Endoscopic full-thickness resection of T1 colorectal cancers: a retrospective analysis from a multicenter Dutch eFTR registry.

BACKGROUND: Complete endoscopic resection and accurate histological evaluation for T1 colorectal cancer (CRC) are critical in determining subsequent treatment. Endoscopic full-thickness resection (eFTR) is a new treatment option for T1 CRC < 2 cm. We aimed to report clinical outcomes and short-term results. METHODS: Consecutive eFTR procedures for T1 CRC, prospectively recorded in our national registry between November 2015 and April 2020, were retrospectively analyzed. Primary outcomes were technical success and R0 resection. Secondary outcomes were histological risk assessment, curative resection, adverse events, and short-term outcomes. RESULTS: We included 330 procedures: 132 primary resections and 198 secondary scar resections after incomplete T1 CRC resection. Overall technical success, R0 resection, and curative resection rates were 87.0 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 82.7 %-90.3 %), 85.6 % (95 %CI 81.2 %-89.2 %), and 60.3 % (95 %CI 54.7 %-65.7 %). Curative resection rate was 23.7 % (95 %CI 15.9 %-33.6 %) for primary resection of T1 CRC and 60.8 % (95 %CI 50.4 %-70.4 %) after excluding deep submucosal invasion as a risk factor. Risk stratification was possible in 99.3 %. The severe adverse event rate was 2.2 %. Additional oncological surgery was performed in 49/320 (15.3 %), with residual cancer in 11/49 (22.4 %). Endoscopic follow-up was available in 200/242 (82.6 %), with a median of 4 months and residual cancer in 1 (0.5 %) following an incomplete resection. CONCLUSIONS: eFTR is relatively safe and effective for resection of small T1 CRC, both as primary and secondary treatment. eFTR can expand endoscopic treatment options for T1 CRC and could help to reduce surgical overtreatment. Future studies should focus on long-term outcomes.

Fecal immunochemical testing results and characteristics of colonic lesions.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Fecal immunochemical tests (FIT) are used to detect blood in feces, which might indicate the presence of colorectal neoplasia. The aim of this study was to investigate whether FIT results vary depending on the characteristics of colonic lesions. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of lesions detected in a cohort of asymptomatic individuals (aged 50 - 75 years) who were invited to participate in a FIT-based screening pilot in The Netherlands. The mean FIT result was compared across subgroups of individuals defined by histopathology of the most advanced lesion detected. In addition, the results were compared with data from a primary colonoscopy screening trial, in which participants also completed a FIT. RESULTS: In three rounds of FIT-based screening, a total of 877 FIT-positive individuals underwent colonoscopy. Higher mean FIT results (hemoglobin [Hb]/g feces) were observed in individuals with carcinomas (199 µg Hb/g) and advanced adenomas (87 µg Hb/g) compared with participants with nonadvanced adenomas (50 µg Hb/g) or those with serrated lesions (46 µg Hb/g) (P < 0.001). In the primary colonoscopy trial, 1256 participants completed a FIT test and underwent colonoscopy. The number of participants with nonadvanced adenomas as the most advanced lesion was comparable between this group and the FIT-based screening group (20 % vs. 22 %). CONCLUSION: In FIT-based screening, the mean FIT results varied depending on the characteristics of the most advanced colonic lesion. The proportion of participants with a nonadvanced adenoma as the most advanced lesion was similar in the FIT-based screening group and in the primary colonoscopy screening group, suggesting that these lesions are coincidental findings rather than FIT-detected findings. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: www.trialregister.nl number NTR2755.

Yield of colonoscopy after recent CT-proven uncomplicated acute diverticulitis: a comparative cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend routine follow-up colonoscopy after acute diverticulitis to confirm the diagnosis and exclude malignancy. Its value, however, has recently been questioned because of contradictory study results. Our objective was to compare the colonoscopic detection rate of advanced colonic neoplasia (ACN), comprising colorectal cancer (CRC) and advanced adenoma (AA), in patients after a CT-proven primary episode of uncomplicated acute diverticulitis with average risk participants in a primary colonoscopy CRC screening program. METHODS: A retrospective comparison was performed of prospectively collected data from cohorts derived from two multicenter randomized clinical trials executed in the Netherlands between 2009 and 2013. 401 uncomplicated diverticulitis patients and 1,426 CRC screening participants underwent colonic evaluation by colonoscopy. Main outcome was the diagnostic yield for ACN, calculated as number of diverticulitis patients and screening participants with ACN relative to their totals, with differences expressed as odds ratios (OR). The histopathology outcome of removed lesions during colonoscopy was used as definitive diagnosis. RESULTS: AA detection was similar [5.5 vs. 8.7%; OR 0.62 (95% CI 0.38-1.01); P = 0.053]. CRC was detected in 1.2% (5/401) of diverticulitis patients versus 0.6% (9/1,426) of screening participants [OR 1.30 (95% CI 0.39-4.36); P = 0.673]. ACN was diagnosed in 6.7% (27/401) of diverticulitis patients versus 9.1% (130/1,426) of screening participants [OR 0.71 (95% CI 0.45-1.11); P = 0.134]. ORs were adjusted for age, family history of CRC, smoking, BMI, and cecal intubation rate. CONCLUSIONS: ACN detection does not differ significantly between patients with recent uncomplicated diverticulitis and average risk screening participants. Routine follow-up colonoscopy after primary CT-proven uncomplicated left-sided acute diverticulitis can be omitted; these patients can participate in CRC screening programs. Follow-up colonoscopy may be beneficial when targeted at high-risk patients, but such an approach first needs prospective evaluation.

Combining risk factors with faecal immunochemical test outcome for selecting CRC screenees for colonoscopy.

OBJECTIVE: Faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) is increasingly used in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening but has a less than perfect sensitivity. Combining risk stratification, based on established risk factors for advanced neoplasia, with the FIT result for allocating screenees to colonoscopy could increase the sensitivity and diagnostic yield of FIT-based screening. We explored the use of a risk prediction model in CRC screening. DESIGN: We collected data in the colonoscopy arm of the Colonoscopy or Colonography for Screening study, a multicentre screening trial. For this study 6600 randomly selected, asymptomatic men and women between 50 years and 75 years of age were invited to undergo colonoscopy. Screening participants were asked for one sample FIT (OC-sensor) and to complete a risk questionnaire prior to colonoscopy. Based on the questionnaire data and the FIT results, we developed a multivariable risk model with the following factors: total calcium intake, family history, age and FIT result. We evaluated goodness-of-fit, calibration and discrimination, and compared it with a model based on primary screening with FIT only. RESULTS: Of the 1426 screening participants, 1112 (78%) completed the questionnaire and FIT. Of these, 101 (9.1%) had advanced neoplasia. The risk based model significantly increased the goodness-of-fit compared with a model based on FIT only (p<0.001). Discrimination improved significantly with the risk-based model (area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve: from 0.69 to 0.76, (p=0.02)). Calibration was good (Hosmer-Lemeshow test; p=0.94). By offering colonoscopy to the 102 patients at highest risk, rather than to the 102 cases with a FIT result >50 ng/mL, 5 more cases of advanced neoplasia would be detected (net reclassification improvement 0.054, p=0.073). CONCLUSIONS: Adding risk based stratification increases the accuracy FIT-based CRC screening and could be used in preselection for colonoscopy in CRC screening programmes.

Prevalence of serrated polyps and association with synchronous advanced neoplasia in screening colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Serrated polyps of the large intestine comprise a heterogeneous group of lesions with distinct histological and malignant features. The aim of the study was to estimate the prevalence of serrated polyp subtypes in a cohort of individuals undergoing screening colonoscopy, and to identify associations between the detection of serrated polyp subtypes and advanced neoplasia. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data on serrated polyps, adenomas, and cancers were collected from participants of a randomized screening trial that compared colonoscopy with computed tomography colonography. Only data from participants in the colonoscopy arm were used. Logistic regression analyses were performed to identify associations between patients' age, sex, and prevalence of the different types of serrated polyps and to identify associations between the detection of these polyps and advanced neoplasia (defined as an adenoma ≥ 10 mm, villous component, high grade dysplasia or colorectal cancer). RESULTS: A total of 1426 screen-naïve individuals (51 % male) with a median age of 60 years (IQR 55 - 65) were included. The prevalence of hyperplastic polyps, sessile serrated adenomas/polyps (SSA/Ps), and traditional serrated adenomas (TSAs) was 23.8 %, 4.8 %, and 0.1 %, respectively. SSA/Ps comprised 7.3 % of all polyps. No differences based on age or sex were observed in the prevalence of SSA/Ps. Proximal and large (≥ 10 mm) hyperplastic polyps, as well as proximal and large (≥ 10 mm) SSA/Ps, were associated with synchronous advanced neoplasia. CONCLUSIONS: Serrated polyps, including SSA/Ps, were frequently encountered in routine screening colonoscopies. Large and proximal hyperplastic polyps, as well large and proximal SSA/Ps, were associated with advanced neoplasia.

Risk factors for false positive and for false negative test results in screening with fecal occult blood testing.

Differences in the risk of a false negative or a false positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT) across subgroups may affect optimal screening strategies. We evaluate whether subgroups are at increased risk of a false positive or a false negative FIT result, whether such variability in risk is related to differences in FIT sensitivity and specificity or to differences in prior CRC risk. Randomly selected, asymptomatic individuals were invited to undergo colonoscopy. Participants were asked to undergo one sample FIT and to complete a risk questionnaire. We identified patient characteristics associated with a false negative and false positive FIT results using logistic regression. We focused on statistically significant differences as well as on variables influencing the false positive or negative risk for which the odds ratio exceeded 1.25. Of the 1,426 screening participants, 1,112 (78%) completed FIT and the questionnaire; 101 (9.1%) had advanced neoplasia. 102 Individuals were FIT positive, 65 (64%) had a false negative FIT result and 66 (65%) a false positive FIT result. Participants at higher age and smokers had a significantly higher risk of a false negative FIT result. Males were at increased risk of a false positive result, so were smokers and regular NSAID users. FIT sensitivity was lower in females. Specificity was lower for males, smokers and regular NSAID users. FIT sensitivity was lower in women. FIT specificity was lower in males, smokers and regular NSAID users. Our results can be used for further evidence based individualization of screening strategies.

Differences in proximal serrated polyp detection among endoscopists are associated with variability in withdrawal time.

BACKGROUND: Insufficient detection of proximal serrated polyps (PSP) might explain the occurrence of a proportion of interval carcinomas in colonoscopy surveillance programs. OBJECTIVE: To compare PSP detection among endoscopists and to identify patient-related and endoscopist-related factors associated with PSP detection. DESIGN: Prospective study in unselected patients. SETTING: Colonoscopy screening program for colorectal cancer at two academic medical centers. PATIENTS: Asymptomatic consecutive screening participants (aged 50-75 years). INTERVENTION: Colonoscopies were performed by 5 experienced endoscopists. All detected polyps were removed. Multiple colonoscopy quality indicators were prospectively recorded. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: We compared PSP detection among endoscopists by calculating odds ratios (OR) with logistic regression analysis. Logistic regression also was used to identify patient features and colonoscopy factors associated with PSP detection. RESULTS: A total of 1354 patients underwent a complete screening colonoscopy: 1635 polyps were detected, of which 707 (43%) were adenomas and 685 (42%) were serrated polyps, including 215 PSPs. In 167 patients (12%) 1 or more PSPs were detected. The PSP detection rate differed significantly among endoscopists, ranging from 6% to 22% (P < .001). Longer withdrawal time (OR 1.12; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-1.16) was significantly associated with better PSP detection, whereas patient age, sex, and quality of bowel preparation were not. LIMITATIONS: Limited number of highly experienced endoscopists. CONCLUSION: The PSP detection rate differs among endoscopists. Longer withdrawal times are associated with better PSP detection, but patient features are not. ( CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR1888.).

Burden of colonoscopy compared to non-cathartic CT-colonography in a colorectal cancer screening programme: randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: CT-colonography has been suggested to be less burdensome for primary colorectal cancer (CRC) screening than colonoscopy. To compare the expected and perceived burden of both in a randomised trial. DESIGN: 8844 Dutch citizens aged 50-74 years were randomly invited for CRC screening with colonoscopy (n=5924) or CT-colonography (n=2920). Colonoscopy was performed after full colon lavage, or CT-colonography after limited bowel preparation (non-cathartic). All invitees were asked to complete the expected burden questionnaire before the procedure. All participants were invited to complete the perceived burden questionnaire 14 days later. Mean scores were calculated on 5-point scales. RESULTS: Expected burden: 2111 (36%) colonoscopy and 1199 (41%) CT-colonography invitees completed the expected burden questionnaire. Colonoscopy invitees expected the bowel preparation and screening procedure to be more burdensome than CT-colonography invitees: mean scores 3.0±1.1 vs 2.3±0.9 (p<0.001) and 3.1±1.1 vs 2.2±0.9 (p<0.001). Perceived burden: 1009/1276 (79%) colonoscopy and 801/982 (82%) CT-colonography participants completed the perceived burden questionnaire. The full screening procedure was reported as more burdensome in CT-colonography than in colonoscopy: 1.8±0.9 vs 2.0±0.9 (p<0.001). Drinking the bowel preparation resulted in a higher burden score in colonoscopy (3.0±1.3 vs 1.7±1.0, p<0.001) while related bowel movements were scored more burdensome in CT-colonography (2.0±1.0 vs 2.2±1.1, p<0.001). Most participants would probably or definitely take part in a next screening round: 96% for colonoscopy and 93% for CT-colonography (p=0.99). CONCLUSION: In a CRC screening programme, colonoscopy invitees expected the screening procedure and bowel preparation to be more burdensome than CT-colonography invitees. In participants, CT-colonography was scored as more burdensome than colonoscopy. Intended participation in a next screening round was comparable.

Adenoma detection with cap-assisted colonoscopy versus regular colonoscopy: a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Conventional colonoscopy (CC) is considered the reference standard for detection of colorectal neoplasia, but it can still miss a substantial number of adenomas. The use of a transparent plastic cap may improve colonic visualisation. Cap-assisted colonoscopy (CAC) was compared with CC for adenoma detection. Secondary outcomes were caecal intubation time, caecal intubation rate and the degree of discomfort of colonoscopy. DESIGN: This is a parallel, randomised, controlled trial at two centres. Asymptomatic participants (aged 50-75 years) in a primary colonoscopy screening programme were consecutively invited. Consenting subjects were 1:1 randomised to either CAC or CC. All colonoscopies were performed by experienced endoscopists (≥ 1000 colonoscopies) who were trained in CAC. Colonoscopy quality indicators were prospectively recorded. RESULTS: A total of 1380 participants were randomly allocated to CC (N=694) or CAC (N=686). Caecal intubation rate was comparable in the two groups (98% vs 99%; p=0.29). Caecal intubation time was significantly lower in the CAC group: 7.7 ± 5.0 min with CAC vs 8.9 ± 6.2 min with CC (p<0.001) (values mean ± SD). Adenoma detection rates of all endoscopists were ≥ 20%. The proportion of subjects with at least one adenoma was similar in the two groups (28% vs 28%; RR 0.98; 95% CI 0.82 to 1.16), as well as the mean number of adenomas per subject (0.49 ± 1.05 vs 0.50 ± 1.03; p=0.91). Detection of small size, flat and proximally located adenomas was comparable. CAC participants had lower Gloucester Comfort Scores during colonoscopy (2.2 ± 1.0 vs 2.0 ± 1.0; p=0.03). CONCLUSION: CAC does not improve adenoma detection, but does reduce caecal intubation time by more than 1 min and does lessen the degree of discomfort during colonoscopy.

Participation and yield of colonoscopy versus non-cathartic CT colonography in population-based screening for colorectal cancer: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Screening for colorectal cancer is widely recommended, but the preferred strategy remains unidentified. We aimed to compare participation and diagnostic yield between screening with colonoscopy and with non-cathartic CT colonography. METHODS: Members of the general population, aged 50-75 years, and living in the regions of Amsterdam or Rotterdam, identified via the registries of the regional municipal administration, were randomly allocated (2:1) to be invited for primary screening for colorectal cancer by colonoscopy or by CT colonography. Randomisation was done per household with a minimisation algorithm based on age, sex, and socioeconomic status. Invitations were sent between June 8, 2009, and Aug 16, 2010. Participants assigned to CT colonography who were found to have one or more large lesions (≥10 mm) were offered colonoscopy; those with 6-9 mm lesions were offered surveillance CT colonography. The primary outcome was the participation rate, defined as number of invitees undergoing the examination relative to the total number of invitees. Diagnostic yield was calculated as number of participants with advanced neoplasia relative to the total number of invitees. Invitees and screening centre employees were not masked to allocation. This trial is registered in the Dutch trial register, number NTR1829. FINDINGS: 1276 (22%) of 5924 colonoscopy invitees participated, compared with 982 (34%) of 2920 CT colonography invitees (relative risk [RR] 1·56, 95% CI 1·46-1·68; p<0·0001). Of the participants in the colonoscopy group, 111 (9%) had advanced neoplasia of whom seven (<1%) had a carcinoma. Of CT colonography participants, 84 (9%) were offered colonoscopy, of whom 60 (6%) had advanced neoplasia of whom five (<1%) had a carcinoma; 82 (8%) were offered surveillance. The diagnostic yield for all advanced neoplasia was 8·7 per 100 participants for colonoscopy versus 6·1 per 100 for CT colonography (RR 1·46, 95% CI 1·06-2·03; p=0·02) and 1·9 per 100 invitees for colonoscopy and 2·1 per 100 invitees for CT colonography (RR 0·91, 0·66-2·03; p=0·56). The diagnostic yield for advanced neoplasia of 10 mm or more was 1·5 per 100 invitees for colonoscopy and 2·0 per 100 invitees for CT colonography, respectively (RR 0·74, 95% CI 0·53-1·03; p=0·07). Serious adverse events related to the screening procedure were post-polypectomy bleedings: two in the colonoscopy group and three in the CT colonography group. INTERPRETATION: Participation in colorectal cancer screening with CT colonography was significantly better than with colonoscopy, but colonoscopy identified significantly more advanced neoplasia per 100 participants than did CT colonography. The diagnostic yield for advanced neoplasia per 100 invitees was similar for both strategies, indicating that both techniques can be used for population-based screening for colorectal cancer. Other factors such as cost-effectiveness and perceived burden should be taken into account when deciding which technique is preferable. FUNDING: Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development, Centre for Translational Molecular Medicine, and the Nuts Ohra Foundation.

Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided gastroenterostomy versus surgical gastrojejunostomy for palliation of malignant gastric outlet obstruction (ENDURO): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) is a debilitating condition that frequently occurs in patients with malignancies of the distal stomach and (peri)ampullary region. The standard palliative treatment for patients with a reasonable life expectancy and adequate performance status is a laparoscopic surgical gastrojejunostomy (SGJ). Recently, endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) emerged as a promising alternative to the surgical approach. The present study aims to compare these treatment modalities in terms of efficacy, safety, and costs. METHODS: The ENDURO-study is a multicentre, open-label, parallel-group randomized controlled trial. In total, ninety-six patients with gastric outlet obstruction caused by an irresectable or metastasized malignancy will be 1:1 randomized to either SGJ or EUS-GE. The primary endpoint is time to tolerate at least soft solids. The co-primary endpoint is the proportion of patients with persisting or recurring symptoms of gastric outlet obstruction for which a reintervention is required. Secondary endpoints are technical and clinical success, quality of life, gastroenterostomy dysfunction, reinterventions, time to reintervention, adverse events, quality of life, time to start chemotherapy, length of hospital stay, readmissions, weight, survival, and costs. DISCUSSION: The ENDURO-study assesses whether EUS-GE, as compared to SGJ, results in a faster resumption of solid oral intake and is non-inferior regarding reinterventions for persistent or recurrent obstructive symptoms in patients with malignant GOO. This trial aims to guide future treatment strategies and to improve quality of life in a palliative setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP): NL9592. Registered on 07 July 2021.

Reasons for participation and nonparticipation in colorectal cancer screening: a randomized trial of colonoscopy and CT colonography.

OBJECTIVES: We compared reported reasons for participation and nonparticipation in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening between colonoscopy and computed tomographic (CT) colonography in a randomized controlled trial. METHODS: We randomly invited 8,844 people for screening by colonoscopy or CT colonography. On a questionnaire, invitees indicated reasons for participation or nonparticipation and indicated the most decisive reason. RESULTS: The most frequently cited reasons to accept screening were early detection of precursor lesions and CRC, and contribution to science. The most frequently cited reasons to decline were the unpleasantness of the examination, the inconvenience of the preparation, a lack of symptoms, and "no time/too much effort." Among colonoscopy nonparticipants, elderly invitees cited inconvenience less often, and absence of symptoms more often, than did the group overall. The reason reported most frequently as the most decisive reason not to participate was the unpleasantness of the examination among colonoscopy nonparticipants, and "no time/too much effort" and lack of symptoms among CT colonography nonparticipants. CONCLUSIONS: In light of these results, future screening programs could tailor the information provided to invitees.

Implementation of population screening for colorectal cancer by repeated Fecal Immunochemical Test (FIT): third round.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the most common cancer in Europe with a mortality rate of almost 50%. The prognosis of patients is largely determined by the clinical and pathological stage at the time of diagnosis. Population screening has been shown to reduce CRC-related mortality rate. Most screening programs worldwide rely on fecal immunochemical testing (FIT). The effectiveness of a FIT screening program is not only influenced by initial participation rate, but also by program adherence during consecutive screening rounds. We aim to evaluate the participation rate in and yield of a third CRC screening round using FIT. METHODS AND DESIGN: Four years after the first screening round and two years after the second round, a total number of approximately 11,000 average risk individuals (50 to 75 years of age) will be invited to participate in a third round of FIT-based CRC screening. We will select individuals in the same target area as in the previous screening rounds, using the electronic database of the regional municipal administration registrations. We will invite all FIT-negatives and all non-participants in previous screening rounds, as well as eligible first time invitees who have moved into the area or have become 50 years of age.FITs will be analyzed in the special technique laboratory of the Academic Medical Center of the University of Amsterdam. All FIT-positives will be invited for a consultation at the outpatient clinic. In the absence of contra-indications, a colonoscopy will follow at the Academic Medical Center or at the Flevohospital. The primary outcome measures are the participation rate, defined as the proportion of invitees that return a FIT in this third round of FIT-screening, and the diagnostic yield of the program. IMPLICATIONS: This study will provide precise data on the participation in later FIT screening rounds. This enables to estimate the effectiveness of CRC screening programs that rely on repeated FIT- screening, such as the one that will be implemented in the Netherlands in 2013.

Performance of diagnostic tools for acute cholangitis in patients with suspected biliary obstruction.

BACKGROUND: Acute cholangitis is an infection requiring endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and antibiotics. Several diagnostic tools help to diagnose cholangitis. Because diagnostic performance of these tools has not been studied and might therefore impose unnecessary ERCPs, we aimed to evaluate this. METHODS: We established a nationwide prospective cohort of patients with suspected biliary obstruction who underwent an ERCP. We assessed the diagnostic performance of Tokyo Guidelines (TG18), Dutch Pancreatitis Study Group (DPSG) criteria, and Charcot triad relative to real-world cholangitis as the reference standard. RESULTS: 127 (16%) of 794 patients were diagnosed with real-world cholangitis. Using the TG18, DPSG, and Charcot triad, 345 (44%), 55 (7%), and 66 (8%) patients were defined as having cholangitis, respectively. Sensitivity for TG18 was 82% (95% CI 74-88) and specificity 60% (95% CI 56-63). The sensitivity for DPSG and Charcot was 42% (95% CI 33-51) and 46% (95% CI 38-56), specificity was 99.7% (95% CI 99-100) and 99% (95% CI 98-100), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: TG18 criteria incorrectly diagnoses four out of ten patients with real-world cholangitis, while DPSG and Charcot criteria failed to diagnose more than half of patients. As the cholangitis diagnosis has many consequences for treatment, there is a need for more accurate diagnostic tools or work-up towards ERCP.

Aggressive fluid hydration plus non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs versus non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs alone for post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (FLUYT): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatitis is the most common complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Prophylactic rectal administration of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) is considered as standard of care to reduce the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis. It has been suggested that aggressive hydration might further reduce this risk. Guidelines already recommend aggressive hydration in patients who are unable to receive rectal NSAIDs, although it is laborious and time consuming. We aimed to evaluate the added value of aggressive hydration in patients receiving prophylactic rectal NSAIDs. METHODS: FLUYT, a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled trial done across 22 Dutch hospitals, included patients aged between 18 and 85 years with moderate to high risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by a web-based module with varying block sizes to a combination of aggressive hydration and rectal NSAIDs (100 mg diclofenac or indomethacin; aggressive hydration group) or rectal NSAIDs (100 mg diclofenac or indomethacin) alone (control group). Randomisation was stratified according to treatment centre. Aggressive hydration comprised 20 mL/kg intravenous Ringer's lactate solution within 60 min from the start of ERCP, followed by 3 mL/kg per h for 8 h. The control group received normal intravenous saline with a maximum of 1·5 mL/kg per h and 3 L per 24 h. The primary endpoint was post-ERCP pancreatitis and was analysed on a modified intention-to-treat basis (including all patients who underwent randomisation and an ERCP and for whom data regarding the primary outcome were available). The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN13659155. FINDINGS: Between June 5, 2015, and June 6, 2019, 826 patients were randomly assigned, of whom 388 in the aggressive hydration group and 425 in the control group were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. Post-ERCP pancreatitis occurred in 30 (8%) patients in the aggressive hydration group and in 39 (9%) patients in the control group (relative risk 0·84, 95% CI 0·53-1·33, p=0·53). There were no differences in serious adverse events, including hydration-related complications (relative risk 0·99, 95% CI 0·59-1·64; p=1·00), ERCP-related complications (0·90, 0·62-1·31; p=0·62), intensive care unit admission (0·37, 0·07-1·80; p=0·22), and 30-day mortality (0·95, 0·50-1·83; p=1·00). INTERPRETATION: Aggressive periprocedural hydration did not reduce the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis in patients with moderate to high risk of developing this complication who routinely received prophylactic rectal NSAIDs. Therefore, the burden of laborious and time-consuming aggressive periprocedural hydration to further reduce the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis is not justified. FUNDING: Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development and Radboud University Medical Center.

Study protocol: population screening for colorectal cancer by colonoscopy or CT colonography: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most prevalent type of cancer in Europe. Early detection and removal of CRC or its precursor lesions by population screening can reduce mortality. Colonoscopy and computed tomography colonography (CT colonography) are highly accurate exams and screening options that examine the entire colon. The success of screening depends on the participation rate. We designed a randomized trial to compare the uptake, yield and costs of direct colonoscopy population screening, using either a telephone consultation or a consultation at the outpatient clinic, versus CT colonography first, with colonoscopy in CT colonography positives. METHODS AND DESIGN: 7,500 persons between 50 and 75 years will be randomly selected from the electronic database of the municipal administration registration and will receive an invitation to participate in either CT colonography (2,500 persons) or colonoscopy (5,000 persons) screening. Those invited for colonoscopy screening will be randomized to a prior consultation either by telephone or a visit at the outpatient clinic. All CT colonography invitees will have a prior consultation by telephone. Invitees are instructed to consult their general practitioner and not to participate in screening if they have symptoms suggestive for CRC. After providing informed consent, participants will be scheduled for the screening procedure. The primary outcome measure of this study is the participation rate. Secondary outcomes are the diagnostic yield, the expected and perceived burden of the screening test, level of informed choice and cost-effectiveness of both screening methods. DISCUSSION: This study will provide further evidence to enable decision making in population screening for colorectal cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch trial register: NTR1829.

Accurate surgical navigation with real-time tumor tracking in cancer surgery.

In the past decades, image-guided surgery has evolved rapidly. In procedures with a relatively fixed target area, like neurosurgery and orthopedics, this has led to improved patient outcomes. In cancer surgery, intraoperative guidance could be of great benefit to secure radical resection margins since residual disease is associated with local recurrence and poor survival. However, most tumor lesions are mobile with a constantly changing position. Here, we present an innovative technique for real-time tumor tracking in cancer surgery. In this study, we evaluated the feasibility of real-time tumor tracking during rectal cancer surgery. The application of real-time tumor tracking using an intraoperative navigation system is feasible and safe with a high median target registration accuracy of 3 mm. This technique allows oncological surgeons to obtain real-time accurate information on tumor location, as well as critical anatomical information. This study demonstrates that real-time tumor tracking is feasible and could potentially decrease positive resection margins and improve patient outcome.

Neoadjuvant immunotherapy leads to pathological responses in MMR-proficient and MMR-deficient early-stage colon cancers.

PD-1 plus CTLA-4 blockade is highly effective in advanced-stage, mismatch repair (MMR)-deficient (dMMR) colorectal cancers, yet not in MMR-proficient (pMMR) tumors. We postulated a higher efficacy of neoadjuvant immunotherapy in early-stage colon cancers. In the exploratory NICHE study (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03026140), patients with dMMR or pMMR tumors received a single dose of ipilimumab and two doses of nivolumab before surgery, the pMMR group with or without celecoxib. The primary objective was safety and feasibility; 40 patients with 21 dMMR and 20 pMMR tumors were treated, and 3 patients received nivolumab monotherapy in the safety run-in. Treatment was well tolerated and all patients underwent radical resections without delays, meeting the primary endpoint. Of the patients who received ipilimumab + nivolumab (20 dMMR and 15 pMMR tumors), 35 were evaluable for efficacy and translational endpoints. Pathological response was observed in 20/20 (100%; 95% exact confidence interval (CI): 86-100%) dMMR tumors, with 19 major pathological responses (MPRs, ≤10% residual viable tumor) and 12 pathological complete responses. In pMMR tumors, 4/15 (27%; 95% exact CI: 8-55%) showed pathological responses, with 3 MPRs and 1 partial response. CD8+PD-1+ T cell infiltration was predictive of response in pMMR tumors. These data indicate that neoadjuvant immunotherapy may have the potential to become the standard of care for a defined group of colon cancer patients when validated in larger studies with at least 3 years of disease-free survival data.