Screening for dysplasia and TP53 mutations in closed rectal stumps of patients with ulcerative colitis or Crohn disease

The incidence of malignancy in the residual rectum of IBD patients after colectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) who have had a total colectomy remain with their rectum in situ, and are therefore at risk of rectal carcinoma. It is not clear how high the incidence of rectal cancer is in this cohort. The primary objective of this meta-analysis was to estimate the incidence of rectal cancer in patients with ulcerative colitis or Crohn's disease who have undergone colectomy but have a residual rectum, and to identify the risk factors for its development. In doing so, we explore the current recommendations for screening processes for these patients.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was performed. Five databases (Medline, Embase, Pubmed, Cochrane Library and Scopus) were searched from inception to 29 October 2021, to identify studies adhering to the population, intervention, control and outcomes (PICO) criteria. The included studies were critically appraised, and the relevant data was extracted. Cancer incidence was estimated from the reported information. Risk stratification was analysed using RevMan. A narrative approach was undertaken for the exploration of the existing screening guidelines.

RESULTS

Data from 23 of the 24 identified studies was suitable for analysis. The pooled incidence of rectal carcinoma was calculated to be 1.3%. Subgroup analysis showed an incidence of 0.7% and 3.2% for patients with a de-functioned rectal stump and ileorectal anastomosis, respectively. Patients with a history of a colorectal carcinoma were more likely to have a subsequent diagnosis of rectal carcinoma (RR 7.2, 95% CI 2.4-21.1). Patients with previous colorectal dysplasia were also at higher risk (RR 5.1, 95% CI 3.1-8.2). No universal standardised guidance regarding screening for this cohort could be identified in the available literature.

CONCLUSIONS

The overall risk of malignancy was estimated to be 1.3%, which is lower than previously reported. There is a need for clear and standardised screening guidance for this group of patients.

Long-Term Outcomes of the Excluded Rectum in Crohn's Disease: A Multicenter International Study

BACKGROUND

Many patients with Crohn's disease (CD) require fecal diversion. To understand the long-term outcomes, we performed a multicenter review of the experience with retained excluded rectums.

METHODS

We reviewed the medical records of all CD patients between 1990 and 2014 who had undergone diversionary surgery with retention of the excluded rectum for at least 6 months and who had at least 2 years of postoperative follow-up.

RESULTS

From all the CD patients in the institutions' databases, there were 197 who met all our inclusion criteria. A total of 92 (46.7%) of 197 patients ultimately underwent subsequent proctectomy, while 105 (53.3%) still had retained rectums at time of last follow-up. Among these 105 patients with retained rectums, 50 (47.6%) underwent reanastomosis, while the other 55 (52.4%) retained excluded rectums. Of these 55 patients whose rectums remained excluded, 20 (36.4%) were symptom-free, but the other 35 (63.6%) were symptomatic. Among the 50 patients who had been reconnected, 28 (56%) were symptom-free, while 22(44%) were symptomatic. From our entire cohort of 197 cases, 149 (75.6%) either ultimately lost their rectums or remained symptomatic with retained rectums, while only 28 (14.2%) of 197, and only 4 (5.9%) of 66 with initial perianal disease, were able to achieve reanastomosis without further problems. Four patients developed anorectal dysplasia or cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

In this multicenter cohort of patients with CD who had fecal diversion, fewer than 15%, and only 6% with perianal disease, achieved reanastomosis without experiencing disease persistence.

Diversion proctocolitis and the problem of the forgotten rectum in inflammatory bowel diseases: A systematic review

Background and aims

Diversion proctocolitis (DP) is a non‐specific mucosal inflammation arising in the defunctionalized colon and/or rectum following faecal diversion (colostomy, ileostomy). Differential diagnosis of DP from the underlying disease in patients with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) is often unclear. As a result, it might be difficult to undertake any specific treatment. We aimed to systematically review the literature evidence on DP in IBD patients.

Methods

For this qualitative systematic review, we searched PubMed, EMBASE and Scopus to identify all studies published until July 2021 including IBD patients affected by DP.

Results

Overall, 37 papers published between 1982 and 2021 were included. A total of 1.211 IBD patients were included: 613 UC (50.6%), 524 CD (43.3%), 66 IBD‐unclassified (IBD‐U) (5.4%), 8 unspecified patients (0.7%). Most patients with DP are asymptomatic, although inflammation is detectable in almost all patients with a rectal stump. Reduced short‐chain fatty acids and an altered microbiome, may trigger mucosal inflammation and have been proposed as causing factors. An increased risk of developing cancer on DP has been reported in patients with a history of previous dysplasia/cancer.

Conclusions

The etiopathogenesis of DP is still unknown. The efficacy of mesalamine, corticosteroids or short‐chain fatty acids has not been proven by randomized trials yet. Since the incidence of cancer of the rectal stump can reach 4.5 per 1.000 diverted patients‐year, IBD patients undergoing subtotal colectomy with end‐ileostomy should undergo close endoscopic surveillance, being eventually counseled for surgery with or without the restoration of the intestinal continuity.

Endoscopic evaluation of surgically altered bowel in inflammatory bowel disease: a consensus guideline from the Global Interventional Inflammatory Bowel Disease Group

The majority of patients with Crohn's disease and a proportion of patients with ulcerative colitis will ultimately require surgical treatment despite advances in diagnosis, therapy, and endoscopic interventions. The surgical procedures that are most commonly done include bowel resection with anastomosis, strictureplasty, faecal diversion, and ileal pouch. These surgical treatment modalities result in substantial alterations in bowel anatomy. In patients with inflammatory bowel disease, endoscopy plays a key role in the assessment of disease activity, disease recurrence, treatment response, dysplasia surveillance, and delivery of endoscopic therapy. Endoscopic evaluation and management of surgically altered bowel can be challenging. This consensus guideline delineates anatomical landmarks and endoscopic assessment of these landmarks in diseased and surgically altered bowel.

Risk of Neoplasia After Colectomy in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Colorectal neoplasia can still develop after colectomy for inflammatory bowel disease. However, data on this risk are scare, and there have been few conclusive findings, so no evidence-based recommendations have been made for postoperative surveillance. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the prevalence and incidence of and risk factors for neoplasia in patients with inflammatory bowel disease who have undergone colectomy, including the permanent-end ileostomy and rectal stump, ileorectal anastomosis (IRA), and ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) procedures.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library through May 2014 to identify studies that reported prevalence or incidence of colorectal neoplasia after colectomy or specifically assessed risk factors for neoplasia development. Studies were selected, quality was assessed, and data were extracted by 2 independent researchers.

RESULTS

We calculated colorectal cancer (CRC) prevalence values from 13 studies of patients who underwent rectal stump surgery, 35 studies of IRA, and 33 studies of IPAA. Significantly higher proportions of patients in the rectal stump group (2.1%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.3%-3.0%) and in the IRA group (2.4%; 95% CI, 1.7%-3.0%) developed CRC than in the IPAA group (0.5%; 95% CI, 0.3%-0.6%); the odds ratio (OR) for CRC in the rectal stump or IRA groups compared with the IPAA group was 6.4 (95% CI, 4.3-9.5). A history of CRC was the most important risk factor for development of CRC after colectomy (OR for patients receiving IRA, 12.8; 95% CI, 3.31-49.2 and OR for patients receiving IPAA, 15.0; 95% CI, 6.6-34.5).

CONCLUSIONS

In a meta-analysis of published studies, we found the prevalence and incidence of CRC after colectomy to be less than 3%; in patients receiving IPAA it was less than 1%. Factors that increased risk of cancer development after colectomy included the presence of a residual rectum and a history of CRC. These findings could aid in development of individualized strategies for post-surgery surveillance.