Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Endosc Int Open 2020; 08(09): E1117-E1122
DOI: 10.1055/a-1192-3545
Original article

High practice variation in risk stratification, baseline oncological staging, and follow-up strategies for T1 colorectal cancers in the Netherlands

Kim Gijsbers
1   Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Deventer Hospital, Deventer, The Netherlands
3   Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, UMC Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
,
Wilmar de Graaf
2   Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
,
Leon M.G. Moons
3   Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, UMC Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
,
F. ter Borg
1   Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Deventer Hospital, Deventer, The Netherlands
,
(on behalf of the Dutch T1 CRC Working Group) › Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Referred to by:

Considerable practice variation in use of pathological high-risk T1-CRC criteria: Why, and how to do better?Endosc Int Open 2020; 08(10): E1502-E1503
DOI: 10.1055/a-1243-0129

Abstract

Background and study aims Based on pathology, locally resected T1 colorectal cancer (T1-CRC) can be classified as having low- or high-risk for irradicality and/or lymph node metastasis, the latter requiring adjuvant surgery. Reporting and application of pathological high-risk criteria is likely variable, with inherited variation regarding baseline oncological staging, treatment and surveillance.

Methods We assessed practice variation using an online survey among gastroenterologists and surgeons participating in the Dutch T1-CRC Working Group.

Results Of the 130 invited physicians, 53 % participated. Regarding high-risk T1-CRC criteria, lymphangio-invasion is used by 100 %, positive or indeterminable margins by 93 %, poor differentiation by 90 %, tumor-free margin ≤ 1 mm by 78 %, tumor budding by 57 % and submucosal invasion > 1000 µm by 47 %. Fifty-two percent of the respondents do not perform baseline staging in locally resected low-risk T1-CRC. In case of unoperated high-risk patients, we recorded 61 different surveillance strategies in 63 participants, using 19 different combinations of diagnostic tests. Endoscopy is used in all schedules. Mean follow-up time is 36 months for endoscopy, 26 months for rectal MRI and 30 months for abdominal CT (all varying 3–60 months).

Conclusion We found variable use of pathological high-risk T1-CRC criteria, creating risk for misclassification as low-risk T1-CRC. This has serious implications, as most participants will not proceed to oncological staging in low-risk patients and adjuvant surgery nor radiological surveillance is considered. On the other hand, oncological surveillance in patients with a locally resected high-risk T1-CRC who do not wish adjuvant surgery is highly variable emphasizing the need for a uniform surveillance protocol.

Supplementary material



Publication History

Received: 21 January 2020

Accepted: 05 May 2020

Article published online:
31 August 2020

© 2020. Owner and Copyright ©

© Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Stuttgart · New York

 

  • References

  • 1 Mengual-Ballester M, Pellicer-Franco E, Valero-Navarro G. et al. Increased survival and decreased recurrence in colorectal cancer patients diagnosed in a screening programme. Cancer Epidemiol 2016; 43: 70-75
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Levin TR, Corley DA, Jensen CD. et al. Effects of Organized Colorectal Cancer Screening on Cancer Incidence and Mortality in a Large Community-Based Population. Gastroenterology 2018; 155: 1383-1391 e1385
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Backes Y, de Vos Tot Nederveen Cappel WH, van Bergeijk J. et al. Risk for Incomplete Resection after Macroscopic Radical Endoscopic Resection of T1 Colorectal Cancer: A Multicenter Cohort Study. Am J Gastroenterol 2017; 112: 785-796
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Ikematsu H, Yoda Y, Matsuda T. et al. Long-term outcomes after resection for submucosal invasive colorectal cancers. Gastroenterology 2013; 144: 551-559; quiz e514
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Yoda Y, Ikematsu H, Matsuda T. et al. A large-scale multicenter study of long-term outcomes after endoscopic resection for submucosal invasive colorectal cancer. Endoscopy 2013; 45: 718-724
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Belderbos TD, van Erning FN, de Hingh IH. et al. Long-term Recurrence-free Survival After Standard Endoscopic Resection Versus Surgical Resection of Submucosal Invasive Colorectal Cancer: A Population-based Study. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2017; 15: 403-411 e401
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Benizri EI, Bereder JM, Rahili A. et al. Additional colectomy after colonoscopic polypectomy for T1 colon cancer: a fine balance between oncologic benefit and operative risk. Int J Colorectal Dis 2012; 27: 1473-1478
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Shin JW, Han KS, Hyun JH. et al. Risk of recurrence after endoscopic resection of early colorectal cancer with positive margins. Endoscopy 2018; 50: 241-247
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Richards CH, Leitch FE, Horgan PG. et al. A systematic review of POSSUM and its related models as predictors of post-operative mortality and morbidity in patients undergoing surgery for colorectal cancer. J Gastrointest Surg 2010; 14: 1511-1520
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Vermeer NCA, Backes Y, Snijders HS. et al. National cohort study on postoperative risks after surgery for submucosal invasive colorectal cancer. BJS Open 2019; 3: 210-217
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Dutch Working Group for Gastrointestinal Tumours. Dutch Colorectal Cancer Guideline 2014. http://www.oncoline.nl/colorectaalcarcinoom (Accessed on 7 October 2019)
    PubMed
  • 12 Boulkedid R, Abdoul H, Loustau M. et al. Using and reporting the Delphi method for selecting healthcare quality indicators: a systematic review. PLoS One 2011; 6: e20476
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 13 Richards CH, Ventham NT, Mansouri D. et al. An evidence-based treatment algorithm for colorectal polyp cancers: results from the Scottish Screen-detected Polyp Cancer Study (SSPoCS). Gut 2018; 67: 299-306
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Lopez A, Bouvier AM, Jooste V. et al. Outcomes following polypectomy for malignant colorectal polyps are similar to those following surgery in the general population. Gut 2019; 68: 111-117
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Hashiguchi Y, Muro K, Saito Y. et al. Japanese Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum (JSCCR) guidelines 2019 for the treatment of colorectal cancer. Int J Clin Oncol 2019;
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Peck M, Moffat D, Latham B. et al. Review of diagnostic error in anatomical pathology and the role and value of second opinions in error prevention. J Clin Pathol 2018; 71: 995-1000
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Davenport A, Morris J, Pritchard SA. et al. Interobserver variability amongst gastrointestinal pathologists in assessing prognostic parameters of malignant colorectal polyps: a cause for concern. Tech Coloproctol 2016; 20: 647-652
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Rampioni VinciguerraGL, Antonelli G, Citron F. et al. Pathologist second opinion significantly alters clinical management of pT1 endoscopically resected colorectal cancer. Virchows Arch 2019;
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Bosch SL, Teerenstra S, de Wilt JH. et al. Predicting lymph node metastasis in pT1 colorectal cancer: a systematic review of risk factors providing rationale for therapy decisions. Endoscopy 2013; 45: 827-834
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Yasue C, Chino A, Takamatsu M. et al. Pathological risk factors and predictive endoscopic factors for lymph node metastasis of T1 colorectal cancer: a single-center study of 846 lesions. J Gastroenterol 2019;
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Tamaru Y, Oka S, Tanaka S. et al. Long-term outcomes after treatment for T1 colorectal carcinoma: a multicenter retrospective cohort study of Hiroshima GI Endoscopy Research Group. J Gastroenterol 2017; 52: 1169-1179
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Meining A, von Delius S, Eames TM. et al. Risk factors for unfavorable outcomes after endoscopic removal of submucosal invasive colorectal tumors. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2011; 9: 590-594
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Kouyama Y, Kudo SE, Miyachi H. et al. Practical problems of measuring depth of submucosal invasion in T1 colorectal carcinomas. Int J Colorectal Dis 2016; 31: 137-146
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 Sun ZQ, Ma S, Zhou QB. et al. Prognostic value of lymph node metastasis in patients with T1-stage colorectal cancer from multiple centers in China. World J Gastroenterol 2017; 23: 8582-8590
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 Kouyama Y, Kudo SE, Miyachi H. et al. Risk factors of recurrence in T1 colorectal cancers treated by endoscopic resection alone or surgical resection with lymph node dissection. Int J Colorectal Dis 2018; 33: 1029-1038
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 Di Gregorio C, Bonetti LR, de Gaetani C. et al. Clinical outcome of low- and high-risk malignant colorectal polyps: results of a population-based study and meta-analysis of the available literature. Intern Emerg Med 2014; 9: 151-160
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 27 NVMDL (Dutch Association of Gastroenterology). Dutch Guideline Colonoscopy surveillance 2013. http://www.mdl.nl/kwaliteitszaken/richtlijnen (Accessed on 7 October 2019)
    PubMed
  • 28 Yamashita K, Oka S, Tanaka S. et al. Long-term prognosis after treatment for T1 carcinoma of laterally spreading tumors: a multicenter retrospective study. Int J Colorectal Dis 2019; 34: 481-490
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 29 Bipat S, Glas AS, Slors FJ. et al. Rectal cancer: local staging and assessment of lymph node involvement with endoluminal US, CT, and MR imaging--a meta-analysis. Radiology 2004; 232: 773-783
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 30 Li XT, Sun YS, Tang L. et al. Evaluating local lymph node metastasis with magnetic resonance imaging, endoluminal ultrasound and computed tomography in rectal cancer: a meta-analysis. Colorectal Dis 2015; 17: O129-135
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 31 Bogach J, Tsai S, Zbuk K. et al. Quality of preoperative pelvic computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for rectal cancer in a region in Ontario: A retrospective population-based study. J Surg Oncol 2018; 117: 1038-1042
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 32 de Vries FE, da Costa DW, van der Mooren K. et al. The value of pre-operative computed tomography scanning for the assessment of lymph node status in patients with colon cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol 2014; 40: 1777-1781
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 33 Leufkens AM, van den Bosch MA, van Leeuwen MS. et al. Diagnostic accuracy of computed tomography for colon cancer staging: a systematic review. Scand J Gastroenterol 2011; 46: 887-894
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 34 Dighe S, Purkayastha S, Swift I. et al. Diagnostic precision of CT in local staging of colon cancers: a meta-analysis. Clin Radiol 2010; 65: 708-719
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 35 Fernandez-Esparrach G, Ayuso-Colella JR, Sendino O. et al. EUS and magnetic resonance imaging in the staging of rectal cancer: a prospective and comparative study. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 74: 347-354
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 36 Al-Sukhni E, Milot L, Fruitman M. et al. Diagnostic accuracy of MRI for assessment of T category, lymph node metastases, and circumferential resection margin involvement in patients with rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol 2012; 19: 2212-2223
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar