[Polypectomy in the colon].
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Biomedical subjects
Publications and source records attributed to W Rufle.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
INTRODUCTION: In a prospective study initiated in 1982, we have been investigating the question as to whether - and if so, which - pT1 carcinomas of the colorectum can be treated exclusively via the endoscope. METHOD: In the period between February 1, 1982 and April 30, 2001, a total of 5,470 polyps were removed endoscopically at the Medical Department I of the Klinikum Ludwigsburg. Among these lesions, a total of 144 (2.6 %) pT1 carcinomas were found in 141 patients. We were able to follow 120 patients with 123 pT1 carcinomas over a mean follow-up period of 46 months (range: 1-60). In low-risk situations (definitive removal in healthy tissue, G1-G2, no lymphatic involvement), endoscopic treatment alone usually represented sufficient treatment. In high-risk cases (removal in healthy tissue uncertain or negative, and/or lymphatic vessel involvement, and/or G3/G4), subsequent surgical resection was carried out. RESULTS: 64 cases were classified as high-risk, 59 as low-risk. Nevertheless, 9 patients with 10 low-risk carcinomas were submitted to surgery (young age, patient's own request). In none of these 10 cases was residual tumour or lymph node metastasis detected in the surgical specimen. 47 patients with 49 low-risk carcinomas were treated solely by endoscopic polypectomy using the diathermy snare, and 45 patients with 47 carcinomas remained recurrence-free during the follow-up period. In a single case, a local recurrence was detected 2 months after polypectomy and underwent curative resection. In another case, peritoneal carcinosis with tumour infiltrating into the colon developed 8 months after initial treatment; this, however, was most probably a recurrence of a previously operated carcinoma of the uterus. Among the high-risk cases, 10 were not submitted to surgery on account of advanced age and/or rejection of an operation by the patient; all remained recurrence-free. Among the surgically treated high-risk carcinomas, 3 surgical specimens contained residual tumour, while 2 revealed a lymph node metastasis. In our group of patients, no tumour-related mortality was seen among endoscopically treated patients. DISCUSSION: In the light of the fact that the reported mortality rate associated with open surgery for colorectal carcinoma is 3 % as compared with about 1 % risk of lymph node metastasis and 0,1 % mortality rate for the endoscopic modality, endoscopic removal of a pT1 tumour in a low-risk situation followed by appropriate surveillance can be considered as adequate treatment.
Budesonide is a locally acting steroid with a high first-pass metabolism in the liver and low systemic effects. We performed the first pilot study comparing budesonide foam (1 mg/50 ml b.i.d.) with mesalazine enemas (4 g/60 ml o.d.). 33 patients from 3 centres were enrolled in this open randomized clinical trial. 16 patients got budesonide foam and 17 got mesalazine enemas. The drugs were administered for 4 weeks. Histological index (HI) and endoscopic index (EI) were assessed at day 1 and day 28, clinical activity index (CAI) at day 1, 14 and 28. For patients with left-sided colitis and proctosigmoiditis improvement was defined as decrease in CAI of > or = 2 points. For patients with proctitis improvement was defined as decrease in HI of > or = 1 point. The primary efficacy evaluation was performed with the intention to treat population (n = 32). Improvement was found in 67% of the patients in the budesonide group compared to 71% in the mesalazine group. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups. Adverse events were mild and rare in both groups. Both treatments had no significant influence on plasma cortisol. In this pilot study for distal ulcerative colitis budesonide foam is as safe and effective as mesalazine enema.
UNLABELLED: The value of fine needle biopsy (FNB) in adrenal masses was investigated in 33 patients presenting with such masses. Representative material was obtained 18 times from 19 patients with a history of tumour. 4 of them were diagnosed to be genuinely benign and 14 to be genuinely malignant. Further representative material was obtained 13 times from 14 patients with incidental findings of adrenal masses. The material gained by puncturing was classified correctly as benign in 9 cases, and twice it was considered benign although the tumours later proved malignant. In one case a clinically not suspected malignant lesion was detected by FNB, while in another case a malignant lesion was suspected by FNB, whereas a benign tumour was proven by means of surgery. The share of malignant diagnoses corresponded with the size of tumour, ascertained by the application of ultrasound or CT. The rate of malignant adrenal masses, which were found incidentally, increased from 7 cm onwards; however, the rate of malignant adrenal masses obtained from patients with a history of tumour increased distinctively already from 4 cm onwards. From 11 patients out of 33, adrenal tissue was obtained and classified as benign lesion (adenoma), although, by means of FNB and the conditions for reasons of method, a well differentiated carcinoma cannot be excluded. CONCLUSION: FNB is indicated for non-functioning tumours examined in patients with a history of tumour, furthermore, for incidental findings of the size between 4-6 cm. A diagnostic approach to adrenal masses is suggested.