RESUMEN
Aims: The World Endoscopy Organization (WEO) recommends that endoscopy units implement a process to identify postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC). The aims of this study were to assess the 3-year PCCRC rate and to perform root-cause analyses and categorization in accordance with the WEO recommendations.Patients and methods: Cases of colorectal cancers (CRCs) in a tertiary care center were retrospectively included from January 2018 to December 2019. The 3-year and 4-year PCCRC rates were calculated. A root-cause analysis and categorization of PCCRCs (interval and type A, B, C noninterval PCCRCs) were performed. The level of agreement between two expert endoscopists was assessed. Results: A total of 530 cases of CRC were included. A total of 33 were deemed PCCRCs (age 75.8±9.5 years; 51.5% women). The 3-year and 4-year PCCRC rates were 3.4% and 4.7%, respectively. The level of agreement between the two endoscopists was acceptable either for the root-cause analysis (k=0.958) or for the categorization (k=0.76). The most plausible explanations of the PCCRCs were 8 likely new PCCRCs, 1 (4%) detected, not resected, 3 (12%) detected, incomplete resection, 8 (32%) missed lesion, inadequate examination, and 13 (52%) missed lesion, adequate examination. Most PCCRCs were deemed noninterval Type C PCCRCs (N=17, 51.5%). Conclusion: WEO recommendations for root-cause analysis and categorization are useful to detect areas for improvement. Most PCCRCs were avoidable and were likely due to missed lesions during an otherwise adequate examination.(AU)
Objetivo: La Organización Mundial de Endoscopia recomienda que las unidades de endoscopia implementen procedimientos para identificar el cáncer colorrectal poscolonoscopia (CCRPC). Los objetivos de este estudio fueron evaluar la tasa de CCRPCP a los 3 y 4 años, realizar un análisis de causalidad potencial y categorización siguiendo las recomendaciones de la Organización Mundial de Endoscopia.Pacientes y métodos: Se incluyeron retrospectivamente los cánceres colorrectales diagnosticados de enero de 2018 a diciembre de 2019 en un hospital de tercer nivel. Se calculó la tasa de CCRPC a 3 años. Se realizó un análisis de causalidad potencial y categorización de los CCRPC (intervalo y CCRPC de no intervalo tipo A, B, C). Se evaluó la concordancia entre dos endoscopistas expertos. Resultados: Se incluyeron 530 cánceres colorrectales. Un total de 33 se consideraron CCRPC (edad 75,8±9,5 años; 51,5% mujeres). La tasa de CCRPC a 3 y 4 años fue del 3,4% y 4,7% respectivamente. La concordancia entre los dos endoscopistas fue aceptable para el análisis de causalidad (k=0,958) y para la categorización (k=0,76). La explicación probable de los CCRPC fue: 8 «probable CCRPC de novo», 1 (4%) «detectado, no resecado», 3 (12%) «detectado, resección incompleta», 8 (32%) «no detectado, examen inadecuado» y 13 (52%) «no detectado, examen adecuado». La mayoría de los CCRPC se consideraron de no intervalo tipo C (N=17, 51,5%). Conclusión: Las recomendaciones de la Organización Mundial de Endoscopia para el análisis de causalidad y la categorización son útiles para detectar áreas de mejora. La mayoría de los CCRPC eran evitables debido a lesiones no detectadas a pesar de realizar un examen adecuado.(AU)
Asunto(s)
Humanos , Masculino , Femenino , Gastroenterología , Organización Mundial de la Salud , Neoplasias Colorrectales/diagnóstico , EndoscopíaRESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: There are several types of colorectal cancer (CRC) according to the detection methods and intervals, including interval CRC (iCRC) and postcolonoscopy CRC (PCCRC). We aimed to examine their proportions and characteristics. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter prospective study using questionnaires in Japan ("C-DETECT study"), in which differences in CRC characteristics according to detection methods and intervals were examined from consecutive adult patients. Because the annual fecal immunochemical test (FIT) was used in population-based screening, the annual FIT-iCRC was assessed. RESULTS: In total, 1241 CRC patients (1064 with invasive CRC) were included. Annual FIT-iCRC (a), 3-year PCCRC (b), and CRC detected within 1 year after a positive FIT with noncompliance to colonoscopy (c) accounted for 4.5%, 7.0%, and 3.9% of all CRCs, respectively, and for 3.9%, 5.4%, and 4.3% of invasive CRCs, respectively. The comparison among these (a, b, c) and other CRCs (d) demonstrated differences in the proportions of ≥T2 invasion ([a] 58.9%, [b] 44.8%, [c] 87.5%, [d] 73.0%), metastasis ([a] 33.9%, [b] 21.8%, [c] 54.2%, [d] 43.9%), right-sided CRC ([a] 42.9%, [b] 40.2%, [c] 18.8%, [d] 28.6%), and female sex ([a] 53.6%, [b] 49.4%, [c] 27.1%, [d] 41.6%). In metastatic CRC, (a) and (b) showed a higher proportions of BRAF mutations ([a] [b] 12.0%, [c] [d] 3.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Annual FIT-iCRC and 3-year PCCRC existed in nonnegligible proportions. They were characterized by higher proportions of right-sided tumors, female sex, and BRAF mutations. These findings suggest that annual FIT-iCRC and 3-year PCCRC may have biological features different from those of other CRCs.
RESUMEN
Big data is characterized by three attributes: volume, variety,, and velocity. In healthcare setting, big data refers to vast dataset that is electronically stored and managed in an automated manner and has the potential to enhance human health and healthcare system. In this review, gastric cancer (GC) and postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC) will be used to illustrate application of big data approach in the field of gastrointestinal cancer research. Helicobacter pylori (HP) eradication only reduces GC risk by 46% due to preexisting precancerous lesions. Apart from endoscopy surveillance, identifying medications that modify GC risk is another strategy. Population-based cohort studies showed that long-term use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) associated with higher GC risk after HP eradication, while aspirin and statins associated with lower risk. While diabetes mellitus conferred 73% higher GC risk, metformin use associated with 51% lower risk, effect of which was independent of glycemic control. Nonetheless, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NA-NSAIDs) are not associated with lower GC risk. CRC can still occur after initial colonoscopy in which no cancer was detected (i.e. PCCRC). Between 2005 and 2013, the rate of interval-type PCCRC-3y (defined as CRC diagnosed between 6 and 36 months of index colonoscopy which was negative for CRC) was 7.9% in Hong Kong, with >80% being distal cancers and higher cancer-specific mortality compared with detected CRC. Certain clinical and endoscopy-related factors were associated with PCCRC-3 risk. Medications shown to have chemopreventive effects on PCCRC include statins, NA-NSAIDs, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers.
Asunto(s)
Macrodatos , Neoplasias Colorrectales , Neoplasias Gástricas , Humanos , Neoplasias Colorrectales/epidemiología , Neoplasias Gástricas/microbiología , Neoplasias Gástricas/etiología , Infecciones por Helicobacter/tratamiento farmacológico , Infecciones por Helicobacter/complicaciones , Colonoscopía , Inhibidores de la Bomba de Protones/uso terapéutico , Antiinflamatorios no Esteroideos/uso terapéutico , Inhibidores de Hidroximetilglutaril-CoA Reductasas/uso terapéutico , Helicobacter pylori , Aspirina/uso terapéutico , Metformina/uso terapéutico , Riesgo , Investigación Biomédica , Factores de RiesgoRESUMEN
AIMS: The World Endoscopy Organization (WEO) recommends that endoscopy units implement a process to identify postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC). The aims of this study were to assess the 3-year PCCRC rate and to perform root-cause analyses and categorization in accordance with the WEO recommendations. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Cases of colorectal cancers (CRCs) in a tertiary care center were retrospectively included from January 2018 to December 2019. The 3-year and 4-year PCCRC rates were calculated. A root-cause analysis and categorization of PCCRCs (interval and type A, B, C noninterval PCCRCs) were performed. The level of agreement between two expert endoscopists was assessed. RESULTS: A total of 530 cases of CRC were included. A total of 33 were deemed PCCRCs (age 75.8±9.5 years; 51.5% women). The 3-year and 4-year PCCRC rates were 3.4% and 4.7%, respectively. The level of agreement between the two endoscopists was acceptable either for the root-cause analysis (k=0.958) or for the categorization (k=0.76). The most plausible explanations of the PCCRCs were 8 "likely new PCCRCs", 1 (4%) "detected, not resected", 3 (12%) "detected, incomplete resection", 8 (32%) "missed lesion, inadequate examination", and 13 (52%) "missed lesion, adequate examination". Most PCCRCs were deemed noninterval Type C PCCRCs (N=17, 51.5%). CONCLUSION: WEO recommendations for root-cause analysis and categorization are useful to detect areas for improvement. Most PCCRCs were avoidable and were likely due to missed lesions during an otherwise adequate examination.
Asunto(s)
Colonoscopía , Neoplasias Colorrectales , Humanos , Femenino , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Masculino , Neoplasias Colorrectales/diagnóstico , Neoplasias Colorrectales/epidemiología , Neoplasias Colorrectales/etiología , Estudios Retrospectivos , Prevalencia , Factores de Riesgo , Factores de Tiempo , Detección Precoz del CáncerRESUMEN
Background and Aims: Colonoscopy is effective to detect and remove colorectal lesions. However, after a negative colonoscopy, cancers could be detected during the interval follow-up. This study was designed to identify characteristics and risk factors for postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer - interval type. Methods: Medical records of individuals who were newly diagnosed with colorectal cancer between January 2018 and December 2019 were reviewed. Clinical, demographic, and endoscopic variables were analyzed. Those with the diagnosis of colorectal cancer between two consecutive colonoscopies performed within the appropriated surveillance range were considered to have postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer - interval type. A comparison between the group of patients with non-postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer - interval type and the group of patients with postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer - interval type was then performed. Results: During the study period, 491 patients were newly diagnosed with colorectal cancer. Among them, 61 (12.4%) had postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer - interval subtype. Postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer - interval type was three times more prevalent on the proximal colon (p = 0.014) and was associated with the presence of two or more cardiovascular risk factors (aOR = 4.25; p = 0.016), cholecystectomy in the past (aOR = 10.09; p = 0.019), and family history of colorectal cancer on a first-degree relative (aOR = 4.25; p = 0.006). Moreover, isolated cardiovascular risk factors revealed a protective effect for the absence of all cardiovascular risk factors (aOR = 20; p = 0.034). The ROC curve associated with the multivariate model revealed a predictive power of 77.8% (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer - interval type is more common in the proximal colon and in patients with a family history (first-degree relative) of colorectal cancer, two or more cardiovascular risk factors, and a history of cholecystectomy. All of these are easily detectable in clinical practice and may be of extreme importance in the control of postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer in the near future.
Introdução: A colonoscopia é eficaz a detetar e remover lesões do colon e reto. Contudo, após uma colonoscopia normal, podem ser detetadas neoplasias durante o intervalo de vigilância recomendado entre colonoscopias. O objetivo do estudo foi identificar características e fatores de risco para o desenvolvimento de cancro colorretal póscolonoscopia subtipo de intervalo. Material e Métodos: Estudo retrospetivo e unicêntrico realizado entre janeiro de 2018 e dezembro de 2019 que incluiu todos os doentes diagnosticados de novo com cancro colorretal. Variáveis clínicas, demográficas e endoscópicas foram obtidas após consulta do processo clínico. Doentes com diagnóstico de cancro colorretal entre duas colonoscopias consecutivas, realizadas no intervalo de vigilância recomendado, foram considerados como tendo cancro colorretal pós-colonoscopia subtipo de intervalo. Foi, então, realizada a comparação entre o grupo de doentes com cancro colorretal não pós colonoscopia subtipo de intervalo e o grupo de doentes com cancro colorretal pós colonoscopia subtipo de intervalo. Resultados: Durante o período de estudo, 491 doentes foram diagnosticados de novo com cancro colorretal. Destes, 61 (12.4%) foram considerados como tendo cancro colorretal pós-colonoscopia subtipo de intervalo. O cancro colorretal pós-colonoscopia subtipo de intervalo foi três vezes mais prevalente no colon proximal (p = 0.014) e associou-se a presença de dois ou mais fatores de risco cardiovasculares (aOR = 0.45; p = 0.016), colecistectomia no passado (aOR = 10.09; p = 0.0.19) e história familiar de cancro colorretal num familiar de primeiro grau (aOR = 4.25; p = 0.006). Aquando da análise dos fatores de risco cardiovasculares isolados, observou- se um fator protetor aquando da ausência de todos os fatores de risco cardiovasculares (aOR = 20; p = 0.034). A curva ROC associada ao modelo multivariado revelou um poder preditivo de 77.8% (p < 0.001). Conclusão: O cancro colorretal pós-colonoscopia subtipo de intervalo é mais comum no colon proximal e em doentes com história familiar (em familiares de primeiro grau) de cancro colorretal, dois ou mais fatores de risco cardio-vasculares e história de colecistectomia. Todos estes fatores de risco são facilmente detetáveis na prática clínica e podem ser de extrema importância no controlo, a curto e longo prazo, do cancro colorretal pós-colonoscopia.
RESUMEN
Background and Aims: Colonoscopy is imperfect for colorectal cancer (CRC) prevention. Postcolonoscopy CRC (PCCRC) is defined as CRC detected after a screening or surveillance colonoscopy. PCCRCs can be divided into noninterval CRC and interval CRC. We performed a case-control study to identify risk factors for PCCRCs and to compare risks between noninterval and interval PCCRCs. Methods: We designed a retrospective case-control study. Using a Vermont tumor registry data set, we identified all PCCRCs diagnosed at our medical center from January 2012 to September 2017. Cases were matched 1:3 with controls of the same age, sex, and index colonoscopy date. Results: Fifty-four PCCRCs were matched with 162 controls and divided into noninterval (N = 27) and interval (N = 27) subsets. Overall PCCRC risk and noninterval PCCRC risk were significantly associated with history of polyps (odds ratio [OR] PCCRC = 2.71, OR noninterval = 4.41), sessile serrated polyps (OR PCCRC = 3.94, OR noninterval = 5.79), and high-risk adenoma (HRA) (OR PCCRC = 6.58, OR noninterval = 16.46) and with the index colonoscopy having a large polyp (OR PCCRC = 4.45, OR noninterval = 10.46) or having an HRA (OR PCCRC = 3.68, OR noninterval = 8.04). PCCRC risk and interval PCCRC risk were significantly associated with follow-up recommendations that did not correlate with American Gastroenterological Association surveillance guidelines (OR PCCRC = 3.30, OR interval = 4.85). Approximately 30% of PCCRCs could be attributed to endoscopic quality. Conclusion: Overall PCCRC risk and noninterval PCCRC risk were significantly associated with traditional CRC risk factors including precancerous polyps and HRA on the index colonoscopy. Interval PCCRC was not associated with these risk factors. Many PCCRCs can be attributed to endoscopic quality, and nonadherence to CRC surveillance guidelines may be a novel risk factor.
RESUMEN
Endoscopic resection, particularly endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), for colorectal cancers enables a precise pathological diagnosis and safe R0 resection. The recurrence rate after ESD is generally extremely low, with annual surveillance colonoscopy recommended. However, surveillance may not be considered for super-elderly patients owing to their condition. This is a case report of an 85-year-old man in whom curative resection was achieved for an intramucosal adenocarcinoma with ESD. The patient presented with a hypoechoic mass located in his lower right abdomen, diagnosed via surveillance abdominal ultrasound. He had undergone curative ESD for intramucosal cecal cancer 2 years prior. Colonoscopy revealed a type 2 epithelial tumor at the proximal aspect of the ESD scar. Ileocolic resection with lymph node dissection was performed. An epithelial tumor and well-differentiated adenocarcinoma but not a submucosal tumor was detected in the mucosal layer. The lesion was diagnosed not as a local recurrence after ESD but as a newly emerged original advanced cancer. After ESD for colorectal cancer, a newly developed advanced cancer may occur at the site of the ESD scar in a shorter term than usual. Surveillance colonoscopy after ESD is necessary even for super-elderly patients.
RESUMEN
Over the past decade, there has been a great interest in postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC). Its etiology is complex and multifactorial. Monitoring for PCCRC is even more complex. The strategies to decrease the incidence of PCCRC start by defining the problem, identifying the factors contributing to its development, followed by an attempt to define methods to decrease its incidence.We believe that the quality of the colonoscopy and the endoscopist's expertise are the key factors in decreasing the incidence of PCCRC. (AU)
Asunto(s)
Humanos , Neoplasias Colorrectales/diagnóstico , Colonoscopía , Colitis Ulcerosa/complicaciones , Neoplasias Colorrectales Hereditarias sin Poliposis/complicaciones , Competencia Clínica , Detección Precoz del CáncerRESUMEN
BACKGROUND & AIMS: It is not clear whether the incidence of missed or early colorectal cancers (CRCs) has decreased over time. We compared the rates of missed or early CRC after polypectomy between 1996 and 2006, and aimed to identify risk factors for these. METHODS: We performed a population-based, case-control study linking data from the Dutch Pathology Registry with data from The Netherlands Cancer Registry. Of all patients with an incident CRC in 1996 and 2006, we identified whether colonic histology specimens were available in the preceding 3 years. Patients with early or missed CRC were defined as those with previous colonic histology in the 6 to 36 months preceding CRC diagnosis. We performed multivariate logistic regression analysis to identify factors associated with missed or early CRCs. RESULTS: CRC was diagnosed in 6941 patients in 1996 and in 10,963 patients in 2006. The proportion of patients with early or missed CRC was 1.7% of all CRC patients in 1996 and 2.3% in 2006 (P = .012). Early or missed CRCs had a lower tumor, nodal, and metastasis stage than regularly diagnosed CRCs (P < .001), but rate of survival, adjusted for TNM stage, did not differ. CRCs of the right colon and transverse colon and splenic flexure were associated with a missed or early CRC (odds ratio [OR], 2.34; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.80-3.05; and OR, 2.14; 95% CI, 1.49-3.08, respectively), as was male sex (OR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.06-1.62). CONCLUSIONS: Based on an analysis of the Dutch population, there has been no decrease in the occurrence of missed or early CRCs over a 10-year period. Location in the right side of the colon was an independent risk factor for missed or early CRCs.