Diagnostic utility of staging abdominal computerized tomography and repeat endoscopy in detecting localization errors at initial endoscopy in colorectal cancer

Diagnostic Benefits and Surgical Implications of Methods for Tumor Localization in Sigmoid and Rectum Tumors

(1) Background: In our study, we aimed to determine the accuracy rates of imaging methods for sigmoid, rectosigmoid colon, and rectum cancer. (2) Methods: Patients with tumors located in the rectosigmoid colon, sigmoid colon, and rectum who were operated on were included. Upon admission, we examined the patients' first diagnostic colonoscopies and their preoperative repeat control colonoscopies and computed tomography (CT) report. (3) Results: In this study, 23 patients (57.5%) were male. The overall accuracy rates were 80.0% (32/40) in colonoscopy, 65.0% (26/40) in preoperative CT, and 87.5% (35/40) in retro CT, and the differences among the examination methods were statistically significant (p = 0.049). The sensitivity levels decreased to 50.0% for colonoscopy and preoperative CT and 75.0% for retro CT in rectosigmoid colon tumors. In rectal tumors, the sensitivity levels were 75.0% in colonoscopy, 60.0% in preoperative CT, and 80.0% in retro CT. In two patients, the tumor location was given incorrectly, and postoperative pathological evaluations indicated T3N0 tumors; the initially planned treatment was thus changed to include radiotherapy in addition to chemotherapy in the postoperative period because the tumor was located in the middle rectum. (4) Conclusions: Accuracy in tumor localization in sigmoid, rectosigmoid, and rectum tumors still needs to be improved, which could be accomplished with prospective studies. CT evaluations for cancer localization in this patient group should be re-evaluated by a radiologist.

Optimal endoscopic localization of colorectal neoplasms: a comparison of rural versus urban documentation practices

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopy is the gold standard for diagnosing colorectal neoplasms. However, colonoscopy is often repeated preoperatively due to non-standard documentation and inconsistent practices by index endoscopists. Repeat endoscopies result in treatment delays and can increase risks of complications. National consensus recommendations were recently developed for optimal endoscopic colorectal lesion localization. We aimed to assess baseline colonoscopy practice differences from the new recommendations with a focus on geographical variability in report quality between urban and rural referral sites.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of patients who underwent elective surgery for colorectal neoplasms at a single institution in Winnipeg between 2007-2020. We compared endoscopy report quality to the national recommendations with charts stratified by endoscopy location. Our primary outcomes were overall report documentation completeness and use of recommended practices.

RESULTS

One hundred ninety-four patients were included (97 rural, 97 urban). The mean overall compliance with the recommendations for urban endoscopies was marginally better compared to rural endoscopies (50% vs. 48%, p = 0.04). Sixty-eight percent of the reports complied with tattoo indications (72% urban; 63% rural, p = 0.16). On average, reports included 29% of recommended tattoo information (30% urban; 28% rural, p = 0.25) and demonstrated 74% appropriate tattoo technique (70% urban; 81% rural, p = 0.10). Twenty-one percent of reports included photographs of lesions in accordance with the national recommendations (28% urban; 13% rural, p = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopists frequently omit recommended practices for optimal colorectal lesion localization. Rural reports miss more recommended information compared to urban reports. Future research is needed to facilitate province-wide high-quality endoscopy reporting for patients regardless of endoscopy location.

A single centre audit: repeat pre-operative colonoscopy

BACKGROUND

Repeat colonoscopy may be required for tumour localisation. The aim of the study is to explore the clinical settings it was used and benchmark the quality of initial colonoscopy against standardized guidelines for tumour localisation, tattooing and colonoscopy reporting amongst clinicians.

METHODS

A retrospective study from 2016 to 2021 has been performed on patients who underwent elective colorectal cancer resections at the Northern Hospital. Patient demographics, colonoscopic and operative details were retrieved from the Bi-National Colorectal Cancer Audit (BCCA) Registry database and hospital medical records.

PRIMARY OUTCOMES

changes in operative approach and delays to operation.

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

reasons for a repeat colonoscopy and complications from repeat colonoscopy.

RESULTS

A total of 339 patients were included in this study. 94 (28.6%) underwent a repeat colonoscopy. Re-scoping rate was 29.6% for surgeons, and 26.2% for non-operating endoscopists. Surgeons had a 5.9% localisation error rate, and non-operating endoscopist 6.95% (p = 0.673). Surgeons did not have a lower rate of repeat colonoscopy (p = 0.462). Repeat endoscopy was associated with a longer time to definitive operation (p < 0.001). No complications were associated with a repeat colonoscopy.

CONCLUSION

There was no difference in localisation error rates or repeat colonoscopy amongst surgeons (29.6%) and non-operating endoscopists (26.2%) (p = 0.462). This could be explained by the standardized endoscopy training in Australia governed by a common training board. Lack of tattooing at index colonoscopy and inadequate documentation often led to a repeat endoscopy, which was associated with a longer time to definitive operation. Standardized guidelines in tattooing of lesions and colonoscopy reporting should be implemented.

Repeat preoperative endoscopy after regional implementation of electronic synoptic endoscopy reporting: a retrospective comparative study

BACKGROUND

Repeat preoperative endoscopy is common for patients with colorectal neoplasms. This can result in treatment delays, patient discomfort, and risks of colonoscopy-related complications. Repeat preoperative endoscopy has been attributed to poor communication between endoscopists and surgeons. In January 2019, mandatory electronic synoptic reporting for endoscopy was implemented to include elements consistent with quality indicators proposed in national guidelines. The aim of the present study is to assess whether the repeat preoperative endoscopy rate for colorectal lesions changed following synoptic report implementation.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed of 1690 consecutive patients who underwent elective surgical resection for colorectal neoplasms from January 2007 to June 2020 at a tertiary hospital in Canada. Patients who had an index endoscopy documented via synoptic report were compared to those reported via narrative report. Primary outcomes were rates of repeat preoperative endoscopy and inclusion of colonoscopy quality indicators: photo-documentation, tattoo placement, and bowel preparation score.

RESULTS

In total, 1429 patients who underwent elective colorectal resection for colorectal cancers or polyps between January 2007 and June 2020 were included. 115 had index endoscopies recorded via synoptic report and 1314 by narrative report. The repeat preoperative endoscopy rate after endoscopies documented by narrative report was 29.07% (95% CI 26.63-31.61) and 25.22% (95% CI 17.58-34.17%) for synoptic report. Patients whose index endoscopies where performed by a practitioner other than their operating surgeon had a re-endoscopy rate of 36.03% (95% CI 32.82-39.33%) after narrative report and 38.81% (95% CI 27.14-51.50%) for synoptic report. Rates of tattoo placement, photo-documentation, and reporting of bowel preparation quality were all significantly increased with synoptic reports (p ≤ 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopy synoptic reports based on current guidelines were not associated with a decrease in rates of repeat pre-operative endoscopy at a high-volume colorectal cancer centre. Future study should examine guideline deficiencies for this purpose and make necessary modifications.