OC-058 Bile Acid Malabsorption: "The Unusual Suspect". A very Frequent Cause for Diarrhoea after Treatment for many different Cancer Types. (4th June 2013)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Phillips, F; Muls, A; Andreyev, J
• Is Part Of: Gut. Volume 62(2013)Supplement 1
• Page Start: A25
• Page End: A26
• Publication Date: 2013-06-04
• Subjects: Gastroenterology -- Periodicals; 616.33
• DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2013-304907.057
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0017-5749

Abstract

Abstract : Introduction: Approximately 16, 000 patients per year are left with a chronic change in bowel function and gastrointestinal symptoms following treatment for cancer. This can have a significant impact upon quality of life and even compromise on-going cancer therapy. Previous small studies focusing mainly on patients with gynaecological cancers suggest that bile acid malabsorption (BAM) may be an important cause of radiotherapy-induced diarrhoea. This retrospective study aims to elucidate the prevalence of BAM in patients referred to a specialist gastroenterology clinic which treats patients with consequences of cancer treatments. Methods: Patients referred to our clinic are managed using a peer reviewed algorithm. If they report diarrhoea, defined as Bristol Stool Chart type 6–7, a routine referral for a SeHCAT (75-selenium homocholic acid taurine) scan is made to exclude BAM. BAM is diagnosed when the SeHCAT 7 day retention is < 15% and is graded mild (10–15%), moderate (5–10%) and severe (< 5%). Results: Between 2009–2012, 262 patients were referred for a SeHCAT scan. 139 (53.1%) were male (median age 66, range 32–89) and 123 (46.9%) female (median age 61, range 20–86). 79 (37%) patients had been treated for gynaecological, 94 (44%) for urological, 41 (19%) for anorectal and 30 (11%) for upper gastrointestinal tract cancers. A further 18 (7%) were treated for other cancer types (breast, lung and haematological). BAM was diagnosed in 24 patients (25%) treated for urological cancers, with 17% (n = 4) having severe BAM. 46 patients (58%) treated for gynaecological cancers had BAM, severe in 57% (n = 26). BAM was diagnosed in 22 patients (54%) treated for anorectal cancers, with 55% having severe BAM (n = 12). In 15 patients (50%) treated for upper GI cancers, the majority (73%) had severe BAM (n = 11). For patients with other cancer types, BAM was diagnosed in 8 patients (44%) with severe BAM in 2 of these (25%). Conclusion: The frequency of severe bile acid malabsorption and its impact on quality of life is poorly appreciated amongst those who treat cancer. BAM is a common problem in patients treated for a wide variety of cancers with a number of different treatment modalities. Given the effectiveness of dietary fat manipulation combined with a new generation of bile acid sequestrants, SeHCAT scanning should be a first line in investigating patients with diarrhoea after cancer therapies. Disclosure of Interest: None Declared