BACKGROUND: Preoperative repeat endoscopy in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients is considered by many to be an integral component of surgical planning. Little is known, however, about the utility of re-endoscopy. METHODS: A retrospective review of 342 consecutive patients undergoing elective surgical resection for CRC from January 2008 to December 2011 was performed. Patients were included if the initial endoscopist was different than the operating surgeon. A localization error was recorded if the final tumor location identified during surgery was in a different anatomical segment than that identified by endoscopy. The Chi-squared test was used to compare categorical variables. An error rate with a 95% confidence interval was obtained using the exact binomial distribution. RESULTS: 298 patients were identified, 118 (39.6%) of whom also underwent a preoperative re-endoscopy by the operating surgeon or partner. Nineteen patients had incorrect tumor localization at initial endoscopy, equivalent to a 6.4% error rate (95% CI 3.88-9.78). In comparison, there were two localization errors on re-endoscopy, 1.69% (95% CI 0.21-6.00). Re-endoscopy was found to be protective against localization errors (P < 0.05), correcting 10 of the 12 errors made at the initial endoscopy. The sensitivity of re-endoscopy as a diagnostic tool to detect errors was 83% with a corresponding specificity of 100%. The overall accuracy of re-endoscopy in preventing endoscopic localization errors was 92% (95% CI 81-100). CONCLUSIONS: There is a small but important localization error rate in preoperative endoscopic evaluation of colorectal tumors. Re-endoscopy appears to be safe and may potentially identify and correct these errors and help with preoperative planning at the expense of delaying surgery. Further research is necessary to find ways to improve localization and identify which patients would benefit from re-endoscopy.
BACKGROUND: Preoperative repeat endoscopy in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients is considered by many to be an integral component of surgical planning. Little is known, however, about the utility of re-endoscopy. METHODS: A retrospective review of 342 consecutive patients undergoing elective surgical resection for CRC from January 2008 to December 2011 was performed. Patients were included if the initial endoscopist was different than the operating surgeon. A localization error was recorded if the final tumor location identified during surgery was in a different anatomical segment than that identified by endoscopy. The Chi-squared test was used to compare categorical variables. An error rate with a 95% confidence interval was obtained using the exact binomial distribution. RESULTS: 298 patients were identified, 118 (39.6%) of whom also underwent a preoperative re-endoscopy by the operating surgeon or partner. Nineteen patients had incorrect tumor localization at initial endoscopy, equivalent to a 6.4% error rate (95% CI 3.88-9.78). In comparison, there were two localization errors on re-endoscopy, 1.69% (95% CI 0.21-6.00). Re-endoscopy was found to be protective against localization errors (P < 0.05), correcting 10 of the 12 errors made at the initial endoscopy. The sensitivity of re-endoscopy as a diagnostic tool to detect errors was 83% with a corresponding specificity of 100%. The overall accuracy of re-endoscopy in preventing endoscopic localization errors was 92% (95% CI 81-100). CONCLUSIONS: There is a small but important localization error rate in preoperative endoscopic evaluation of colorectal tumors. Re-endoscopy appears to be safe and may potentially identify and correct these errors and help with preoperative planning at the expense of delaying surgery. Further research is necessary to find ways to improve localization and identify which patients would benefit from re-endoscopy.
Authors: Ruben Veldkamp; Esther Kuhry; Wim C J Hop; J Jeekel; G Kazemier; H Jaap Bonjer; Eva Haglind; Lars Påhlman; Miguel A Cuesta; Simon Msika; Mario Morino; Antonio M Lacy Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Pierre J Guillou; Philip Quirke; Helen Thorpe; Joanne Walker; David G Jayne; Adrian M H Smith; Richard M Heath; Julia M Brown Journal: Lancet Date: 2005 May 14-20 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Heidi Nelson; Daniel J Sargent; H Sam Wieand; James Fleshman; Mehran Anvari; Steven J Stryker; Robert W Beart; Michael Hellinger; Richard Flanagan; Walter Peters; David Ota Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-05-13 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Peter J Hewett; Randall A Allardyce; Philip F Bagshaw; Christopher M Frampton; Francis A Frizelle; Nicholas A Rieger; J Shona Smith; Michael J Solomon; Jacqueline H Stephens; Andrew R L Stevenson Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2008-11 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Marko Simunovic; Eddy Rempel; Marc-Erick Thériault; Nancy N Baxter; Beth A Virnig; Neal J Meropol; Mark N Levine Journal: Can J Surg Date: 2009-08 Impact factor: 2.089
Authors: Arash Azin; M Carolina Jimenez; Michelle C Cleghorn; Timothy D Jackson; Allan Okrainec; Peter G Rossos; Fayez A Quereshy Journal: Can J Surg Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 2.089
Authors: Laura M Fernandez; Rowaa N M Ibrahim; Ido Mizrahi; Giovanna DaSilva; Steven D Wexner Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2018-08-17 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Garrett G R J Johnson; Harminder Singh; Ashley Vergis; Jason Park; Olivia Hershorn; David Hochman; Ramzi M Helewa Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2021-06-08 Impact factor: 4.584