Oncologic outcomes of screen-detected and non-screen-detected T1 colorectal cancers.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of T1 colorectal cancer (CRC) has increased with the implementation of CRC screening programs. It is unknown whether the outcomes and risk models for T1 CRC based on non-screen-detected patients can be extrapolated to screen-detected T1 CRC. This study aimed to compare the stage distribution and oncologic outcomes of T1 CRC patients within and outside the screening program. METHODS: Data from T1 CRC patients diagnosed between 2014 and 2017 were collected from 12 hospitals in the Netherlands. The presence of lymph node metastasis (LNM) at diagnosis was compared between screen-detected and non-screen-detected patients using multivariable logistic regression. Cox proportional hazard regression was used to analyze differences in the time to recurrence (TTR), metastasis-free survival (MFS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and overall survival. Additionally, the performance of conventional risk factors for LNM was evaluated across the groups. RESULTS: 1803 patients were included (1114 [62%] screen-detected), with median follow-up of 51 months (interquartile range 30). The proportion of LNM did not significantly differ between screen- and non-screen-detected patients (12.6% vs. 8.9%; odds ratio 1.41; 95%CI 0.89-2.23); a prediction model for LNM performed equally in both groups. The 3- and 5-year TTR, MFS, and CSS were similar for patients within and outside the screening program. However, overall survival was significantly longer in screen-detected T1 CRC patients (adjusted hazard ratio 0.51; 95%CI 0.38-0.68). CONCLUSIONS: Screen-detected and non-screen-detected T1 CRCs have similar stage distributions and oncologic outcomes and can therefore be treated equally. However, screen-detected T1 CRC patients exhibit a lower rate of non-CRC-related mortality, resulting in longer overall survival.

Impact of ≥ 0.1-mm free resection margins on local intramural residual cancer after local excision of T1 colorectal cancer.

Background and study aims A free resection margin (FRM) > 1 mm after local excision of a T1 colorectal cancer (CRC) is known to be associated with a low risk of local intramural residual cancer (LIRC). The risk is unclear, however, for FRMs between 0.1 to 1 mm. This study evaluated the risk of LIRC after local excision of T1 CRC with FRMs between 0.1 and 1 mm in the absence of lymphovascular invasion (LVI), poor differentiation and high-grade tumor budding (Bd2-3). Patients and methods Data from all consecutive patients with local excision of T1 CRC between 2014 and 2017 were collected from 11 hospitals. Patients with a FRM ≥ 0.1 mm without LVI and poor differentiation were included. The main outcome was risk of LIRC (composite of residual cancer in the local excision scar in adjuvant resection specimens or local recurrence during follow-up). Tumor budding was also assessed for cases with a FRM between 0.1 and 1mm. Results A total of 171 patients with a FRM between 0.1 and 1 mm and 351 patients with a FRM > 1 mm were included. LIRC occurred in five patients (2.9 %; 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.0-6.7 %) and two patients (0.6 %; 95 % CI 0.1-2.1 %), respectively. Assessment of tumor budding showed Bd2-3 in 80 % of cases with LIRC and in 16 % of control cases. Accordingly, in patients with a FRM between 0.1 and 1 mm without Bd2-3, LIRC was detected in one patient (0.8%; 95 % CI 0.1-4.4 %). Conclusions In this study, risks of LIRC were comparable for FRMs between 0.1 and 1 mm and > 1 mm in the absence of other histological risk factors.

Full-Thickness Scar Resection After R1/Rx Excised T1 Colorectal Cancers as an Alternative to Completion Surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Local full-thickness resections of the scar (FTRS) after local excision of a T1 colorectal cancer (CRC) with uncertain resection margins is proposed as an alternative strategy to completion surgery (CS), provided that no local intramural residual cancer (LIRC) is found. However, a comparison on long-term oncological outcome between both strategies is missing. METHODS: A large cohort of patients with consecutive T1 CRC between 2000 and 2017 was used. Patients were selected if they underwent a macroscopically complete local excision of a T1 CRC but positive or unassessable (R1/Rx) resection margins at histology and without lymphovascular invasion or poor differentiation. Patients treated with CS or FTRS were compared on the presence of CRC recurrence, a 5-year overall survival, disease-free survival, and metastasis-free survival. RESULTS: Of 3,697 patients with a T1 CRC, 434 met the inclusion criteria (mean age 66 years, 61% men). Three hundred thirty-four patients underwent CS, and 100 patients underwent FTRS. The median follow-up period was 64 months. CRC recurrence was seen in 7 patients who underwent CS (2.2%, 95% CI 0.9%-4.6%) and in 8 patients who underwent FTRS (9.0%, 95% CI 3.9%-17.7%). Disease-free survival was lower in FTRS strategy (96.8% vs 89.9%, P = 0.019), but 5 of the 8 FTRS recurrences could be treated with salvage surgery. The metastasis-free survival (CS 96.8% vs FTRS 92.1%, P = 0.10) and overall survival (CS 95.6% vs FTRS 94.4%, P = 0.55) did not differ significantly between both strategies. DISCUSSION: FTRS after local excision of a T1 CRC with R1/Rx resection margins as a sole risk factor, followed by surveillance and salvage surgery in case of CRC recurrence, could be a valid alternative strategy to CS.

High practice variation in risk stratification, baseline oncological staging, and follow-up strategies for T1 colorectal cancers in the Netherlands.

Background and study aims Based on pathology, locally resected T1 colorectal cancer (T1-CRC) can be classified as having low- or high-risk for irradicality and/or lymph node metastasis, the latter requiring adjuvant surgery. Reporting and application of pathological high-risk criteria is likely variable, with inherited variation regarding baseline oncological staging, treatment and surveillance. Methods We assessed practice variation using an online survey among gastroenterologists and surgeons participating in the Dutch T1-CRC Working Group. Results Of the 130 invited physicians, 53 % participated. Regarding high-risk T1-CRC criteria, lymphangio-invasion is used by 100 %, positive or indeterminable margins by 93 %, poor differentiation by 90 %, tumor-free margin ≤ 1 mm by 78 %, tumor budding by 57 % and submucosal invasion > 1000 µm by 47 %. Fifty-two percent of the respondents do not perform baseline staging in locally resected low-risk T1-CRC. In case of unoperated high-risk patients, we recorded 61 different surveillance strategies in 63 participants, using 19 different combinations of diagnostic tests. Endoscopy is used in all schedules. Mean follow-up time is 36 months for endoscopy, 26 months for rectal MRI and 30 months for abdominal CT (all varying 3-60 months). Conclusion We found variable use of pathological high-risk T1-CRC criteria, creating risk for misclassification as low-risk T1-CRC. This has serious implications, as most participants will not proceed to oncological staging in low-risk patients and adjuvant surgery nor radiological surveillance is considered. On the other hand, oncological surveillance in patients with a locally resected high-risk T1-CRC who do not wish adjuvant surgery is highly variable emphasizing the need for a uniform surveillance protocol.

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.).

The Accuracy of Pancreatic Perfusion Computed Tomography and Angiography in Predicting Necrotizing Pancreatitis: A Systematic Review.

Early prediction of necrotizing pancreatitis is important for tailoring treatment, but current scoring systems have moderate accuracy and can be calculated only 24 to 48 hours after disease onset. Evaluation of (micro)circulatory changes in acute pancreatitis at admission by perfusion computed tomography (PCT) or angiography could predict necrosis earlier. Our aim was to systematically review the evidence for angiographic and PCT prediction of necrotizing pancreatitis. We performed a systematic review and searched MEDLINE and Embase. We included cohort studies addressing pancreatic perfusion for prognostication of severity of acute pancreatitis and assessed study quality with a tool specific for diagnostic accuracy studies. Six prospective cohorts with 334 patients were included. Sensitivity of PCT for predicting necrosis ranged from 71% to 100% and specificity from 74% to 100%. The only study directly comparing PCT and angiography found a similar sensitivity (100%) but higher specificity for PCT (90% vs 72%). The included studies had moderate quality. Current studies consistently demonstrate excellent sensitivity and specificity of PCT for early prediction of necrosis. The performance found in our review should be confirmed in larger prospective cohorts as published studies have moderate quality. Furthermore, it should be investigated whether early PCT improves disease course.

Treatment Targets in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Current Status in Daily Practice.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Recently, treatment goals in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) in clinical trials have shifted from mainly symptom-based to more mucosa-driven. Real world data on treatment priorities are lacking. We aimed to investigate the current practice and most commonly used definitions of IBD treatment targets among Dutch gastroenterologists. METHODS: Dutch gastroenterologists were asked to participate in a computer-based nation-wide survey. We asked questions on demographics, opinion and current practice regarding IBD treatment targets. RESULTS: Twenty-four percent (134/556) of the respondents completed the survey. For both Crohn's disease (CD) (47.3%, 61/129) and ulcerative colitis (UC)(45%, 58/129) the main treatment goal was to achieve and maintain deep remission, defined as clinical, biochemical and endoscopic remission. Seventy-six percent of the participants use mucosal healing (MH) as a potential treatment target for IBD, whereas 22.6% use histological remission. There is no single definition for MH in IBD. The majority use Mayo score ≤ 1 in UC (52%) and 'macroscopic normal mucosa' in CD (66%). CONCLUSION: More stringent and mucosa-driven treatment targets as 'deep remission' and 'mucosal healing' have found traction in clinical practice. The most commonly used definition for MH in routine practice is endoscopic MAYO score