Faculty Bibliography

Colorectal cancer screening programs aim at early detection of cancer to reduce incidence rates and mortality. The objective of this study is to identify the role of neurotensin in the endoscopic screening of high-risk population for developing colorectal neoplasia. Blood samples from patients referred for urgent colonoscopy to investigate symptoms suspicious of colorectal cancer were collected. Blood neurotensin levels were measured using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Colonoscopy findings were used as reference for determining the diagnostic accuracy of blood neurotensin. The study comprised 26 patients in total: 12 healthy and 14 with colon pathology (13 high-grade dysplasia adenomatous polyps, 1 adenocarcinoma). There were no statistically significant differences in the clinical and biochemical parameters between colon pathology and healthy group except neurotensin levels. Pathology in colon was associated with 3.7-fold increase in NT levels. In multivariate analysis, patients with pathology in colon have increased serum neurotensin levels compared to controls adjusted for age, gender, BMI and co-morbidities. The value of 12.93 pg/ml is associated with 87.5% sensitivity and 91.7% specificity for discriminating the colon pathology from normal colonic epithelium (p = 0.001). Neurotensin plasma values differentiate healthy people from patients suffering from colonic pathologies such as adenomatous polyps and cancer. The use of neurotensin as a potential endoscopic screening tool for identifying high-risk population for developing colorectal cancer is promising, but much has to be done before it is validated in larger scale prospective studies.

There is an ever-growing need, with the ongoing developments in research and the progress towards patient centered care, to delineate standardized protocols of management of anal cancer. However, guidelines from different societies show some degree of disagreement. This is a systematic review of the literature to identify similarities and discrepancies between the guidelines for the management of anal cancer drafted by the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) and by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). We found essentially similar management for investigation, diagnosis, chemotherapy regimens, and radiotherapy doses in both ESMO and NCCN recommendations in the management of anal cancer. There were few differences, which included the levels of evidence and grades of recommendations, the delineation of radiotherapy fields, and the treatment of the elderly and personalized medicine based on genetics. The follow-up regime is also marginally different in the first 2 years. Even if the observed differences may be justified by a different implementation of evidence-based medicine among different countries for particular management modalities of anal cancer, we identified the grey areas which need further study. In addition, these facets should be assessed more carefully when planning future guidelines.

AIM/OBJECTIVE:Social media (SM) can provide information and medical knowledge to patients. Our aim was to review the literature and web-based content on SM that is used by Colorectal Cancer (CRC) patients, as well as surgeons' interaction with SM. METHOD/METHODS:Studies published between 2006 and 2016 were assessed. We also assessed the impact of several hashtags on Twitter with a freeware (Symplur). RESULTS:Nine studies were included assessing Twitter (78%), Forums/Cancer-survivor networks (33%), and Facebook (22%). Aims included use of SM by CRC patients (67%), cancer-specific usage of SM with different types of cancer (44%), content credibility (33%), and influence in CRC awareness (33%). Prevention was the most common information that CRC patients looked for, followed by treatment side-effects. Only 2% of CRC SM users are doctors. SM use by colorectal consultants was suboptimal. Only 38% of surgeons had a LinkedIn account (most with less than 50 connections), and 3% used Twitter. A steep increase of tweets was observed for searched Hashtags over time, which was more marked for #ColonCancer (+67%vs+38%, #Coloncancer vs #RectalCancer). Participants engaged with colon cancer increased by 85%, whereas rectal cancer ones increased by 29%. The hashtag '#RectalCancer' was mostly tweeted by colorectal surgeons. The official twitter account of American Society of Colorectal Surgeons (@fascrs_updates) was the most active account. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:CRC patients and relatives are increasingly engaging with SM. CRC surgeons' participation is poor, but we confirm a trend toward a greater involvement. Most SM lack of authoritative validation and the quality of shared content still is largely anecdotic and not scientifically evidenced-based. However, SM may offer several advantages over conventional information sharing sources for CRC patients and surgeons, and create connections with mutual enrichment.

BACKGROUND:The aim of the present study was to evaluate the surgical technique, short-term oncological and perioperative outcomes for the transabdominal division of the levator ani muscles during abdominoperineal excision of the rectum (APER). METHODS:A systematic review was performed to identify studies reporting on transabdominal division of the levator ani during APER. A comprehensive literature search was performed using a combination of free-text terms and controlled vocabulary when applicable on the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials in the Cochrane Library. The search period was from January 1945 to December 2015. The following search headings were used: "transabdominal", "transpelvic", "abdominal" or "pelvic" combined with either "levator" or "extralevator" and with "abdominoperineal". RESULTS:Nine publications were identified reporting on 99 participants. The male/female distribution was 1.44:1, respectively, and the mean age was 56.6 (30-77) years. All tumours were less than 5 cm from the anal verge. The preoperative radiological staging was T2 in 18% of cases, T3 in 53.5% and T4 in 28.5%. Transabdominal division of the levators was performed laparoscopically in 55 cases, robotically in 34 and open in 10. The mean operating time was 255 (177-640) min. Mean intraoperative blood loss was 140 (92-500) ml. There were no conversions to open. Circumferential resection margins were positive in two cases, and there was one intraoperative perforation. Mean post-operative length of stay was 9.3 (3-67) days. Follow-up (from 0 to 31 months) revealed 19 perineal wound infections, 15 cases of sexual dysfunction and 7 cases of urinary retention. There was no mortality and 1 readmission. CONCLUSIONS:Transabdominal division of the levators during APER is feasible and reproducible, with acceptable perioperative and good early oncological outcomes. Further comparative studies are needed.

BACKGROUND:Magnetic resonance defecography (MRD) allows for dynamic visualisation of the pelvic floor compartments when assessing for pelvic floor dysfunction. Additional benefits over traditional techniques are largely unknown. The aim of this study was to compare detection and miss rates of pelvic floor abnormalities with MRD versus clinical examination and traditional fluoroscopic techniques. METHODS:A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with recommendations from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were accessed. Studies were included if they reported detection rates of at least one outcome of interest with MRD versus EITHER clinical examination AND/OR fluoroscopic techniques within the same cohort of patients. RESULTS:Twenty-eight studies were included: 14 studies compared clinical examination to MRD, and 16 compared fluoroscopic techniques to MRD. Detection and miss rates with MRD were not significantly different from clinical examination findings for any outcome except enterocele, where MRD had a higher detection rate (37.16% with MRD vs 25.08%; OR 2.23, 95% CI 1.21-4.11, p = 0.010) and lower miss rates (1.20 vs 37.35%; OR 0.05, 95% CI 0.01-0.20, p = 0.0001) compared to clinical examination. However, compared to fluoroscopy, MRD had a lower detection rate for rectoceles (61.84 vs 73.68%; OR 0.48 95% CI 0.30-0.76, p = 0.002) rectoanal intussusception (37.91 vs 57.14%; OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.16-0.66, p = 0.002) and perineal descent (52.29 vs 74.51%; OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.17-0.74, p = 0.006). Miss rates of MRD were also higher compared to fluoroscopy for rectoceles (15.96 vs 0%; OR 15.74, 95% CI 5.34-46.40, p < 0.00001), intussusception (36.11 vs 3.70%; OR 10.52, 95% CI 3.25-34.03, p = 0.0001) and perineal descent (32.11 vs 0.92%; OR 12.30, 95% CI 3.38-44.76, p = 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS:MRD has a role in the assessment of pelvic floor dysfunction. However, clinicians need to be mindful of the risk of underdiagnosis and consider the use of additional imaging.

BACKGROUND:Anorectal manometry (ARM) is conventionally used to assess patients with fecal incontinence (FI). This review aims to establish the diagnostic accuracy of ARM for FI. METHOD/METHODS:A search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library was performed. Studies examining the sensitivity and specificity of ARM measures, either individually or combined, in the diagnosis of FI, were included. Data analysis was conducted using the bivariate statistical method. RESULTS:Seven studies were included out of an initial search of 1499 studies. The summary sensitivity and specificity for ARM as an overall test were 0.80 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.69-0.88) and 0.80 (95% CI: 0.65-0.90), respectively. The diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) for ARM was found to be 16.61 (95% CI: 5.52-50.03). The positive likelihood ratio (PLR) and negative likelihood ratio (NLR) for ARM were found to be 4.09 (95% CI: 2.11-7.94) and 0.25 (95% CI: 0.14-0.42), respectively. Subgroup analysis based on four studies reporting on maximum resting pressure (MRP) demonstrated a sensitivity, specificity, DOR, PLR and NLR of 0.60 (95% CI: 0.38-0.79), 0.93 (95% CI: 0.80-0.97), 20.0 (95% CI: 4.00-91.00), 8.60 (95% CI: 3.00-24.30) and 0.43 (95% CI: 0.24-0.76), respectively. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:ARM has been shown to be an accurate test for diagnosing FI. Further studies are required to establish the diagnostic accuracy of individual ARM measures.

Advanced primary and recurrent colorectal cancer can be successfully treated by experienced, dedicated centers delivering good outcomes with low mortality and morbidity. Development and implementation of a comprehensive referral pathway is to be encouraged. Multidisciplinary team management is essential in the management of this complex group of patients and is associated with significantly more complete preoperative evaluation and more accurate provision of patient information, as well as improved access to the most appropriate individualized management plan. A structured selection process can improve outcomes through standardized approaches to service delivery to provide the highest quality of care.

INTRODUCTION:Surgical site infection (SSI) is a well-known complication of colorectal surgery associated with increased morbidity and hospital stay. Antimicrobial prophylaxis can reduce the risk of SSI by as much as 75%. Extended-spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL)-producing pathogens make the successful use of such prophylaxis a challenge and are a real threat to patient care following colorectal surgery. OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study is to report the common characteristics of SSIs after colorectal surgery and to highlight the prevalence, risk factors, and clinical relevance of ESBL infections among these patients in a tertiary center. MATERIALS AND METHODS:All patients who underwent bowel resection operation (ie, laparoscopy, laparotomy, or laparoscopic-assisted colectomy) for benign or malignant colorectal disease were identified retrospectively from the prospective database of the colorectal department in the authors' tertiary center from March 2015 to March 2016. RESULTS:There were 123 patients included in this study, of which 21% (n = 26) had a SSI. The microorganisms isolated in the surgical sites included Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Klebsiella pneumoniae, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, Proteus mirabilis, Morganella morganii, and Enterobacter cloacae. Thirty-eight percent of the wound infections grew ESBL-producing pathogens in their wound cultures and 62% grew non-ESBL microbes. CONCLUSIONS:More than one-third of the wound infections were due to ESBL-producing pathogens, which were resistant to the antibiotic prophylaxis given. Inappropriate antibiotic usage can delay postoperative recovery. High-risk patients for ESBL colonization may benefit from preoperative screening based on an established protocol. The cost effectiveness of an ESBL screening program needs to be further studied.