Literature DB >> 28991080

Prospective Trial Evaluating the Surgical Anastomosis at One-Year Colorectal Cancer Surveillance: CT Colonography Versus Optical Colonoscopy and Implications for Patient Care.

Perry J Pickhardt1, Kristin Edwards, David H Bruining, Marc Gollub, Sonja Kupfer, Sam J Lubner, David H Kim, Eric Ross, Eileen Keenan, David S Weinberg.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of CT colonography versus optical colonoscopy for neoplastic involvement at the surgical anastomosis 1 year after curative-intent colorectal cancer resection. DESIGN, SETTING, PATIENTS, AND
INTERVENTIONS: Two hundred one patients (mean age, 58.6 years; 117 men, 84 women) underwent same-day contrast-enhanced CT colonography and colonoscopy approximately 1 year (mean, 12.1 months; median, 11.9 months) after colorectal cancer resection as part of a prospective, multicenter trial. All patients enrolled were without clinical evidence of disease and considered low risk for recurrence (stage I-III). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Suspected neoplastic lesions within 5 cm of the colonic anastomosis were recorded at CT colonography, with subsequent colonoscopy performed for the same, with segmental unblinding of colonography findings. Anastomotic region biopsy or polypectomy was performed at the endoscopist's discretion.
RESULTS: None of the 201 patients had intraluminal anastomotic cancer recurrence or advanced neoplasia (or metachronous cancers). CT colonography detected extramural perianastomotic recurrence in 2 patients (1.0%); neither was detected at colonoscopy. Only 2 patients (1.0%; 2/201) were called positive at CT colonography for intraluminal anastomotic nondiminutive lesions (7- to 8-mm polyps), which were confirmed at colonoscopy but nonneoplastic at histopathology. At optical colonoscopy, the anastomosis was deemed abnormal and/or biopsied in 10.0% (20/201), yielding only 1 nondiminutive benign neoplasm (7-mm tubular adenoma). LIMITATIONS: The lack of luminal cancer recurrence in our lower-risk cohort precludes assessment of sensitivity for detection, rendering the study underpowered in this regard. Potential cost savings of combined CT/CT colonography over the standard CT/colonoscopy approach were not assessed.
CONCLUSIONS: Relevant intraluminal anastomotic pathology appears to be very uncommon 1 year after colorectal cancer resection in lower-risk cohorts. Unlike colonoscopy, diagnostic contrast-enhanced CT colonography effectively evaluates both the intra- and extraluminal aspects of the anastomosis. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A471.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28991080      PMCID: PMC5635837          DOI: 10.1097/DCR.0000000000000845

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum        ISSN: 0012-3706            Impact factor:   4.585


  30 in total

1.  Computed tomographic virtual colonoscopy to screen for colorectal neoplasia in asymptomatic adults.

Authors:  Perry J Pickhardt; J Richard Choi; Inku Hwang; James A Butler; Michael L Puckett; Hans A Hildebrandt; Roy K Wong; Pamela A Nugent; Pauline A Mysliwiec; William R Schindler
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2003-12-01       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  The effect of diagnostic confidence on the probability of optical colonoscopic confirmation of potential polyps detected on CT colonography: prospective assessment in 1,339 asymptomatic adults.

Authors:  Perry J Pickhardt; J Richard Choi; Pamela A Nugent; William R Schindler
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 3.959

3.  Contrast-enhanced CT colonography in recurrent colorectal carcinoma: feasibility of simultaneous evaluation for metastatic disease, local recurrence, and metachronous neoplasia in colorectal carcinoma.

Authors:  J G Fletcher; C Daniel Johnson; William R Krueger; David A Ahlquist; Heidi Nelson; Duane Ilstrup; William Scott Harmsen; Kay E Corcoran
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 3.959

Review 4.  Colorectal cancer: CT colonography and colonoscopy for detection--systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Perry J Pickhardt; Cesare Hassan; Steve Halligan; Riccardo Marmo
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2011-03-17       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 5.  Colonoscopy Surveillance After Colorectal Cancer Resection: Recommendations of the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer.

Authors:  Charles J Kahi; C Richard Boland; Jason A Dominitz; Francis M Giardiello; David A Johnson; Tonya Kaltenbach; David Lieberman; Theodore R Levin; Douglas J Robertson; Douglas K Rex
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2016-02-10       Impact factor: 22.682

6.  Colorectal cancer surveillance: 2005 update of an American Society of Clinical Oncology practice guideline.

Authors:  Christopher E Desch; Al B Benson; Mark R Somerfield; Patrick J Flynn; Carol Krause; Charles L Loprinzi; Bruce D Minsky; David G Pfister; Katherine S Virgo; Nicholas J Petrelli
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2005-10-31       Impact factor: 44.544

7.  Yearly colonoscopy, liver CT, and chest radiography do not influence 5-year survival of colorectal cancer patients.

Authors:  D Schoemaker; R Black; L Giles; J Toouli
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  1998-01       Impact factor: 22.682

8.  The role of postoperative colonoscopic surveillance after radical surgery for colorectal cancer: a prospective, randomized clinical study.

Authors:  Ting Wang; Yi Cui; Wen-Sheng Huang; Yan-Hong Deng; Wei Gong; Chu-Jun Li; Jian-Ping Wang
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2009-01-10       Impact factor: 9.427

9.  Computed tomographic colonography versus colonoscopy for investigation of patients with symptoms suggestive of colorectal cancer (SIGGAR): a multicentre randomised trial.

Authors:  Wendy Atkin; Edward Dadswell; Kate Wooldrage; Ines Kralj-Hans; Christian von Wagner; Rob Edwards; Guiqing Yao; Clive Kay; David Burling; Omar Faiz; Julian Teare; Richard J Lilford; Dion Morton; Jane Wardle; Steve Halligan
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2013-02-14       Impact factor: 79.321

10.  Effect of 3 to 5 years of scheduled CEA and CT follow-up to detect recurrence of colorectal cancer: the FACS randomized clinical trial.

Authors:  John N Primrose; Rafael Perera; Alastair Gray; Peter Rose; Alice Fuller; Andrea Corkhill; Steve George; David Mant
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2014-01-15       Impact factor: 56.272

View more
  3 in total

1.  Computed Tomography Colonography vs Colonoscopy for Colorectal Cancer Surveillance After Surgery.

Authors:  David S Weinberg; Perry J Pickhardt; David H Bruining; Kristin Edwards; Joel G Fletcher; Marc J Gollub; Eileen M Keenan; Sonia S Kupfer; Tianyu Li; Sam J Lubner; Arnold J Markowitz; Eric A Ross
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2017-11-22       Impact factor: 22.682

2.  Reevaluating the Evidence for Intensive Postoperative Extracolonic Surveillance for Nonmetastatic Colorectal Cancer.

Authors:  Jonah Popp; David S Weinberg; Eva Enns; John A Nyman; J Robert Beck; Karen M Kuntz
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2021-10-13       Impact factor: 5.101

3.  British Society of Gastroenterology/Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland/Public Health England post-polypectomy and post-colorectal cancer resection surveillance guidelines.

Authors:  Matthew D Rutter; James East; Colin J Rees; Neil Cripps; James Docherty; Sunil Dolwani; Philip V Kaye; Kevin J Monahan; Marco R Novelli; Andrew Plumb; Brian P Saunders; Siwan Thomas-Gibson; Damian J M Tolan; Sophie Whyte; Stewart Bonnington; Alison Scope; Ruth Wong; Barbara Hibbert; John Marsh; Billie Moores; Amanda Cross; Linda Sharp
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2019-11-27       Impact factor: 31.793

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.