Search

Background: Immunotherapy is used routinely for treating deficient mismatch repair (dMMR) colon cancer (CC). This case series highlights an emerging safety issue, where patients develop bowel obstruction associated with immunotherapy response., Patients and Methods: Patients with dMMR CC who developed bowel obstruction while responding to immunotherapy were retrospectively identified. Data on patient, disease, treatment, and response-specific factors were explored for potential risk factors. Overall treatment numbers were used to estimate incidence., Results: Nine patients from eight European centres were included. Common features were hepatic flexure location (5/9), T4 radiological staging (6/9), annular shape (8/9), radiological stricturing (5/9), and endoscopic obstruction (6/9). All received pembrolizumab and obstructed between 45 and 652 days after starting treatment. Seven patients underwent surgical resection; one was managed with a defunctioning stoma; and one was managed conservatively. One patient died from obstruction. Radiological response was seen in eight patients, including two complete responses. Pathological response was seen in all seven who underwent resection, including four complete responses. The overall incidence of immunotherapy response-related obstruction in these centres was 1.51%., Conclusions: Bowel obstruction associated with immunotherapy response may represent a rare treatment-related complication in dMMR CC. Clinicians must recognise this safety signal and share experience to maintain patient safety., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Mismatch repair (MMR) deficient (dMMR) colon cancer (CC) is distinct from MMR proficient (pMMR) CC, yet the impact of MMR status on radiological staging is unclear. The purpose of this study was to investigate how MMR status impacts CC CT staging., Methods: We retrospectively compared CT staging accuracy between dMMR and pMMR CC patients undergoing curative resection. Accuracy was assessed as individual tumour (T)/nodal (N) stages and as dichotomous "statuses" (T1/2 vs T3/4; N0 vs N1/2). Patient characteristics were analysed for factors to support staging., Results: There was no significant difference in overall staging accuracy between the dMMR (44 patients) and pMMR (57 patients) groups. dMMR tumours with incorrect N stage/"status" were more likely to be overstaged than pMMR tumours (90% vs 59%; p = 0.023 for "N status"). Platelet count, CRP and neutrophil count (AUC 0.76 ( p = 0.0078), 0.75 ( p = 0.034) and 0.70 ( p = 0.044), respectively) were associated with "N status" in dMMR tumours., Conclusion: Whilst overall staging accuracy was similar between groups, incorrectly N staged dMMR tumours were more likely to be overstaged than pMMR tumours, risking inappropriate surgical or neoadjuvant treatment. We describe novel relationships between several inflammatory markers and pathological "N status" in dMMR CC, which if integrated into routine practice may improve CT staging accuracy., Advances in Knowledge: Compared to pMMR CC, dMMR CC is at significant risk of N overstaging. Platelet count, CRP and neutrophil count are higher in dMMR CC patients with nodal metastases than those without, and their role in refining clinical staging requires further investigation.

Objectives: To identify the main problem areas in the applicability of the current TNM staging system (8 th ed.) for the radiological staging and reporting of rectal cancer and provide practice recommendations on how to handle them., Methods: A global case-based online survey was conducted including 41 image-based rectal cancer cases focusing on various items included in the TNM system. Cases reaching < 80% agreement among survey respondents were identified as problem areas and discussed among an international expert panel, including 5 radiologists, 6 colorectal surgeons, 4 radiation oncologists, and 3 pathologists., Results: Three hundred twenty-one respondents (from 32 countries) completed the survey. Sixteen problem areas were identified, related to cT staging in low-rectal cancers, definitions for cT4b and cM1a disease, definitions for mesorectal fascia (MRF) involvement, evaluation of lymph nodes versus tumor deposits, and staging of lateral lymph nodes. The expert panel recommended strategies on how to handle these, including advice on cT-stage categorization in case of involvement of different layers of the anal canal, specifications on which structures to include in the definition of cT4b disease, how to define MRF involvement by the primary tumor and other tumor-bearing structures, how to differentiate and report lymph nodes and tumor deposits on MRI, and how to anatomically localize and stage lateral lymph nodes., Conclusions: The recommendations derived from this global survey and expert panel discussion may serve as a practice guide and support tool for radiologists (and other clinicians) involved in the staging of rectal cancer and may contribute to improved consistency in radiological staging and reporting., Key Points: • Via a case-based online survey (incl. 321 respondents from 32 countries), we identified 16 problem areas related to the applicability of the TNM staging system for the radiological staging and reporting of rectal cancer. • A multidisciplinary panel of experts recommended strategies on how to handle these problem areas, including advice on cT-stage categorization in case of involvement of different layers of the anal canal, specifications on which structures to include in the definition of cT4b disease, how to define mesorectal fascia involvement by the primary tumor and other tumor-bearing structures, how to differentiate and report lymph nodes and tumor deposits on MRI, and how to anatomically localize and stage lateral lymph nodes. • These recommendations may serve as a practice guide and support tool for radiologists (and other clinicians) involved in the staging of rectal cancer and may contribute to improved consistency in radiological staging and reporting., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

These consensus guidelines were jointly commissioned by the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG), the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (ACPGBI) and Public Health England (PHE). They provide an evidence-based framework for the use of surveillance colonoscopy and non-colonoscopic colorectal imaging in people aged 18 years and over. They are the first guidelines that take into account the introduction of national bowel cancer screening. For the first time, they also incorporate surveillance of patients following resection of either adenomatous or serrated polyps and also post-colorectal cancer resection. They are primarily aimed at healthcare professionals, and aim to address:Which patients should commence surveillance post-polypectomy and post-cancer resection?What is the appropriate surveillance interval?When can surveillance be stopped? two or more premalignant polyps including at least one advanced colorectal polyp (defined as a serrated polyp of at least 10 mm in size or containing any grade of dysplasia, or an adenoma of at least 10 mm in size or containing high-grade dysplasia); or five or more premalignant polyps The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument provided a methodological framework for the guidelines. The BSG's guideline development process was used, which is National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) compliant.two or more premalignant polyps including at least one advanced colorectal polyp (defined as a serrated polyp of at least 10 mm in size or containing any grade of dysplasia, or an adenoma of at least 10 mm in size or containing high-grade dysplasia); or five or more premalignant polyps The key recommendations are that the high-risk criteria for future colorectal cancer (CRC) following polypectomy comprise either :two or more premalignant polyps including at least one advanced colorectal polyp (defined as a serrated polyp of at least 10 mm in size or containing any grade of dysplasia, or an adenoma of at least 10 mm in size or containing high-grade dysplasia); or five or more premalignant polyps This cohort should undergo a one-off surveillance colonoscopy at 3 years. Post-CRC resection patients should undergo a 1 year clearance colonoscopy, then a surveillance colonoscopy after 3 more years., Competing Interests: Competing interests: JE – Clinical advisory boards: Lumendi, Boston Scientific; Speaker fees: Olympus, FalkColin Rees – Research grant: ARC medical, Norgine, Olympus. Expert witness: ARC medical Matt Rutter – Speaker fees: SwissSCWeb, Pentax; Research Grant: Olympus; Consultancy: Norgine DJMT – Speaker fees: Bracco, Guerbet., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Aim: To determine whether the active involvement of radiographers in nasogastric tube (NGT) management at a large multisite healthcare institution can contribute to risk reduction regarding feeding through misplaced NGTs., Materials and Methods: Despite national guidance in the National Health Service advising on safe practice to confirm NGT position, a number of "never events" (feeding through misplaced NGT) continue to occur due to misinterpretation of the check radiograph. Practice change was introduced, including all plain film radiographers providing contemporaneous comments on NGT position on the check radiograph. The success of the system was assessed to determine the accuracy of radiographer comments against the reference standard of the radiologist report to see whether the system has helped reduce the number of "never events"., Results: During the first 27 months post-implementation, 4,675 check NGT radiography examinations were analysed. Two hundred and twenty-seven examinations were excluded due to absent or incomplete radiographer comments. The accuracy of the radiographer comments was 98.5% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 97.7-99.5%), sensitivity 97.4% (95% CI: 96.3-98.3%), specificity 98.9% (95% CI: 98.5-99.2%), positive predictive value 96.8% (95% CI: 95.6-97.7%), and negative predictive value 99.1% (95% CI: 98.8-99.4%)., Conclusion: After focused training, radiographer comments are a safe, sustainable, and workable solution offering an effective solution for image misinterpretation issues relating to NGT "never events". This should be considered for wider implementation in healthcare., (Copyright © 2017 The Royal College of Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)