• Home
  • Published Projects
  • Registries
Advanced Search

Study Preview



Study Title and Description

Tumour Characteristics of Patients with Colorectal Cancer after Acute Uncomplicated Diverticulitis.



Key Questions Addressed
3 KQ 3: What are the benefits and harms of colonoscopy (or other colon imaging test) following an episode of acute diverticulitis? KQ 3a. What is the incidence of malignant and premalignant colon tumors found by colonoscopy, and what is the incidence of colon cancer mortality among patients undergoing screening? KQ 3b. What are the procedure-related and other harms of colonoscopy or CT colonography? KQ 3c. What is the frequency of inadequate imaging due to intolerance or technical feasibility? • Do the benefits and harms vary by patient characteristics, course of illness, or other factors?
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Post/View

Primary Publication Information
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
TitleData
Title Tumour Characteristics of Patients with Colorectal Cancer after Acute Uncomplicated Diverticulitis.
Author Ramphal W., Schreinemakers JMJ., Seerden TCJ., Gobardhan PD.
Country Department of Surgery Amphia Hospital Breda, Breda, the Netherlands.
Year 2018
Numbers Pubmed ID: 29945147

Secondary Publication Information
UI Title Author Country Year
What is the Risk of Colorectal Cancer After an Episode of Acute Diverticulitis in Conservatively Treated Patients? Ramphal W., Schreinemakers JM., Seerden TC., Crolla RM., Rijken AM., Gobardhan PD. Departments of *Surgery†Gastroenterology, Amphia Hospital, Breda, The Netherlands. 2016
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |



Extraction Form: KQ 3: Colonoscopy
Arms
Number Title Description Comments
1 Colonoscopy
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |

Design Details
Question... Follow Up Answer Follow-up Answer
Study design Single group, with subgroup analyses
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Single group, with subgroup analyses
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Single group, with subgroup analyses
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Single group, with subgroup analyses
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Single group, with subgroup analyses
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Single group, with subgroup analyses
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Single group, with subgroup analyses
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
if not an RCT, what was the directionality? Retrospective
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Funder Not reported (or unclear)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Start and end years of the study 2008
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
2013
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Inclusion criteria Hinchey 0 and 1
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Exclusion criteria Hinchey II-IV, previous colorectal cancer, previous episodes of diverticulitis
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Specific population? Hx uncomplicated diverticulitis only
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Other (define) ... Hinchey 0 and I only
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Note/Comment about Design (or overall study)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Country Netherlands
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Comparison of colonoscopy vs. no colonoscopy? Yes
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Comparison of diverticulitis vs health control? No
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Subgroup analyses? Alarm symptoms
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Alarm symptoms
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Alarm symptoms
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Alarm symptoms
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |


Baseline Characteristics
Question Colonoscopy Total Comments
AnswerFollow-up AnswerFollow-up
Participant race/ethnicity characteristics Male NR
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Participant age, continuous 59
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Age >=50, % No data entered.
Participants with Un/Complicated Diverticulitis No data entered.
Note/Comment about baseline characteristics No data entered.
Alarm symptoms rectal bleeding, persistent abdominal pain, unintentional weight loss
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
32
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |



Results & Comparisons


Results Data
Outcome: Colorectal cancer      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure Colonoscopy


Enter a numeric value or title (required) years

 N Analyzed 645
Counts 10
Percentage 1.6
note among 10 identified colorectal cancer cases, 2 had a family history of CRC and 1 had a positive family history for Crohn’s disease
Outcome: Colorectal cancer      Population: Patients with alarm symptoms
Time Point Measure Colonoscopy


Enter a numeric value or title (required) years

 N Analyzed 205 [1]
Counts 9
Percentage 4.4
P between subgroups 0.0002 (alarm vs no alarm)
Footnotes
1. The difference between the occurrence of CRC among the people who underwent colonoscopy in the two groups (alarm vs no alarm) is significant (p value 0.0002).
Outcome: Colorectal cancer      Population: Patients with no alarm symptoms
Time Point Measure Colonoscopy


Enter a numeric value or title (required) years

 N Analyzed 440
Counts 1
Percentage 0.2
Outcome: Colorectal cancer death      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure Colonoscopy


Enter a numeric value or title (required) years

 N Analyzed 645
Counts 5
Percentage 0.78


Quality Dimensions
Dimension Value Notes Comments
Q23: NHLBI - Were eligibility/selection criteria for the study population prespecified and clearly described? Yes
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Q25: NHLBI - Were the outcome measures prespecified, clearly defined, valid, reliable, and assessed consistently across all study participants? Yes
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
If this study was an NRCS or a single-group study, did the study report adjusted results that were for differences between groups (in the case of NRCSs) or differences between subgroups (in the case of single group studies)? No
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |

Quality Rating
No quality rating data was found.