4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

Is stapled ileal pouch anal anastomosis a safe option in ulcerative colitis patients with dysplasia or cancer?

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COLORECTAL DISEASE
卷 24, 期 10, 页码 1181-1186

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00384-009-0744-9

关键词

Restorative proctocolectomy; Ulcerative colitis; Colorectal cancer; Dysplasia; Stapled anastomosis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose The purpose of this study was to investigate the oncological and clinical outcome of ulcerative colitis (UC) patients with coexisting colorectal cancer/dysplasia following stapled ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA). Materials and methods One hundred eighty-five UC patients who underwent stapled IPAAwere followed prospectively in a comprehensive pouch clinic. They were divided into three groups: colorectal cancer, dysplasia, and no cancer/dysplasia. Demographic parameters, clinical data, and oncological and functional outcome of the three groups were compared. Results Sixteen patients had cancer and 14 had dysplasia. Two of the three cancer patients who developed metastatic disease died. One patient who had rectal cancer was found to have cancer cells in the rectal cuff 10 years after IPAA. All other cancer/dysplasia patients were disease- free at 62 months (median). The 5- year survival rate was 87.5% for the cancer group and 100% for the others (p<0.0001). Chemotherapy (nine patients) did not affect pouch function. Two rectal cancer patients who received radiotherapy did not maintain a functioning pouch. Overall pouch failure rates were 19%, 7%, and 6% for cancer, dysplasia, and no- cancer/dysplasia patients, respectively (p = 0.13). The mean frequency of bowel movements in 24 h was similar between the groups. Conclusions Stapled IPAA is a reasonable option for UC patients with cancer/dysplasia. Chemotherapy is safe, but the effect of radiation on pouch outcome is worrisome. Close long-term follow-up for UC patients with cancer/ dysplasia is recommended for early detection of possible recurrence.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据