Search

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., (Copyright © 2022 by The American College of Gastroenterology.)

Background and Aims: In contrast to the adverse event (AE) risk of endoscopic resection (ER) of adenomas, the intra- and postprocedural AE risks of ER of T1 colorectal cancer (CRC) are scarcely reported in the literature. It is unclear whether ER of early CRCs, which grow into the submucosal layer and sometimes show incomplete lifting, is associated with an increased AE risk. We aimed to identify the AE rate after ER of T1 CRCs and to identify the risk factors associated with these AEs., Methods: Medical records of patients with T1 CRCs diagnosed between 2000 and 2014 in 15 hospitals in the Netherlands were reviewed. Patients who underwent primary ER were selected. The primary outcome was the occurrence of endoscopy-related AEs. The secondary outcome was the identification of risk factors. Multivariate logistic regression was performed., Results: Endoscopic AEs occurred in 59 of 1069 (5.5%) patients, among which 37.3% were classified as mild, 59.3% as moderate, and 3.4% as severe. AEs were postprocedural bleeding (n = 40, 3.7%), perforation (n = 13, 1.2%), and postpolypectomy electrocoagulation syndrome (n = 6, 0.6%). No fatal AEs were observed. Independent predictors for AEs were age >70 years (odds ratio, 2.11; 95% confidence interval, 1.12-3.96) and tumor size >20 mm (odds ratio, 2.22; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-4.69)., Conclusions: In this large multicenter retrospective cohort study, AE rates of ER of T1 CRC (5.5%) are comparable with reported AE rates for adenomas. Larger tumor size and age >70 years are independent predictors for AEs. This study suggests that endoscopic treatment of T1 CRCs is not associated with an increased periprocedural AE risk., (Copyright © 2020 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Aims: In patients who have undergone surgery for colorectal cancer (CRC), 3% have recurrence of (metachronous) CRC. We investigated whether tumor seeding during colonoscopy (iatrogenic implantation of tumor cells in damaged mucosa) increases risk for metachronous CRC., Methods: In a proof of principle study, we collected data from the Dutch National Pathology Registry for patients with a diagnosis of CRC from 2013 through 2015, with a second diagnosis of CRC within 6 months to 3.5 years after surgery. We reviewed pathology reports to identify likely metachronous CRC (histologically proven adenocarcinoma located elsewhere in the colon or rectum from the surgical anastomosis). For 22 patients fulfilling the inclusion criteria, we ascribed the most likely etiology to tumor seeding when endoscopic manipulations, such as biopsies or polypectomy, occurred at the location where the metachronous tumor was subsequently detected, after endoscopic manipulation of the primary tumor. We collected clinical data from patients and compared molecular profiles of the primary and metachronous colorectal tumors using next-generation sequencing. We then examined the source of seeded tumor. We tested whether tumor cells stay behind in the working channel of the endoscope after biopsies of colorectal tumors, and whether these cells maintain viability in organoid cultures., Results: In total, tumor seeding was suspected as the most likely etiology of metachronous CRC in 5 patients. Tumor tissues were available from 3 patients. An identical molecular signature was observed in the primary and metachronous colorectal tumors from all 3 patients. In 5 control cases with a different etiology of metachronous CRC, the molecular signature of the primary and metachronous tumor were completely different. Based on review of 2147 patient records, we estimated the risk of tumor seeding during colonoscopy to be 0.3%-0.6%. We demonstrated that the working channel of the colonoscope becomes contaminated with viable tumor cells during biopsy collection. Subsequent instruments introduced through this working channel also became contaminated. These cells were shown to maintain their proliferative potential., Conclusions: In an analysis of primary and secondary tumors from patients with metachronous CRC, we found that primary tumor cells might be seeded in a new location after biopsy of the primary tumor. Although our study does not eliminate other possibilities of transmission, our findings and experiments support the hypothesis that tumor seeding can occur during colonoscopy via the working channel of the endoscope. The possibility of iatrogenic seeding seems low. However, our findings compel awareness on this potentially preventable cause of metachronous CRC., (Copyright © 2019 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Drainage of the obstructed biliary tree is the mainstay of therapy for patients with acute cholangitis; antibiotic therapy is complementary. It is unknown whether it is necessary to continue therapy with antibiotics once biliary drainage is achieved and signs of systemic inflammation have subsided., Methods: Patients who presented with acute cholangitis and were successfully treated at ERCP were studied retrospectively. Patients were followed for 6 months after ERCP., Results: Eighty patients fulfilled study criteria. In 46% of patients blood cultures grew microorganisms. All patients recovered from the episode under study. Antibiotic therapy after ERCP was given for a median duration of 3 days (range: 0-42). Forty-one patients received antibiotic therapy for 3 days or less, 19 for 4 or 5 days, and 20 patients longer than 5 days. The 3 groups were well-matched. In none of the patients did the index episode of cholangitis result in a secondary complication not present at the time of ERCP. The percentage of patients with recurrent cholangitis (24%) was not statistically different for the 3 groups (p = 0.80)., Conclusions: Short-duration antibiotic therapy (3 days) appears sufficient when adequate drainage is achieved and fever is abating.