View clinical trials related to Colon Neoplasm.
Filter by:This is a retrospective and prospective multicenter registry to collect long-term data (1 year) on patients who have or will undergo Endoscopic resection such as EMR, ESD, EFTR, STER, etc. within the gastrointestinal tract for endoscopic treatment of early gastrointestinal neoplasms involving the resection of the superficial layers, mucosa and submucosa, of the tract wall. Subjects will be consented for medical chart review. The purpose of this retrospective and prospective registry is to assess long term data on efficacy, safety and clinical outcome of Endoscopic Resection within the gastrointestinal tract (1 year). The registry will evaluate efficacy, technical feasibility, clinical outcome, safety profile and overall clinical management through medical chart review. The procedures the investigators are evaluating are all clinically indicated and will not be prescribed to someone to participate in this registry study.
This prospective, randomized controlled trial compares traditional air insufflation with water immersion and water exchange in patients undergoing colonoscopy using on demand sedation. We test the hypothesis that compared with air insufflation the proportion of patients who require on demand sedation during colonoscopy will be significantly lowered by water immersion and water exchange, and water exchange will produce the greatest reduction
In minimally sedated Asian patients in a community setting the investigators showed that a limited volume of water infusion instead of air insufflation in either the rectal sigmoid colon or the whole colon significantly reduced pain score during colonoscopy. Cecal intubation rate was not compromised. The reduction of pain score ranges from 25% to 32 % in our previous studies.1, 2 In contrast, several US reports described the successful use larger volumes of water infused throughout the entire colon in patients undergoing colonoscopy which result in a greater reduction of the pain score, averaging about 56%.3-5 A recent review suggested that the cause of the difference might lies in the timing of water removal.6 Specifically, the investigators group removed the infused water predominantly during withdrawal phase (water immersion) and the U.S. group removed water during insertion phase (water exchange). This prospective, randomized controlled trial compared water exchange or water immersion with traditional air insufflation in patients undergoing minimally sedated colonoscopy. The investigators test the hypothesis that water exchange can reduce more pain than water immersion in the investigators clinical setting.
INTRODUCTION: There are several alternatives for one-stage emergency treatment of obstructive left-sided colonic cancer (OLCC): subtotal colectomy, intraoperative colon lavage (IOCL) with primary anastomosis, and the placement of a stent as a temporary measure prior to scheduled surgery. At present, it is not clear whether emergency perioperative lavage or the placement of a stent is the better technique. The hypothesis is that IOCL and primary anastomosis is equal safe or even safer than placement of a stent as a temporary measure prior to scheduled surgery, less length of stay and less cost. OBJECTIVE: To establish which of these two techniques is more efficient in OLCC from the point of view of morbimortality, economic cost, and long-term survival. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Prospective, controlled, randomized study of patients diagnosed with OLCC. Patients were divided into two groups: group 1: stent and deferred surgery; group 2: emergency IOCL. A simple randomization system was used. The estimated sample size required per group was 21 patients. Demographic variables, risk prediction models, postoperative morbimortality, staging, complications due to the placement of stent, surgical time, clinical follow-up, health costs and follow-up of survival were recorded.
Colorectal cancer is a major health concern in the Western world with an estimated lifetime risk of 5-6%. The goal of achieving effective cancer prevention is driven by the prediction that CRC will become the leading cause of death (surpassing heart disease) in this decade, with an estimated 1,000,000 new cases and over 500,000 deaths per year, worldwide. Despite continuing advances in diagnosis and therapy, long-term survival rates have not improved significantly over the last four decades. Nearly 50% of all CRC patients will die of the disease. Preventive strategies offer the best hope, at least until our understanding of the biology of cancer matures to the point where it can be implemented into therapy. The search for new chemopreventive compounds with minimal toxicity raises particular interest in phytochemicals.Curcumin (diferuloylmethane) is a natural compound derived from the rhizome of Curcuma Longa, an East Indian plant, commonly called turmeric. It has been shown to possess potent anti-inflammatory and anti-oxidative properties, for which it has a long history of dietary use as a food additive. Curcumin has also a potent anti-proliferative effects against a variety of cancer cell lines in vitro, which stem from its ability to modulate many intracellular signal transduction pathways. Human phase I-II studies found curcumin to be safe, and indicated no dose-limiting toxicity when taken by mouth at doses up to 10 g/day. This data, together with the dismal therapeutic options available for colon cancer patients, suggest that curcumin warrants investigation in this setting. The present study evaluates gemcitabine in combination with curcumin and celecoxib for patients with colon cancer.
The purpose of this study is to determine (1) The side effects or toxicities of MLN8054;(2) The highest dose where side effects or toxicities are not too severe; (3) How MLN8054 is absorbed into the general blood circulation and eliminated from the body; and (4) The levels of MLN8054 in the blood that are needed to inhibit Aurora A kinase.
Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the leading cause of cancer death not only in the Western countries but also in Taiwan. Colonoscopy is now gradually accepted as one of the powerful tool for colorectal cancer screening. Not only for survey after positive fecal test, it is also applied as primary screening modality for CRC screening.Colon cleansing before colonoscopy thus becomes critically important and inadequate preparation may lead to low diagnostic yield with missed lesions, increased risk of complication and prolonged procedure time. Though the importance of good colon preparation can not be over-emphasized, diet control before colonoscopy and ingestion of large amount of lavage solution remain a significant hurdle to overcome and investigators continue to seek for the ideal colon preparation with respect to quality and examinee satisfaction. After the introduction of polyethylene glycol electrolyte lavage solution (PEG-ELS) for bowel preparation before colon procedures, its safety was well documented and the efficacy of colon cleansing was proven efficient. The timing of ingesting PEG-ELS is different between institutes and some ingest PEG-ELS as a whole at the night before colonoscopic examination and some ingested in split-dose manner which ingest half of the solution at previous night and remaining on the day of examination. Some institutes ask examinee to receive lavage solution on the day of examination. The manufacturer advices start taking medication on the day before the investigation according to their printed instruction on the package of PEG-ELS. Though there were a lot of studies that conducted to describe the result of colon cleansing in different fashion, the result is still controversial. This prospective, randomized, single-blinded trail evaluated and compared the efficacy of colon preparation at two timing of colon preparation, namely, in previous night or on the day of colonoscopic examination. In this study, we enrolled those who have already colon neoplasia detected during voluntary routine health check-up and received second colonoscopic examination for either elective polypectomy or endoscopic mucosectomy (EMR). We used not only the cleansing condition as a reference of adequate preparation; we also compared the diagnostic yield of lesion number as an objective comparator between these two methods.