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

Abstract

Importance: 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.

Objective: To compare interval appendectomy and follow-up with magnetic resonance imaging after initial successful nonoperative treatment of periappendicular abscess.

Design, setting, and participants: 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.

Interventions: Patients were randomized either to interval appendectomy or follow-up with magnetic resonance imaging; all patients underwent colonoscopy.

Main outcomes and measures: 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.

Results: 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.

Conclusions and relevance: 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.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03013686.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Mällinen reports receiving research grants from the Instrumentarium Foundation, the Mary and Georg C. Ehrnrooth Foundation, and the Government Research Foundation (EVO). Dr Salminen reports receiving personal fees for lectures from Merck, Lilly, and Orion Pharma. No other disclosures were reported.

Figures

Figure.. Flowchart of Trial Participants

aIndicates that the 118 patients in whom a diagnosis of periappendicular abcess was inaccurate. MRI indicates magnetic resonance imaging.