Perianal Fistulizing Crohn’s Disease–Associated Anorectal and Fistula Cancers: Systematic Review and Expert Consensus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Perianal fistulizing Crohn's disease (PFCD)-associated anorectal and fistula cancers are rare but often devastating diagnoses. However, given the low incidence and consequent lack of data and clinical trials in the field, there is little to no guidance on screening and management of these cancers. To inform clinical practice, we developed consensus guidelines on PFCD-associated anorectal and fistula cancers by multidisciplinary experts from the international TOpClass consortium. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review by standard methodology, using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale quality assessment tool. We subsequently developed consensus statements using a Delphi consensus approach. RESULTS: Of 561 articles identified, 110 were eligible, and 76 articles were included. The overall quality of evidence was low. The TOpClass consortium reached consensus on 6 structured statements addressing screening, risk assessment, and management of PFCD-associated anorectal and fistula cancers. Patients with long-standing (>10 years) PFCD should be considered at small but increased risk of developing perianal cancer, including squamous cell carcinoma of the anus and anorectal carcinoma. Risk factors for squamous cell carcinoma of the anus, notably human papilloma virus, should be considered. New, refractory, or progressive perianal symptoms should prompt evaluation for fistula cancer. There was no consensus on timing or frequency of screening in patients with asymptomatic perianal fistula. Multiple modalities may be required for diagnosis, including an examination under anesthesia with biopsy. Multidisciplinary team efforts were deemed central to the management of fistula cancers. CONCLUSIONS: Inflammatory bowel disease clinicians should be aware of the risk of PFCD-associated anorectal and fistula cancers in all patients with PFCD. The TOpClass consortium consensus statements outlined herein offer guidance in managing this challenging scenario.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.044 | 0.143 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".