Colonoscopy following nonoperative management of uncomplicated diverticulitis may not be warranted

Analysis of the outcomes of postdiverticulitis investigations: a multicentre cohort study including 1,120 patients

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to assess the yield of the endoscopic investigations performed following the resolution of acute diverticulitis.

METHODS

A retrospective multicentre study included patients with multislice computed tomography (MSCT)-proven diverticulitis, in four NHS hospitals, between January 2016 and April 2023. The primary outcome was the rate of colonic cancer in the diseased segment. Secondary outcomes included the rate of malignancy in the nondiseased colonic segments, the benign colonic polyp detection rate, the rate of malignancy in the resected surgical specimens in patients who underwent an emergency surgery on the index admission and the rate of complications in the investigated group.

RESULTS

A total of 1,120 patients were included in the study, out of which 604 were females, with a median age of 61 years; 731 patients (65%) had uncomplicated diverticulitis (Hinchey 1A) while 389 (35%) had complicated diverticulitis (Hinchey 1B-4). Following the acute episode, 757 (74%) patients had subsequent endoscopic evaluation. The incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) or advanced adenomas (AA) in patients with uncomplicated diverticulitis was 0.14%. In the complicated diverticulitis group, the incidence of CRC/AA in patients with Hinchey 1b and Hinchey 2 was 1.4% and 5.4%, respectively. Out of the 107 patients who underwent emergency colonic resection for suspected perforated diverticulitis, 18 (16.8%) had histological evidence of colonic malignancy.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic investigations following uncomplicated diverticulitis have a low yield for sinister colonic pathology. Colonoscopy should be planned following complicated diverticulitis and in patients with uncomplicated diverticulitis with suspicious radiological finding on index imaging or in patients with ongoing clinical manifestations. In patients who undergo emergency surgery, oncological principles should be applied whenever possible.

Diverticulitis in Older Adults: A Review of Etiology, Diagnosis, and Management

BACKGROUND

Diverticulitis accounts for over 300,000 hospitalizations annually in the United States and its incidence increases with age. Among older adults, diverticulitis is the fourth leading cause for emergency surgery. Older adults with multimorbidity and geriatric syndromes are often excluded from clinical studies, leaving a gap in the evidence needed to guide management. Here, we provide a clinically oriented review of the diagnosis and management of older adults with diverticulitis through the lens of age-friendly care.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We reviewed the literature describing the epidemiology, diagnosis, management, and prevention of diverticulitis in older adults. Due to age-related physiologic changes, the presence of geriatric syndromes, and multimorbidity, older adults with diverticulitis often present with atypical symptoms, variable laboratory findings, and are at higher risk for complications than younger patients. Guidelines support a more aggressive approach to diagnosis in this population, with lower threshold for obtaining diagnostic imaging. Antibiotics remain a mainstay of treatment for uncomplicated disease, and surgical management should be focused on severity of disease and the balance between the likelihood of improving quality of life and risks and burden of treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Diverticulitis is a common disease that has a unique presentation among older individuals with limited evidence to guide management. Diagnosis and treatment should focus on what matters most to the patient, providing the most meaningful outcome possible within the context of multimorbidity, patient goals, symptom burden, and anticipated treatment outcomes.

Risk for colorectal cancer after computed tomography verified acute diverticulitis: A retrospective cohort study with long-term follow-up

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Colorectal cancer (CRC) can mimic acute diverticulitis and can thus be misdiagnosed. Therefore, colonic evaluation is recommended after an episode of acute diverticulitis. The aim of this study was to analyze the risk of CRC after computed tomography (CT) verified uncomplicated and complicated acute diverticulitis in short-term and, particularly, long-term follow-up to ensure the feasibility of the primary CT imaging in separating patients with uncomplicated and complicated acute diverticulitis.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted in patients with CT-verified acute diverticulitis in 2003-2012. Data on CT findings and colonic evaluations were analyzed. The patients were divided into those with uncomplicated and complicated acute diverticulitis. Patient charts were reviewed 9-18 years after the initial acute diverticulitis episode.

RESULTS

The study population consisted of 270 patients. According to CT scans, 170 (63%) patients had uncomplicated acute diverticulitis and 100 (37%) had complicated acute diverticulitis. Further colonic evaluation was made in 146 (54%) patients. In the whole study population, CRC was found in 7 (2.6%) patients, but CRC was associated with acute diverticulitis in only 4 (1.5%) patients. The short-term risk for CRC was 0.6% (1/170) in uncomplicated acute diverticulitis and 3.0% (3/100) in complicated acute diverticulitis. No additional CRC was found in patients with complicated acute diverticulitis during the long-term follow-up and three cases of CRC found after uncomplicated acute diverticulitis had no observable association with previous diverticulitis.

CONCLUSIONS

In short-term follow-up, the risk of underlying CRC is very low in CT-verified uncomplicated acute diverticulitis but increased in complicated acute diverticulitis. Long-term follow-up revealed no additional CRCs associated with previous acute diverticulitis, indicating that the short-term results remain consistent also in the long run. These long-term results confirm that colonoscopy should be reserved for patients with complicated acute diverticulitis or with persisting or alarming symptoms.

Can endoscopic follow-up after acute diverticulitis be rationalised?

BACKGROUND

Acute diverticulitis (AD) is a common cause of presentation to emergency surgical services. Follow-up with endoluminal investigation to exclude colorectal cancer (CRC) remains controversial. Guidelines are increasingly moving to a more restrictive follow-up based on severity of disease and age. The purpose of this observational study was to assess the prevalence of CRC in AD patients and the impact of follow-up on endoscopy services.

METHODS

Patients admitted with a diagnosis of AD over a 2-year period were reviewed. The proportion of patients undergoing endoscopic follow-up and the CRC detection rate were recorded. The potential impact of a more conservative approach to follow-up was evaluated.

RESULTS

There were 484 patients with AD presenting 546 times (M:F = 198:286; median age = 63 years). 80% of admissions were aged 50 or older. There were 43 emergency interventions in 39 patients (10 percutaneous drain; 33 surgery). The remainder were managed conservatively. 28 patients (5.1%) underwent colonic resection with cancer found in one specimen (3.6%). 287 patients underwent endoluminal follow-up with cancer diagnosed in 3 cases (1.0%). There was no significant difference in the prevalence of CRC between patients requiring emergency surgery and those managed conservatively, or between patients with complicated versus uncomplicated diverticulitis.

CONCLUSION

CRC masquerading as acute diverticulitis is rare. The incidence of neoplasia both at endoscopic follow-up and in patients requiring emergency intervention is low. Conservative follow-up strategies appear safe, but their effectiveness in reducing the burden on endoscopy services may be limited by current age-based recommendations. Restricting follow-up to those with complicated AD would reduce the number of patients requiring endoluminal investigation by 70%.

When to Perform a Colonoscopy in Diverticular Disease and Why: A Personalized Approach

Colonoscopy is a crucial diagnostic tool in managing diverticular disease (DD). Diverticulosis can often be an unexpected diagnosis when colonoscopy is performed in asymptomatic subjects, generally for colorectal cancer screening, or it could reveal an endoscopic picture compatible with DD, including acute diverticulitis, in patients suffering from abdominal pain or rectal bleeding. However, alongside its role in the differential diagnosis of colonic diseases, particularly with colon cancer after an episode of acute diverticulitis or segmental colitis associated with diverticulosis, the most promising use of colonoscopy in patients with DD is represented by its prognostic role when the DICA (Diverticular Inflammation and Complication Assessment) classification is applied. Finally, colonoscopy plays a crucial role in managing diverticular bleeding, and it could sometimes be used to resolve other complications, particularly as a bridge to surgery. This article aims to summarize "when" to safely perform a colonoscopy in the different DD settings and "why".

Evaluation and Management After Acute Left-Sided Colonic Diverticulitis : A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

The value of interventions used after acute colonic diverticulitis is unclear.

PURPOSE

To evaluate postdiverticulitis colonoscopy and interventions to prevent recurrent diverticulitis.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Embase, CINAHL, and ClinicalTrials.gov from 1 January 1990 through 16 November 2020.

STUDY SELECTION

Comparative studies of interventions of interest reporting critical or important outcomes, and larger single-group studies to evaluate prevalence of colonoscopy findings and harms.

DATA EXTRACTION

6 researchers extracted study data and risk of bias. The team assessed strength of evidence.

DATA SYNTHESIS

19 studies evaluated colonoscopy. Risk for prevalent colorectal cancer (CRC) compared with the general population is unclear. Based on low-strength evidence, long-term CRC diagnosis is similar with or without colonoscopy. High-strength evidence indicates that risk for prevalent CRC is higher among patients with complicated diverticulitis and colonoscopy complications are rare. Based on high-strength evidence, mesalamine does not reduce recurrence risk (6 randomized controlled trials [RCTs]). Evidence on other nonsurgical interventions is insufficient. For patients with prior complicated or smoldering or frequently recurrent diverticulitis, elective surgery is associated with reduced recurrence (3 studies; high strength). In 19 studies, serious surgical complications were uncommon.

LIMITATIONS

Few RCTs provided evidence. Heterogeneity of treatment effect was not adequately assessed.

CONCLUSION

It is unclear whether patients with recent acute diverticulitis are at increased risk for prevalent CRC, but those with complicated diverticulitis are at increased risk. Mesalamine is ineffective in preventing recurrence; other nonsurgical treatments have inadequate evidence. Elective surgery reduces recurrence in patients with prior complicated or smoldering or frequently recurrent diverticulitis, but it is unclear which of these patients may benefit most.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and American College of Physicians. (PROSPERO: CRD42020151246).

Colonoscopy for Diagnostic Evaluation and Interventions to Prevent Recurrence After Acute Left-Sided Colonic Diverticulitis: A Clinical Guideline From the American College of Physicians

DESCRIPTION

The American College of Physicians (ACP) developed this guideline to provide clinical recommendations on the role of colonoscopy for diagnostic evaluation of colorectal cancer (CRC) after a presumed diagnosis of acute left-sided colonic diverticulitis and on the role of pharmacologic, nonpharmacologic, and elective surgical interventions to prevent recurrence after initial treatment of acute complicated and uncomplicated left-sided colonic diverticulitis. This guideline is based on the current best available evidence about benefits and harms, taken in the context of costs and patient values and preferences.

METHODS

The ACP Clinical Guidelines Committee (CGC) based these recommendations on a systematic review on the role of colonoscopy after acute left-sided colonic diverticulitis and pharmacologic, nonpharmacologic, and elective surgical interventions after initial treatment. The systematic review evaluated outcomes rated by the CGC as critical or important. This guideline was developed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) method.

TARGET AUDIENCE AND PATIENT POPULATION

The target audience is all clinicians, and the target patient population is adults with recent episodes of acute left-sided colonic diverticulitis.

RECOMMENDATION 1

ACP suggests that clinicians refer patients for a colonoscopy after an initial episode of complicated left-sided colonic diverticulitis in patients who have not had recent colonoscopy (conditional recommendation; low-certainty evidence).

RECOMMENDATION 2

ACP recommends against clinicians using mesalamine to prevent recurrent diverticulitis (strong recommendation; high-certainty evidence).

RECOMMENDATION 3

ACP suggests that clinicians discuss elective surgery to prevent recurrent diverticulitis after initial treatment in patients who have either uncomplicated diverticulitis that is persistent or recurs frequently or complicated diverticulitis (conditional recommendation; low-certainty evidence). The informed decision whether or not to undergo surgery should be personalized based on a discussion of potential benefits, harms, costs, and patient's preferences.

Changing Paradigms in the Management of Acute Uncomplicated Diverticulitis

Left-sided colonic diverticulitis is a common condition with significant morbidity and health care costs in Western countries. Acute uncomplicated diverticulitis which is characterized by the absence of organ dysfunction, abscesses, fistula, or perforations accounts for around 80% of the cases. In the last decades, several traditional paradigms in the management of acute uncomplicated diverticulitis have been replaced by evidence-based routines. This review provides a comprehensive evidence-based and clinical-oriented overview of up-to-date diagnostics with computer tomography, non-antibiotic treatment, outpatient treatment, and surgical strategies as well as follow-up of patients with acute uncomplicated diverticulitis.

Update on the management of sigmoid diverticulitis

Diverticular disease and diverticulitis are the most common non-cancerous pathology of the colon. It has traditionally been considered a disease of the elderly and associated with cultural and dietary habits. There has been a growing evolution in our understanding and the treatment guidelines for this disease. To provide an updated review of the epidemiology, pathogenesis, classification and highlight changes in the medical and surgical management of diverticulitis. Diverticulitis is increasingly being seen in young patients (< 50 years). Genetic contributions to diverticulitis may be larger than previously thought. Potential similarities and overlap with inflammatory bowel disease and irritable bowel syndrome exist. Computed tomography imaging represents the standard to classify the severity of diverticulitis. Modifications to the traditional Hinchey classification might serve to better delineate mild and intermediate forms as well as better classify chronic presentations of diverticulitis. Non-operative management is primarily based on antibiotics and supportive measures, but antibiotics may be omitted in mild cases. Interval colonoscopy remains advisable after an acute attack, particularly after a complicated form. Acute surgery is needed for the most severe as well as refractory cases, whereas elective resections are individualized and should be considered for chronic, smoldering, or recurrent forms and respective complications (stricture, fistula, etc.) and for patients with factors highly predictive of recurrent attacks. Diverticulitis is no longer a disease of the elderly. Our evolving understanding of diverticulitis as a clinical entity has led into a more nuanced approach in both the medical and surgical management of this common disease. Non-surgical management remains the appropriate treatment for greater than 70% of patients. In individuals with non-relenting, persistent, or recurrent symptoms and those with complicated disease and sequelae, a segmental colectomy remains the most effective surgical treatment in the acute, chronic, or elective-prophylactic setting.

Acute complicated diverticulitis is associated with an increased advanced neoplasia diagnosis rate: A retrospective study on 1852 patients

Recent reports have documented an unchanged rate of occurrence of colorectal cancer (CRC) and have publicised doubts regarding the benefit of prompt colonoscopy procedures after an episode of acute diverticulitis (AD). These reports mandate further evaluation of colonoscopy yield and timing in this regard. The current study aims to determine whether the rate of advanced colonic neoplasia after AD differs from that of average-risk patients, and to identify risk factors that are associated with their development.In this retrospective study, we included all patients who had been hospitalized to the surgery ward in the years 2008 to 2016 with radiographically confirmed AD, and had completed colonoscopies within one year of index hospitalization. Patients who were referred for screening colonoscopies during the same years were included as a control group. We compared the rates of diagnosis of CRC and advanced polyps for both groups before and after adjustment for multiple confounders. Moreover, we investigated risk factors that were associated with increased rate of advanced neoplasia diagnosis.A total of 350 patients were included in the AD group and 1502 patients in the screening colonoscopy control group. The CRC diagnosis rates (1.7% vs 0.3%; P = .09) and overall diagnosis rates of advanced neoplasia (12.3% vs 9.6%; P = .19) were not significantly different when findings were compared between the AD and control groups, respectively. Cases of complicated diverticulitis, however, were associated with increased risk of advanced neoplasia diagnosis (odds ratio (OR) 3.729, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.803-7.713; P = .01).The diagnosis rate for advanced neoplasia after AD was not significantly different from that of average-risk populations. A course of complicated AD, however, was a potential risk factor.

Epidemiology of Diverticulitis and Prevalence of First-Ever Colorectal Cancer Postdiverticulitis in Adults in the United States: A Population-Based National Study

BACKGROUND

The incidence of acute diverticulitis is increasing, and previous studies showed a wide range of prevalence of colorectal cancer after diverticulitis. There is a lack of high-quality evidence to support performing colonoscopy after diverticulitis.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to describe the incidence of first-ever diverticulitis and prevalence of first-ever colorectal cancer postdiverticulitis in the United States.

DESIGN

This is a retrospective cohort study.

SETTINGS

We queried a national database that contains data from 26 major integrated healthcare systems in the United States.

PATIENTS

We identified an aggregated patient cohort aged ≥18 years with a diagnosis of first-ever diverticulitis from February 2015 to February 2020, followed by first-ever colorectal cancer diagnosis, at least 1 day after and within 1 year of diverticulitis.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The incidence of first-ever diverticulitis was calculated. The prevalence and OR of first-ever colorectal cancer after diverticulitis were analyzed.

RESULTS

Among 31,778,290 individuals, we found the incidence of first-ever acute diverticulitis to be 2.9%. The prevalence of colorectal cancer within 1 year of first-ever acute diverticulitis was 0.57%, whereas the prevalence of colorectal cancer without a history of diverticulitis was 0.31% (OR = 1.8 (95% CI, 1.76-1.86)). The majority (92.3%) of the postdiverticulitis colorectal cancer were diagnosed within the first 6 months. The risk of colorectal cancer postdiverticulitis was higher in women (OR = 1.9), African Americans (OR = 2.0), and adults aged 18 to 65 years (OR = 2.3).

LIMITATIONS

We are unable to validate the diagnostic code because patient information in our database is deidentified.

CONCLUSIONS

Individuals are twice as likely to be diagnosed with colorectal cancer within 1 year of their first episode of acute diverticulitis compared with individuals without diverticulitis. We advocate for colonoscopy after the first occurrence of acute diverticulitis to screen for colorectal cancer, particularly for patients without a recent colonoscopy. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B412.

Short- and Long-Term Outcomes of Right-Sided Diverticulitis: Over 15 Years of North American Experience

BACKGROUND

Right-sided colonic diverticulitis represents less than 5% of diverticulitis cases in North America. The purpose of this study was to describe the management and outcomes for patients with a first episode of right-sided diverticulitis in a North American center.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study, including all patients managed for right-sided diverticulitis at a single tertiary-care institution from 2000 to 2017. Patient demographics, disease characteristics, and treatment strategies were described. Short- (emergency surgery, operative morbidity, treatment failure) and long-term (recurrence, elective operation) outcomes were reported. Patients with right-sided diverticulitis were then compared to a cohort of patients with left-sided diverticulitis.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven patients were managed for a first episode of right-sided diverticulitis, three (4.5%) of which were subsequently diagnosed with right-sided colon cancer; 64 patients therefore formed the population. Mean age was 51.2 ± 17.7 years. Eight patients (12.5%) self-identified as being Asian. The majority of patients had uncomplicated disease (90.6%); six (9.4%) presented with complicated diverticulitis. Most cases were diagnosed by computed tomography (78.1%), while 17.2% were diagnosed intra-operatively and 4.7% by pathology. Almost all patients diagnosed by computed tomography were managed nonoperatively. Fifteen patients (23.4%) were managed surgically: ten for suspected appendicitis, three for suspected colon mass, and two for diffuse peritonitis. After a median follow-up of 74.8 months (IQR 30.2-130.5), only two patients (3.1%) developed recurrent right-sided diverticulitis. Among patients managed nonoperatively, recurrence was significantly lower in patients with right-sided diverticulitis relative to left-sided diverticulitis (4.1% vs. 32.8%, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Right-sided diverticulitis can be successfully managed nonoperatively with low rates of recurrence. In populations in which this condition is more seldom observed, underlying colon cancers should be considered.

Interval colonoscopy following acute diverticulitis should not be discouraged yet: results from a retrospective cohort

BACKGROUND

Although included in some guidelines, the recommendation of interval colonoscopy after an acute diverticulitis (AD) episode has recently been questioned. In this study, we evaluated the incidence of colon cancer during the follow-up of an episode of AD.

METHODS

A retrospective review was carried out of patients with conservatively treated AD at our Institution (January 2011 to December 2018) with or without endoscopic study. Patients who had no colonoscopy performed were followed for two years. The demographic, clinical, radiological, follow-up and anatomopathological records were analysed. We determined CT scan validity for the differential diagnosis of CC and AD; sensibility, specificity, predictive values and likelihood ratios were calculated. Patients lost to follow-up and patients who had had colonoscopy in the previous three years were excluded.

RESULTS

This study included 285 patients with a mean age of 59 years. A total of 225 interval colonoscopies were performed and 60 patients without colonoscopy were followed up. There were 19 CC (6.7%) diagnosed, 14 with interval colonoscopy and 5 during follow-up; 8 (42.1%) happened in patients who had had an episode of uncomplicated AD. Although CT scan accuracy is high, 87.7%, positive and negative likelihood ratios were low, 4.67 and 0.64, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Interval colonoscopy should still be advisable after an episode of AD. The rationale for this statement is based on a non-negligible rate of hidden CC and an important uncertainty in the differential diagnosis.

Computed tomography diagnosed first time diverticulitis and colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Computed tomography (CT) with intravenous contrast is the gold standard for diagnosing diverticulitis. Published results concerning follow-up colonoscopy after an episode of acute diverticulitis to rule out cancer are conflicting. This study aimed to evaluate the risk of underlying colonic malignancy in patients diagnosed with a first time diverticulitis with a state of the art CT investigation with intravenous contrast.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of all patients with a first episode of diverticulitis diagnosed with CT at Danderyds Hospital, Stockholm, between January 1, 2015, and November 16, 2016. Data on modified Hinchey classification, age, sex, laboratory parameters, body mass index, and colonoscopy findings were recorded.

RESULTS

The study identified 518 patients with a CT-verified first time diverticulitis. Four hundred twenty-six (82%) of the 518 patients underwent follow-up colonoscopy and constitute our study cohort. CT showed that 402 patients had uncomplicated diverticulitis (modified Hinchey Ia), and 24 patients had complicated diverticulitis (modified Hinchey ≥Ib). Colonoscopy showed cancers in 2 (0.5%) of the 426 patients initially diagnosed as acute diverticulitis. In addition, 13 (3%) patients had advanced adenomas, and 121 (28%) patients had benign adenomas upon follow-up colonoscopy. Patients with CT-verified complicated diverticulitis (modified Hinchey ≥Ib) had a significantly higher risk for colon cancer compared with patients with an uncomplicated first time diverticulitis.

CONCLUSION

Our study supports routine follow-up colonoscopy after a first episode of CT-diagnosed complicated diverticulitis. In contrast, we do not find an increased risk for neoplasia in patients with uncomplicated diverticulitis.

Findings on Colonoscopy after Diverticulitis: A Multicenter Review

Diverticular disease is a common problem where patients with diverticulosis have a 1–4 per cent risk of acute diverticulitis. Current guidelines recommend a colonoscopy after.the resolution of acute diverticulitis. The aim of this study was to evaluate the yield of significant findings on colonoscopy after an episode of diverticulitis. This is a retrospective analysis of patients who underwent colonoscopy after an episode of diverticulitis between November 2005 and August 2017 at three major teaching hospitals. Advanced adenomas were defined as adenomas ≥1 cm, serrated adenomas, and tubulovillous or villous adenomas. A total of 584 patients (298 males; 51%) underwent colonoscopy for a history of diverticulitis after resolution of acute symptoms. Colonoscopy was complete in 488 patients (84%). Among these 488 patients, 446 had diverticular disease, 31 had advanced adenomas, and four had adenocarcinomas. Colonoscopies were incomplete in 96 patients (16%). Forty-six of those patients underwent surgery. The overall incidence of advanced adenomas and adenocarcinomas was 32 (5.4%) and nine (1.5%), respectively. In our study, the prevalence of advanced adenomas and adenocarcinomas was relatively high compared with the average risk individuals. Our findings support that patients after an episode of diverticulitis should continue to get a colonoscopy.

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis on Colorectal Cancer Findings on Colonic Evaluation After CT-Confirmed Acute Diverticulitis

BACKGROUND

CT findings of acute diverticulitis can overlap with features of malignancy, and current guidelines recommend colonic evaluation after acute diverticulitis. However, the benefits of routine colonic evaluation have been questioned.

OBJECTIVE

We review 30 studies, composed of 29,348 subjects, to evaluate the role of routine colonic evaluation after CT-proven acute diverticulitis.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched for articles published up to July 2018 to identify all relevant articles.

STUDY SELECTION

A combination of both Medical Subject Headings and non-Medical Subject Headings key terms using Boolean operators were used on Medline, including colonic neoplasms, colorectal cancer, colon cancer, colonic cancer, colonoscopy, and diverticulitis. Any randomized or nonrandomized, English-language article that specifically analyzed incidence of colorectal cancer after performing colonoscopy in patients with previous diverticulitis was included.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The desired outcome was to evaluate for incidence of colonic malignancy in cases of acute colonic diverticulitis. Subgroup analyses for incidence of malignancy in uncomplicated and complicated diverticulitis, and Asian population studies were also performed.

RESULTS

Findings of colonic malignancy occurred in 1.67% (95% CI, 1.24-2.14) of patients with CT-diagnosed diverticulitis. The risk of malignancy in cases with uncomplicated diverticulitis was 1.22% (95% CI, 0.63-1.97) as compared with 6.14% (95% CI, 3.20-9.82) in cases with complicated diverticulitis, with a relative risk of 5.033 (95% CI, 3.194-7.930; p < 0.001).

LIMITATIONS

Significant variability in design and methodology of the individual studies contributed to the heterogeneity of this study, but these were addressed by using the random-effects model analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Colonic evaluation is worth considering for patients with diverticulitis because of the small but serious risk of underlying malignancy. The risk of malignancy is higher for patients of advanced age and with complicated diverticulitis.

Prevalence of colorectal cancer and advanced adenoma in patients with acute diverticulitis: implications for follow-up colonoscopy

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Guidelines recommend colonoscopy after an episode of diverticulitis to exclude neoplasia but the effectiveness of testing is uncertain. Patients with complicated diverticulitis may be at higher risk for neoplasia, but most patients have uncomplicated disease. We examined the incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) and advanced adenoma (AA) in patients with diverticulitis compared with patients undergoing screening colonoscopy.

METHODS

CT scans from January 1, 2008, to May 1, 2013, at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) were reviewed to identify those with confirmed acute diverticulitis. Subsequent surgical, colonoscopy, and pathology reports were abstracted to identify those with a diagnosis of AA and CRC. The incidence of neoplasia was compared with that reported for screening colonoscopy from a meta-analysis (n = 68,324), and from colonoscopy examinations at UPMC between 2013 and 2015 (n = 28,573).

RESULTS

A total of 5167 abdominal/pelvic CT scan reports identified 978 patients with acute diverticulitis, among which 474 (48.5%) patients had undergone at least 1 colonoscopy or gastrointestinal surgery to April 2015. The CRC rate in patients with diverticulitis (13/474, 2.7%) was significantly higher (P < .0001) compared with both the meta-analysis (0.8%) and UPMC (0.3%). The AA rate (19/474, 4.0%) was similar to the rate in the meta-analysis (5.0%, P = .39) but significantly lower than at UPMC (7.7%, P = .003). The incidence of AA or CRC in complicated diverticulitis (10/141, 7.1%) did not differ significantly (P = .85) from the incidence of AA or CRC in uncomplicated diverticulitis (22/332, 6.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

CRC after diverticulitis was significantly higher than that observed at screening colonoscopy and was not limited to complicated disease. Colonoscopy is advisable after the diagnosis of diverticulitis.

Meta-analysis of the role of colonoscopy after an episode of left-sided acute diverticulitis

Background

Routine colonoscopy was traditionally recommended after acute diverticulitis to exclude coexistent malignancy. Improved CT imaging may make routine colonoscopy less required over time but most guidelines still recommend it. The aim of this review was to assess the role of colonoscopy in patients with CT‐proven acute diverticulitis.

Methods

PubMed and Embase were searched for studies reporting the prevalence of advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACN) or colorectal carcinoma in patients who underwent colonoscopy within 1 year after CT‐proven left‐sided acute diverticulitis. The prevalence was pooled using a random‐effects model and, if possible, compared with that among asymptomatic controls.

Results

Seventeen studies with 3296 patients were included. The pooled prevalence of ACN was 6·9 (95 per cent c.i. 5·0 to 9·4) per cent and that of colorectal carcinoma was 2·1 (1·5 to 3·1) per cent. Only two studies reported a comparison with asymptomatic controls, showing comparable risks (risk ratio 1·80, 95 per cent c.i. 0·66 to 4·96). In subgroup analysis of patients with uncomplicated acute diverticulitis, the prevalence of colorectal carcinoma was only 0·5 (0·2 to 1·2) per cent.

Conclusion

Routine colonoscopy may be omitted in patients with uncomplicated diverticulitis if CT imaging is otherwise clear. Patients with complicated disease or ongoing symptoms should undergo colonoscopy.

Follow up colonoscopy may be omissible in uncomplicated left-sided acute diverticulitis diagnosed with CT- a retrospective cohort study

International guidelines recommend colonoscopy following hospitalisation for acute diverticulitis. There is a paucity of evidence supporting the efficacy of colonoscopy in this context, particularly for patients with CT-diagnosed uncomplicated left-sided diverticulitis. This study aims to investigate the frequency that colorectal cancer (CRC) and advanced adenomas (AA) are identified during follow-up colonoscopy after hospitalisation with CT-proven left-sided diverticulitis for the first time in a UK population. In this single-centre retrospective-cohort study all patients presenting with CT-diagnosed uncomplicated left-sided diverticulitis between 2014 and 2017 were identified. The incidence of histologically confirmed CRC and AA identified at follow-up colonoscopy 4–6 weeks following discharge was assessed. 204 patients with CT proven uncomplicated left-sided diverticulitis underwent follow-up colonoscopy. 72% were female and the median age was 63 years. There were no major complications. 22% of patients were found to have incidental hyperplastic polyps or adenomas with low-grade dysplasia. No CRC or AA were found. Routine colonoscopy following acute diverticulitis in this cohort did not identify a single CRC or AA and could arguably have been omitted. This would significantly reduce cost and pressure on endoscopy departments, in addition to the pain and discomfort that is commonly associated with colonoscopy.

Routine Colonoscopy After Acute Diverticulitis: is it Warranted?

PURPOSE

Recent evidence suggests routine colonoscopy after acute diverticulitis is not necessary but remains debatable. The aim of this study was to investigate the incidence of follow-up colonoscopic finding of adenoma, advanced neoplastic lesion, and adenocarcinoma after diverticulitis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective review of all cases of acute diverticulitis admitted from November 2015 to April 2018 was performed. Data collected included demographics, computed tomography (CT) findings, and findings of the follow-up colonoscopy within 12 months.

RESULTS

A total of 368 patients were admitted for acute diverticulitis. A total of 366 patients underwent CT scan for diagnosis. Of whom, 185 patients (50.5%) had a follow-up colonoscopy; 115 (31.4%) did not have a follow-up colonoscopy, and the remaining have had a recent colonoscopy. The overall incidence of adenomas was 25.9% (n=48) and advanced colonic neoplasia 1.62% (n=3) in patients who underwent follow-up colonoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

The finding of advanced colonic neoplasia in follow-up colonoscopy after an acute episode of CT-proven diverticulitis is equivalent to, or less than, that of the population colorectal cancer screening program. Routine colonoscopy is not necessary unless there are other concerning symptoms/CT findings.

Should a colonoscopy be offered routinely to patients with CT proven acute diverticulitis? A retrospective cohort study and meta-analysis of best available evidence

BACKGROUND

The current guidelines suggest that patients should undergo endoscopic evaluation of the colonic lumen after an episode of computed tomography (CT) proven acute diverticulitis to rule out malignancy. The usefulness of routine endoscopic evaluation of CT proven diverticulitis remains unknown.

AIM

To establish whether routine colonoscopy should be offered to patients after an episode of diverticulitis.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective study, comparing two groups: a diverticulitis group and a control group. The diverticulitis group consisted of patients undergoing a colonoscopy after an episode of diverticulitis. The control group consisted of asymptomatic patients undergoing a screening sigmoidoscopy. We also performed a systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched electronic data resources to identify all relevant studies. The primary outcome was the number of adenomas found, while the secondary outcomes were the number of cancers and polyps identified, and the adenoma risk.

RESULTS

68 and 1309 patients were included in the diverticulitis and control groups respectively. There was no difference in the risk of adenomas (5.9% vs 7.6%, P = 0.59), non-advanced adenomas (5.9% vs 6.9%, P = 0.75), advanced adenomas (0% vs 0.8%, P = 1), cancer (0% vs 0.15%, P = 1.00), and polyps (16.2% vs 14.2%, P = 0.65) between both groups. Meta-analysis of data from 4 retrospective observational studies, enrolling 4459 patients, showed no difference between the groups in terms of risk of adenomas (RD = -0.05, 95%CI: -0.11, 0.01, P = 0.10), non-advanced adenomas (RD = -0.02, 95%CI: -0.08, 0.04, P = 0.44), advanced adenomas (RD = -0.01, 95%CI: -0.04, 0.02, P = 0.36), cancer (RD = 0.01, 95%CI: -0.01, 0.03, P = 0.32), and polyps (RD = -0.05, 95%CI: -0.12, 0.02, P = 0.18).

CONCLUSION

Routine colonoscopy may not be appropriate in patients with acute diverticulitis. High quality prospective studies are required for more robust conclusions.

Risk of Colorectal Cancer in Patients With Acute Diverticulitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Observational Studies

BACKGROUND & AIMS

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the prevalence of colorectal cancer in patients with acute diverticulitis.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE from inception through November 2nd, 2017 for studies reporting the prevalence of colorectal cancer in patients with diverticulitis, identified based on the protocol CRD42017083272. This systematic review was conducted in accordance to the MOOSE guidelines. Pooled prevalence values were obtained by random effects models and robustness was tested by leave-one out sensitivity analyses. Heterogeneity was assessed using the Q-test and quantified based on I2 value. The critical appraisal of included studies was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale.

RESULTS

Our final analysis included 31 studies, comprising 50,445 patients. The pooled prevalence of colorectal cancer was 1.9% (95% CI, 1.5%-2.3%). Patients with complicated diverticulitis had a significantly higher risk for colorectal cancer (prevalence, 7.9%; 95% CI, 3.9%-15.3%) than patients with uncomplicated diverticulitis (prevalence, 1.3%; 95% CI, 0.1%-2%), corresponding to a pooled prevalence ratio of 6.7 (95% CI, 2.5-18.3). Subgroup analyses did not find significant difference in prevalence when separately pooling studies according to ranking on the Newcastle-Ottawa scale, geographical location or length of follow-up. Meta-regression did not find any association between age and colorectal cancer. Among patients who underwent endoscopy, the pooled prevalence of polyps was 22.7% (95% CI, 19.6%-26.0%), of advanced adenomas was 4.4% (95% CI, 3.4%-5.8%), of adenomas was 14.2% (95% CI, 11.7%-17.1%), and of hyperplastic polyps was 9.2% (95% CI, 7.6%-11.2%).

CONCLUSION

In a meta-analysis of observational studies of patients with acute diverticulitis, we found the pooled prevalence of colorectal cancer to be 1.9%. The risk of colorectal cancer was significantly higher in patients with complicated diverticulitis than in patients with uncomplicated diverticulitis.

Three-stage laparoscopic surgery in a morbidly obese patient with Hinchey III diverticulitis: a case report

Background

Perforated diverticulitis with purulent peritonitis (Hinchey III diverticulitis) has traditionally been treated with a Hartmann’s procedure in order to avoid the considerable postoperative morbidity and mortality associated with one-stage resection and primary anastomosis. Although there have been reports regarding laparoscopic lavage as the initial treatment of perforated Hinchey III diverticulitis, a formal treatment strategy has not been established yet. We performed a three-stage surgery, including laparoscopic lavage and drainage with diverting ileostomy (first stage), laparoscopic sigmoidectomy (second stage), and ileostomy closure (third stage) in a morbidly obese patient with Hinchey III diverticulitis.

Case presentation

A 31-year-old man who presented with abdominal pain was diagnosed with perforated diverticulitis and sent to our hospital for evaluation. He had morbid obesity (body mass index (BMI) 50 kg/m²), acute renal failure, and uncontrolled diabetes. We performed an emergency operation including laparoscopic lavage and drainage with a diverting ileostomy for this case of Hinchey III diverticulitis. Fifteen months after the first-stage surgery, we performed laparoscopic sigmoidectomy as the second stage. Finally, 5 months later, we performed ileostomy closure. The patient recovered without significant complications.

Conclusion

Three-stage surgery including early laparoscopic lavage and proximal diversion for morbidly obese, comorbid patients with Hinchey III diverticulitis may be indicated in the acute phase to avoid perioperative complications and permanent colostomy creation.

Risk of colorectal cancer in patients with diverticular disease

Colorectal cancer constitutes an important burden on the healthcare system. Screening at-risk populations to reduce colorectal cancer-related morbidity and mortality has become part of good clinical practice. However, recommendations regarding subgroups of patients with diverticular disease are subject to controversy. Herein, we review the most recent literature regarding the prevalence of colorectal cancer in patients with diverticular disease, diverticulitis and uncomplicated diverticulitis. The recent literature does not identify diverticular disease as a long-term risk factor for colorectal cancer. However, the risk of colorectal cancer is increased in the short-term period after hospitalization related to diverticular disease. According to a recent systematic review and meta-analysis, the prevalence of colorectal cancer is 1.6% in patients with acute diverticulitis who underwent colonoscopy. The risk of having colorectal cancer after an episode of acute diverticulitis is 44-fold higher than that of an age- and gender-adjusted reference population. Despite lower among patients with uncomplicated episode, the risk of colorectal cancer remains 40-fold higher in that subpopulation than that in the reference population. To conclude, the recent literature describes an increased risk of colorectal cancer among patients with acute diverticulitis compared to the reference population. Colonoscopy is therefore recommended in patients with diverticulitis to exclude colorectal cancer.

High Probability of an Underlying Colorectal Cancer Among Patients Treated for Acute Diverticulitis. A Population-Based Cohort Follow-Up Study

INTRODUCTION

Patients treated conservatively for acute diverticulitis (AD) are recommended colonic assessment to rule out an underlying Colorectal cancer (CRC). This has been questioned in patients with a CT diagnosis of uncomplicated AD. We analyzed the frequency of CRC and compared the characteristics of the CRC patients with controls.

METHOD

A cohort of patients treated conservatively for AD during 2005-2011 was identified through an administrative database. Patients diagnosed with CRC within 1 year after the index admission and four randomly selected controls were identified. The patients' files were reviewed to verify the diagnosis and obtain information about the clinical characteristics and the management. A blinded review was performed of CT examinations. The expected number of CRC was calculated from age, sex, and period-specific incidence data. The characteristics of the CRC patients were compared with the controls in a nested case-control study.

RESULTS

890 patients (298 men and 592 women) were treated conservatively for AD. 12 patients were diagnosed with CRC within 1 year, and ten of them in the sigmoid, giving a Standardized Incidence Ratio of 20.0 (95 % CI 10.2-35.7, p<0.001) for sigmoidal cancer. All CRC patients were aged over 70 years. The cancer was missed in six CT scans at the primary reading and in five at the blinded review.

CONCLUSION

Patients conservatively treated for AD are at high risk for an underlying CRC, especially if older than 70 years, which motivates routine follow-up. A CT diagnosis of uncomplicated AD does not rule out CRC.

An 18-Year Nationwide Cohort Study on The Association Between Diverticulitis and Colon Cancer

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the association between diverticulitis and colon cancer in a large, nationwide cohort study.

BACKGROUND

Diverticulitis is a common disease, especially in the Western world. Previous articles have investigated the association between diverticulitis and colon cancer with inconclusive results.

METHODS

We conducted a population-based cohort study based on longitudinal Danish national registers with data from the period 1995 to 2012. Data were extracted from comprehensive Danish national registers containing information from both public and private hospitals. Patients with diverticulitis were identified from the registers and matched by sex and age (± 1 year) with a ratio of 1:10 to people who did not have a registration of diverticulitis or diverticulosis. Main outcome was the event of colon cancer. Subgroup analyses were performed to investigate the effect of colonoscopies and treatment on the colon cancer rate after diverticulitis.

RESULTS

A total of 445,456 people were included, of whom 40,496 had a diagnosis of diverticulitis. The incidence of colon cancer in the group with diverticulitis (4.3%) and the group without diverticulitis (2.3%) differed significantly (P < 0.001) with an incidence rate ratio of 1.86 (95% confidence interval, CI, 1.77-1.96). When adjusted for possible confounders, the association between diverticulitis and cancer remained significant with an odds ratio (OR) of 2.20 (95% CI 2.08-2.32) (P < 0.001). Those with diverticulitis, who had no colonoscopy, had an increased risk of colon cancer compared with those without both diverticulitis and colonoscopy with an OR of 2.72 (95% CI 2.64-2.94) (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

We found a strong association between development of diverticulitis and colon cancer. This raises several questions regarding the possible causal association and warrants further studies. Patients with diverticulitis should undergo endoscopic surveillance for colon cancer.

Patients with computed tomography-proven acute diverticulitis require follow-up to exclude colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Traditionally, patients with acute diverticulitis undergo follow-up endoscopy to exclude colorectal cancer (CRC). However, its usefulness has been debated in this era of high-resolution computed tomography (CT) diagnosis. We assessed the frequency and outcome of endoscopic follow-up for patients with CT-proven acute diverticulitis, according to the confidence in the CT diagnosis.

METHODS

Records of patients with CT-proven acute diverticulitis between October 2007 and March 2014 at Sandwell & West Birmingham Hospitals NHS Trust were retrieved. The National Cancer Registry confirmed the cases of CRC. Endoscopy quality indicators were compared between these patients and other patients undergoing the same endoscopic examination over the same period.

RESULTS

We identified 235 patients with CT-proven acute diverticulitis, of which, 187 were managed conservatively. The CT report was confident of the diagnosis of acute diverticulitis in 75% cases. Five of the 235 patients were subsequently diagnosed with CRC (2.1%). Three cases of CRC were detected in the 187 patients managed conservatively (1.6%). Forty-eight percent of the conservatively managed patients underwent follow-up endoscopy; one case of CRC was identified. Endoscopies were often incomplete and caused more discomfort for patients with diverticulitis compared with controls.

CONCLUSIONS

CRC was diagnosed in patients with CT-proven diverticulitis at a higher rate than in screened asymptomatic populations, necessitating follow-up. CT reports contained statements regarding diagnostic uncertainty in 25% cases, associated with an increased risk of CRC. Follow-up endoscopy in patients with CT-proven diverticulitis is associated with increased discomfort and high rates of incompletion. The use of other follow-up modalities should be considered.

Is early colonoscopy after CT-diagnosed diverticulitis still necessary?

PURPOSE

WHO GLOBOCAN 2012 data showed that Australia and New Zealand have the highest incidence rates of colorectal cancer in the world (Ferlay et al. 1). Current guidelines recommend that patients admitted for an episode of acute diverticulitis require an early follow-up colonoscopy to rule out colorectal malignancy as reported by Fozard et al. (Colorectal Dis 13:1-11, 2011). Recent studies however have indicated that this may not be warranted (Brar et al. Dis Colon rectum 56:1259-1264, 2013). This study aimed to review the current practice by looking at our institution's rate of colorectal malignancy diagnosed after an episode of acute diverticulitis.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients who presented with acute diverticulitis at our institution between 2011 and 2013. Included in the study were patients who received follow-up colonic evaluation in the next 12 months after admission. Patients who had a colonoscopy in the last year prior to emergency presentation were excluded. The primary outcome measure was the incidence of histologically confirmed colorectal carcinoma diagnosed on follow-up colonoscopy. Secondary outcome measures were incidence of low-grade or advanced adenoma on follow-up colonic evaluation.

RESULTS

A total of 523 cases of acute diverticulitis were diagnosed on CT scan. Out of 351 patients with uncomplicated diverticulitis, 196 had follow-up colonoscopy, with one case of colorectal malignancy recorded. Low-grade and advanced adenomas were found on 10.7 and 2.0% of colonoscopies performed respectively in this subgroup. Seventy-four out of 172 patients with complicated diverticulitis had follow-up evaluation, with four cases of colorectal malignancy discovered. Low-grade and advanced adenomas were found on 6.75 and 5.41% of colonoscopies performed respectively in this subgroup.

CONCLUSION

Routine interval colonoscopy following an episode of conservatively managed uncomplicated diverticulitis may not be necessary. Interval colonoscopy is still indicated in patients with complicated diverticulitis. Further collaborative study across different institutions may be warranted to gain better statistical significance.

New medical strategies for the management of acute diverticulitis

Acute diverticulitis, defined as acute inflammation of a colonic diverticulum, is a common emergency presentation managed by both surgeons and physicians. There have been advances in the medical treatments offered to patients in recent years. Factors predisposing individuals to the development of acute diverticulitis include obesity, smoking, lack of physical activity and medication use, such as NSAIDs. Although widely used, there is limited evidence on the efficacy of individual antibiotic regimens and antibiotic treatment may not be required in all patients. Mesalazine seems to be the only effective treatment for the primary prevention of acute diverticulitis. Finally, evidence of effective measures for the prevention of recurrence is lacking. Furthermore, high-quality randomized controlled trials are required for medical treatments in patients with acute diverticulitis, if management is to be evidence based.

Critical appraisal of laparoscopic lavage for Hinchey III diverticulitis

Laparoscopic lavage and drainage is a novel approach for managing patients with Hinchey III diverticulitis. However, this less invasive technique has important limitations, which are highlighted in this systematic review. We performed a PubMed search and identified 6 individual series reporting the results of this procedure. An analysis was performed regarding treatment-related morbidity, success rates, and subsequent elective sigmoid resection. Data was available for 287 patients only, of which 213 (74%) were actually presenting with Hinchey III diverticulitis. Reported success rate in this group was 94%, with 3% mortality. Causes of failure were: (1) ongoing sepsis; (2) fecal fistula formation; and (3) perforated sigmoid cancer. Although few patients developed recurrent diverticulitis in follow-up, 106 patients (37%) eventually underwent elective sigmoid resection. Our data indicate that laparoscopic lavage and drainage may benefit a highly selected group of Hinchey III patients. It is unclear whether laparoscopic lavage and drainage should be considered a curative procedure or just a damage control operation. Failure to identify patients with either: (1) feculent peritonitis (Hinchey IV); (2) persistent perforation; or (3) perforated sigmoid cancer, are causes of concern, and will limit the application of this technique.

Colonoscopy after the first episode of acute diverticulitis: challenging management paradigms

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopy is commonly recommended after the first episode of acute diverticulitis to exclude colorectal neoplasia. Recent data have challenged this paradigm due to insufficient diagnostic yield. The aim of this study was to assess whether colonoscopy after the first episode of acute diverticulitis is needed to exclude colorectal neoplasia.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort analysis of medical records of patients admitted for the first episode of acute diverticulitis between January 2008 and December 2012. Ambulatory colonoscopy was routinely recommended at discharge. Clinical follow-up and telephone surveys were used for data collection.

RESULTS

Four hundred and twenty-five patients with a mean age of 62.6 years (range 21-98 years) were admitted during the 5-year period. Three hundred and ten (72.9 %) patients underwent colonoscopy at median time of 3.2 months after discharge. Five patients (1.6 %) of the 310 available for evaluation had malignant findings in colonoscopy. Of those, one patient had rectal carcinoma away from the inflamed site and one had colonic lymphoma. None of the 95 patients <50 years of age was found to have adenocarcinoma of the colon.

CONCLUSIONS

Cancer is rarely detected in colonoscopy following the first episode of acute diverticulitis. These results question this indication for colonoscopy, especially in patients under 50.

Colonoscopy after Hinchey I and II left-sided diverticulitis: utility or futility?

BACKGROUND

Modern 64- to 128-slice computed tomography (CT) scanners have questioned the need for routine colonoscopy after hospital admission for presumed uncomplicated diverticulitis.

METHODS

This is a retrospective review of all patients (>18 years) who underwent planned colonoscopy after admission for Hinchey I or II acute diverticulitis (January 2009 to January 2014). The findings on the final radiologist report were then correlated with the colonoscopy results.

RESULTS

In total, 110 patients (mean age, 55.2 ± 16; 46.4% female) underwent a subsequent colonoscopy (median, 60 days) after admission for diverticulitis. Overall, 102 patients (92.7%) had CT findings consistent with definitive diverticulitis, 6 patients had a diagnosis suggestive of diverticulitis on CT scan, and 2 patients had masses on their admission CT scans. Within the group with definitive diverticulitis, follow-up colonoscopy identified diverticulosis in 99 (97.0%), whereas the other 3 had normal findings. Of the patients with CT scans suggestive of diverticulitis, follow-up colonoscopy showed 3 with diverticulosis, 2 with malignancies, and 1 with nonspecific inflammation. The reliability of CT scans for diverticulitis compared with colonoscopy was found to have a kappa = .829 (P < .001; 95% confidence interval, .629, 1.21).

CONCLUSIONS

Follow-up colonoscopy should be performed when a CT scan suggests malignancy, nonspecific inflammatory findings, or the patient is otherwise due for routine screening or surveillance. In this study, there was no benefit of follow-up colonoscopy in patients with CT-confirmed diverticulitis in the absence of other concerning or indeterminate findings.

Role of endoscopy after an acute episode of diverticulitis: analysis of a cohort of Portuguese patients from a tertiary referral center

INTRODUCTION

Acute diverticulitis represents an inflammatory process originating in a colonic diverticulum. Although acute diverticulitis usually follows a benign course - uncomplicated diverticulitis (UCD), up to 25% may develop complicated diverticulitis (CD) including abscesses, fistulas, strictures, and perforation. Current guidelines recommend performing colonoscopy after an episode of acute diverticulitis to rule out colorectal cancer (CRC). However, the literature supporting this recommendation is still scarce.

AIM AND METHODS

Our aim was to assess the relevance of endoscopy following an acute diverticulitis. Using a large cohort from a tertiary center, we retrospectively evaluated endoscopic and histologic findings in patients with acute diverticulitis confirmed by abdominal ultrasound or computed tomography. Findings were characterized as (a) normal endoscopy (highlighting only the presence of diverticula), (b) abnormal endoscopy with low-grade lesions, and (c) abnormal endoscopy with high-grade lesions.

RESULTS

A total of 427 patients were evaluated, including 347 cases with UCD and 80 cases with CD. The prevalence of normal findings at endoscopy was 67.3%. An advanced adenoma or neoplasm was found in 23.7%. The estimated number of endoscopies required for diagnosing a CRC was 29 in UCD and 10 in CD. Increasing age and male sex were associated significantly with the presence of polyps at endoscopy. Increasing age was associated with CD and cancer.

CONCLUSION

In our series, the prevalence of high-grade lesions and CRC was higher than that in other studies. In our opinion, the findings justify endoscopic evaluation, especially in older patients with CD.

The incidence of colon cancer among patients diagnosed with left colonic or sigmoid acute diverticulitis is higher than in the general population

BACKGROUND

Considering the low incidence of colon cancer after an initial episode of colonic diverticulitis in some categories of patients, some authors suggested to exempt them from colonoscopy. However, this incidence has never been compared to that of a reference population, and predictors of cancer are still poorly investigated. We aimed to determine the 1-year incidence of colon cancer at the site of diverticulitis in patients diagnosed with left colonic or sigmoid acute diverticulitis, to compare this incidence to a reference population to state whether endoscopy is required or not, and to identify predicting factors of cancer to better target subpopulations needing that examination.

METHODS

All patients admitted at the University Hospitals of Geneva for left colonic or sigmoid acute diverticulitis were included. Patients with a previous history of colon cancer or non-available for follow-up were excluded. Demographic data, haemoglobin values, and the Hinchey score were documented. This cohort was matched with the Geneva Cancer Registry to look for cancer occurrence at the site of diverticulitis within 1 year. Predictors of cancer were assessed using univariate logistic regression and the risk of cancer by comparing observed cases to a reference population using standardized incidence ratios.

RESULTS

The final cohort included 506 patients. Eleven (2.2 %) had a diagnosis of cancer at the site of diverticulitis within 1 year. The mean age was significantly different between patients with cancer and others. No predictor of cancer could be identified, except a trend for an increased risk with advancing age (p = 0.067). The standardized incidence ratios showed a 44-fold increased risk of cancer among the cohort compared to the reference population.

CONCLUSIONS

Colonoscopy should be continued after an initial diagnosis of left colonic or sigmoid acute diverticulitis, irrespective of the clinical or radiological presentations.

Colonoscopy after CT-diagnosed acute diverticulitis: Is it really necessary?

BACKGROUND

Computed tomography (CT) scans are commonly used to diagnose acute diverticulitis, but there are overlapping features between diverticulitis and colorectal cancer (CRC) on imaging studies. Hence, colonoscopy is typically recommended after an episode of acute diverticulitis to rule out underlying malignancy. Currently, 64-slice multidetector CT scanners are capable of providing higher-resolution images and may be able to distinguish malignancy from diverticular inflammation. We aimed to determine the prevalence of CRC among patients with CT-diagnosed acute diverticulitis.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective study of patients with acute diverticulitis diagnosed on CT scan between December 2005 and December 2010 at St. Paul's Hospital, Vancouver, BC. Nonresidents were excluded. We reviewed CT scan reports that included the term "diverticulitis," reports of follow-up colonic evaluation within 1 year of diagnosis and pathology results. We queried the provincial cancer registry to ensure no cases of CRC were missed.

RESULTS

A total of 293 patients had acute diverticulitis diagnosed on CT scan, but 8 were nonresidents and were excluded. Of the 285 included in the analysis, the mean age was 59.4 ± 15.1 years, and 167 (58.6%) were men. Among the 114 patients who underwent follow-up evaluation, malignancy was diagnosed in 4 (3.5%). The overall prevalence of malignancy among patients with CT-diagnosed diverticulitis was 1.4%.

CONCLUSION

Routine endoscopic evaluation after an episode of diverticulitis diagnosed with high-resolution CT scan does not appear to be necessary. Selective approach in patients with protracted clinical course or those with mass lesion/obstruction on CT scan may be of benefit.

Systematic analysis of missed colorectal cancer cases and common pitfalls in diagnosis

BACKGROUND

Missed colorectal cancer on endoscopic or radiological investigations may delay diagnosis and impact outcome. This study audits incidence of previous investigations in patients with colorectal cancer, considers outcome in 'missed' cancer cases and examines the diagnostic pathway in the derived case series to identify common pitfalls in diagnosis.

METHODS

Patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer in 2011 at a single National Health Service (NHS) Trust were reviewed. Incidence of endoscopic and radiological investigations in the 3 years preceding diagnosis and outcome data were collected. Cases of prior investigation not leading to diagnosis were considered 'missed' cancers and survival compared with 'detected' cases. The diagnostic pathway in each 'missed' case was reviewed.

RESULTS

395 colorectal cancer cases were studied. Eighteen (4.6%) patients underwent previous investigation including colonoscopy (n=4), flexible sigmoidoscopy (n=5), barium enema (n=5) and diagnostic abdominal CT scan (n=12), median 708 days prior to diagnosis. Previous investigation predicted reduced overall and disease-free survival (HR 2.07, p=0.04 and HR 2.66, p<0.0001), after age and gender adjustment. Ten different categories termed 'pitfalls' were derived from analysis of the diagnostic pathway. These included CT scanning for abdominal pain without further investigation (n=7), rectosigmoid cancer following a previous diagnosis of diverticular disease (n=4) and incomplete diagnostic investigations without adequate follow-up (n=3).

CONCLUSIONS

A proportion of patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer have previously been investigated for gastrointestinal symptoms and survival appears reduced in these patients. Regular audit and analysis of previous investigations can identify common pitfalls in diagnosis, which should be used to inform training and improve practice.

Review article: the pathophysiology and medical management of diverticulosis and diverticular disease of the colon

BACKGROUND

The incidence of diverticulosis and diverticular disease of the colon, including diverticulitis, is increasing worldwide, and becoming a significant burden on national health systems. Treatment of patients with diverticulosis and DD is generally based on high-fibre diet and antibiotics, respectively. However, new pathophysiological knowledge suggests that further treatment may be useful.

AIM

To review the current treatment of diverticulosis and diverticular disease.

METHODS

A search of PubMed and Medline databases was performed to identify articles relevant to the management of diverticulosis and diverticular disease. Major international conferences were also reviewed.

RESULTS

Two randomised controlled trials (RCT) found the role of antibiotics in managing acute diverticulitis to be questionable, particularly in patients with no complicating comorbidities. One RCT found mesalazine to be effective in preventing acute diverticulitis in patients with symptomatic uncomplicated diverticular disease. The role of rifaximin or mesalazine in preventing diverticulitis recurrence, based on the results of 1 and 4 RCTs, respectively, remains unclear. RCTs found rifaximin and mesalazine to be effective in treating symptomatic uncomplicated diverticular disease. The use of probiotics in diverticular disease and in preventing acute diverticulitis occurrence/recurrence appears promising but unconclusive. Finally, the role of fibre in treating diverticulosis remains unclear.

CONCLUSIONS

Available evidence suggests that antibiotics have a role only in the treatment of complicated diverticulitis. It appears to be some evidence for a role for rifaximin and mesalazine in treating symptomatic uncomplicated diverticular disease. Finally, there is not currently adequate evidence to recommend any medical treatment for the prevention of diverticulitis recurrence.

New developments in colorectal surgery

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Surgical management of diseases of the colon and rectum continues to evolve. This review examines the recent publications that have led to or may lead to changes in practice in this field.

RECENT FINDINGS

We identified and reviewed the recent publications in the areas of colon, rectal, and anal cancers; inflammatory bowel disease; incontinence; diverticulitis; hemorrhoids; fistulas; and quality improvement initiatives.

SUMMARY

New technologies and novel questions have changed practice and will improve patient outcomes. Multiinstitutional studies, ideally randomized, continue to be essential to answer the questions that will lead to identification of best practices.

Diverticular disease: evolving concepts in classification, presentation, and management

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Diverticular disease is the most commonly reported finding at the time of colonoscopy and one of the most common gastrointestinal indications for hospitalization. Much of our previous understanding of diverticular disease has recently been challenged.

RECENT FINDINGS

There is emerging evidence that the long-accepted hypothesis of diverticulosis as a consequence of fiber deficiency may be more complex than commonly thought, with recent evidence suggesting that high-fiber diet and frequent bowel movements are associated with a greater and not lower prevalence of diverticular disease. There is also emerging support for the concept of low-grade inflammation in symptomatic uncomplicated diverticular disease (SUDD), and the role of anti-inflammatory treatment with mesalamine is being actively investigated. Additionally, elective 'prophylactic' surgery after diverticulitis, previously considered after a second confirmed diverticulitis episode, is being increasingly deferred.

SUMMARY

The pathogenesis of diverticular disease is likely multifactorial and complex. More studies are needed to evaluate the role of fiber in the pathogenesis and treatment of diverticular disease. The search for an effective medical therapy for SUDD and to prevent recurrent diverticulitis is being actively investigated. The efficacy of mesalamine does not appear to be strong data supported.

Yield of colonoscopy after recent CT-proven uncomplicated acute diverticulitis: a comparative cohort study

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines recommend routine follow-up colonoscopy after acute diverticulitis to confirm the diagnosis and exclude malignancy. Its value, however, has recently been questioned because of contradictory study results. Our objective was to compare the colonoscopic detection rate of advanced colonic neoplasia (ACN), comprising colorectal cancer (CRC) and advanced adenoma (AA), in patients after a CT-proven primary episode of uncomplicated acute diverticulitis with average risk participants in a primary colonoscopy CRC screening program.

METHODS

A retrospective comparison was performed of prospectively collected data from cohorts derived from two multicenter randomized clinical trials executed in the Netherlands between 2009 and 2013. 401 uncomplicated diverticulitis patients and 1,426 CRC screening participants underwent colonic evaluation by colonoscopy. Main outcome was the diagnostic yield for ACN, calculated as number of diverticulitis patients and screening participants with ACN relative to their totals, with differences expressed as odds ratios (OR). The histopathology outcome of removed lesions during colonoscopy was used as definitive diagnosis.

RESULTS

AA detection was similar [5.5 vs. 8.7%; OR 0.62 (95% CI 0.38-1.01); P = 0.053]. CRC was detected in 1.2% (5/401) of diverticulitis patients versus 0.6% (9/1,426) of screening participants [OR 1.30 (95% CI 0.39-4.36); P = 0.673]. ACN was diagnosed in 6.7% (27/401) of diverticulitis patients versus 9.1% (130/1,426) of screening participants [OR 0.71 (95% CI 0.45-1.11); P = 0.134]. ORs were adjusted for age, family history of CRC, smoking, BMI, and cecal intubation rate.

CONCLUSIONS

ACN detection does not differ significantly between patients with recent uncomplicated diverticulitis and average risk screening participants. Routine follow-up colonoscopy after primary CT-proven uncomplicated left-sided acute diverticulitis can be omitted; these patients can participate in CRC screening programs. Follow-up colonoscopy may be beneficial when targeted at high-risk patients, but such an approach first needs prospective evaluation.

Systematic review of evidence and consensus on diverticulitis: an analysis of national and international guidelines

AIM

The study aimed to analyse the currently available national and international guidelines for areas of consensus and contrasting recommendations in the treatment of diverticulitis and thereby to design questions for future research.

METHOD

MEDLINE, EMBASE and PubMed were systematically searched for guidelines on diverticular disease and diverticulitis. Inclusion was confined to papers in English and those < 10 years old. The included topics were classified as consensus or controversy between guidelines, and the highest level of evidence was scored as sufficient (Oxford Centre of Evidence-Based Medicine Level of Evidence of 3a or higher) or insufficient.

RESULTS

Six guidelines were included and all topics with recommendations were compared. Overall, in 13 topics consensus was reached and 10 topics were regarded as controversial. In five topics, consensus was reached without sufficient evidence and in three topics there was no evidence and no consensus. Clinical staging, the need for intraluminal imaging, dietary restriction, duration of antibiotic treatment, the protocol for abscess treatment, the need for elective surgery in subgroups of patients, the need for surgery after abscess treatment and the level of the proximal resection margin all lack consensus or evidence.

CONCLUSION

Evidence on the diagnosis and treatment of diverticular disease and diverticulitis ranged from nonexistent to strong, regardless of consensus. The most relevant research questions were identified and proposed as topics for future research.

Routine colonic endoscopic evaluation following resolution of acute diverticulitis: Is it necessary?

Diverticular disease incidence is increasing up to 65% by age 85 in industrialized nations, low fiber diets, and in younger and obese patients. Twenty-five percent of patients with diverticulosis will develop acute diverticulitis. This imposes a significant burden on healthcare systems, resulting in greater than 300000 admissions per year with an estimated annual cost of $3 billion USD. Abdominal computed tomography (CT) is the diagnostic study of choice, with a sensitivity and specificity greater than 95%. Unfortunately, similar CT findings can be present in colonic neoplasia, especially when perforated or inflamed. This prompted professional societies such as the American Society of Colon Rectal Surgeons to recommend patients undergo routine colonoscopy after an episode of acute diverticulitis to rule out malignancy. Yet, the data supporting routine colonoscopy after acute diverticulitis is sparse and based small cohort studies utilizing outdated technology. While any patient with an indication for a colonoscopy should undergo appropriate endoscopic evaluation, in the era of widespread use of high-resolution computed tomography, routine colonic endoscopic evaluation following resolution of acute uncomplicated diverticulitis poses additional costs, comes with inherent risks, and may require further study. In this manuscript, we review the current data related to this recommendation.

Do we need colonoscopy following acute diverticulitis detected on computed tomography to exclude colorectal malignancy?

BACKGROUND

Although colonoscopy verification is warranted after an acute event of diverticulitis to exclude underlying malignancy, little evidence is available to support the recommendations.

AIM

The aim of this study was to examine whether subsequent colonoscopy is warranted in patients with diverticulitis on computed tomography (CT).

METHODS

The study was composed of patients diagnosed with acute diverticulitis on CT scan from January 2001 to March 2013. Patients who had subsequent colonoscopy within a year from the date of CT were included. For each diverticulitis case, two age- (± 5 years) and sex-matched controls were identified from healthy individuals who had received screening colonoscopy. We evaluated the diagnostic yield of advanced colonic neoplasia in colonoscopy.

RESULTS

One hundred and forty-nine patients underwent subsequent colonoscopy within a year from the date of CT. Among the patients, 11 (7.4 %) had colon cancer and 5 (3.4 %) had advanced adenoma. A case-control study revealed that the odds of detecting an advanced neoplasia among patients with diverticulitis on CT were approximately 8.8 times greater than in the age- and sex-matched controls [OR 8.84; 95 % CI 2.90-26.96; p < 0.001]. On analysis of the diverticulitis group, age (≥ 50 years) is an independent risk factor for detecting advanced colonic neoplasia.

CONCLUSIONS

The yield of advanced colonic neoplasia was substantially higher in patients with acute diverticulitis than in asymptomatic, average-risk individuals. Colonoscopy verification is warranted in patients with diverticulitis detected on CT, especially in those aged 50 years or older.