Retrograde inspection vs standard forward view for the detection of colorectal adenomas during colonoscopy: A back-to-back randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND The adenoma detection rate(ADR) is inversely associated with the incidence of interval colorectal cancer and serves as a benchmark quality criterion during screening colonoscopy. However, adenoma miss rates reach up to 26% and studies have shown that a second inspection of the right colon in retroflected view(RFV) can increase ADR.AIM To assess whether inspection of the whole colon in RFV compared to standard forward view(SFV) can increase ADR.METHODS Patients presenting for screening or surveillance colonoscopy were invited to participate in this randomized controlled trial and randomized into two arms. In RFV arm colonoscopy was initially performed with SFV, followed by a second inspection of the whole colon in RFV. In the SFV arm first withdrawal was performed with SFV, followed by a second inspection of the whole colon again with SFV. Number, size and morphology of polyps found during first and second inspection in each colonic segment were recorded and all polyps were removed and sent for histopathology in separate containers.RESULTS Two hundred and five patients were randomly assigned to the RFV(n = 101) and SFV(n = 104) arm. In the RFV arm, both polyp detection rate(PDR) and ADR were increased under second inspection in RFV(PDR 1~(st) SFV: 39.8%, PDR 2~(nd)RFV: 46.6%; ADR 1~(st) SFV: 35.2%, ADR 2~(nd) RFV: 42%). Likewise, in the SFV arm,PDR and ADR were increased under second inspection(PDR 1~(st) SFV: 37.5%, PDR 2~(nd) SFV: 46.6%; ADR 1~(st) SFV: 34.1%, ADR 2~(nd)SFV: 44.3%) with no significant differences in ADR and PDR between the SFV and RFV arm. Mean number of adenomas per patient(APP) was increased in the RFV and SFV(APP RFV arm: 1~(st) SFV: 1.71; 2~(nd) RFV: 2.38; APP SFV arm: 1~(st) SFV: 1.83, 2~(nd)SFV:2.2). The majority of adenomas additionally found during second inspection in RFV or in SFV were located in the transverse and left-sided colon and were 5 mm in size.CONCLUSION Second inspection of the whole colon leads to increased adenoma detection with no differences between SFV and RFV. Hence, increased detection is most likely a feature of the second inspection itself but not of the inspection mode.     

Prognostic tools for hypertrophic scar formation based on fundamental differences in systemic immunity

Unpredictable hypertrophic scarring (HS) occurs after approximately 35% of all surgical procedures and causes significant physical and psychological complaints. Parallel to the need to understanding the mechanisms underlying HS formation, a prognostic tool is needed. The objective was to determine whether (systemic) immunological differences exist between patients who develop HS and those who develop normotrophic scars (NS) and to assess whether those differences can be used to identify patients prone to developing HS. A prospective cohort study with NS and HS groups in which (a) cytokine release by peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) and (b) the irritation threshold (IT) after an irritant (sodium lauryl sulphate) patch test was evaluated. Univariate regression analysis of PBMC cytokine secretion showed that low MCP‐1, IL‐8, IL‐18 and IL‐23 levels have a strong correlation with HS (P < .010‐0.004; AUC = 0.790‐0.883). Notably, combinations of two or three cytokines (TNF‐a, MCP‐1 and IL‐23; AUC: 0.942, Nagelkerke R²: 0.727) showed an improved AUC indicating a better correlation with HS than single cytokine analysis. These combination models produce good prognostic results over a broad probability range (sensitivity: 93.8%, specificity 86.7%, accuracy 90,25% between probability 0.3 and 0.7). Furthermore, the HS group had a lower IT than the NS group and an accuracy of 68%. In conclusion, very fundamental immunological differences exist between individuals who develop HS and those who do not, whereas the cytokine assay forms the basis of a predictive prognostic test for HS formation, the less invasive, easily performed irritant skin patch test is more accessible for daily practice.     

Impact of stereotactic body radiation therapy on geriatric assessment and management for older patients with head and neck cancer using G8

PurposeManagement of head and neck cancers (HNC) in older adults is a common but challenging clinical scenario. We assess the impact of Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT) on survival utilizing the Geriatric-8 (G8) questionnaire.Materials and methods171 HNC patients, deemed medically unfit for definitive treatment, were treated with SBRT ± systemic therapy. G8 questionnaires were collected at baseline, at 4–6 weeks, and at 2–3 months post-treatment. Patients were stratified according to their baseline G8 score: <11 as ‘vulnerable’, 11–14 as ‘intermediate’, and >14 as ‘fit’. Overall survival (OS) was assessed through univariate Kaplan Meier analysis. Repeated measures ANOVA was used to determine if baseline characteristics affected G8 score changes.ResultsMedian follow-up was seventeen months. 60% of patients presented with recurrent HNC, 30% with untreated HNC primaries, and 10% with metastatic non-HNC primaries. Median age was 75 years. Median Charlson Comorbidity Index score was 2. 51% of patients were ‘vulnerable’, 37% were ‘intermediate’, and 12% were ‘fit' at baseline, with median survival of 13.2, 24.3, and 41.0 months, respectively (p = .004). Patients who saw a decrease in their follow-up G8 score (n = 69) had significantly lower survival than patients who had stable or increased follow-up G8 scores (n = 102), with median survival of 8.6 vs 36.0 months (p < .001).ConclusionThe G8 questionnaire may be a useful tool in upfront treatment decision-making to predict prognosis and prevent older patients from receiving inappropriate anti-cancer treatment. Decline in follow-up G8 scores may also predict worse survival and aid in goals of care following treatment.