Effect of tumor size on prognosis in colorectal cancer.

AIM: This study aimed to reveal the effect of tumor size on overall survival and disease-free survival. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This study retrospectively evaluated the data of 593 patients who underwent colorectal surgery for colorectal cancer (CRC) between May 2012 and December 2018. The patients were divided into two groups based on their tumor size; those with a tumor size <5 cm were grouped as group 1 and those with a tumor size ≥ 5 cm were grouped as group 2. RESULTS: The present study included 222 patients with colorectal adenocarcinoma. The median follow-up period of the patients was 36.0 (1.4-107.4) months, mean tumor size was 5.1±2.3 cm, and number of patients with a tumor size of ≥5 cm was 117 (52.7%). There were statistically significant differences between the groups in terms of overall survival (Log-Rank = 12.559, p<0.001). DISCUSSION: According to the American Joint Committee on Cancer's Cancer Staging Manual (8th edition), the CRC staging system considers the tumor's depth of invasion of the intestinal wall but not the tumor's size. Moreover, it considers the size of the tumors developing in the parenchymal organs (breasts and lungs) but not tumors developing in luminal organs (stomach, colon, etc.). CONCLUSIONS: Tumor size ≥5 cm was found to be a risk factor for poor prognosis. To a certain extent, we believe that this study will aid in elucidating the link between tumor size in and prognosis of patients with CRC. KEY WORDS: Colorectal cancer, Prognosis, Tumor size.

Incidentally Detected Gastrointestinal Wall Thickness on Abdominal Computed Tomography; What Does it Mean for Endoscopy?

BACKGROUND: The clinical significance of gastrointestinal wall thickening (GWT) on abdominal computed tomography (CT) is not certain, yet. Despite the need for clinical guidelines describing the importance and evaluation of GWT on a CT scan, there have been few studies evaluating these incidental imaging abnormalities. The aim of this study is to endoscopically evaluate certain etiologies that cause incidental GWT found on CT. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study was carried out with patients who had incidentally detected GWT on a CT scan at the Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Training and Research Hospital between February 2016 and December 2018. RESULTS: A total of 129 patients (62 males and 67 females; mean age 57.5 years, range: 26-87 years) were included in the study. Abnormalities observed during endoscopy at the exact site of the GWT noted on a CT image were found in 114 patients (99%): upper endoscopy revealed malignancy in 33 (29%), gastritis in 63 (52%), hiatal hernia in 19 (16%), a gastric ulcer in 7 (6%), and alkaline gastritis in 3 (2%). Colonoscopy revealed malignancy in 4 (33%), benign polyps in 5 (35%), colonic ulcer in 2 (16%), and 2 patients (16%) had normal findings. Malignancy was detected more frequently in the cardioesophageal region compared with the antrum (P=0.020). CONCLUSION: In this study, detection of GWT on CT often indicated pathologies which were subsequently confirmed endoscopically. Pathological findings were detected in 83% of these patients, with approximately 30% determined to be malignant. Endoscopic evaluation is recommended when GWT is reported on a CT scan.