SNFGE SNFGE
 
Thématique :
- Endoscopie/Imagerie
- Cancer colorectal (CCR)
Originalité :
Réexamen
Solidité :
Intermédiaire
Doit faire évoluer notre pratique :
Immédiatement
 
 
Nom du veilleur :
Docteur Patrice PIENKOWSKI
Coup de coeur :
 
 
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
  2015/08  
 
  2015 Aug;82(2):325-333.e2  
  doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2014.12.052  
 
  Metachronous colorectal cancers result from missed lesions and non-compliance with surveillance  
 
  le Clercq CM, Winkens B, Bakker CM, Keulen ET, Beets GL, Masclee AA, Sanduleanu S.  
  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25843613  
 
 

BACKGROUND:

Several studies examined the rate of colorectal cancer (CRC) developed during colonoscopy surveillance after CRC resection (ie, metachronous CRC [mCRC]), yet the underlying etiology is unclear.

OBJECTIVE:

To examine the rate and likely etiology of mCRCs.

DESIGN:

Population-based, multicenter study. Review of clinical and histopathologic records, including data of the national pathology database and The Netherlands Cancer Registry.

SETTING:

National cancer databases reviewed at 3 hospitals in South-Limburg, The Netherlands.

PATIENTS:

Total CRC population diagnosed in South-Limburg from January 2001 to December 2010.

INTERVENTIONS:

Colonoscopy.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS:

We defined an mCRC as a second primary CRC, diagnosed >6 months after the primary CRC. By using a modified algorithm to ascribe likely etiology, we classified the mCRCs into cancers caused by non-compliance with surveillance recommendations, inadequate examination, incomplete resection of precursor lesions (CRC in same segment as previous advanced adenoma), missed lesions, or newly developed cancers.

RESULTS:

We included a total of 5157 patients with CRC, of whom 93 (1.8%) had mCRCs, which were diagnosed on an average of 81 months (range 7-356 months) after the initial CRC diagnosis. Of all mCRCs, 43.0% were attributable to non-compliance with surveillance advice, 43.0% to missed lesions, 5.4% to incompletely resected lesions, 5.4% to newly developed cancers, and 3.2% to inadequate examination. Age-adjusted and sex-adjusted logistic regression analyses showed that mCRCs were significantly smaller in size (odds ratio [OR] 0.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.7-0.9) and more often poorly differentiated (OR 1.7; 95% CI, 1.0-2.8) than were solitary CRCs.

LIMITATIONS:

Retrospective evaluation of clinical data.

CONCLUSION:

In this study, 1.8% of all patients with CRC developed mCRCs, and the vast majority were attributable to missed lesions or non-compliance with surveillance advice. Our findings underscore the importance of high-quality colonoscopy to maximize the benefit of post-CRC surveillance.

 
Question posée
 
Quel est le risque de CCR métachrone après primo-diagnostic et quels sont les mécanismes explicatifs ?
 
Question posée
 
Moins de 2%. Non respect des recommandations et lésions méconnues.
 
Commentaires

Une étude spécifique sur les « cancers d’intervalle » après diagnostic d’un CCR mettant en exergue le non respect des règles de suivi.

 
www.snfge.org