Search

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%] screendetected), 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.

Background:Screen-detected colorectal cancers (CRCs) are often treated less invasively than stage-matched nonscreen-detected CRCs, but the reasons for this are not fully understood. This study evaluated the treatment of stage I CRCs detected within and outside of the screening program in the Netherlands. Methods:Data from the Netherlands Cancer Registry for all stage I CRCs diagnosed between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2020 were analyzed, comparing patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics of screen-detected and nonscreen-detected stage I CRCs. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the association between treatment (local excision only vs. surgical oncologic resection) and patient and tumor characteristics, stratified for T stage and tumor location. Results:Screen-detected stage I CRCs were relatively more often T1 than T2 compared with non-screen-detected stage I CRCs (66.9 % vs. 53.3 %; P 0.001). When only T1 tumors were considered, both screen-detected colon and rectal cancers were more often treated with local excision only than non-screen-detected T1 cancers (odds ratio [OR] 2.19, 95%CI 1.93 2.49; and OR 1.29, 95 %CI 1.05 1.59, respectively), adjusted for sex, tumor location, lymphovascular invasion (LVI) status, and tumor differentiation. Conclusions:Less invasive treatment of screen-detected stage I CRC is partly explained by the higher rate of T1 cancers compared with non-screen-detected stage I CRCs. T1 stage I screen-detected CRCs were also more likely to undergo less invasive treatment than non-screen-detected CRCs, adjusted for risk factors such as LVI and tumor differentiation. Future research should investigate whether the choice of local excision was related to unidentified cancerrelated factors or the expertise of the endoscopists.

T1 colorectal cancers (T1CRC) are increasingly being treated by endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). After ESD of a T1CRC, completion surgery is indicated in a subgroup of patients. Currently, the influence of ESD on surgical morbidity and mortality is unknown. The aim of this study was to compare 90-day morbidity and mortality of completion surgery after ESD to primary surgery. The completion surgery group consisted of suspected T1CRC patients from a multicenter prospective ESD database (2014–2020). The primary surgery group consisted of pT1CRC patients from a nationwide surgical registry (2017–2019). Patients with rectal or sigmoidal cancers were selected. Patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy were excluded. Propensity score adjustment was used to correct for confounders. In total, 411 patients were included: 54 in the completion surgery group (39 pT1, 15 pT2) and 357 in the primary surgery group with pT1CRC. Adverse event rate was 24.1% after completion surgery and 21.3% after primary surgery. After completion surgery 90-day mortality did not occur, though one patient died in the primary surgery group. After propensity score adjustment, lymph node yield did not differ significantly between the groups. Among other morbidity-related outcomes, stoma rate (OR 1.298 95%-CI 0.587-2.872, p = 0.519) and adverse event rate (OR 1.162; 95%-CI 0.570-2.370, p = 0.679) also did not differ significantly. A subgroup analysis was performed in patients undergoing rectal surgery. In this subgroup (37 completion and 136 primary surgery), these morbidity outcomes also did not differ significantly. In conclusion, this study suggests that ESD does not compromise morbidity or 90-day mortality of completion surgery.

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.

Background and Aims: Current guidelines recommend endoscopic resection of visible and endoscopically resectable colorectal colitis–associated neoplasia (CAN) in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). However, patients with high-risk CAN (HR-CAN) are often not amenable to conventional resection techniques, and a consensus approach for the endoscopic management of these lesions is presently lacking. This Delphi study aims to reach consensus among experts on the endoscopic management of these lesions. Methods: A 3-round modified Delphi process was conducted to reach consensus among worldwide IBD and/or endoscopy experts (n = 18) from 3 continents. Consensus was considered if ≥75% agreed or disagreed. Quality of evidence was assessed by the criteria of the Cochrane Collaboration group. Results: Consensus was reached on all statements (n = 14). Experts agreed on a definition for CAN and HR-CAN. Consensus was reached on the examination of the colon with enhanced endoscopic imaging before resection, the endoscopic resectability of an HR-CAN lesion, and endoscopic assessment and standard report of CAN lesions. In addition, experts agreed on type of resections of HR-CAN (< 20 mm, >20 mm, with or without good lifting), endoscopic success (technical success and outcomes), histologic assessment, and follow-up in HR-CAN. Conclusions: This is the first step in developing international consensus–based recommendations for endoscopic management of CAN and HR-CAN. Although the quality of available evidence was considered low, consensus was reached on several aspects of the management of CAN and HR-CAN. The present work and proposed standardization might benefit future studies.

Background During endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), the normal mucosa is cut under constant optical control. We studied whether a positive horizontal resection margin after a complete en bloc ESD predicts local recurrence. Methods In this European multicenter cohort study, patients with a complete en bloc colorectal ESD were selected from prospective registries. Cases were defined by a horizontal resection margin that was positive or indeterminate for dysplasia (HM1), whereas controls had a free resection margin (HM0). Low risk lesions with submucosal invasion (T1) and margins free of carcinoma were analyzed separately. The main outcome was local recurrence. Results From 928 consecutive ESDs (2011–2020), 354 patients (40% female; mean age 67 years, median follow-up 23.6 months), with 308 noninvasive lesions and 46 T1 lesions, were included. The recurrence rate for noninvasive lesions was 1/212 (0.5 %; 95 %CI 0.02%–2.6%) for HM0 vs. 2/96 (2.1 %; 95 %CI 0.57%–7.3%) for HM1.The recurrence rate for T1 lesions was 1/38 (2.6%; 95%CI 0.14%–13.5%) for HM0 vs. 2/8 (25%; 95%CI 7.2%–59.1 %) for HM1. Conclusion A positive horizontal resection margin after an en bloc ESD for noninvasive lesions is associated with a marginal nonsignificant increase in the local recurrence rate, equal to an ESD with clear horizontal margins. This could not be confirmed for T1 lesions.

Introduction: In early rectal cancer, organ sparing treatment strategies such as local excision have gained popularity. The necessity of radical surgery is based on the histopathological evaluation of the local excision specimen. This study aimed to describe diagnostic variability between pathologists, and its impact on treatment allocation in patients with locally excised early rectal cancer. Materials and methods: Patients with locally excised pT1-2 rectal cancer were included in this prospective cohort study. Both quantitative measures and histopathological risk factors (i.e. poor differentiation, deep submucosal invasion, and lymphatic- or venous invasion) were evaluated. Interobserver variability was reported by both percentages and Fleiss’ Kappa- (ĸ) or intra-class correlation coefficients. Results: A total of 126 patients were included. Ninety-four percent of the original histopathological reports contained all required parameters. In 73 of the 126 (57.9%) patients, at least one discordant parameter was observed, which regarded histopathological risk factors for lymph node metastases in 36 patients (28.6%). Interobserver agreement among different variables varied between 74% and 95% or ĸ 0.530–0.962. The assessment of lymphovascular invasion showed discordances in 26% (ĸ = 0.530, 95% CI 0.375–0.684) of the cases. In fourteen (11%) patients, discordances led to a change in treatment strategy. Conclusion: This study demonstrated that there is substantial interobserver variability between pathologists, especially in the assessment of lymphovascular invasion. Pathologists play a key role in treatment allocation after local excision of early rectal cancer, therefore interobserver variability needs to be reduced to decrease the number of patients that are over- or undertreated.

no abstract available

Background: Hodgkin lymphoma survivors treated with infradiaphragmatic radiotherapy (IRT) and/or procarbazine have an increased risk of developing colorectal cancer. We investigated the cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer surveillance in Dutch Hodgkin lymphoma survivors to determine the optimal surveillance strategy for different Hodgkin lymphoma subgroups. Methods: The Microsimulation Screening Analysis-Colon model was adjusted to reflect colorectal cancer and other-cause mortality risk in Hodgkin lymphoma survivors. Ninety colorectal cancer surveillance strategies were evaluated varying in starting and stopping age, interval, and modality [colonoscopy, fecal immunochemical test (FIT, OC-Sensor; cutoffs: 10/20/47 mg Hb/g feces), and multi-target stool DNA test (Cologuard)]. Analyses were also stratified per primary treatment (IRT and procarbazine or procarbazine without IRT). Colorectal cancer deaths averted (compared with no surveillance) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were primary outcomes. The optimal surveillance strategy was identified assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of €20,000 per life-years gained (LYG). Results: Overall, the optimal surveillance strategy was annual FIT (47 mg) from age 45 to 70 years, which might avert 70% of colorectal cancer deaths in Hodgkin lymphoma survivors (compared with no surveillance; ICER:€18,000/LYG). The optimal surveillance strategy in Hodgkin lymphoma survivors treated with procarbazine without IRT was biennial FIT (47 mg) from age 45 to 70 years (colorectal cancer mortality averted 56%; ICER:€15,000/LYG), and when treated with IRT and procarbazine, annual FIT (47 mg) surveillance from age 40 to 70 was most cost-effective (colorectal cancer mortality averted 75%; ICER:€13,000/LYG). Conclusions: Colorectal cancer surveillance in Hodgkin lymphoma survivors is cost-effective and should commence earlier than screening occurs in population screening programs. For all subgroups, FIT surveillance was

Background: Hodgkin’s lymphoma (HL) survivors treated with abdominal radiotherapy and/or procarbazine have an increased risk of developing colorectal neoplasia. Aims: We evaluated the clinicopathological characteristics and risk factors for developing (advanced) neoplasia (AN) in HL survivors. Methods: In all, 101 HL survivors (median age 51 years, median age of HL diagnosis 25 years) underwent colonoscopy and 350 neoplasia and 44 AN (classified as advanced adenomas/serrated lesions or colorectal cancer), mostly right-sided, were detected, as published previously. An average-risk asymptomatic cohort who underwent screening colonoscopy were controls (median age 60 years). Clinicopathological characteristics of AN were evaluated in both groups. Mismatch repair (MMR) status was assessed using immunohistochemistry (MLH1/MSH2/MSH6/PMS2). Logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate the risk factors for AN in HL survivors, including age at HL diagnosis and interval between HL and colonoscopy. Results: In 101 colonoscopies in HL survivors, AN was primarily classified based on polyp size ≥10 mm, whereas (high-grade)dysplasia was more often seen in AN in controls. An interval between HL diagnosis and colonoscopy >26 years was associated with more AN compared with an interval of <26 years, with an odds ratio for AN of 3.8 (95% confidence interval 1.4–9.1) (p < 0.01). All 39 AN that were assessed were MMR proficient. Conclusions: Colorectal neoplasia in HL survivors differ from average-risk controls; classification AN was primarily based on polyp size (≥10 mm) in HL survivors. Longer follow-up between HL diagnosis and colonoscopy was associated with a higher prevalence of AN in HL survivors.