Colonoscopy with detection and removal of adenomas is considered a powerful tool to reduce colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence. However, the degree of protection achievable in a population setting with ...high-quality colonoscopy resources remains to be quantified.
To assess the association between previous colonoscopy and risk for CRC.
Population-based case-control study.
Rhine-Neckar region of Germany.
A total of 1688 case patients with colorectal cancer and 1932 control participants aged 50 years or older.
A detailed lifetime history of CRC risk factors and preventive factors, including history and results of previous colonoscopies, and of medical data obtained by self-reports and medical records. Odds ratios of CRC associated with colonoscopy in the preceding 10 years were estimated, after adjustment for sex, age, education level, participation in a general health screening examination, family history of CRC, smoking status, body mass index, and use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or hormone replacement therapy.
Overall, colonoscopy in the preceding 10 years was associated with 77% lower risk for CRC. Adjusted odds ratios for any CRC, right-sided CRC, and left-sided CRC were 0.23 (95% CI, 0.19 to 0.27), 0.44 (CI, 0.35 to 0.55), and 0.16 (CI, 0.12 to 0.20), respectively. Strong risk reduction was observed for all cancer stages and all ages, except for right-sided cancer in persons aged 50 to 59 years. Risk reduction increased over the years in both the right and the left colon.
The study was observational, with potential for residual confounding and selection bias.
Colonoscopy with polypectomy can be associated with strongly reduced risk for CRC in the population setting. Aside from strong risk reduction with respect to left-sided CRC, risk reduction of more than 50% was also seen for right-sided colon cancer.
German Research Council and German Federal Ministry of Education and Research.
There are many different techniques currently in use for ventral and incisional hernia repair. Laparoscopic techniques have become more common in recent years, although the evidence is sparse.
We ...compared laparoscopic with open repair in patients with (primary) ventral or incisional hernia.
We searched the following electronic databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, metaRegister of Controlled Trials. The last searches were conducted in July 2010. In addition, congress abstracts were searched by hand.
We selected randomised controlled studies (RCTs), which compared the two techniques in patients with ventral or incisional hernia. Studies were included irrespective of language, publication status, or sample size. We did not include quasi-randomised trials.
Two authors assessed trial quality and extracted data independently. Meta-analytic results are expressed as relative risks (RR) or weighted mean difference (WMD).
We included 10 RCTs with a total number of 880 patients suffering primarily from primary ventral or incisional hernia. No trials were identified on umbilical or parastomal hernia. The recurrence rate was not different between laparoscopic and open surgery (RR 1.22; 95% CI 0.62 to 2.38; I(2) = 0%), but patients were followed up for less than two years in half of the trials. Results on operative time were too heterogeneous to be pooled. The risk of intraoperative enterotomy was slightly higher in laparoscopic hernia repair (Peto OR 2.33; 95% CI 0.53 to 10.35), but this result stems from only 7 cases with bowel lesion (5 vs. 2). The most clear and consistent result was that laparoscopic surgery reduced the risk of wound infection (RR = 0.26; 95% CI 0.15 to 0.46; I(2)= 0%). Laparoscopic surgery shortened hospital stay significantly in 6 out of 9 trials, but again data were heterogeneous. Based on a small number of trials, it was not possible to detect any difference in pain intensity, both in the short- and long-term evaluation. Laparoscopic repair apparently led to much higher in-hospital costs.
The short-term results of laparoscopic repair in ventral hernia are promising. In spite of the risks of adhesiolysis, the technique is safe. Nevertheless, long-term follow-up is needed in order to elucidate whether laparoscopic repair of ventral/incisional hernia is efficacious.
The risk of colorectal cancer after a previous negative colonoscopy is very low. Nevertheless, interval cancers occur. We aimed to assess the characteristics and predictors of interval cancers after ...negative colonoscopy.
A population-based case-control study was conducted in Southern Germany in 2003-7. Sociodemographic and tumour characteristics were compared among 78 patients with interval cancers occurring 1-10 years after a negative colonoscopy and 433 colorectal cancers detected at screening. In addition, the indication for the preceding negative colonoscopy and its completeness were compared between patients with interval cancers and 515 controls with a preceding negative colonoscopy.
56.4% of interval cancers occurred among women compared with 33.7% of cases detected by screening (p=0.0001). After adjustment for covariates, female sex (OR 2.28, 95% CI 1.35 to 3.83) and location in the caecum or ascending colon (OR 1.98, 95% CI 1.17 to 3.35) were independently associated with occurrence of interval cancers. The preceding negative colonoscopy was more commonly conducted because of a positive faecal occult blood test (26.0% vs 12.9%, p=0.009) and was more often incomplete (caecum not reached: 18.1% vs 6.7%, p=0.001) among interval cancer cases than among controls. Characteristics of the preceding negative colonoscopy strongly and independently associated with occurrence of interval cancers were follow-up of a positive faecal occult blood test among men (OR 5.49, 95% CI 2.10 to 14.35) and incompleteness among women (OR 4.38, 95% CI 1.69 to 11.30).
The observed patterns suggest that a substantial proportion of interval cancers are due to neoplasms missed at colonoscopy and are potentially preventable by enhanced performance of colonoscopy.
Colonoscopy is thought to be a powerful and cost-effective tool to reduce colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality. Empirical evidence for overall and risk group-specific definition of ...screening intervals is sparse. We aimed to assess the risk of CRC according to time since negative colonoscopy, overall, and by sex, smoking, and family history of CRC, in a large population-based case-control study.
In all, 1,945 patients with CRC and 2,399 population controls were recruited in 22 hospitals and through population registers in the Rhine-Neckar region of Germany from 2003 to 2007. Data on history of colonoscopy and important covariates were obtained by personal interviews and from medical records.
Compared with people who had never undergone colonoscopy, people with a previous negative colonoscopy had a strongly reduced risk of CRC. Adjusted odds ratios for time windows of 1 to 2, 3 to 4, 5 to 9, 10 to 19, and 20+ years after negative colonoscopy were 0.14 (95% CI, 0.10 to 0.20), 0.12 (95% CI, 0.08 to 0.19), 0.26 (95% CI, 0.18 to 0.39), 0.28 (95% CI, 0.17 to 0.45), and 0.40 (95% CI, 0.24 to 0.66), respectively. Low risks even beyond 10 years after negative colonoscopy were observed for both left- and right-sided CRC and in all risk groups assessed except current smokers, who had a risk similar to that of never smokers with no previous colonoscopy 10 or more years after a negative colonoscopy.
These results support suggestions that screening intervals for CRC screening by colonoscopy could be longer than the commonly recommended 10 years in most cases, perhaps even among men and people with a family history of CRC, but probably not among current smokers.
Empirical evidence for recommendations of surveillance intervals after detection and removal of adenomas at colonoscopy is still sparse and mostly based on observations of adenoma recurrence. We ...aimed to assess risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) according to time since polypectomy and factors that might be relevant for risk stratification.
In a population-based case-control study conducted in Germany, detailed history and results of previous large-bowel endoscopies were obtained by interview and from medical records. Risk of CRC among participants with detection of at least one adenoma at a preceding colonoscopy compared with participants without previous large-bowel endoscopy was assessed according to time since polypectomy among 2,582 cases with CRC and 1,798 matched controls.
Adjusted odds ratios (95% CIs) of CRC for participants with polypectomy less than 3, 3 to 5, and 6 to 10 years ago (using participants without previous endoscopy as reference group) were 0.2 (0.2 to 0.3), 0.4 (0.3 to 0.6), and 0.9 (0.5 to 1.5), respectively. Strong, significant risk reduction within 5 years was consistently seen for women and men, younger and older participants, patients with and without high-risk polyps (three or more polyps, at least one polyp ≥ 1 cm, at least one polyp with villous components), and those with and without polypectomy in the right colon. With adjusted odds ratios of 0.1 (0.1 to 0.2), 0.3 (0.2 to 0.5) and 0.4 (0.2 to 0.8) for patients with polypectomy less than 3, 3 to 5, and 6 to 10 years ago, risk reduction was particularly strong for left-sided CRC.
Extension of surveillance intervals to 5 years should be considered, even after detection and removal of high-risk polyps.
Background Pancreatic cancer is the fourth leading cause of cancer death for men and the fifth for women. The standard treatment for resectable tumours consists of a classic Whipple (CW) operation or ...a pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (PPW). It is unclear which of these procedures is more favourable in terms of survival, mortality, complications and quality of life.Objectives The objective of this systematic review is to compare the effectiveness of CW and PPW techniques for surgical treatment of cancer of the pancreatic head and the periampullary region.Search methods We conducted searches on 28 March 2006, 11 January 2011 and 9 January 2014 to identify all randomised controlled trials (RCTs),while applying no language restrictions. We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects(DARE) from The Cochrane Library (2013, Issue 4); MEDLINE (1946 to January 2014); and EMBASE (1980 to January 2014). We also searched abstracts from Digestive Disease Week and United European Gastroenterology Week (1995 to 2010). We identified no additional studies upon updating the systematic review in 2014.Selection criteria We considered RCTs comparing CW versus PPW to be eligible if they included study participants with periampullary or pancreatic carcinoma. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently extracted data from the included studies. We used a random-effects model for pooling data. We compared binary outcomes using odds ratios (ORs), pooled continuous outcomes using mean differences (MDs) and used hazard ratios (HRs) for meta-analysis of survival. Two review authors independently evaluated the methodological quality and risk of bias of included studies according to the standards of The Cochrane Collaboration.Main results We included six RCTs with a total of 465 participants. Our critical appraisal revealed vast heterogeneity with respect to methodological quality and outcome parameters. In-hospital mortality (OR 0.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 1.40; P value 0.18), overall survival (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.16; P value 0.29) and morbidity showed no significant differences. However, we noted that operating time (MD -68.26 minutes, 95% CI -105.70 to -30.83; P value 0.0004) and intraoperative blood loss (MD -0.76 mL, 95%CI -0.96 to -0.56; P value < 0.00001) were significantly reduced in the PPW group. All significant results are associated with low quality of evidence as determined on the basis of GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) criteria.Authors' conclusions No evidence suggests relevant differences in mortality, morbidity and survival between the two operations. Given obvious clinical and methodological heterogeneity, future research must be undertaken to perform high-quality randomised controlled trials of complex surgical interventions on the basis of well-defined outcome parameters.
Research on surgical interventions is associated with several methodological and practical challenges of which few, if any, apply only to surgery. However, surgical evaluation is especially demanding ...because many of these challenges coincide. In this report, the second of three on surgical innovation and evaluation, we discuss obstacles related to the study design of randomised controlled trials and non-randomised studies assessing surgical interventions. We also describe the issues related to the nature of surgical procedures-for example, their complexity, surgeon-related factors, and the range of outcomes. Although difficult, surgical evaluation is achievable and necessary. Solutions tailored to surgical research and a framework for generating evidence on which to base surgical practice are essential. PUBLICATION ABSTRACT
Pancreatic cancer is the fourth-leading cause of cancer death for both, men and women. The standard treatment for resectable tumours consists of a classic Whipple (CW) operation or a ...pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (PPW). It is unclear which of these procedures is more favourable in terms of survival, postoperative mortality, complications, and quality of life.
The objective of this systematic review was to compare the effectiveness of CW and PPW techniques for surgical treatment of cancer of the pancreatic head and the periampullary region.
We conducted searches on 28 March 2006, 11 January 2011, 9 January 2014, and 18 August 2015 to identify all randomised controlled trials (RCTs), while applying no language restrictions. We searched the following electronic databases on 18 August 2015: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) from the Cochrane Library (2015, Issue 8); MEDLINE (1946 to August 2015); and EMBASE (1980 to August 2015). We also searched abstracts from Digestive Disease Week and United European Gastroenterology Week (1995 to 2010); we did not update this part of the search for the 2014 and 2015 updates because the prior searches did not contribute any additional information. We identified two additional trials through the updated search in 2015.
RCTs comparing CW versus PPW including participants with periampullary or pancreatic carcinoma.
Two review authors independently extracted data from the included trials. We used a random-effects model for pooling data. We compared binary outcomes using odds ratios (ORs), pooled continuous outcomes using mean differences (MDs), and used hazard ratios (HRs) for meta-analysis of survival. Two review authors independently evaluated the methodological quality and risk of bias of included trials according to the standards of The Cochrane Collaboration.
We included eight RCTs with a total of 512 participants. Our critical appraisal revealed vast heterogeneity with respect to methodological quality and outcome parameters. Postoperative mortality (OR 0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 1.54; P = 0.32), overall survival (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.16; P = 0.29), and morbidity showed no significant differences, except of delayed gastric emptying, which significantly favoured CW (OR 3.03, 95% CI 1.05 to 8.70; P = 0.04). Furthermore, we noted that operating time (MD -45.22 minutes, 95% CI -74.67 to -15.78; P = 0.003), intraoperative blood loss (MD -0.32 L, 95% CI -0.62 to -0.03; P = 0.03), and red blood cell transfusion (MD -0.47 units, 95% CI -0.86 to -0.07; P = 0.02) were significantly reduced in the PPW group. All significant results were associated with low-quality evidence based on GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) criteria.
Current evidence suggests no relevant differences in mortality, morbidity, and survival between the two operations. However, some perioperative outcome measures significantly favour the PPW procedure. Given obvious clinical and methodological heterogeneity, future high-quality RCTs of complex surgical interventions based on well-defined outcome parameters are required.
Challenges in evaluating surgical innovation Ergina, Patrick L, Dr; Cook, Jonathan A, PhD; Blazeby, Jane M, Prof ...
The Lancet,
09/2009, Letnik:
374, Številka:
9695
Journal Article
Recenzirano
Odprti dostop
Summary Research on surgical interventions is associated with several methodological and practical challenges of which few, if any, apply only to surgery. However, surgical evaluation is especially ...demanding because many of these challenges coincide. In this report, the second of three on surgical innovation and evaluation, we discuss obstacles related to the study design of randomised controlled trials and non-randomised studies assessing surgical interventions. We also describe the issues related to the nature of surgical procedures—for example, their complexity, surgeon-related factors, and the range of outcomes. Although difficult, surgical evaluation is achievable and necessary. Solutions tailored to surgical research and a framework for generating evidence on which to base surgical practice are essential.
PDF
