Risk of Appendiceal Neoplasm in Periappendicular Abscess in Patients Treated With Interval Appendectomy vs Follow-up With Magnetic Resonance Imaging: 1-Year Outcomes of the Peri-Appendicitis Acuta Randomized Clinical Trial.
Abscess
/ diagnostic imaging
Adolescent
Adult
Appendectomy
Appendiceal Neoplasms
/ diagnostic imaging
Appendicitis
/ diagnostic imaging
Colonoscopy
Conservative Treatment
Female
Finland
/ epidemiology
Humans
Incidence
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
/ methods
Male
Middle Aged
Risk
Tomography, X-Ray Computed
Journal
JAMA surgery
ISSN: 2168-6262
Titre abrégé: JAMA Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101589553
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 03 2019
01 03 2019
Historique:
pubmed:
30
11
2018
medline:
26
11
2019
entrez:
29
11
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The step after conservative treatment of periappendicular abscess arouses controversy, ranging from recommendations to abandon interval appendectomy based on low recurrence rates of the precipitating diagnosis to performing routine interval appendectomy owing to novel findings of increased neoplasm risk at interval appendectomy. To our knowledge, there are no randomized clinical trials with sufficient patient numbers comparing these treatments. To compare interval appendectomy and follow-up with magnetic resonance imaging after initial successful nonoperative treatment of periappendicular abscess. The Peri-Appendicitis Acuta randomized clinical trial was a multicenter, noninferiority trial conducted in 5 hospitals in Finland. All patients between age 18 and 60 years with periappendicular abscess diagnosed by computed tomography and successful initial nonoperative treatment from January 2013 to April 2016 were included. Data analysis occurred from April 2016 to September 2017. Patients were randomized either to interval appendectomy or follow-up with magnetic resonance imaging; all patients underwent colonoscopy. The primary end point was treatment success, defined as an absence of postoperative morbidity in the appendectomy group and appendicitis recurrence in the follow-up group. Secondary predefined end points included neoplasm incidence, inflammatory bowel disease, length of hospital stay, and days of sick leave. A total of 60 patients were included (36 men [60%]; median [interquartile range] age: interval appendectomy group, 49 [18-60] years; follow-up group, 47 [22-61] years). An interim analysis in April 2016 showed a high rate of neoplasm (10 of 60 [17%]), with all neoplasms in patients older than 40 years. The trial was prematurely terminated owing to ethical concerns. Two more neoplasms were diagnosed after study termination, resulting in an overall neoplasm incidence of 20% (12 of 60). On study termination, the overall morbidity rate of interval appendectomy was 10% (3 of 30), and 10 of the patients in the follow-up group (33%) had undergone appendectomy. The neoplasm rate after periappendicular abscess in this small study population was high, especially in patients older than 40 years. If this considerable rate of neoplasms after periappendicular abscess is validated by future studies, it would argue for routine interval appendectomy in this setting. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03013686.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30484824
pii: 2715625
doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2018.4373
pmc: PMC6439633
doi:
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT03013686']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
200-207Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Références
J Gastrointest Surg. 2008 Apr;12(4):767-75
pubmed: 17999120
Surgery. 2010 Jun;147(6):818-29
pubmed: 20149402
Ann Surg. 2015 Aug;262(2):237-42
pubmed: 25775072
Anticancer Res. 2015 Sep;35(9):4943-7
pubmed: 26254392
Indian J Gastroenterol. 2004 Sep-Oct;23(5):165-7
pubmed: 15598997
Arch Surg. 2011 Mar;146(3):308-14
pubmed: 21422362
World J Surg. 2012 Dec;36(12):2787-94
pubmed: 22948195
Br J Surg. 2017 Sep;104(10):1355-1361
pubmed: 28677879
Int J Colorectal Dis. 2011 May;26(5):617-21
pubmed: 21234578
JAMA Surg. 2013 Aug;148(8):703-6
pubmed: 23740174
World J Emerg Surg. 2017 Mar 9;12:12
pubmed: 28286544
Ann Surg. 2007 Jun;245(6):886-92
pubmed: 17522514
Lancet. 2011 May 7;377(9777):1573-9
pubmed: 21550483
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2008 Feb;34(2):196-201
pubmed: 17524597
J Pediatr Surg. 2010 Jan;45(1):236-40
pubmed: 20105610
World J Surg Oncol. 2016 Sep 13;14(1):243
pubmed: 27619776
World J Surg. 2006 Mar;30(3):352-7
pubmed: 16479354
Am J Surg Pathol. 2009 Feb;33(2):248-55
pubmed: 18852679
Am J Surg. 2015 Mar;209(3):442-6
pubmed: 25543294
Arch Surg. 2005 Sep;140(9):897-901
pubmed: 16175691
Am Surg. 2016 Jan;82(1):11-5
pubmed: 26802841
Int J Colorectal Dis. 2014 Aug;29(8):1009-12
pubmed: 24986137
Ann Surg. 2007 Nov;246(5):741-8
pubmed: 17968164
Surg Endosc. 2014 Mar;28(3):961-6
pubmed: 24178863
Am Surg. 2012 Mar;78(3):339-43
pubmed: 22524774
JAMA. 2015 Jun 16;313(23):2340-8
pubmed: 26080338