Referral letters for 2-week wait suspected colorectal cancer do not allow a 'straight-to-test' pathway.

INTRODUCTION: Some clinicians have argued that 2-week wait suspected colorectal cancer patients can go 'straight-to-test' to facilitate time to diagnosis and treatment. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether the currently used referral letters are reliable enough to allow that pathway. PATIENTS AND METHODS: General practitioner (GP) letters referring patients under the Two Week-Wait Rule for suspected colorectal cancer were prospectively reviewed over a 6-month period. Three examining consultants were asked to outline the tests they would perform having only read the letter, and then again after a clinical consultation with the patient. The outcome of these tests was tracked. RESULTS: A total of 217 referral letters of patients referred under Two Week Wait Rule for suspected colorectal cancer were studied. Having just read the referral letter, the most frequently requested test was colonoscopy (148), then CT scan (48), barium enema (44), followed by gastroscopy (23) and flexible sigmoidoscopy in 15 patients (some patients would have had more than one test requested). After consultation with the patients, tests requested as guided by the GP letter were changed in 67 patients (31%), where 142 colonoscopies, 61 CT scans, 37 barium enemas, 23 flexible sigmoidoscopies and 19 gastroscopies were organised. The referral indication which had tests changed most often was definite palpable rectal mass (67%), while patients referred with definite palpable right-sided abdominal mass had their tests least often changed (9%). A total of 22 patients were found to have colorectal cancers (10%) and 30 patients were diagnosed with polyps (14%). Out of 142 colonoscopies performed, 19 (13%) showed some pathology beyond the sigmoid colon and of the 23 patients who had flexible sigmoidoscopy initially, only three went on to have colonoscopy subsequently. During the 6-month period of the study, only five breaches of the waiting time targets were recorded (1 to the 31-day target and 4 to the 62-day target). CONCLUSIONS: A significant number of patients would have had tests changed after a clinical consultation. However, only a small number required further investigations having had a consultation prior to their initial investigations. We conclude that 2-week wait suspected colorectal cancer patients should be seen in the clinic first and should not proceed 'straight-to-test'.

Laparoscopic and endoscopic approaches for drainage of pancreatic pseudocysts: a systematic review of published series.

BACKGROUND: The laparoscopic and endoscopic approaches to internal drainage of pancreatic pseudocysts (PPs) are the current minimally invasive management options. This article reviews the evidence available on their effectiveness. METHODS: A computerized search was made of the MEDLINE, PubMed, and EMBASE databases for English language publications from 1974 to 2005. RESULTS: A total of 118 and 569 patients featured, respectively, in 19 and 25 reports underwent 118 and 583 laparoscopic and endoscopic drainage procedures, respectively. Pancreatic pseudocysts were considerably larger in the laparoscopic series (mean, 13 vs. 7 cm; p < 0.0001). The success rates for achieving resolution of the PPs in the laparoscopic and endoscopic series were 98.3% and 80.8% respectively, with morbidity rates of 4.2% and 12% and mortality rates of 0% and 0.4%, respectively. During follow-up period (mean, 13 vs 24 months; p < 0.0001), PPs recurred for 2.5% of the patients in the laparoscopic series and 14.4% of the patients in the endoscopic series, and the reintervention rates were 0.9% and 11.8%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The laparoscopic and endoscopic approaches to internal drainage of PPs are safe. Although laparoscopic drainage appears to carry a higher success rate and lower rates of morbidity and recurrence, the heterogeneity of the published reports and the varied follow-up periods limit direct comparisons. Data from longer follow-up periods and randomized comparative trials are needed.