Impact of video colonoscopy on stage and outcome of patients with symptomatic colorectal cancer

  • M. Vella
  • S. MacKenzie
  • I.E. Young
  • R. G. Molloy
  • P. J. O’Dwyer
Original article

Abstract

Background

Double-contrast barium enema still is regarded by many as the investigation of choice for patients with large bowel symptoms. The aim of this study was to compare the stage and outcome of patients with colorectal cancer diagnosed by video colonoscopy (VC) and barium enema (BE) in a single institution.

Methods

Between July 1997 and December 2001, data were gathered prospectively in a series of 489 patients presenting consecutively with symptomatic colorectal cancer. Selection of patients for either VC or BE investigation was made by the clinician who examined the patient in the clinic. Of the 489 patients, 82 were excluded because they presented acutely or other methods were used for the diagnosis.

Results

A diagnosis of colorectal cancer was determined by VC for 292 patients and by BE for 115 patients. The patients in both groups were similar in terms of age, gender, and site of disease. Stage 1 disease (T1/2NO) was diagnosed for 87 (29.8%) patients in the VC group, as compared with 10 (8.7%) in the BE group (p < 0.0001). Early colorectal cancer (T1) was diagnosed for 43 patients in the VC group as compared to 1 patient in the BE group (p < 0.0001). During a median follow-up period of 33 months, 8.2% of the patients in the VC group had experienced recurrence after curative resection, as compared with 17.4% of the patients in the BE group p = 0.018). Freedom from disease (p = 0.02) and overall survival (p = 0.03) were significantly increased in the VC group.

Conclusions

Videocolonoscopy used as the investigation of choice for patients with large bowel symptoms detects colorectal cancer at an earlier stage and has a significant impact on the outcome for this condition.

Keywords

Colonoscopy Outcome Colorectal cancer 

References

  1. 1.
    Fenlon, HM, Nunes, DP, Schroy, PC, Barish, MA, Clarke, PD, Ferrucci, JT 1999A comparison of virtual and conventional colonoscopy for the detection of colorectal polypsN Engl J Med34114961503CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    MacKenzie, S, O’Dwyer, PJ 2000Surveillance after colorectal cancer resectionLancet3551095CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Moreaux, J, Catala, M 1987Carcinoma of the colon: long-term survival and prognosis after surgical treatment in a series of 798 patientsWorld J Surg11804809PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Quirke, P, Durdey, P, Dixon, MF, Williams, NS 1986Local recurrence of rectal adenocarcinoma due to inadequate surgical resection: histopathological study of lateral tumour spread and surgical excisionLancetii996999CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rembacken, BJ, Fujii, T, Cairns, A, Dixon, MF, Yoshida, S, Chalmers, DM, Axon, AT 2000Flat and depressed colonic neoplasms: a prospective study of 1,000 colonoscopies in the UKLancet35512111214CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rex, DK, Rahmani, EY, Haseman, JH, Lemmel, GT, Kaster, S, Buckley, JS 1997Relative sensitivity of colonoscopy and barium enema for detection of colorectal cancer in clinical practiceGastroenterology1121723PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rex, DK, Weddle, RA, Lehman, GA, Pound, DC, O’Connor, KW, Hawes, RH, Dittus, RS, Lappas, JC, Lumeng, L 1990Flexible sigmoidoscopy plus air contrast barium enema versus colonoscopy for suspected lower gastrointestinal bleedingGastroenterology98855861PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Smith, GA, Oien, KA, O’Dwyer, PJ 1999Frequency of early colorectal cancer in patients undergoing colonoscopyBr J Surg8612881231Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Smith, GA, O’Dwyer, PJ 2001Sensitivity of double-contrast barium enema and colonoscopy for the detection of colorectal neoplasmsSurg Endosc15649652CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    UK Flexible Sigmoidoscopy Screening Trials Investigators2002Single flexible sigmoidoscopy screening to prevent colorectal cancer: baseline findings of a UK multicentre randomised trialLancet35912911300Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Winawer, SJ, Zauber, AG, Ho, MN, O’Brien, MJ, Gottlieb, LS, Stemberg, SS, Waye, JD, Schapiro, M, Bond, JH, Panish, JF 1993Prevention of colorectal cancer by colonoscopic polypectomyN Engl J Med32919771981CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Winawer, SJ, Stewart, ET, Zauber, AG, Bond, JH, Ansel, H, Waye, JD, Hall, D, Hamlin, JA, Schapiro, M, O’Brien, MJ, Stemberg, SS, Gottlieb, LS 2000A comparison of colonoscopy and double-contrast barium enema for surveillance after polypectomyN Engl J Med34217661772CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Vella
    • 1
  • S. MacKenzie
    • 1
  • I.E. Young
    • 1
  • R. G. Molloy
    • 2
  • P. J. O’Dwyer
    • 1
  1. 1.University Department of SurgeryWestern InfirmaryGlasgowUK
  2. 2.Gartnavel General HospitalGlasgowUK

Personalised recommendations