PMCC PMCC

Search tips
Search criteria

Advanced
Results 1-21 (21)
 

Clipboard (0)
None

Select a Filter Below

Journals
more »
Year of Publication
author:("tokens, Paul")
1.  Mechanical analysis of insertion problems and pain during colonoscopy: Why highly skill-dependent colonoscopy routines are necessary in the first place... and how they may be avoided 
BACKGROUND:
Colonoscopy requires highly skill-dependent manoeuvres that demand a significant amount of training, and can cause considerable discomfort to patients, which increases the use of sedatives. Understanding the underlying fundamental mechanics behind insertion difficulties and pain during colonoscopy may help to simplify colonoscopy and reduce the required extent of training and reliance on sedatives.
METHODS:
A literature search, anatomical studies, models of the colon and colonoscope, and bench tests were used to qualitatively analyze the fundamental mechanical causes of insertion difficulties and pain. A categorized review resulted in an overview of potential alternatives to current colonoscopes.
RESULTS:
To advance a colonoscope through the colon, the colon wall, ligaments and peritoneum must be stretched, thus creating tension in the colon wall, which resists further wall deformation. This resistance forces the colonoscope to bend and follow the curves of the colon. The deformations that cause insertion difficulties and pain (necessitating the use of complex conventional manoeuvres) are the stretching of ligaments, and stretching of colon wall in the transverse and longitudinal directions, and the peritoneum.
CONCLUSIONS:
Four fundamental mechanical solutions to prevent these deformations were extracted from the analysis. The current results may help in the development of new colonoscopy devices that reduce – or eliminate – the necessity of using highly skill-dependent manoeuvres, facilitate training and reduce the use of sedatives.
PMCID: PMC3735733  PMID: 23712305
Colonoscopy; Endoscopy; Training
2.  Transluminal endoscopic step-up approach versus minimally invasive surgical step-up approach in patients with infected necrotising pancreatitis (TENSION trial): design and rationale of a randomised controlled multicenter trial [ISRCTN09186711] 
BMC Gastroenterology  2013;13:161.
Background
Infected necrotising pancreatitis is a potentially lethal disease that nearly always requires intervention. Traditionally, primary open necrosectomy has been the treatment of choice. In recent years, the surgical step-up approach, consisting of percutaneous catheter drainage followed, if necessary, by (minimally invasive) surgical necrosectomy has become the standard of care. A promising minimally invasive alternative is the endoscopic transluminal step-up approach. This approach consists of endoscopic transluminal drainage followed, if necessary, by endoscopic transluminal necrosectomy. We hypothesise that the less invasive endoscopic step-up approach is superior to the surgical step-up approach in terms of clinical and economic outcomes.
Methods/Design
The TENSION trial is a randomised controlled, parallel-group superiority multicenter trial. Patients with (suspected) infected necrotising pancreatitis with an indication for intervention and in whom both treatment modalities are deemed possible, will be randomised to either an endoscopic transluminal or a surgical step-up approach. During a 4 year study period, 98 patients will be enrolled from 24 hospitals of the Dutch Pancreatitis Study Group. The primary endpoint is a composite of death and major complications within 6 months following randomisation. Secondary endpoints include complications such as pancreaticocutaneous fistula, exocrine or endocrine pancreatic insufficiency, need for additional radiological, endoscopic or surgical intervention, the need for necrosectomy after drainage, the number of (re-)interventions, quality of life, and total direct and indirect costs.
Discussion
The TENSION trial will answer the question whether an endoscopic step-up approach reduces the combined primary endpoint of death and major complications, as well as hospital stay and related costs compared with a surgical step-up approach in patients with infected necrotising pancreatitis.
doi:10.1186/1471-230X-13-161
PMCID: PMC4222267  PMID: 24274589
Acute pancreatitis; Necrotising; Treatment; Drainage; Trial; Endoscopy; Minimally invasive; Surgery; Necrosectomy; Pancreas
3.  Routine testing for PALB2 mutations in familial pancreatic cancer families and breast cancer families with pancreatic cancer is not indicated 
PALB2-mutation carriers not only have an increased risk for breast cancer (BC) but also for pancreatic cancer (PC). Thus far, PALB2 mutations have been mainly found in PC patients from families affected by both PC and BC. As it is well known that the prevalence of gene mutations varies between different populations, we studied the prevalence of PALB2 mutations in a Dutch cohort of non-BRCA1/2 familial PC (FPC) families and in non-BRCA1/2 familial BC (FBC) families with at least one PC case. Mutation analysis included direct sequencing and multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA) and was performed in a total of 64 patients from 56 distinct families (28 FPC families, 28 FBC families). In total, 31 patients (48%) originated from FPC families; 24 were FPC patients (77%), 6 had a personal history of BC (19%) and 1 was a suspected carrier (3.2%). The remaining 33 patients (52%) were all female BC patients of whom 31 (94%) had a family history of PC and 2 (6.1%) had a personal history of PC. In none of these 64 patients a PALB2 mutation was found. Therefore, PALB2 does not have a major causal role in familial clustering of PC and BC in non-BRCA1/2 families in the Dutch population.
doi:10.1038/ejhg.2011.226
PMCID: PMC3330210  PMID: 22166947
familial pancreatic cancer; pancreatic cancer susceptibility; breast cancer susceptibility; mutation analysis; hereditary cancer
4.  Early surgery versus optimal current step-up practice for chronic pancreatitis (ESCAPE): design and rationale of a randomized trial 
BMC Gastroenterology  2013;13:49.
Background
In current practice, patients with chronic pancreatitis undergo surgical intervention in a late stage of the disease, when conservative treatment and endoscopic interventions have failed. Recent evidence suggests that surgical intervention early on in the disease benefits patients in terms of better pain control and preservation of pancreatic function. Therefore, we designed a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the benefits, risks and costs of early surgical intervention compared to the current stepwise practice for chronic pancreatitis.
Methods/design
The ESCAPE trial is a randomized controlled, parallel, superiority multicenter trial. Patients with chronic pancreatitis, a dilated pancreatic duct (≥ 5 mm) and moderate pain and/or frequent flare-ups will be registered and followed monthly as potential candidates for the trial. When a registered patient meets the randomization criteria (i.e. need for opioid analgesics) the patient will be randomized to either early surgical intervention (group A) or optimal current step-up practice (group B). An expert panel of chronic pancreatitis specialists will oversee the assessment of eligibility and ensure that allocation to either treatment arm is possible. Patients in group A will undergo pancreaticojejunostomy or a Frey-procedure in case of an enlarged pancreatic head (≥ 4 cm). Patients in group B will undergo a step-up practice of optimal medical treatment, if needed followed by endoscopic interventions, and if needed followed by surgery, according to predefined criteria. Primary outcome is pain assessed with the Izbicki pain score during a follow-up of 18 months. Secondary outcomes include complications, mortality, total direct and indirect costs, quality of life, pancreatic insufficiency, alternative pain scales, length of hospital admission, number of interventions and pancreatitis flare-ups. For the sample size calculation we defined a minimal clinically relevant difference in the primary endpoint as a difference of at least 15 points on the Izbicki pain score during follow-up. To detect this difference a total of 88 patients will be randomized (alpha 0.05, power 90%, drop-out 10%).
Discussion
The ESCAPE trial will investigate whether early surgery in chronic pancreatitis is beneficial in terms of pain relief, pancreatic function and quality of life, compared with current step-up practice.
Trial registration
ISRCTN: ISRCTN45877994
doi:10.1186/1471-230X-13-49
PMCID: PMC3610165  PMID: 23506415
Chronic pancreatitis; Pain; Surgical management; Surgery; Endoscopic treatment; Endoscopy; ERCP; Opioid; Pancreaticojejunostomy; Frey procedure
5.  Similar fecal immunochemical test results in screening and referral colorectal cancer 
AIM: To improve the interpretation of fecal immunochemical test (FIT) results in colorectal cancer (CRC) cases from screening and referral cohorts.
METHODS: In this comparative observational study, two prospective cohorts of CRC cases were compared. The first cohort was obtained from 10 322 average risk subjects invited for CRC screening with FIT, of which, only subjects with a positive FIT were referred for colonoscopy. The second cohort was obtained from 3637 subjects scheduled for elective colonoscopy with a positive FIT result. The same FIT and positivity threshold (OC sensor; ≥ 50 ng/mL) was used in both cohorts. Colonoscopy was performed in all referral subjects and in FIT positive screening subjects. All CRC cases were selected from both cohorts. Outcome measurements were mean FIT results and FIT scores per tissue tumor stage (T stage).
RESULTS: One hundred and eighteen patients with CRC were included in the present study: 28 cases obtained from the screening cohort (64% male; mean age 65 years, SD 6.5) and 90 cases obtained from the referral cohort (58% male; mean age 69 years, SD 9.8). The mean FIT results found were higher in the referral cohort (829 ± 302 ng/mL vs 613 ± 368 ng/mL, P = 0.02). Tissue tumor stage (T stage) distribution was different between both populations [screening population: 13 (46%) T1, eight (29%) T2, six (21%) T3, one (4%) T4 carcinoma; referral population: 12 (13%) T1, 22 (24%) T2, 52 (58%) T3, four (4%) T4 carcinoma], and higher T stage was significantly associated with higher FIT results (P < 0.001). Per tumor stage, no significant difference in mean FIT results was observed (screening vs referral: T1 498 ± 382 ng/mL vs 725 ± 374 ng/mL, P = 0.22; T2 787 ± 303 ng/mL vs 794 ± 341 ng/mL, P = 0.79; T3 563 ± 368 ng/mL vs 870 ± 258 ng/mL, P = 0.13; T4 not available). After correction for T stage in logistic regression analysis, no significant differences in mean FIT results were observed between both types of cohorts (P = 0.10).
CONCLUSION: Differences in T stage distribution largely explain differences in FIT results between screening and referral cohorts. Therefore, FIT results should be reported according to T stage.
doi:10.3748/wjg.v18.i38.5397
PMCID: PMC3471108  PMID: 23082056
Screening population; Referral cohort; Fecal immunochemical test; Tumor stage distribution; Colorectal cancer
6.  Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine needle aspiration: Relatively low sensitivity in the endosonographer population 
AIM: To assess the characteristics and quality of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) in a large panel of endosonographers.
METHODS: A survey was conducted during the 13th annual live course of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) held in Amsterdam, Netherlands. A 2-page questionnaire was developed for the study. Content validity of the questionnaire was determined based on input by experts in the field and a review of the relevant literature. It contained 30 questions that pertained to demographics and the current practice for EUS-FNA of responders, including sampling technique, sample processing, cytopathological diagnosis and sensitivity of EUS-FNA for the diagnosis of solid mass lesions. One hundred and sixty-one endosonographers who attended the course were asked to answer the survey. This allowed assessing the current practice of EUS-FNA as well as the self-reported sensitivity of EUS-FNA for the diagnosis of solid mass lesions. We also examined which factors were associated with a self-reported sensitivity of EUS-FNA for the diagnosis of solid mass lesions > 80%.
RESULTS: Completed surveys were collected from 92 (57.1%) of 161 endosonographers who attended the conference. The endosonographers had been practicing endoscopy and EUS for 12.5 ± 7.8 years and 4.8 ± 4.1 years, respectively; one third of them worked in a hospital with an annual caseload > 100 EUS-FNA. Endoscopy practices were located in 29 countries, including 13 countries in Western Europe that totaled 75.3% of the responses. Only one third of endosonographers reported a sensitivity for the diagnosis of solid mass lesions > 80% (interquartile range of sensitivities, 25.0%-75.0%). Factors independently associated with a sensitivity > 80% were (1) > 7 needle passes for pancreatic lesions or rapid on-site cytopathological evaluation (ROSE) (P < 0.0001), (2) a high annual hospital caseload (P = 0.024) and (3) routine isolation of microcores from EUS-FNA samples (P = 0.042). ROSE was routinely available to 27.9% of respondents. For lymph nodes and pancreatic masses, a maximum of three needle passes was performed by approximately two thirds of those who did not have ROSE. Microcores were routinely harvested from EUS-FNA samples by approximately one third (37.2%) of survey respondents.
CONCLUSION: EUS-FNA sensitivity was considerably lower than reported in the literature. Low EUS-FNA sensitivity was associated with unavailability of ROSE, few needle passes, absence of microcore isolation and low hospital caseload.
doi:10.3748/wjg.v18.i19.2357
PMCID: PMC3353369  PMID: 22654426
Caseload; Community surveys; Cytopathology; Endoscopic ultrasonography; Histopathology; Quality improvement
7.  Epidemiology, Diagnosis, and Management of Cystic Lesions of the Pancreas 
Although little is known on the true prevalence of pancreatic cysts, physicians are currently more frequently confronted with pancreatic cysts because of the increasing use of sophisticated cross-sectional abdominal imaging. Cystic lesions of the pancreas comprise of a heterogeneous group of diagnostic entities, some of which are benign such as inflammatory pseudocysts or serous cystadenomas and do not require resection when asymptomatic. Others like mucinous cysts or intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMN) have a malignant potential and in these cases surgical resection is often indicated. For this reason an adequate distinction between the various cysts is crucial to optimize management strategy. Different diagnostic methods that could be of value in the differentiation include radiologic imaging techniques such as CT, MR, and endosonography. In addition, fluid aspiration for cytopathology, tumormarkers or molecular analysis is widely used. Different guidelines are available but so far no optimal diagnostic algorithm exists. We summarize the epidemiology, classification, clinical presentation, diagnostics, management, and future perspectives.
doi:10.1155/2012/147465
PMCID: PMC3191780  PMID: 22007199
8.  Hybrid NOTES transgastric cholecystectomy with reliable gastric closure: an animal survival study 
Surgical Endoscopy  2010;25(3):728-736.
Background
Secure transluminal closure remains the most fundamental barrier to safe translation of transgastric natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) procedures to humans. Obtaining optimal critical view of safety (CVS) is a prerequisite to performing cholecystectomy avoiding common bile duct injury.
Objectives
(1) To evaluate feasibility and safety of hybrid transgastric NOTES cholecystectomy. (2) To evaluate feasibility and reliability of gastrotomy closure using a novel Over-The-Scope-Clip (OTSC; Ovesco) in survival porcine experiments.
Methods
Laparoscopic access to the abdominal cavity was obtained by two 2-mm and one umbilical optical trocar(s). Gastric access was created by balloon dilatation of a needle knife puncture up to 18 mm. Exposure of CVS was obtained and evaluated by aid of a 2-mm device. Subsequently the cystic duct and artery were clipped endoscopically. After laparoscopic dissection the specimen was extracted via the stomach. The gastrotomy was closed endoscopically using the OTSC. Necropsy was performed after 10 days with inspection of gastrotomy and peritoneal cavity for complications. Experiments were planned in 3 acute and 16 survival pigs. Main outcome parameters were documented exposure of CVS, successful cholecystectomy and closure, uncomplicated survival and histology-confirmed full-thickness closure.
Results
In all 16 survival experiments CVS was obtained satisfactorily and hybrid cholecystectomy was successfully performed [100%; 95% confidence interval (CI): 81–100%]. Transgastric closure was endoscopically successful in all experiments in mean time of 7 min [standard deviation (SD) 3 min]. At necropsy 10 days after surgery there were no signs of (infectious) complications. Histology confirmed full-thickness healing with 100% success (95% CI: 81–100%).
Conclusion
Hybrid transgastric NOTES cholecystectomy is feasible, safe and results in optimal CVS. Use of OTSC for gastrotomy closure is feasible, reliable and results in histology-proven full-thickness closure in survival porcine experiments.
Electronic supplementary material
The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00464-010-1242-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
doi:10.1007/s00464-010-1242-4
PMCID: PMC3044824  PMID: 20721586
Therapeutic/palliation, endoscopy; G-I, endoscopy; Surgical, technical; Instruments, technical; Cholecystectomy; Digestive; Gastrointestinal perforations; Endoscopic closure; Critical view of safety
9.  A multicenter randomized clinical trial investigating the cost-effectiveness of treatment strategies with or without antibiotics for uncomplicated acute diverticulitis (DIABOLO trial) 
BMC Surgery  2010;10:23.
Background
Conservative treatment of uncomplicated or mild diverticulitis usually includes antibiotic therapy. It is, however, uncertain whether patients with acute diverticulitis indeed benefit from antibiotics. In most guidelines issued by professional organizations antibiotics are considered mandatory in the treatment of mild diverticulitis. This advice lacks evidence and is merely based on experts' opinion. Adverse effects of the use of antibiotics are well known, including allergic reactions, development of bacterial resistance to antibiotics and other side-effects.
Methods
A randomized multicenter pragmatic clinical trial comparing two treatment strategies for uncomplicated acute diverticulitis. I) A conservative strategy with antibiotics: hospital admission, supportive measures and at least 48 hours of intravenous antibiotics which subsequently are switched to oral, if tolerated (for a total duration of antibiotic treatment of 10 days). II) A liberal strategy without antibiotics: admission only if needed on clinical grounds, supportive measures only. Patients are eligible for inclusion if they have a diagnosis of acute uncomplicated diverticulitis as demonstrated by radiological imaging. Only patients with stages 1a and 1b according to Hinchey's classification or "mild" diverticulitis according to the Ambrosetti criteria are included. The primary endpoint is time-to-full recovery within a 6-month follow-up period. Full recovery is defined as being discharged from the hospital, with a return to pre-illness activities, and VAS score below 4 without the use of daily pain medication. Secondary endpoints are proportion of patients who develop complicated diverticulitis requiring surgery or non-surgical intervention, morbidity, costs, health-related quality of life, readmission rate and acute diverticulitis recurrence rate. In a non-inferiority design 264 patients are needed in each study arm to detect a difference in time-to-full recovery of 5 days or more with a power of 85% and a confidence level of 95%. With an estimated one percent of patients lost to follow up, a total of 533 patients will be included.
Conclusion
A clinically relevant difference of more than 5 days in time-to-full recovery between the two treatment strategies is not expected. The liberal strategy without antibiotics and without the strict requirement for hospital admission is anticipated to be more a more cost-effective approach.
Trial registration
Trial registration number: NCT01111253
doi:10.1186/1471-2482-10-23
PMCID: PMC2919453  PMID: 20646266
10.  Study protocol: population screening for colorectal cancer by colonoscopy or CT colonography: a randomized controlled trial 
BMC Gastroenterology  2010;10:47.
Background
Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most prevalent type of cancer in Europe. Early detection and removal of CRC or its precursor lesions by population screening can reduce mortality. Colonoscopy and computed tomography colonography (CT colonography) are highly accurate exams and screening options that examine the entire colon. The success of screening depends on the participation rate. We designed a randomized trial to compare the uptake, yield and costs of direct colonoscopy population screening, using either a telephone consultation or a consultation at the outpatient clinic, versus CT colonography first, with colonoscopy in CT colonography positives.
Methods and design
7,500 persons between 50 and 75 years will be randomly selected from the electronic database of the municipal administration registration and will receive an invitation to participate in either CT colonography (2,500 persons) or colonoscopy (5,000 persons) screening. Those invited for colonoscopy screening will be randomized to a prior consultation either by telephone or a visit at the outpatient clinic. All CT colonography invitees will have a prior consultation by telephone. Invitees are instructed to consult their general practitioner and not to participate in screening if they have symptoms suggestive for CRC. After providing informed consent, participants will be scheduled for the screening procedure. The primary outcome measure of this study is the participation rate. Secondary outcomes are the diagnostic yield, the expected and perceived burden of the screening test, level of informed choice and cost-effectiveness of both screening methods.
Discussion
This study will provide further evidence to enable decision making in population screening for colorectal cancer.
Trial registration
Dutch trial register: NTR1829
doi:10.1186/1471-230X-10-47
PMCID: PMC2889851  PMID: 20482825
11.  Prospective randomized controlled trial of an injectable esophageal prosthesis versus a sham procedure for endoscopic treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease 
Surgical Endoscopy  2010;24(6):1387-1397.
Background
This study aimed to assess whether endoscopic implantation of an injectable esophageal prosthesis, the Gatekeeper Reflux Repair System (GK), is a safe and effective therapy for controlling gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD).
Methods
A prospective, randomized, sham-controlled, single-blinded, international multicenter study planned final enrollment of 204 patients in three groups: up to 60 lead-in, 96 GK, and 48 sham patients. The sham patients were allowed to cross over to the GK treatment arm or exit the study at 6 months. The primary end points were (1) reduction in serious device- and procedure-related adverse device effects compared with a surgical composite complication rate and (2) reduction in heartburn symptoms 6 months after the GK procedure compared with the sham procedure. The secondary end point was improved esophageal pH (total time pH was <4) 6 months after the GK procedure compared with baseline.
Results
A planned interim analysis was performed after 143 patients were enrolled (25 lead-in, 75 GK, and 43 sham patients), and the GK study was terminated early due to lack of compelling efficacy data. Four reported serious adverse events had occurred (2 perforations, 1 pulmonary infiltrate related to a perforation, and 1 severe chest pain) at termination of the study with no mortality or long-term sequelae. Heartburn symptoms had improved significantly at 6 months compared with baseline in the GK group (p < 0.0001) and the sham group (p < 0.0001), but no significant between-group difference in improvement was observed (p = 0.146). Esophageal acid exposure had improved significantly at 6 months compared with baseline in the GK group (p = 0.021) and the sham group (p = 0.003), but no significant between-group difference in improvement was observed (p = 0.27).
Conclusions
The GK procedure was associated with some serious but infrequent complications. No statistically significant difference in outcomes was observed between the treatment and control groups at 6 months compared with baseline.
doi:10.1007/s00464-009-0784-9
PMCID: PMC2869435  PMID: 20198491
Gastroesophageal reflux disease; Gatekeeper; GORD/GERD; Sham procedure
12.  Polyp measurement based on CT colonography and colonoscopy: variability and systematic differences 
European Radiology  2009;20(6):1404-1413.
Objective
To assess the variability and systematic differences in polyp measurements on optical colonoscopy and CT colonography.
Materials
Gastroenterologists measured 51 polyps by visual estimation, forceps comparison and linear probe. CT colonography observers randomly assessed polyp size two-dimensionally (abdominal and intermediate window) and three-dimensionally (manually and semi-automatically). Linear mixed models were used to assess the variability and systematic differences between CT colonography and optical colonoscopy techniques.
Results
The variability of forceps and linear probe measurements was comparable and both showed less variability than measurement by visual assessment. Measurements by linear probe were 0.7 mm smaller than measurements by visual assessment or by forceps. The variability of all CT colonography techniques was lower than for measurements by forceps or visual assessment and sometimes lower (only 2D intermediate window and manual 3D) compared with measurements by linear probe. All CT colonography measurements judged polyps to be larger than optical colonoscopy, with differences ranging from 0.7 to 2.3 mm.
Conclusion
A linear probe does not reduce the measurement variability of endoscopists compared with the forceps. Measurement differences between observers on CT colonography were usually smaller than at optical colonoscopy. Polyps appeared larger when using various CT colonography techniques than when measured during optical colonoscopy.
doi:10.1007/s00330-009-1683-0
PMCID: PMC2861761  PMID: 20033180
CT colonography; Colon; Colonoscopy; Measurement; Cancer; 2D; 3D
13.  CT colonography with limited bowel preparation for the detection of colorectal neoplasia in an FOBT positive screening population 
Abdominal Imaging  2009;35(6):661-668.
Purpose
Aim was to evaluate the accuracy of computed tomography colonography (CTC) for detection of colorectal neoplasia in a Fecal Occult Blood Test (FOBT) positive screening population.
Methods
In three different institutions, consecutive FOBT positives underwent CTC after laxative free iodine tagging bowel preparation followed by colonoscopy with segmental unblinding. Each CTC was read by two experienced observers. For CTC and for colonoscopy the per-polyp sensitivity and per-patient sensitivity and specificity were calculated for detection of carcinomas, advanced adenomas, and adenomas.
Results
In total 22 of 302 included FOBT positive participants had a carcinoma (7%) and 137 had an adenoma or carcinoma ≥10 mm (45%). CTC sensitivity for carcinoma was 95% with one rectal carcinoma as false negative finding. CTC sensitivity for advanced adenomas was 92% (95% CI: 88–96) vs. 96% (95% CI: 93–99) for colonoscopy (P = 0.26). For adenomas and carcinomas ≥10 mm the CTC per-polyp sensitivity was 93% (95% CI: 89–97) vs. 97% (95% CI: 94–99) for colonoscopy (P = 0.17). The per-patient sensitivity for the detection of adenomas and carcinomas ≥10 mm was 95% (95% CI: 91–99) for CTC vs. 99% (95% CI: 98–100) for colonoscopy (P = 0.07), while the per-patient specificity was 90% (95% CI: 86–95) and 96% (95% CI: 94–99), respectively (P < 0.001).
Conclusion
CTC with limited bowel preparation performed in an FOBT positive screening population has high diagnostic accuracy for the detection of adenomas and carcinomas and a sensitivity similar to that of colonoscopy for relevant lesions.
doi:10.1007/s00261-009-9586-8
PMCID: PMC2980629  PMID: 19888629
CT colonography; Colorectal neoplasia; Advanced adenoma; Colorectal cancer; FOBT
14.  Biliary drainage of the common bile duct with an enteral metal stent 
In this case report we present an elderly patient who was referred to our hospital with recurrent episodes of cholangitis that persisted after placement of five metal stents for a distal common bile duct (CBD) stenosis. All metal stents were endoscopically removed from the CBD by forceps after balloon dilatation of the papilla. A profoundly dilated CBD with sludge and concrements was seen. To ensure adequate bile drainage an enteral metal stent was inserted in the CBD. This case shows that proximally migrated uncovered metal stents in the CBD can be safely removed endoscopically under certain circumstances. We suggest that in the case of a CBD drainage problem due to an extremely dilated CBD, placement of an enteral metal stent in the CBD could be considered, especially in patients who are unfit for surgery.
doi:10.3748/wjg.15.2423
PMCID: PMC2684615  PMID: 19452591
Cholangitis; Dilated common bile duct; Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography; Enteral metal stent; Metal stent removal
15.  Implementation of population screening for colorectal cancer by repeated fecal occult blood test in the Netherlands 
BMC Gastroenterology  2009;9:28.
Background
Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most prevalent type of cancer in the world. Its prognosis is closely related to the disease stage at the time of diagnosis. Early detection of symptomless CRC or precursor lesions through population screening could reduce CRC mortality. However, screening programs are only effective if enough people are willing to participate. This study aims to asses the uptake of a second round of fecal occult blood test (FOBt) based screening and to explore factors that could potentially increase this uptake.
Methods and design
Two years after the first screening round, 10.000 average risk persons, aged 50 to 75, will again receive an invitation to participate in immunohistochemical FOBt (iFOBt) based screening. Eligible persons will be recruited through a city population database. Invitees will be randomized to receive either an iFOBt with a faeces collection paper or an iFOBt without a collection paper. The iFOBts will be analyzed in a specialized laboratory at the Academic Medical Centre. Positive iFOBts will be followed by a consultation at our outpatient clinic and, in the absence of contra-indications and after informed consent, by a colonoscopy. The primary outcome measure is the participation rate. Secondary outcome measures are the effect of the addition of a collection paper on the participation rate, reasons for participation and non-participation, measures of informed choice and psychological consequences of screening and measures of psychological and physical burden associated with the iFOBt and the colonoscopy. Another secondary outcome measure is the diagnostic yield of the program.
Discussion
In order to implement population screening for colorectal cancer in the Netherlands, information is needed on the uptake of repeated rounds of FOBt-based screening and on factors that could potentially increase this uptake in the future since effectiveness of such a program depends on the willingness of persons to participate. This study will provide information on the actual uptake and perception of a second round of iFOBt-based screening. The results of this study will contribute to the future implementation of a national colorectal screening program in the Netherlands.
Trial registration
Dutch Trial register: NTR1327
doi:10.1186/1471-230X-9-28
PMCID: PMC2680893  PMID: 19393087
16.  Transanal endoscopic microsurgery versus endoscopic mucosal resection for large rectal adenomas (TREND-study) 
BMC Surgery  2009;9:4.
Background
Recent non-randomized studies suggest that extended endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is equally effective in removing large rectal adenomas as transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM). If equally effective, EMR might be a more cost-effective approach as this strategy does not require expensive equipment, general anesthesia and hospital admission. Furthermore, EMR appears to be associated with fewer complications.
The aim of this study is to compare the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of TEM and EMR for the resection of large rectal adenomas.
Methods/design
Multicenter randomized trial among 15 hospitals in the Netherlands. Patients with a rectal adenoma ≥ 3 cm, located between 1–15 cm ab ano, will be randomized to a TEM- or EMR-treatment strategy. For TEM, patients will be treated under general anesthesia, adenomas will be dissected en-bloc by a full-thickness excision, and patients will be admitted to the hospital. For EMR, no or conscious sedation is used, lesions will be resected through the submucosal plane in a piecemeal fashion, and patients will be discharged from the hospital. Residual adenoma that is visible during the first surveillance endoscopy at 3 months will be removed endoscopically in both treatment strategies and is considered as part of the primary treatment.
Primary outcome measure is the proportion of patients with recurrence after 3 months. Secondary outcome measures are: 2) number of days not spent in hospital from initial treatment until 2 years afterwards; 3) major and minor morbidity; 4) disease specific and general quality of life; 5) anorectal function; 6) health care utilization and costs. A cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis of EMR against TEM for large rectal adenomas will be performed from a societal perspective with respectively the costs per recurrence free patient and the cost per quality adjusted life year as outcome measures.
Based on comparable recurrence rates for TEM and EMR of 3.3% and considering an upper-limit of 10% for EMR to be non-inferior (beta-error 0.2 and one-sided alpha-error 0.05), 89 patients are needed per group.
Discussion
The TREND study is the first randomized trial evaluating whether TEM or EMR is more cost-effective for the treatment of large rectal adenomas.
Trial registration number
(trialregister.nl) NTR1422
doi:10.1186/1471-2482-9-4
PMCID: PMC2664790  PMID: 19284647
17.  Adherence to surveillance guidelines for dysplasia and colorectal carcinoma in ulcerative and Crohn’s colitis patients in the Netherlands 
AIM: To study adherence to the widely accepted surveillance guidelines for patients with long-standing colitis in the Netherlands.
METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to all 244 gastroenterologists in the Netherlands.
RESULTS: The response rate was 63%. Of all gastroenterologists, 95% performed endoscopic surveillance in ulcerative colitis (UC) patients and 65% in patients with Crohn’s colitis. The American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) guidelines were followed by 27%, while 27% and 46% followed their local hospital protocol or no specific protocol, respectively. The surveillance was correctly initiated in cases of pancolitis by 53%, and in cases of left-sided colitis by 44% of the gastroenterologists. Although guidelines recommend 4 biopsies every 10 cm, less than 30 biopsies per colonoscopy were taken by 73% of the responders. Only 31%, 68% and 58% of the gastroenterologists referred patients for colectomy when low-grade dysplasia, high-grade dysplasia (HGD) or Dysplasia Associated Lesion or Mass (DALM) was present, respectively.
CONCLUSION: Most Dutch gastroenterologists perform endoscopic surveillance without following international recommended guidelines. This practice potentially leads to a decreased sensitivity for dysplasia, rendering screening for colorectal cancer in this population highly ineffective.
doi:10.3748/wjg.15.226
PMCID: PMC2653310  PMID: 19132774
Colorectal cancer; Crohn’s disease; Dysplasia; Guidelines; Surveillance; Ulcerative colitis
18.  Patients’ perception of diagnostic tests in the preoperative assessment of esophageal cancer 
Objective
Defining an optimal staging strategy requires an evaluation of the effectiveness and costs of diagnostic tests and may include the burden of these tests for patients. This study evaluated the burden of cervical ultrasonography (US), endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS), computed tomography (CT) and positron emission tomography (PET) in patients with esophageal carcinoma (EC).
Methods
Consenting consecutive patients underwent a standard preoperative work-up. Burden of testing was evaluated with a self-report questionnaire addressing anxiety, embarrassment, and discomfort, each measured on a 1(none) to 5 (extreme) point-scale. An overall burden score was calculated by summing the three item scores. In addition, patients were asked to rank the four tests from least to most inconvenient. Statistical analysis was performed with nonparametric tests.
Results
82 patients (67 , 15 ; mean age 64.3 yrs) participated. For most tests and most dimensions of burden, the large majority of subjects was in categories 1 and 2.With respect to anxiety, the rank order (from highest burden to lowest burden) was EUS, US, PET, and CT (average scores 1.7, 1.5, 1.4, and 1.2, respectively). For embarrassment, the rank order was EUS, PET, US, and CT (1.9, 1.5, 1.4, and 1.3 respectively). For discomfort, the rank order was EUS, PET, US and CT (2.0, 1.6, 1.4, and 1.2, respectively). And for total burden, the rank order was EUS, PET, US and CT (5.6, 4.6, 4.2, and 3.7). PET was ranked as least inconvenient by 35% of patients and as most inconvenient by 16% compared with the other tests.
Conclusion
Significant but small differences were observed in patient burden for imaging tests to evaluate EC. The perceived burden of PET was lower than that of EUS, but higher than the burden of CT. However absolute values were low for all tests and therefore patient burden will not be a key feature for the construction of an optimal staging algorithm for EC.
PMCID: PMC2770407  PMID: 19920957
esophageal carcinoma; perceived burden; cervical ultrasonography; endoscopic ultrasonograhy; computed tomography; positron emission tomography
19.  Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Terminology Coding (GET-C): A WHO-Approved Extension of the ICD-10 
Digestive Diseases and Sciences  2007;52(4):1004-1008.
Technological developments have greatly promoted interest in the use of computer systems for recording findings and images at endoscopy and creating databases. The aim of this study was to develop a comprehensive WHO-approved code system for gastrointestinal endoscopic terminology. The International Classification of Diseases, 10th edition (ICD-10), and the ICD-10 clinical modification (ICD-10-CM) were expanded to allow description of every possible gastrointestinal endoscopic term under conditions defined by the WHO. Classifications of specific gastrointestinal disorders and endoscopic locations were added. A new chapter was developed for frequently used terminology that could not be classified in the existing ICD-10, such as descriptions of therapeutic procedures. The new extended code system was named Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Terminology Coding (GET-C). The GET-C is a complete ICD-10-related code system that can be used within every endoscopic database program for all specific endoscopic terms. The GET-C is available for free at http://www.trans-it.org/.
doi:10.1007/s10620-006-9272-4
PMCID: PMC1914242  PMID: 17380400
Gastrointestinal endoscopy; International classification of diseases; 10th Edition (ICD-10); ICD-10 clinical modification; Coding; Terminology; Database
20.  Colonic stenting as bridge to surgery versus emergency surgery for management of acute left-sided malignant colonic obstruction: a multicenter randomized trial (Stent-in 2 study) 
BMC Surgery  2007;7:12.
Background
Acute left-sided colonic obstruction is most often caused by malignancy and the surgical treatment is associated with a high mortality and morbidity rate. Moreover, these operated patients end up with a temporary or permanent stoma. Initial insertion of an enteral stent to decompress the obstructed colon, allowing for surgery to be performed electively, is gaining popularity. In uncontrolled studies stent placement before elective surgery has been suggested to decrease mortality, morbidity and number of colostomies. However stent perforation can lead to peritoneal tumor spill, changing a potentially curable disease in an incurable one. Therefore it is of paramount importance to compare the outcomes of colonic stenting followed by elective surgery with emergency surgery for the management of acute left-sided malignant colonic obstruction in a randomized multicenter fashion.
Methods/design
Patients with acute left-sided malignant colonic obstruction eligible for this study will be randomized to either emergency surgery (current standard treatment) or colonic stenting as bridge to elective surgery. Outcome measurements are effectiveness and costs of both strategies. Effectiveness will be evaluated in terms of quality of life, morbidity and mortality. Quality of life will be measured with standardized questionnaires (EORTC QLQ-C30, EORTC QLQ-CR38, EQ-5D and EQ-VAS). Morbidity is defined as every event leading to hospital admission or prolonging hospital stay. Mortality will be analyzed as total mortality as well as procedure-related mortality. The total costs of treatment will be evaluated by counting volumes and calculating unit prices. Including 120 patients on a 1:1 basis will have 80% power to detect an effect size of 0.5 on the EORTC QLQ-C30 global health scale, using a two group t-test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level. Differences in quality of life and morbidity will be analyzed using mixed-models repeated measures analysis of variance. Mortality will be compared using Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank statistics.
Discussion
The Stent-in 2 study is a randomized controlled multicenter trial that will provide evidence whether or not colonic stenting as bridge to surgery is to be performed in patients with acute left-sided colonic obstruction.
Trial registration
Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN46462267.
doi:10.1186/1471-2482-7-12
PMCID: PMC1925059  PMID: 17608947
21.  International Cancer of the Pancreas Screening (CAPS) Consortium summit on the management of patients with increased risk for familial pancreatic cancer 
Gut  2012;62(3):339-347.
Background
Screening individuals at increased risk for pancreatic cancer (PC) detects early, potentially curable, pancreatic neoplasia.
Objective
To develop consortium statements on screening, surveillance and management of high-risk individuals with an inherited predisposition to PC.
Methods
A 49-expert multidisciplinary international consortium met to discuss pancreatic screening and vote on statements. Consensus was considered reached if ≥75% agreed or disagreed.
Results
There was excellent agreement that, to be successful, a screening programme should detect and treat T1N0M0 margin-negative PC and high-grade dysplastic precursor lesions (pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia and intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm). It was agreed that the following were candidates for screening: first-degree relatives (FDRs) of patients with PC from a familial PC kindred with at least two affected FDRs; patients with Peutz–Jeghers syndrome; and p16, BRCA2 and hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC) mutation carriers with ≥1 affected FDR. Consensus was not reached for the age to initiate screening or stop surveillance. It was agreed that initial screening should include endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) and/or MRI/magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography not CT or endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. There was no consensus on the need for EUS fine-needle aspiration to evaluate cysts. There was disagreement on optimal screening modalities and intervals for follow-up imaging. When surgery is recommended it should be performed at a high-volume centre. There was great disagreement as to which screening abnormalities were of sufficient concern to for surgery to be recommended.
Conclusions
Screening is recommended for high-risk individuals, but more evidence is needed, particularly for how to manage patients with detected lesions. Screening and subsequent management should take place at high-volume centres with multidisciplinary teams, preferably within research protocols.
doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2012-303108
PMCID: PMC3585492  PMID: 23135763
Pancreatic Cancer; Endoscopic Ultrasonography; Family Cancer; Screening

Results 1-21 (21)