The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

P75 comparison between 4% formalin instillation and purastat application for radiation proctopathy

P75 comparison between 4% formalin instillation and purastat application for radiation proctopathy
P75 comparison between 4% formalin instillation and purastat application for radiation proctopathy
Introduction: Formalin therapy is an established method for the treatment of radiation proctopathy (RP). Emerging data suggests a potential role for Purastat application in the treatment of RP; however, no comparison to conventional treatment has been made to date. The aim of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of Purastat for the treatment of RP compared to conventional treatment. Methods: consecutive patients with RP referred between January 2018 and December 2019 were treated with either conventional formalin or Purastat, based on endoscopist preference. Patients symptoms were scored with the subjective, objective management analysis (SOMA) scale, and the endoscopic severity of RP was graded by Zincola score. These measures were taken pre-treatment and prior to any subsequently planned treatments if clinically warranted, typically at 6-week intervals up to a maximum of 4 sessions. Results: of 17 patients (all male) referred for treatment, 11 patients underwent conventional Formalin instillation and 6 patients Purastat. Table 1 shows demographic and treatment outcomes. There was no statistical difference between the 2 groups in patient demographics, baseline symptom severity and Zincola score. Post-treatment protocol SOMA score reduction was significantly greater in the formalin group v Purastat group (8 to 1 v 8.2 to 4, p=0.01 respectively), and Zincola score reduction ( 4–2 v 4–3, p= 0.04 respectively). There was 1 case of mild anaphylaxis with facial flushing with Formalin, which settled with observation. [P75 Table 1 Demographic and treatment outcomes not included].

Conclusions: formalin instillation is still a cheap and effective treatment of RP. Although Purastat has a beneficial adverse event profile, its limited effect in this small cohort does not yet warrant widespread usage.
1468-3288
Stammers, Matt
a4ad3bd5-7323-4a6d-9c00-2c34f8ae5bd3
Boger, Phil
42423c75-d6fd-48c5-b0d4-31432164b8ce
Patel, Praful
c92dd012-6d09-43b2-9fac-aaadcb42ea27
Rahman, Imdadur
6f1a15d4-ed0b-4890-ab78-eb7920b1e98c
Stammers, Matt
a4ad3bd5-7323-4a6d-9c00-2c34f8ae5bd3
Boger, Phil
42423c75-d6fd-48c5-b0d4-31432164b8ce
Patel, Praful
c92dd012-6d09-43b2-9fac-aaadcb42ea27
Rahman, Imdadur
6f1a15d4-ed0b-4890-ab78-eb7920b1e98c

Stammers, Matt, Boger, Phil, Patel, Praful and Rahman, Imdadur (2021) P75 comparison between 4% formalin instillation and purastat application for radiation proctopathy. Gut, 70, [A79]. (doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2020-bsgcampus.150).

Record type: Meeting abstract

Abstract

Introduction: Formalin therapy is an established method for the treatment of radiation proctopathy (RP). Emerging data suggests a potential role for Purastat application in the treatment of RP; however, no comparison to conventional treatment has been made to date. The aim of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of Purastat for the treatment of RP compared to conventional treatment. Methods: consecutive patients with RP referred between January 2018 and December 2019 were treated with either conventional formalin or Purastat, based on endoscopist preference. Patients symptoms were scored with the subjective, objective management analysis (SOMA) scale, and the endoscopic severity of RP was graded by Zincola score. These measures were taken pre-treatment and prior to any subsequently planned treatments if clinically warranted, typically at 6-week intervals up to a maximum of 4 sessions. Results: of 17 patients (all male) referred for treatment, 11 patients underwent conventional Formalin instillation and 6 patients Purastat. Table 1 shows demographic and treatment outcomes. There was no statistical difference between the 2 groups in patient demographics, baseline symptom severity and Zincola score. Post-treatment protocol SOMA score reduction was significantly greater in the formalin group v Purastat group (8 to 1 v 8.2 to 4, p=0.01 respectively), and Zincola score reduction ( 4–2 v 4–3, p= 0.04 respectively). There was 1 case of mild anaphylaxis with facial flushing with Formalin, which settled with observation. [P75 Table 1 Demographic and treatment outcomes not included].

Conclusions: formalin instillation is still a cheap and effective treatment of RP. Although Purastat has a beneficial adverse event profile, its limited effect in this small cohort does not yet warrant widespread usage.

This record has no associated files available for download.

More information

e-pub ahead of print date: 21 January 2021

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 478005
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/478005
ISSN: 1468-3288
PURE UUID: a0c37144-7bd2-4cae-b768-2ce440ac27e7
ORCID for Matt Stammers: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0003-3850-3116

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 19 Jun 2023 16:51
Last modified: 21 Sep 2024 02:15

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: Matt Stammers ORCID iD
Author: Phil Boger
Author: Praful Patel
Author: Imdadur Rahman

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×