Browsing by Author "Dekker, Evelien"

Now showing 1 - 7 of 7
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Advances in CRC prevention: screening and surveillance
    (Elsevier, 2018) Dekker, Evelien; Rex, Douglas K.; Medicine, School of Medicine
    Colorectal cancer (CRC) is amongst the most commonly diagnosed cancers and causes of death from cancer across the world. CRC can, however, be detected in asymptomatic patients at a curable stage, and several studies have shown lower mortality among patients who undergo screening compared to those who do not. Using colonoscopy in CRC screening also results in the detection of precancerous polyps that can be directly removed during the procedure, thereby reducing the incidence of cancer. In the past decade, convincing evidence has appeared that the effectiveness of colonoscopy as CRC prevention tool is associated with the quality of the procedure. This review aims to provide an up-to-date overview of recent efforts to improve colonoscopy effectiveness of by enhancing detection and improving the completeness and safety of resection of colorectal lesions.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Delphi Initiative for Early-Onset Colorectal Cancer (DIRECt) International Management Guidelines
    (Elsevier, 2023) Cavestro, Giulia Martina; Mannucci, Alessandro; Balaguer, Francesc; Hampel, Heather; Kupfer, Sonia S.; Repici, Alessandro; Sartore-Bianchi, Andrea; Seppälä, Toni T.; Valentini, Vincenzo; Boland, Clement Richard; Brand, Randall E.; Buffart, Tineke E.; Burke, Carol A.; Caccialanza, Riccardo; Cannizzaro, Renato; Cascinu, Stefano; Cercek, Andrea; Crosbie, Emma J.; Danese, Silvio; Dekker, Evelien; Daca-Alvarez, Maria; Deni, Francesco; Dominguez-Valentin, Mev; Eng, Cathy; Goel, Ajay; Guillem, Josè G.; Houwen, Britt B. S. L.; Kahi, Charles; Kalady, Matthew F.; Kastrinos, Fay; Kühn, Florian; Laghi, Luigi; Latchford, Andrew; Liska, David; Lynch, Patrick; Malesci, Alberto; Mauri, Gianluca; Meldolesi, Elisa; Møller, Pål; Monahan, Kevin J.; Möslein, Gabriela; Murphy, Caitlin C.; Nass, Karlijn; Ng, Kimmie; Oliani, Cristina; Papaleo, Enrico; Patel, Swati G.; Puzzono, Marta; Remo, Andrea; Ricciardiello, Luigi; Ripamonti, Carla Ida; Siena, Salvatore; Singh, Satish K.; Stadler, Zsofia K.; Stanich, Peter P.; Syngal, Sapna; Turi, Stefano; Urso, Emanuele Damiano; Valle, Laura; Vanni, Valeria Stella; Vilar, Eduardo; Vitellaro, Marco; You, Yi-Qian Nancy; Yurgelun, Matthew B.; Zuppardo, Raffaella Alessia; Stoffel, Elena M.; Associazione Italiana Familiarità Ereditarietà Tumori; Collaborative Group of the Americas on Inherited Gastrointestinal Cancer; European Hereditary Tumour Group; International Society for Gastrointestinal Hereditary Tumours; Medicine, School of Medicine
    Background & aims: Patients with early-onset colorectal cancer (eoCRC) are managed according to guidelines that are not age-specific. A multidisciplinary international group (DIRECt), composed of 69 experts, was convened to develop the first evidence-based consensus recommendations for eoCRC. Methods: After reviewing the published literature, a Delphi methodology was used to draft and respond to clinically relevant questions. Each statement underwent 3 rounds of voting and reached a consensus level of agreement of ≥80%. Results: The DIRECt group produced 31 statements in 7 areas of interest: diagnosis, risk factors, genetics, pathology-oncology, endoscopy, therapy, and supportive care. There was strong consensus that all individuals younger than 50 should undergo CRC risk stratification and prompt symptom assessment. All newly diagnosed eoCRC patients should receive germline genetic testing, ideally before surgery. On the basis of current evidence, endoscopic, surgical, and oncologic treatment of eoCRC should not differ from later-onset CRC, except for individuals with pathogenic or likely pathogenic germline variants. The evidence on chemotherapy is not sufficient to recommend changes to established therapeutic protocols. Fertility preservation and sexual health are important to address in eoCRC survivors. The DIRECt group highlighted areas with knowledge gaps that should be prioritized in future research efforts, including age at first screening for the general population, use of fecal immunochemical tests, chemotherapy, endoscopic therapy, and post-treatment surveillance for eoCRC patients. Conclusions: The DIRECt group produced the first consensus recommendations on eoCRC. All statements should be considered together with the accompanying comments and literature reviews. We highlighted areas where research should be prioritized. These guidelines represent a useful tool for clinicians caring for patients with eoCRC.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Dye-based chromoendoscopy for the detection of colorectal neoplasia: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
    (Elsevier, 2022) Antonelli, Giulio; Correale, Loredana; Spadaccini, Marco; Maselli, Roberta; Bhandari, Pradeep; Bisschops, Raf; Cereatti, Fabrizio; Dekker, Evelien; East, James E.; Iacopini, Federico; Jover, Rodrigo; Kiesslich, Ralph; Pellise, Maria; Sharma, Prateek; Rex, Douglas K.; Repici, Alessandro; Hassan, Cesare; Medicine, School of Medicine
    Background and Aims Dye-Based chromoendoscopy (DBC) could be effective in increasing adenoma detection rate (ADR) in patients undergoing colonoscopy, but the technique is time-consuming and its uptake is limited. We aimed to assess the effect of DBC on ADR based on available randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Methods Four databases were searched up to April 2022, for RCTs comparing DBC with conventional colonoscopy (CC) in terms of ADR, advanced ADR, and sessile serrated adenoma (SSA) detection rates as well as the mean number of adenomas per patient (MAP) and non-neoplastic lesions. Relative risk (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes were calculated using random-effect models. I2 test was used for quantifying heterogeneity. Risk of bias was evaluated with Cochrane tool. Results Overall, 10 RCTs (5,334 patients) were included. Indication for colonoscopy was screening or surveillance (3 studies), and mixed (7 studies). Pooled ADR was higher in the DBC group vs. CC group, (48.1%[41.4-54.8%] vs 39.3%[33.5-46.4%]; RR=1.20[1.11- 1.29]), with low heterogeneity (I2=29%). This effect was consistent for advanced ADR (RR=1.21[1.03-1.42] I2=0.0%), and for SSA (6.1% vs 3.5%; RR, 1.68; [1.15-2.47]; I2=9.8%), as well as for MAP (MD 0.24 [0.17–0.31]) overall and in the right colon (MD, 0.28 [0.14-0.43]. High-definition white-light colonoscopy (HDWL) was more effective than standard white-light colonoscopy (SDWL) for detection of adenomas (51.6% 95% CI:47.1-56.1% vs. 34.2%; 95% CI:28.5-40.4%) and DBC (59.1%; 95% CI:54.7-63.3%) was more effective than HDWL (RR=1.14; 95% CI:1.06-1.23, I2= 0.0%]. Conclusions Meta-analysis of RCTs showed that DBC increases key quality parameters in colonoscopy, supporting its use in every-day clinical practice.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Efficacy and Tolerability of High- vs Low-Volume Split-Dose Bowel Cleansing Regimens for Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
    (Elsevier, 2019) Spadaccini, Marco; Frazzoni, Leonardo; Vanella, Giuseppe; East, James; Radaelli, Franco; Spada, Cristiano; Fuccio, Lorenzo; Benamouzig, Robert; Bisschops, Raf; Bretthauer, Michael; Dekker, Evelien; Dinis-Ribeiro, Mario; Ferlitsch, Monika; Gralnek, Ian; Jover, Rodrigo; Kaminski, Michael F.; Pellisé, Maria; Triantafyllou, Konstantinos; Van Hooft, Jeanin E.; Dumonceau, Jean-Marc; Marmo, Clelia; Alfieri, Sergio; Chandrasekar, Viveksandeep Thoguluva; Sharma, Prateek; Rex, Doug K.; Repici, Alessandro; Hassan, Cesare; Medicine, School of Medicine
    Background & Aims Efficacy of bowel preparation is an important determinant of outcomes of colonoscopy. It is not clear whether approved low-volume polyethylene glycol (PEG) and non-PEG regimens are as effective as high-volume PEG regimens when taken in a split dose. Methods In a systematic review of multiple electronic databases through January 31, 2019 with a registered protocol (PROSPERO: CRD42019128067), we identified randomized controlled trials that compared low- vs high-volume bowel cleansing regimens, administered in a split dose, for colonoscopy. The primary efficacy outcome was rate of adequate bowel cleansing, and the secondary efficacy outcome was adenoma detection rate. Primary tolerability outcomes were compliance, tolerability, and willingness to repeat. We calculated relative risk (RR) and 95% CI values and assessed heterogeneity among studies by using the I2 statistic. The overall quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE framework. Results In an analysis of data from 17 randomized controlled trials, comprising 7528 patients, we found no significant differences in adequacy of bowel cleansing between the low- vs high-volume split-dose regimens (86.1% vs 87.4%; RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.98–1.02) and there was minimal heterogeneity (I2 = 17%). There was no significant difference in adenoma detection rate (RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.87–1.08) among 4 randomized controlled trials. Compared with high-volume, split-dose regimens, low-volume split-dose regimens had higher odds for compliance or completion (RR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.02–1.10), tolerability (RR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.12–1.74), and willingness to repeat bowel preparation (RR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.20–1.66). The overall quality of evidence was moderate. Conclusions Based on a systematic review of 17 randomized controlled trials, low-volume, split-dose regimens appear to be as effective as high-volume, split-dose regimens in bowel cleansing and are better tolerated, with superior compliance.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    How we resect colorectal polyps <20 mm in size
    (Elsevier, 2018) Rex, Douglas K.; Dekker, Evelien; Medicine, School of Medicine
    We review our approach to resection of colorectal polyps <20 mm in size. Careful inspection of all lesions is appropriate to assess the type of lesion (adenoma vs serrated) and evaluate the risk of cancer, which is highly associated with lesion size. Polyp resection is in the midst of a “cold revolution,” particularly for lesions <10 mm in size, but also for some larger lesions. Cold forceps are sometimes appropriate for 1- to 2-mm lesions that can be engulfed in one bite, but we use cold snaring for almost the entire set of lesions <10 mm. For 10- to 19-mm conventional adenomas, we rely primarily on hot snare resection. Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), preferably en bloc, is appropriate for bulky nongranular conventional adenomas and nongranular adenomas with depression in this size range. For sessile serrated polyps 10 to 19 mm in size our approaches differ to some extent, with one of us using primarily “cold EMR,” and the other using primarily hot EMR technique.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    New and Recurrent Colorectal Cancers After Resection: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Endoscopic Surveillance Studies
    (Elsevier, 2019) Fuccio, Lorenzo; Rex, Douglas K.; Ponchon, Thierry; Frazzoni, Leonardo; Dinis-Ribeiro, Mário; Bhandari, Pradeep; Dekker, Evelien; Pellisè, Maria; Correale, Loredana; van Hooft, Jeanin; Jover, Rodrigo; Libanio, Diogo; Radaelli, Franco; Alfieri, Sergio; Bazzoli, Franco; Senore, Carlo; Regula, Jaroslaw; Seufferlein, Thomas; Rösch, Thomas; Sharma, Prateek; Repici, Alessandro; Hassan, Cesare; Medicine, School of Medicine
    Background & Aims Outcomes of endoscopic surveillance following surgery for colorectal cancer (CRC) vary with the incidence and timing of CRC detection, at anastomoses or non- anastomoses in the colorectum. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the incidence of CRCs identified during surveillance colonoscopies of patients who have already undergone surgery for this cancer. Methods We searched PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, and the Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials through January 1, 2018 to identify studies investigating rates of CRCs at anastomoses or other locations in the colorectum after curative surgery for primary CRC. We collected data from published randomized controlled, prospective, and retrospective cohort studies. Data were analyzed by multivariate meta-analytic models. Results From 2373 citations, we selected 27 studies with data on 15,803 index CRCs for analysis (89% of patients with stage 1–3 CRC). Overall, 296 CRCs at non-anastomotic locations were reported over time periods of more than 16 years (cumulative incidence, 2.2% of CRCs; 95% CI, 1.8%–2.9%). The risk of CRC at a non-anastomotic location was significantly reduced more than 36 months after resection compared with before this timepoint (odds ratio for non-anastomotic CRCs at 36–48 months vs 6–12 months after surgery, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.37–0.98; P=.031); 53.7% of all non-anastomotic CRCs were detected within 36 months of surgery. One hundred fifty-eight CRCs were detected at anastomoses (cumulative incidence of 2.7%; 95% CI, 1.9%–3.9%). The risk of CRCs at anastomoses was significantly lower 24 months after resection than before (odds ratio for CRCs at anastomoses at 25–36 months after surgery vs 6–12 months, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.32–0.98; P=.036); 90.8% of all CRCs at anastomoses were detected within 36 months of surgery. Conclusions After surgery for CRC, the highest risk of CRCs at anastomoses and at other locations in the colorectum is highest during 36 months after surgery—risk decreases thereafter. Patients who have undergone CRC resection should be evaluated by colonoscopy more closely during this time period. Longer intervals may be considered thereafter.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    When and How To Use Endoscopic Tattooing in the Colon: An International Delphi Agreement
    (Elsevier, 2021) Medina-Prado, Lucía; Hassan, Cesare; Dekker, Evelien; Bisschops, Raf; Alfieri, Sergio; Bhandari, Pradeep; Bourke, Michael J.; Bravo, Raquel; Bustamante-Balen, Marco; Dominitz, Jason; Ferlitsch, Monika; Fockens, Paul; van Leerdam, Monique; Lieberman, David; Herráiz, Maite; Kahi, Charles; Kaminski, Michal; Matsuda, Takahisa; Moss, Alan; Pellisé, Maria; Pohl, Heiko; Rees, Colin; Rex, Douglas K.; Romero-Simó, Manuel; Rutter, Matthew D.; Sharma, Prateek; Shaukat, Aasma; Thomas-Gibson, Siwan; Valori, Roland; Jover, Rodrigo; Medicine, School of Medicine
    Background & Aims There is a lack of clinical studies to establish indications and methodology for tattooing, therefore technique and practice of tattooing is very variable. We aimed to establish a consensus on the indications and appropriate techniques for colonic tattoo through a modified Delphi process. Methods The baseline questionnaire was classified into 3 areas: where tattooing should not be used (1 domain, 6 questions), where tattooing should be used (4 domains, 20 questions), and how to perform tattooing (1 domain 20 questions). A total of 29 experts participated in the 3 rounds of the Delphi process. Results A total of 15 statements were approved. The statements that achieved the highest agreement were as follows: tattooing should always be used after endoscopic resection of a lesion with suspicion of submucosal invasion (agreement score, 4.59; degree of consensus, 97%). For a colorectal lesion that is left in situ but considered suitable for endoscopic resection, tattooing may be used if the lesion is considered difficult to detect at a subsequent endoscopy (agreement score, 4.62; degree of consensus, 100%). A tattoo should never be injected directly into or underneath a lesion that might be removed endoscopically at a later point in time (agreement score, 4.79; degree of consensus, 97%). Details of the tattoo injection should be stated clearly in the endoscopy report (agreement score, 4.76; degree of consensus, 100%). Conclusions This expert consensus has developed different statements about where tattooing should not be used, when it should be used, and how that should be done.