23 participants in the control group, we found no significant differences in the change of IBDQ bowel component score (median change from baseline to 12 months of 4 (IQR -3 to 11) in the treatment group vs 4 (-6 to 9) in the sham group; Mann-Whitney U score 0·67, p=0·50). In an analysis of 29 participants in the active treatment group and 11 participants in the sham group with rectal bleeding at baseline, we also found no significant differences in the change of IBDQ rectal bleeding score (median change from baseline to 12 months of 3 [1 to 3] in the treatment group vs 1 [1 to 2] in the sham group; U score 1·69, p=0·092). Common adverse events in both groups were eye refractive changes (three [11%] of 28 patients in the control group vs 16 [30%] of 53 patients in the treatment group), increased fatigue (three [11%] vs two [4%]), and ear pain (six [21%] vs 15 [28%]). Eight serious adverse events were reported in eight patients: two were reported in two patients in the control group (tonsillitis requiring surgery [grade 3]; recurrent cancer of the vulva [grade 4]) and six serious adverse events were reported in six patients in the treatment group (malignant spinal cord compression requiring surgery [grade 3]; malignant paraortic lymph node involvement requiring surgery [grade 3]; recurrence of vomiting and dehydration [grade 3]; diarrhoea and fever associated with Campylobacter infection [grade 3]; recurrence of abdominal pain, bloating, diarrhoea, and urinary tract infection [grade 3]; aneurysm [grade 4]), none of which were deemed treatment-related. INTERPRETATION: We found no evidence that patients with radiation-induced chronic gastrointestinal symptoms, including those patients with rectal bleeding, benefit from hyperbaric oxygen therapy. These findings contrast with evidence used to justify current practices, and more level 1 evidence is urgently needed. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK and National Health Service (NHS) funding to the National Institute of Health Research Biomedical Research Centre at The Royal Marsden and the Institute of Cancer Research.

Non-surgical interventions for late rectal problems (proctopathy) of radiotherapy in people who have received radiotherapy to the pelvis.

BACKGROUND: This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2002, and previously updated in 2007. Late radiation rectal problems (proctopathy) include bleeding, pain, faecal urgency, and incontinence and may develop after pelvic radiotherapy treatment for cancer. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of non-surgical interventions for managing late radiation proctopathy. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Issue 11, 2015); MEDLINE (Ovid); EMBASE (Ovid); CANCERCD; Science Citation Index; and CINAHL from inception to November 2015. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing non-surgical interventions for the management of late radiation proctopathy in people with cancer who have undergone pelvic radiotherapy for cancer. Primary outcomes considered were: episodes of bowel activity, bleeding, pain, tenesmus, urgency, and sphincter dysfunction. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Study selection, 'Risk of bias' assessment, and data extraction were performed in duplicate, and any disagreements were resolved by involving a third review author. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 1221 unique references and 16 studies including 993 participants that met our inclusion criteria. One study found through the last update was moved to the 'Studies awaiting classification' section. We did not pool outcomes for a meta-analysis due to variation in study characteristics and endpoints across included studies.Since radiation proctopathy is a condition with various symptoms or combinations of symptoms, the studies were heterogeneous in their intended effect. Some studies investigated treatments targeted at bleeding only (group 1), some investigated treatments targeted at a combination of anorectal symptoms, but not a single treatment (group 2). The third group focused on the treatment of the collection of symptoms referred to as pelvic radiation disease. In order to enable some comparison of this heterogeneous collection of studies, we describe the effects in these three groups separately.Nine studies assessed treatments for rectal bleeding and were unclear or at high risk of bias. The only treatments that made a significant difference on primary outcomes were argon plasma coagulation (APC) followed by oral sucralfate versus APC with placebo (endoscopic score 6 to 9 in favour of APC with placebo, risk ratio (RR) 2.26, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.12 to 4.55; 1 study, 122 participants, low- to moderate-quality evidence); formalin dab treatment (4%) versus sucralfate steroid retention enema (symptom score after treatment graded by the Radiation Proctopathy System Assessments Scale (RPSAS) and sigmoidoscopic score in favour of formalin (P = 0.001, effect not quantified, 1 study, 102 participants, very low- to low-quality evidence), and colonic irrigation plus ciprofloxacin and metronidazole versus formalin application (4%) (bleeding (P = 0.007, effect not quantified), urgency (P = 0.0004, effect not quantified), and diarrhoea (P = 0.007, effect not quantified) in favour of colonic irrigation (1 study, 50 participants, low-quality evidence).Three studies, of unclear and high risk of bias, assessed treatments targeted at something very localised but not a single pathology. We identified no significant differences on our primary outcomes. We graded all studies as very low-quality evidence due to unclear risk of bias and very serious imprecision.Four studies, of unclear and high risk of bias, assessed treatments targeted at more than one symptom yet confined to the anorectal region. Studies that demonstrated an effect on symptoms included: gastroenterologist-led algorithm-based treatment versus usual care (detailed self help booklet) (significant difference in favour of gastroenterologist-led algorithm-based treatment on change in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire-Bowel (IBDQ-B) score at six months, mean difference (MD) 5.47, 95% CI 1.14 to 9.81) and nurse-led algorithm-based treatment versus usual care (significant difference in favour of the nurse-led algorithm-based treatment on change in IBDQ-B score at six months, MD 4.12, 95% CI 0.04 to 8.19) (1 study, 218 participants, low-quality evidence); hyperbaric oxygen therapy (at 2.0 atmospheres absolute) versus placebo (improvement of Subjective, Objective, Management, Analytic - Late Effects of Normal Tissue (SOMA-LENT) score in favour of hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT), P = 0.0019) (1 study, 150 participants, moderate-quality evidence, retinol palmitate versus placebo (improvement in RPSAS in favour of retinol palmitate, P = 0.01) (1 study, 19 participants, low-quality evidence) and integrated Chinese traditional plus Western medicine versus Western medicine (grade 0 to 1 radio-proctopathy after treatment in favour of integrated Chinese traditional medicine, RR 2.55, 95% CI 1.30 to 5.02) (1 study, 58 participants, low-quality evidence).The level of evidence for the majority of outcomes was downgraded using GRADE to low or very low, mainly due to imprecision and study limitations.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Although some interventions for late radiation proctopathy look promising (including rectal sucralfate, metronidazole added to an anti-inflammatory regimen, and hyperbaric oxygen therapy), single small studies provide limited evidence. Furthermore, outcomes important to people with cancer, including quality of life (QoL) and long-term effects, were not well recorded. The episodic and variable nature of late radiation proctopathy requires large multi-centre placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) to establish whether treatments are effective. Future studies should address the possibility of associated injury to other gastro-intestinal, urinary, or sexual organs, known as pelvic radiation disease. The interventions, as well as the outcome parameters, should be broader and include those important to people with cancer, such as QoL evaluations.

Outcomes from treating bile acid malabsorption using a multidisciplinary approach.

BACKGROUND & AIM: Despite bile acid malabsorption affecting >1 % of the population, the outcomes of treatment are largely unreported. This study evaluated the effectiveness of a structured intervention for this condition. METHOD: This was a retrospective evaluation of prospectively recorded patient reported outcome measures in a consecutive cohort of patients diagnosed with bile acid malabsorption seen in a cancer centre gastroenterology clinic. Every patient completed a 7-day food diary, a gastrointestinal symptom rating scale questionnaire and Bristol stool chart before the first clinic appointment and the symptom questionnaire and Bristol stool chart before all subsequent appointments. Patients who reported any episodes of type 6 or 7 stool were referred for a (75)Selenium (Se) homocholic acid taurine scan. Abnormal gastrointestinal symptoms were investigated and treated systematically using a peer reviewed management algorithm. RESULTS: Between 2011 and 2013, 136 men, 146 women, median age 66 years (range 19-89) underwent a scan. 143 (51 %) had 7-day isotope retention of ≤20 %. 105 (73 %) had previously undergone pelvic radiotherapy and 67 (47 %) GI surgery. 123 (86 %) were treated with low-fat diets, 79 (55 %) with a bile acid sequestrant, 73 (51 %) both. On discharge, 100 (70 %) patients reported an overall symptom improvement (mean -4.2 points, p < 0.0001). In patients who had only bile acid malabsorption and no other gastrointestinal diagnoses, 77 % (41/53) reported a mean improvement of -5.4 points (p < 0.0005). Patients reported a clinically significant improvement in urgency, faecal incontinence, wind, nocturnal defaecation, tiredness, abdominal pain, bloating, and steatorrhoea, (p = <0.0005). Stool frequency was reduced and stool consistency was improved. CONCLUSION: In this large cohort of complex patients, bile acid malabsorption is common and a multidisciplinary approach to managing gastrointestinal symptoms is effective.

Microbiota and radiation-induced bowel toxicity: lessons from inflammatory bowel disease for the radiation oncologist.

New gastrointestinal symptoms are frequent after pelvic radiotherapy and can greatly affect the quality of life of cancer survivors. The effect of radiation on the intestinal microbiota, and the clinical implications of a modified microbial balance after radiotherapy are now beginning to emerge. In this Personal View, we show the importance of the microbiota for intestinal homoeostasis, and discuss the similarity between inflammatory bowel disease, which has been extensively researched, and radiation-induced gastrointestinal toxicity. By use of microbiota profiles for risk assessment and manipulation of the intestinal flora for prevention and treatment of radiation, enteropathy could become a reality and would be of substantial relevance to the increasing numbers of long-term cancer survivors.

Algorithm-based management of patients with gastrointestinal symptoms in patients after pelvic radiation treatment (ORBIT): a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Chronic gastrointestinal symptoms after pelvic radiotherapy are common, multifactorial in cause, and affect patients' quality of life. We assessed whether such patients could be helped if a practitioner followed an investigative and management algorithm, and whether outcomes differed by whether a nurse or a gastroenterologist led this algorithm-based care. METHODS: For this three-arm randomised controlled trial we recruited patients (aged ≥18 years) from clinics in London, UK, with new-onset gastrointestinal symptoms persisting 6 months after pelvic radiotherapy. Using a computer-generated randomisation sequence, we randomly allocated patients to one of three groups (1:1:1; stratified by tumour site [urological, gynaecological, or gastrointestinal], and degree of bowel dysfunction [IBDQ-B score <60 vs 60-70]): usual care (a detailed self-help booklet), gastroenterologist-led algorithm-based treatment, or nurse-led algorithm-based treatment. The primary endpoint was change in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire-Bowel subset score (IBDQ-B) at 6 months, analysed by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00737230. FINDINGS: Between Nov 26, 2007, and Dec 12, 2011, we enrolled and randomly allocated 218 patients to treatment: 80 to the nurse group, 70 to the gastroenterologist group, and 68 to the booklet group (figure). Most had a baseline IBDQ-B score indicating moderate-to-severe symptoms. We recorded the following pair-wise mean difference in change in IBDQ-B score between groups: nurse versus booklet 4·12 (95% CI 0·04-8·19; p=0·04), gastroenterologist versus booklet 5·47 (1·14-9·81; p=0·01). Outcomes in the nurse group were not inferior to outcomes in the gastroenterologist group (mean difference 1·36, one sided 95% CI -1·48). INTERPRETATION: Patients given targeted intervention following a detailed clinical algorithm had better improvements in radiotherapy-induced gastrointestinal symptoms than did patients given usual care. Our findings suggest that, for most patients, this algorithm-based care can be given by a trained nurse. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research.

Can an educational video improve the adequacy of bowel preparation for patients undergoing their first colonoscopy? Results of the EBOPS RCT.

Background and study aims The aim of this study was to assess the effect of an educational video on the quality of bowel preparation of patients from a UK population attending for their first colonoscopy. Patients and methods A prospective, endoscopist-blinded trial with 1:1 allocation was performed. Patients referred for their first colonoscopy were recruited between February 2019 and December 2019. All participants were prescribed Moviprep and received the trial site's standard written bowel preparation instructions, with the intervention group also receiving a bespoke educational video. Adequacy of bowel preparation (defined as a Boston Bowel Preparation Scale of ≥2 in each segment of the bowel) and polyp detection rates (PDRs) were compared. Fisher's chi squared test was utilized with P <0.05 as the threshold for significance. Results A total of 509 participants completed the trial from six centers; 251 were randomized to the intervention group. The mean age was 57 years and 52.3% were female. The primary endpoint was met with an adequacy rate of 216 of 251 (86.1%) in the intervention group, compared with 205 of 259 (79.1%) in the control group ( P <0.05, odds ratio [OR] 1.626, 95% CI 1.017-2.614). The PDR was significantly higher in the intervention group (39% vs 30%, OR 1.51, 95% CI 1.04-2.19, P <0.05). Conclusions An educational video leads to improved bowel preparation for patients attending for their first colonoscopy, and is also associated with greater detection of polyps. Widespread adoption of an educational video incurs minimal investment, but would reduce the number of inadequate procedures, missed pathology, and the cost that both these incur.

Practice guidance on the management of acute and chronic gastrointestinal problems arising as a result of treatment for cancer.

BACKGROUND: The number of patients with chronic gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms after cancer therapies which have a moderate or severe impact on quality of life is similar to the number diagnosed with inflammatory bowel disease annually. However, in contrast to patients with inflammatory bowel disease, most of these patients are not referred for gastroenterological assessment. Clinicians who do see these patients are often unaware of the benefits of targeted investigation (which differ from those required to exclude recurrent cancer), the range of available treatments and how the pathological processes underlying side effects of cancer treatment differ from those in benign GI disorders. This paper aims to help clinicians become aware of the problem and suggests ways in which the panoply of syndromes can be managed. METHODS: A multidisciplinary literature review was performed to develop guidance to facilitate clinical management of GI side effects of cancer treatments. RESULTS: Different pathological processes within the GI tract may produce identical symptoms. Optimal management requires appropriate investigations and coordinated multidisciplinary working. Lactose intolerance, small bowel bacterial overgrowth and bile acid malabsorption frequently develop during or after chemotherapy. Toxin-negative Clostridium difficile and cytomegalovirus infection may be fulminant in immunosuppressed patients and require rapid diagnosis and treatment. Hepatic side effects include reactivation of viral hepatitis, sinusoidal obstruction syndrome, steatosis and steatohepatitis. Anticancer biological agents have multiple interactions with conventional drugs. Colonoscopy is contraindicated in neutropenic enterocolitis but endoscopy may be life-saving in other patients with GI bleeding. After cancer treatment, simple questions can identify patients who need referral for specialist management of GI symptoms. Other troublesome pelvic problems (eg, urinary, sexual, nutritional) are frequent and may also require specialist input. The largest group of patients affected by chronic GI symptoms are those who have been treated with pelvic radiotherapy. Their complex symptoms, often caused by more than one diagnosis, need systematic investigation by gastroenterologists when empirical treatments fail. All endoscopic and surgical interventions after radiotherapy are potentially hazardous as radiotherapy may induce significant local ischaemia. The best current evidence for effective treatment of radiation-induced GI bleeding is with sucralfate enemas and hyperbaric oxygen therapy. CONCLUSIONS: All cancer units must develop simple methods to identify the many patients who need help and establish routine referral pathways to specialist gastroenterologists where patients can receive safe and effective treatment. Early contact with oncologists and/or specialist surgeons with input from the patient's family and friends often helps the gastroenterologist to refine management strategies. Increased training in the late effects of cancer treatment is required.

What is the significance of a faecal elastase-1 level between 200 and 500µg/g?

Background: Pancreatic exocrine insufficiency is a cause of malabsorption. It is generally diagnosed if faecal elastase-1 (FE-1) levels are below 200 µg/g. Pancreatic function is assumed to be normal when faecal elastase levels are >500 µg/g. The significance of faecal elastase levels above 200 µg/g but less than 500 µg/g is unclear. Methods: This retrospective study reports the response to treatment in patients who had an FE-1 level between 200 and 500 µg/g. Results: Of these 82 patients, 28 were offered pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy (PERT). A clinical response, defined as an improvement in their initial symptoms after commencing PERT, was seen in 20 patients (71%), 7 with potentially predisposing conditions and 13 with functional diarrhoea. PERT particularly abolished or improved diarrhoea, steatorrhoea and flatulence. Conclusion: Clinicians should, therefore, be aware that a trial of PERT given to patients with FE-1 levels between 200 and 500 µg/g may lead to improvement in gastrointestinal symptoms.

Management of intestinal complications in patients with pelvic radiation disease.

Gastrointestinal toxicity after radiotherapy for pelvic cancer is a major complication-the most commonly reported symptoms include rectal bleeding, diarrhea, and fecal incontinence, which substantially impair patients' quality of life. Management of these symptoms can be a challenge, although available treatment strategies generally are ignored or underused. Radiation-induced symptoms have multiple mechanisms of pathogenesis; the first step for the correct management is to identify the mechanism that is causing the symptoms. Optimal management requires close liaisons among physicians, gastroenterologists with specialist interests, radiotherapists, oncologists, dieticians, nurses, and surgeons. Patients should be reassured that treatment options (medical, endoscopic, and surgical) exist and are in most cases successful if patients are referred to experts in pelvic radiation disease. However, although new therapeutic approaches are not yet always supported by high-quality trials, research projects are underway to improve management of patients. Clinicians should focus on using proven treatments correctly and avoiding misuse.

A systematic review and meta-analysis on the prevalence of non-malignant, organic gastrointestinal disorders misdiagnosed as irritable bowel syndrome.

Treatable gastrointestinal disorders in patients with symptoms typical for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) may be overlooked. The prevalence of five gastrointestinal conditions-bile acid diarrhoea (BAD), carbohydrate malabsorption (CM), microscopic colitis (MC), pancreatic exocrine insufficiency (PEI) and small intestinal bacterial overgrowth (SIBO) was systematically assessed from studies including consecutive patients meeting diagnostic criteria for IBS. 4 databases were searched from 1978 to 2020. Studies were included if they evaluated the prevalence of these conditions in secondary healthcare setting. Estimated pooled rates were calculated and statistical heterogeneity between studies was evaluated using Q and I2 statistics. Seven studies (n = 597) estimated the pooled prevalence for BAD as 41% (95% CI 29-54). 17 studies (n = 5068) estimated that of MC as 3% (95% CI 2-4%). Two studies (n = 478) suggested a rate of 4.6% (range: 1.8-6.1%) for PEI. Using breath testing, 26 studies (n = 6700) and 13 studies (n = 3415) estimated the prevalence of lactose and fructose malabsorption as 54% (95% CI 44-64%) and 43% (95% CI 23-62%); 36 studies (n = 4630) and 22 studies (n = 2149) estimated that of SIBO as 49% (95% CI 40-57%) with lactulose and 19% (95% CI 13-27%) with glucose. Rates of all conditions were significantly higher than in healthy controls. A significant proportion of patients presenting to secondary care with IBS have an organic condition which may account for their symptoms. Failure to exclude such conditions will deny patients effective treatment.

Randomised single centre double-blind placebo controlled phase II trial of Tocovid SupraBio in combination with pentoxifylline in patients suffering long-term gastrointestinal adverse effects of radiotherapy for pelvic cancer: The PPALM study.

BACKGROUND: Preclinical data suggest that combined gamma-tocotrienol with pentoxifylline ameliorates radiotherapy-induced gastrointestinal damage. AIM: To test whether gastrointestinal symptoms arising after radiotherapy, and persisting after maximal medical therapy, can be improved using Tocovid SupraBio 200 mg and pentoxifylline 400 mg orally twice daily for one year. Patients stratified by severity of symptoms, and randomised to active treatment or matched placebo were assessed after 12 months. The primary end point was improvement in gastrointestinal symptoms measured using the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire, bowel subset score. Changes in bio-markers of fibrosis were assessed. RESULTS: 62 patients, median age 66, 34(55%) treated for prostate, 21(34%) gynaecological, 6(10%) anal and one(1%) rectal cancer were recruited; 40(65%) randomised to treatment, 22(35%) to placebo, 39 months (median) after radiotherapy completion. Gamma tocotrienol was not detected in serum in 41% of treated patients, despite good compliance with study medication. Treatment was completed in 28(70%) and 17(77%) patients in the treatment and placebo groups respectively. No improvement in symptom scores nor in quality of life was identified. Thirteen serious adverse events occurred. A transient ischaemic attack, was possibly related to pentoxifylline, others were assessed as unlikely to be related to treatment. Levels of EGF, PDGF and FGF were significantly reduced and consistent trends in reduced inflammation were seen during treatment but were not sustained once treatment ended. SUMMARY: This single centre study closed prematurely and therefore data interpretation is of necessity limited. No clinical benefit was demonstrated. However, biochemical data suggest that this intervention does have anti-inflammatory and anti-fibrotic effects.

"Pelvic radiation disease": new understanding and new solutions for a new disease in the era of cancer survivorship.

BACKGROUND: Cancer therapies increasingly achieve cure, but result in chronic moderate or severe gastrointestinal side effects in millions of patients worldwide. Paradoxically, modern therapies threaten to increase the burden of chronic gastrointestinal toxicity, not reduce it. AIM: To define pelvic radiation disease. METHODS: A reinterpretation of published data. RESULTS: The lack of interest in patients with pelvic radiation disease is startling. Symptoms after radiotherapy are only a manifestation of new onset gastrointestinal physiological deficits induced by the radiotherapy. With proper diagnosis and treatment of these deficit(s), the symptoms are curable. Science suggests that much radiotherapy-induced gastrointestinal morbidity is preventable. Once the true nature of radiation injury is understood, straightforward solutions emerge and inaccurate dogmas can be discarded. Imprecise language is a fundamental barrier to progress in complex disorders. CONCLUSIONS: Radiation-induced gastrointestinal toxicity is bedeviled by inappropriate terminology, causing confusion, and myth which legitimizes inappropriate clinical behavior. We must address honestly the uncomfortable reality that doctors, sometimes do harm. Not to do so in an era where survivorship is a reality, will deny millions often with severe symptoms from "pelvic radiation disease", the care which will help them.

Diagnosis and management of bile acid diarrhoea: a survey of UK expert opinion and practice.

OBJECTIVE: Bile acid diarrhoea (BAD), which includes bile acid malabsorption, causes a variety of digestive symptoms. Diagnostic rates and management vary considerably. We conducted a survey of current practice to review expert opinion and provide guidance on diagnosis and management. DESIGN/METHOD: An online survey was conducted of clinical members of the UK Bile Acid Related Diarrhoea Network, who had all published research on BAD (n=21). Most were National Health Service consultants who had diagnosed over 50 patients with the condition. RESULTS: The preferred terminology was to use BAD, with primary and secondary to classify causes. A wide range of presenting symptoms and associated conditions were recognised. SeHCAT (tauroselcholic acid) was the preferred diagnostic test, and 50% of respondents thought general practitioners should have access to this. Patients who met the Rome IV diagnostic criteria for functional diarrhoea, irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) with predominant diarrhoea or postcholecystectomy diarrhoea were usually investigated by SeHCAT, which was used sometimes in other types of IBS. Treatment with a bile acid sequestrant was offered to patients with low SeHCAT values, with expected response rates >70% in the most severe. Colestyramine was the usual sequestrant, starting between 2 g and 8 g daily; colesevelam was an alternative. In patients who had an incomplete response, increasing the dose, changing to an alternative sequestrant, use of loperamide and a low fat diet were suggested. Recommendations for follow-up and to improve the overall patient experience were made. CONCLUSION: This expert survey indicates current best practice in the diagnosis and management of BAD.

What is the cost of delayed diagnosis of bile acid malabsorption and bile acid diarrhoea?

INTRODUCTION: 75Selenium taurocholic acid (SeHCAT) scanning diagnoses bile acid malabsorption/bile acid diarrhoea (BAM/BAD) and defines optimal treatment. Approximately 2% of the population have BAM/BAD. AIM: To evaluate the cost of delayed diagnosis of BAM/BAD. METHODS: Patients' notes who underwent SeHCAT scanning in three hospitals over a 1-year period were reviewed retrospectively. Scan results and treatment response were recorded. Package-of-care costs were calculated using costing tools from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and from United Lincolnshire Hospitals Trust business unit. RESULTS: Between June 2016 and May 2017, 19 men and 37 women (median age 58 (range 19-83)) of 3860 new patients seen in gastroenterology clinics were referred for SeHCAT scanning. Sixty-four per cent of scans were abnormal: 13 demonstrated severe (<5% 7-day SeHCAT retention), 13 moderate (5%-10%), 5 mild (10%-15%) and 5 borderline (15%-20%) BAD/BAM. Likely causes included primary BAD (n=16), cholecystectomy (n=13), inflammatory bowel disease (n=4) and other (n=3). If SeHCAT scanning was ordered at first consultation (n=11), patients reported 24 months (median) of symptoms (range 6-360) and the median diagnostic package-of-care cost was £811.40 (95% CI £625.59 to £1508.20). If SeHCAT scanning was booked later (n=25), patients reported symptoms for 30 months (median, range 0.5-360) and the cost was £1568.31 (95% CI £1200.55 to £1713.18). Following diagnosis, treatment led to symptom improvement (n=24), no change/deterioration (n=3) and not reported (n=9). CONCLUSIONS: SeHCAT is underused. Late diagnosis leads to unnecessary demands for other services and treatment delay. Early diagnosis achieves health benefits while reducing costs.