Management of iatrogenic perforation during colonoscopy in ulcerative colitis patients: a survey of gastroenterologists and colorectal surgeons.

PURPOSE: Patients with ulcerative colitis, a high-risk group for the development of colon cancer, undergo colonoscopy more frequently than the general population. This increase in endoscopic evaluation also exposes these patients to an increased risk of complications, including iatrogenic perforation. Our survey study aims to determine factors that affect the management choices for iatrogenic perforations for ulcerative colitis patients in remission and identify areas of consensus among general gastroenterologists, inflammatory bowel disease specialists, and colorectal surgeons. METHODS: An anonymous, cross-sectional survey was performed using an online platform. A matrix questionnaire posed five clinical scenarios with six management options for an iatrogenic perforation in ulcerative colitis patients with varying disease distribution, disease activity, and maintenance regimens. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-eight general gastroenterologists, 35 inflammatory bowel disease specialists, and 174 colorectal surgeons responded to the survey; 47, 41, and 23%, respectively, answered they did not feel comfortable managing perforations in ulcerative colitis patients in remission. We found the greatest concordance among gastroenterologists and colorectal surgeons in cases of perforation in ulcerative colitis with a history of dysplasia; the majority of respondents chose staged total proctocolectomy with ileal pouch anal anastomosis. We found discordance in decision making for ulcerative colitis in remission without dysplasia, with perforation occurring in colitis involved and uninvolved areas. CONCLUSION: Our survey revealed that a significant fraction of gastroenterologists and colorectal surgeons are uncomfortable managing iatrogenic colonic perforations in ulcerative colitis patients. We have identified knowledge and practice gaps in defining the optimal management of iatrogenic perforations in ulcerative colitis patients.

Risk of New or Recurrent Cancer in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease and Previous Cancer Exposed to Immunosuppressive and Anti-Tumor Necrosis Factor Agents.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Our understanding of malignancy associated with immunosuppression in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) comes from studies of individuals with no history of cancer. We investigated whether patients with IBD and a history of cancer who were subsequently immunosuppressed have an increased risk of developing incident cancer. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of data from 333 patients with IBD treated at 8 academic medical centers who developed cancer and subsequently received treatment with anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF), anti-TNF with an antimetabolite (thiopurines, methotrexate), antimetabolites, or no subsequent exposure to immunosuppressive agents (controls). We collected data on their primary outcomes of incident cancers (new or recurrent). Hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated by using Cox proportional hazards and Kaplan-Meier survival curves; study groups were compared by using the log-rank test. RESULTS: During the follow-up period, 90 patients (27%) developed an incident cancer. Patient characteristics between groups differed, but matching was not possible because of the relatively small sample sizes. There was no difference in time to incident cancer (P = .14) or type of incident cancer (P = .61) among the 4 groups. After adjusting for recurrence risk for type of prior cancer, there was no difference in risk of incident cancer (HR for anti-TNF, 0.32; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.09-1.09; HR for anti-TNF with an antimetabolite, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.26-1.59; HR for an antimetabolite, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.54-2.15) or time to subsequent cancer between study arms (P = .22). CONCLUSION: On the basis of a retrospective study, in patients with IBD and a history of cancer, exposure to an anti-TNF agent or an antimetabolite after cancer was not associated with an increased risk of incident cancer, compared with patients who did not receive immunosuppression. Larger, matched, prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings.