Low value of second-look endoscopy for detecting residual colorectal cancer after endoscopic removal.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic resection is often feasible for submucosal invasive colorectal cancers (T1 CRCs) and usually judged as complete. If histology casts doubt on the radicality of resection margins, adjuvant surgical resection is advised, although residual intramural cancer is found in only 5% to 15% of patients. We assessed the sensitivity of biopsy specimens from the resection area for residual intramural cancer as a potential tool to estimate the preoperative risk of residual intramural cancer in patients without risk factors for lymph node metastasis (LNM). METHODS: In this multicenter prospective cohort study, patients with complete endoscopic resection of T1 CRC, scheduled for adjuvant resection due to pathologically unclear resection margins, but absent risk factors for LNM, were asked to consent to second-look endoscopy with biopsies. The results were compared with the pathology results of the surgical resection specimen (criterion standard). RESULTS: One hundred three patients were included. In total, 85% of resected lesions were unexpectedly malignant, and 45% were removed using a piecemeal resection technique. Sixty-four adjuvant surgical resections and 39 local full-thickness resections were performed. Residual intramural cancer was found in 7 patients (6.8%). Two of these patients had cancer in second-look biopsy specimens, resulting in a sensitivity of 28% (95% confidence interval, <58%). The preoperative risk of residual intramural cancer in the case of negative biopsy specimens was not significantly reduced (P = .61). CONCLUSIONS: The sensitivity of second-look endoscopy with biopsies for residual intramural cancer after endoscopic resection of CRC is low. Therefore, it should not be used in the decision whether or not to perform adjuvant resection. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02328664.).

Impact of multidisciplinary tumor board discussion on palliation of patients with esophageal or gastro-esophageal junction cancer: a population-based study.

Background: The Dutch guidelines for esophageal and gastro-esophageal junction (GEJ) cancer recommend discussion of patients by a multidisciplinary tumor board (MDT). Despite this recommendation, one previous study in the Netherlands suggested that therapeutic guidance was missing for palliative care of patients with esophageal cancer. The aim of the current study was therefore to assess the impact of an MDT discussion on initial palliative treatment and outcome of patients with esophageal or GEJ cancer.Material and methods: The population-based Netherlands Cancer Registry was used to identify patients treated for esophageal or GEJ cancer with palliative intent between 2010 and 2017 in 7 hospitals. We compared patients discussed by the MDT with patients not discussed by the MDT in a multivariate analysis. Primary outcome was type of initial palliative treatment. Secondary outcome was overall survival.Results: A total of 389/948 (41%) patients with esophageal or GEJ cancer were discussed by the MDT before initial palliative treatment. MDT discussion compared to non-MDT discussion was associated with more patients treated with palliative intent external beam radiotherapy (38% vs. 21%, OR 2.7 [95% CI 1.8-3.9]) and systemic therapy (30% vs. 23%, OR 1.6 [95% CI 1.0-2.5]), and fewer patients treated with stent placement (4% vs. 12%, OR 0.3 [95% CI 0.1-0.6]) and best supportive care alone (12% vs. 33%, OR 0.2 [95% CI 0.1-0.3]). MDT discussion was also associated with improved survival (169 days vs. 107 days, HR 1.3 [95% CI 1.1-1.6]).Conclusion: Our study shows that MDT discussion of patients with esophageal or GEJ cancer resulted in more patients treated with initial palliative radiotherapy and chemotherapy compared with patients not discussed by the MDT. Moreover, MDT discussion may have a positive effect on survival, highlighting the importance of MDT meetings at all stages of treatment.

[Ogilvie Syndrome induced by clozapine]. / Syndroom van Ogilvie als bijwerking van clozapine.

Clozapine is an antipsychotic drug which is used in the treatment of therapy-resistant schizophrenia. The most frequently reported side effects (occurring in more than 10% of patients) are gastro-intestinal complaints, including constipation. Here we describe the case of a 28-year-old man with schizophrenia who developed constipation and abdominal distension for several weeks while taking clozapine. He was admitted as an emergency suffering from clozapine-induced Ogilvie syndrome (acute pseudo-obstruction caused by a disturbed balance in the autonomic regulation of intestinal motility). Treatment on the intensive care unit was required because of septic shock and multiple organ dysfunction syndrome. Colonoscopy showed severe ischaemic colitis without signs of perforation or obstruction. Because conservative treatment with enemas, prokinetic drugs and antibiotics did not have sufficient effect, the cholinergic drug neostigmine was added to the treatment regimen. This led to a good clinical response, thereby averting the need for surgery. This case illustrates that decreased intestinal motility can be a severe problem for patients taking clozapine, which may lead to life-threatening complications.

Different perceptions of the burden of upper GI endoscopy: an empirical study in three patient groups.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have evaluated patients' perceived burden of cancer surveillance tests. Cancer screening and surveillance, however, require a large number of patients to undergo potentially burdensome tests with only some experiencing health gains from it. We investigated the determinants of patients' reported burden of upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy by comparing data from three patient groups. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 476 patients were included: 180 patients under regular surveillance for Barrett esophagus (BE), a premalignant disorder; 214 patients with non-specific upper GI symptoms (NS), and 82 patients recently diagnosed with upper GI cancer (CA). We assessed pain, discomfort and overall burden experienced during endoscopy, symptoms in the week afterwards and psychological distress over time (Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale and Impact of Event Scale). RESULTS: Two-thirds (66%) of patients reported discomfort and overall burden of upper GI endoscopy. Only 23% reported any pain. BE patients reported significantly less discomfort, pain and overall burden than the other patients: those with NS reported more discomfort, CA patients more pain, and both more overall burden. These differences could be statistically explained by the number of previous endoscopies and whether sedation was provided or not, but not by patient characteristics. CONCLUSION: The perception of upper GI endoscopy varies by patient group, due to potential adaptation after multiple endoscopies and aspects of the procedure.

Attendance at surveillance endoscopy of patients with adenoma or colorectal cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Surveillance of patients treated for adenoma or colorectal cancer (CRC) is intended to reduce the incidence of CRC. Responsibility for the adherence to surveillance advice is often left to the patients and family physician. It is not known whether this type of passive policy affects the efficacy of surveillance. The aim of this study was to determine the yield of surveillance without active invitation to follow-up endoscopy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study comprised a cohort follow-up of patients under 75 years of age with adenomas or CRC at index endoscopy in the period 1997-99. Adherence and intervals of follow-up endoscopy were determined up to December 2004. RESULTS: During the inclusion period 2946 patients underwent lower endoscopy. In total, 393 patients were newly diagnosed with colorectal polyps (n=280) or CRC (n=113). Polyps were classified as adenomas in 167/280 (61%) patients. Forty-five (27%) of the adenoma patients underwent surveillance endoscopy within the guideline interval, 63 (38%) underwent delayed endoscopy, and 59 (35%) did not have any follow-up at all. CRC was diagnosed in 113 patients. Thirty-six patients who died during the first year or were diagnosed with metastases were excluded from the analysis. Twenty-three (30%) of the remaining 77 patients underwent endoscopic surveillance according to the guidelines, 40 (52%) had delayed surveillance endoscopy, and 14/77 (18%) did not undergo surveillance endoscopy at all. CONCLUSIONS: In surveillance for colorectal neoplasia, active follow-up invitation is important. Given the low follow-up rate in our series, passive follow-up policies may lead to under-performance of surveillance programs. An active and controlled follow-up is advisable.