42
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      British Society of Gastroenterology/Association of Coloproctologists of Great Britain and Ireland guidelines for the management of large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          These guidelines provide an evidence-based framework for the management of patients with large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs), in addition to identifying key performance indicators (KPIs) that permit the audit of quality outcomes. These are areas not previously covered by British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) Guidelines.

          A National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) compliant BSG guideline development process was used throughout and the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) tool was used to structure the guideline development process. A systematic review of literature was conducted for English language articles up to May 2014 concerning the assessment and management of LNPCPs. Quality of evaluated studies was assessed using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) Methodology Checklist System. Proposed recommendation statements were evaluated by each member of the Guideline Development Group (GDG) on a scale from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree) with >80% agreement required for consensus to be reached. Where consensus was not reached a modified Delphi process was used to re-evaluate and modify proposed statements until consensus was reached or the statement discarded. A round table meeting was subsequently held to finalise recommendations and to evaluate the strength of evidence discussed. The GRADE tool was used to assess the strength of evidence and strength of recommendation for finalised statements.

          KPIs, a training framework and potential research questions for the management of LNPCPs were also developed. It is hoped that these guidelines will improve the assessment and management of LNPCPs.

          Related collections

          Most cited references160

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Update on the paris classification of superficial neoplastic lesions in the digestive tract.

          (2005)
          Neoplastic lesions in the digestive-tract mucosa are termed "superficial" when the depth of invasion is limited to the mucosa and submucosa. The endoscopic appearance has a predictive value for invasion into the submucosa, which is critical for the risk of nodal metastases. The endoscopic morphology of superficial lesions can be assessed with a standard video endoscope after spraying of a dye--an iodine-potassium iodide solution for the stratified squamous epithelium, or an indigo carmine solution for the columnar epithelium. In 2002, a workshop was held in Paris to explore the relevance of the Japanese classification. The conclusions were revised in 2003 in Osaka in relation to the definition of the subtypes used in endoscopy and the evaluation of the depth of invasion into the submucosa. In Japan, the description of advanced cancer in the digestive-tract mucosa using types 1 - 4 is supplemented by a type 0 when the endoscopic appearance is that of a superficial lesion. Type 0 is divided into three categories: protruding (0 - I), nonprotruding and nonexcavated (0 - II), and excavated (0 - III). Type 0 - II lesions are then subdivided into slightly elevated (IIa), flat (IIb), or depressed (IIc). Nonprotruding depressed lesions are associated with a higher risk of submucosal invasion. After endoscopic resection, invasion into the submucosa is an important criterion for the necessity of additional surgical resection. Micrometer analysis of the depth of invasion in the specimen is more precise, and distinct cut-off limits have been established in the esophagus, stomach, and large bowel. The morphology of superficial and nonprotruding neoplastic lesions is relevant to the prognosis. Following endoscopic detection, the lesions are analyzed using chromoendoscopy and assigned a subtype of the type 0 classification. The choice between endoscopic or surgical treatment is based on this description.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Laparoscopy in combination with fast track multimodal management is the best perioperative strategy in patients undergoing colonic surgery: a randomized clinical trial (LAFA-study).

            To investigate which perioperative treatment, ie, laparoscopic or open surgery combined with fast track (FT) or standard care, is the optimal approach for patients undergoing segmental resection for colon cancer. Important developments in elective colorectal surgery are the introduction of laparoscopy and implementation of FT care, both focusing on faster recovery. In a 9-center trial, patients eligible for segmental colectomy were randomized to laparoscopic or open colectomy, and to FT or standard care, resulting in 4 treatment groups. Primary outcome was total postoperative hospital stay (THS). Secondary outcomes were postoperative hospital stay (PHS), morbidity, reoperation rate, readmission rate, in-hospital mortality, quality of life at 2 and 4 weeks, patient satisfaction and in-hospital costs. Four hundred patients were required to find a minimum difference of 1 day in hospital stay. Median THS in the laparoscopic/FT group was 5 (interquar-tile range: 4-8) days; open/FT 7 (5-11) days; laparoscopic/standard 6 (4.5-9.5) days, and open/standard 7 (6-13) days (P < 0.001). Median PHS in the laparoscopic/FT group was 5 (4-7) days; open/FT 6 (4.5-10) days; laparoscopic/standard 6 (4-8.5) days and open/standard 7 (6-10.5) days (P < 0.001). Secondary outcomes did not differ significantly among the groups. Regression analysis showed that laparoscopy was the only independent predictive factor to reduce hospital stay and morbidity. Optimal perioperative treatment for patients requiring segmental colectomy for colon cancer is laparoscopic resection embedded in a FT program. If open surgery is applied, it is preferentially done in FT care. This study was registered under NTR222 (www.trialregister.nl).
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              A prospective, multicenter study of 1111 colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissections (with video).

              Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is accepted as a minimally invasive treatment for early gastric cancer, although it is not widely used in the colorectum because of technical difficulty. To examine the current status of colorectal ESDs at specialized endoscopic treatment centers. Multicenter cohort study using a prospectively completed database at 10 specialized institutions. From June 1998 to February 2008, 1111 colorectal tumors in 1090 patients were treated by ESD. Tumor size, macroscopic type, histology, procedure time, en bloc and curative resection rates and complications. Included in the 1111 tumors were 356 tubular adenomas, 519 intramucosal cancers, 112 superficial submucosal (SM) cancers, 101 SM deep cancers, 18 carcinoid tumors, 1 mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue lymphoma, and 4 serrated lesions. Macroscopic types included 956 laterally spreading tumors, 30 depressed, 62 protruded, 44 recurrent, and 19 SM tumors. The en bloc and curative resection rates were 88% and 89%, respectively. The mean procedure time ± standard deviation was 116 ± 88 minutes with a mean tumor size of 35 ± 18 mm. Perforations occurred in 54 cases (4.9%) with 4 cases of delayed perforation (0.4%) and 17 cases of postoperative bleeding (1.5%). Two immediate perforations with ineffective endoscopic clipping and 3 delayed perforations required emergency surgery. Tumor size of 50 mm or larger was an independent risk factor for complications, whereas a large number of ESDs performed at an institution decreased the risk of complications. No long-term outcome data. ESD performed by experienced endoscopists is an effective alternative treatment to surgery, providing high en bloc and curative resection rates for large superficial colorectal tumors. Copyright © 2010 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Gut
                Gut
                gutjnl
                gut
                Gut
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                0017-5749
                1468-3288
                December 2015
                23 June 2015
                : 64
                : 12
                : 1847-1873
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Gastroenterology, University Hospital of North Tees , Stockton on Tees, UK
                [2 ]School of Medicine, Pharmacy and Health, Durham University , Stockton on Tees, UK
                [3 ]Department of Gastroenterology, Queen Elizabeth Hospital , Gateshead, UK
                [4 ]Wolfson Unit for Endoscopy, St Mark's Hospital , London, UK
                [5 ]Department of Gastroenterology, Queen Alexandra Hospital , Portsmouth, UK
                [6 ]Department of Gastroenterology, New Cross Hospital , Wolverhampton, UK
                [7 ]Department of Gastroenterology, Cheltenham General Hospital , Cheltenham, UK
                [8 ]Department of Gastroenterology, Leeds General Infirmary , Leeds, UK
                [9 ]Department of Histopathology, Royal Victoria Hospital , Belfast, UK
                [10 ]Department of Colorectal Surgery, Torbay Hospital , Torquay, UK
                [11 ]Department of Colorectal Surgery, Medway Maritime Hospital , Gillingham, UK
                [12 ]Department of Gastroenterology, University Hospital Llandough , Cardiff, UK
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Professor MD Rutter, Department of Gastroenterology, University Hospital of North Tees, Stockton on Tees TS19 8PE, UK; matt.rutter@ 123456nth.nhs.uk

                MDR and AC are joint first name authors.

                Article
                gutjnl-2015-309576
                10.1136/gutjnl-2015-309576
                4680188
                26104751
                7b918870-9790-4e6c-8669-69961bcf2752
                Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/

                This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

                History
                : 13 March 2015
                : 25 May 2015
                : 29 May 2015
                Categories
                1506
                Guidelines
                Custom metadata
                unlocked

                Gastroenterology & Hepatology
                colonic polyps,colorectal adenomas,surgical resection,endoscopic polypectomy,endoscopy

                Comments

                Comment on this article