Urgent computed tomography for determining the optimal timing of colonoscopy in patients with acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding.

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the diagnostic performance of computed tomography (CT) as an initial radiologic test for assessing the optimal timing of colonoscopy in patients with acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB) and investigated the effectiveness of contrast-enhanced (CE) CT for detecting colonic diverticular bleeding. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of 1,604 consecutive patients who visited or were referred to St. Marianna University Hospital due to acute LGIB and underwent colonoscopy within three months after presentation between September 2004 and December 2012. The clinicopathological data of the subjects were obtained from their medical records. RESULTS: Among the 1,604 patients presenting with LGIB, 879 (55%) underwent a CT scan. Elective colonoscopy was considered in cases in which typical colonic wall thickening was observed on CT, suggesting colonic inflammation or malignancy (239 patients; 27%). The diagnoses in the elective cases included ischemic colitis (38%), infectious colitis (8%), inflammatory bowel disease (8%) and malignancy (5%). Urgent colonoscopy was performed after the CT examination in 640 cases (73%). The most common presumptive CT diagnosis was diverticulum (402/640; 63%). Of the 638 patients who underwent CE-CT, diverticula were observed in 346 cases, including 104 cases of extravasation indicating ongoing diverticular bleeding. Among these 104 patients, the site of bleeding was identified in 71 subjects (68%) during colonoscopy. The rate of detection of the bleeding source on colonoscopy was significantly higher in the patients with extravasation on CE-CT than in those without extravasation on CE-CT (68% vs. 20%, respectively; p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Urgent CT is useful for determining the optimal timing of colonoscopy in cases of acute LGIB. CE-CT may be used to depict the presence and location of active hemorrhage and provides useful information for subsequent colonoscopy, especially in patients with diverticular bleeding.

Evaluation of magnifying colonoscopy in the diagnosis of serrated polyps.

AIM: To elucidate the colonoscopic features of serrated lesions of the colorectum using magnifying colonoscopy. METHODS: Broad division of serrated lesions of the colorectum into hyperplastic polyps (HPs), traditional serrated adenomas (TSAs), and sessile serrated adenomas/polyps (SSA/Ps) has been proposed on the basis of recent molecular biological studies. However, few reports have examined the colonoscopic features of these divisions, including magnified colonoscopic findings. This study examined 118 lesions excised in our hospital as suspected serrated lesions after magnified observation between January 2008 and September 2011. Patient characteristics (sex, age), conventional colonoscopic findings (location, size, morphology, color, mucin) and magnified colonoscopic findings (pit pattern diagnosis) were interpreted by five colonoscopists with experience in over 1000 colonoscopies, and were compared with histopathological diagnoses. The pit patterns were categorized according to Kudo's classification, but a more detailed investigation was also performed using the subclassification [type II-Open (type II-O), type II-Long (type II-L), or type IV-Serrated (type IV-S)] proposed by Kimura T and Yamano H. RESULTS: Lesions comprised 23 HPs (23/118: 19.5%), 39 TSAs (39/118: 33.1%: with cancer in one case), 50 SSA/Ps (50/118: 42.4%: complicated with cancer in three cases), and six others (6/118: 5.1%). We excluded six others, including three regular adenomas, one hamartoma, one inflammatory polyp, and one juvenile polyp for further analysis. Conventional colonoscopy showed that SSA/Ps were characterized as larger in diameter than TSAs and HPs (SSA/P vs HP, 13.62 ± 8.62 mm vs 7.74 ± 3.24 mm, P < 0.001; SSA/Ps vs TSA, 13.62 ± 8.62 mm vs 9.89 ± 5.73 mm, P < 0.01); common in the right side of the colon [HPs, 30.4% (7/23): TSAs, 20.5% (8/39): SSA/P, 84.0% (42/50), P < 0.001]; flat-elevated lesion [HPs, 30.4% (7/23): TSAs, 5.1% (2/39): SSA/Ps, 90.0% (45/50), P < 0.001]; normal-colored or pale imucosa [HPs, 34.8% (8/23): TSAs, 10.3% (4/39): SSA/Ps, 80% (40/50), P < 0.001]; and with large amounts of mucin [HPs, 21.7% (5/23): TSAs, 17.9% (7/39): SSA/Ps, 72.0% (36/50), P < 0.001]. In magnified colonoscopic findings, 17 lesions showed either type II pit pattern alone or partial type II pit pattern as the basic architecture, with 14 HPs (14/17, 70.0%) and 3 SSA/Ps. Magnified colonoscopy showed the type II-O pit pattern as characteristic of SSA/Ps [sensitivity 83.7% (41/49), specificity 85.7% (54/63)]. Cancer was also present in three lesions, in all of which a type VI pit pattern was also present within the same lesion. There were four HPs and four TSAs each. The type IV-S pit pattern was characteristic of TSAs [sensitivity 96.7% (30/31), specificity 89.9% (72/81)]. Cancer was present in one lesion, in which a type VI pit pattern was also present within the same lesion. In our study, serrated lesions of the colorectum also possessed the features described in previous reports of conventional colonoscopic findings. The pit pattern diagnosis using magnifying colonoscopy, particularly magnified colonoscopic findings using subclassifications of surface architecture, reflected the pathological characteristics of SSA/Ps and TSAs, and will be useful for colonoscopic diagnosis. CONCLUSION: We suggest that this system could be a good diagnostic tool for SSA/Ps using magnifying colonoscopy.

[Gemcitabine therapy for unresectable pancreatic cancer in elderly patients].

We evaluated the therapeutic effect of gemcitabine (GEM) therapy in 153 unresectable pancreatic cancer (UPC) patients, divided into younger patients (under 65), early-stage elderly patients (age 65-74) and advanced-stage elderly patients (age 75 and over). Among those patients who received only best supportive care (BSC), the most common reasons to be selected for BSC were family requests in the advanced-stage elderly patients, and poor general condition in the rest. Among the patients who received GEM therapy, there were no significant differences in response rate, or adverse events including the rate of dose reduction, postponement or cessation of GEM administration due to toxicity. Multivariate analysis using patient backgrounds and response to GEM therapy showed that CA 19-9 response and performance status did not change with age. GEM therapy for both early-stage and advanced-stage elderly UPC patients was as safe and useful as in younger patients.