Publications

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Underwater EMR (UEMR) has emerged as an attractive alternative to conventional EMR (CEMR) for the resection of colorectal polyps. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare UEMR and CEMR for the resection of colorectal polyps with respect to efficacy and safety.

METHODS

A literature search was performed across multiple databases, including MEDLINE/PubMed, The Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Google Scholar, and Scopus, for studies that were published until May 2020. Only studies that compared the resection of colorectal polyps using UEMR with CEMR were included. Outcomes examined included rates of en bloc resection, recurrence, postprocedure bleeding, perforation, and resection time.

RESULTS

Seven studies totaling 1237 polyps were included: 614 polyps were resected with UEMR and 623 polyps with CEMR. UEMR was associated with a significant increase in the rate of overall en bloc resection (odds ratio [OR], 1.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.42-2.39; P < .001; I = 38%), with subgroup analysis showing a significant increase in the rates of en bloc resection in polyps ≥20 mm (OR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.06-2.14; P = .02; I = 44%) but not in polyps <20 mm (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, .65-1.76; P = .80; I = 27%), and with a significant reduction in the rate of recurrence (OR, .30; 95% CI, .16-.57; P = .0002; I = 0%), again driven by improvements in polyps ≥20 mm. There was no significant difference in postprocedure bleeding (OR, 1.11; 95% CI, .57-2.17; P = .76; I = 0%) or perforation (OR, .72; 95% CI, .19-2.83; P = .64; I = 0%).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrate that UEMR is a safe and efficacious alternative to CEMR. With appropriate training, UEMR may be strongly considered as a first-line option for resection of colorectal polyps.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Since 2008, a plethora of research studies has compared the efficacy of water-assisted (aided) colonoscopy (WAC) and underwater resection (UWR) of colorectal lesions with standard colonoscopy. We reviewed and graded the research evidence with potential clinical application. We conducted a modified Delphi consensus among experienced colonoscopists on definitions and practice of water immersion (WI), water exchange (WE), and UWR.

METHODS

Major databases were searched to obtain research reports that could potentially shape clinical practice related to WAC and UWR. Pertinent references were graded (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation). Extracted data supporting evidence-based statements were tabulated and provided to respondents. We received responses from 55 (85% surveyed) experienced colonoscopists (37 experts and 18 nonexperts in WAC) from 16 countries in 3 rounds. Voting was conducted anonymously in the second and third round, with ≥80% agreement defined as consensus. We aimed to obtain consensus in all statements.

RESULTS

In the first and the second modified Delphi rounds, 20 proposed statements were decreased to 14 and then 11 statements. After the third round, the combined responses from all respondents depicted the consensus in 11 statements (S): definitions of WI (S1) and WE (S2), procedural features (S3-S5), impact on bowel cleanliness (S6), adenoma detection (S7), pain score (S8), and UWR (S9-S11).

CONCLUSIONS

The most important consensus statements are that WI and WE are not the same in implementation and outcomes. Because studies that could potentially shape clinical practice of WAC and UWR were chosen for review, this modified Delphi consensus supports recommendations for the use of WAC in clinical practice.

Clonidine hydrochloride is an alpha(2)-adrenergic agonist commonly prescribed as an antihypertensive agent. It is also useful in ameliorating symptoms associated with opiate withdrawal and is frequently used in the detoxification setting. We report an episode in which 3 normotensive patients each ingested a single 0.1-mg clonidine patch in a detoxification unit.

PURPOSE

Low- and middle-income countries disproportionately comprise 65% of cancer deaths. Cancer care delivery in resource-limited settings, especially low-income countries in sub-Saharan Africa, is exceedingly complex, requiring multiple modalities of diagnosis and treatment. Given the vast human, technical, and financial resources required, access to radiotherapy remains limited in sub-Saharan Africa. Through 2017, Rwanda has not had in-country radiotherapy services. The aim of this study was to describe the implementation and early outcomes of the radiotherapy referral program at the Butaro Cancer Centre of Excellence and to identify both successful pathways and barriers to care.

METHODS

Butaro District Hospital is located in a rural area of the Northern Province and is home to the Butaro Cancer Centre of Excellence. We performed a retrospective study from routinely collected data of all patients with a diagnosis of cervical, head and neck, or rectal cancer between July 2012 and June 2015.

RESULTS

Between 2012 and 2015, 580 patients were identified with these diagnoses and were potential candidates for radiation. Two hundred eight (36%) were referred for radiotherapy treatment in Uganda. Of those referred, 160 (77%) had cervical cancer, 31 (15%) had head and neck cancer, and 17 (8%) had rectal cancer. At the time of data collection, 101 radiotherapy patients (49%) were alive and had completed treatment with no evidence of recurrence, 11 (5%) were alive and continuing treatment, and 12 (6%) were alive and had completed treatment with evidence of recurrence.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates the feasibility of a rural cancer facility to successfully conduct out-of-country radiotherapy referrals with promising early outcomes. The results of this study also highlight the many challenges and lessons learned in providing comprehensive cancer care in resource-limited settings.

The chemokine receptor CXCR3 plays a central role in inflammation by mediating effector/memory T cell migration in various diseases; however, drugs targeting CXCR3 and other chemokine receptors are largely ineffective in treating inflammation. Chemokines, the endogenous peptide ligands of chemokine receptors, can exhibit so-called biased agonism by selectively activating either G protein- or β-arrestin-mediated signaling after receptor binding. Biased agonists might be used as more targeted therapeutics to differentially regulate physiological responses, such as immune cell migration. To test whether CXCR3-mediated physiological responses could be segregated by G protein- and β-arrestin-mediated signaling, we identified and characterized small-molecule biased agonists of the receptor. In a mouse model of T cell-mediated allergic contact hypersensitivity (CHS), topical application of a β-arrestin-biased, but not a G protein-biased, agonist potentiated inflammation. T cell recruitment was increased by the β-arrestin-biased agonist, and biopsies of patients with allergic CHS demonstrated coexpression of CXCR3 and β-arrestin in T cells. In mouse and human T cells, the β-arrestin-biased agonist was the most efficient at stimulating chemotaxis. Analysis of phosphorylated proteins in human lymphocytes showed that β-arrestin-biased signaling activated the kinase Akt, which promoted T cell migration. This study demonstrates that biased agonists of CXCR3 produce distinct physiological effects, suggesting discrete roles for different endogenous CXCR3 ligands and providing evidence that biased signaling can affect the clinical utility of drugs targeting CXCR3 and other chemokine receptors.