P076 - Time trends in forty years of diagnostic procedures in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), in a secondary care teaching hospital

Ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn’s disease (CD) are two major inflammatory disorders of the intestinal wall collectively known as inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Colorectal carcinoma (CRC) is the most significant and grave consequence of IBD and is preceded by dysplasia in majority of the cases. In this review we aim to discuss the various types of dysplasia found in patients with CRC due to IBD. A thorough literature search was conducted in online databases such as PubMed, Google Scholar, from which all studies published in the last ten years were included in this review. The major development in diagnostic procedures and visualization modalities have aided our understanding of dysplasia, which is now known to be the strongest predictor and marker for CRC development. However, the unpredictable behavior and progression of dysplasia still warrants vigilant surveillance. Dysplasia has been classified on histological characteristics using grades of dysplasia from ‘negative for dysplasia’ to ‘high grade dysplasia’. On visibility via an endoscope from ‘visible dysplasia’ to ‘invisible dysplasia’ and macroscopic features of ‘conventional dysplasia’ and ‘non-conventional dysplasia’. No single classification can be utilized to define the stage of dysplasia and more importantly predict its progression and outcome of CRC. Using evidence-based medicine an integrated classification expanding on a management algorithm must be formulated by a panel of experts to steer management of the disease. A multidisciplinary, tailored approach with a strong emphasis on regular and timely surveillance to ensure early detection of CRC can enhance quality of life and patient outcomes.

Download Full-text

Faecal calprotectin to detect inflammatory bowel disease: a systematic review and exploratory meta-analysis of test accuracy

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2018-027428 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 9 (3) ◽

pp. e027428 ◽

Cited By ~ 7

Author(s):

Karoline Freeman ◽

Brian H Willis ◽

Hannah Fraser ◽

Sian Taylor-Phillips ◽

Aileen Clarke

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Primary Care ◽

Inflammatory Bowel Disease ◽

Sensitivity And Specificity ◽

Bowel Disease ◽

Secondary Care ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Test Accuracy ◽

Faecal Calprotectin ◽

Inflammatory Bowel

ObjectiveTest accuracy of faecal calprotectin (FC) testing in primary care is inconclusive. We aimed to assess the test accuracy of FC testing in primary care and compare it to secondary care estimates for the detection of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).MethodsSystematic review and meta-analysis of test accuracy using a bivariate random effects model. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Web of Science until 31 May 2017 and included studies from auto alerts up until 31 January 2018. Eligible studies measured FC levels in stool samples to detect IBD in adult patients with chronic (at least 6–8 weeks) abdominal symptoms in primary or secondary care. Risk of bias and applicability were assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 criteria. We followed the protocol registered as PROSPERO CRD 42012003287.Results38 out of 2168 studies were eligible including five from primary care. Comparison of test accuracy by setting was precluded by extensive heterogeneity. Overall, summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity were not recorded. At a threshold of 50 µg/g, sensitivity from separate meta-analysis of four assay types ranged from 0.85 (95% CI 0.75 to 0.92) to 0.94 (95% CI 0.75 to 0.90) and specificity from 0.67 (95% CI 0.56 to 0.76) to 0.88 (95% CI 0.77 to 0.94). Across three different definitions of disease, sensitivity ranged from 0.80 (95% CI 0.76 to 0.84) to 0.97 (95% CI 0.91 to 0.99) and specificity from 0.67 (95% CI 0.58 to 0.75) to 0.76 (95% CI 0.66 to 0.84). Sensitivity appears to be lower in primary care and is further reduced at a revised threshold of 100 µg/g.ConclusionsConclusive estimates of sensitivity and specificity of FC testing in primary care for the detection of IBD are still missing. There is insufficient evidence in the published literature to support the decision to introduce FC testing in primary care. Studies evaluating FC testing in an appropriate primary care setting are needed.

Download Full-text