Table. Pathological Features and Molecular Profile of Early-Onset Colorectal Cancer Pathological features Molecular profile Poor differentiation Microsatellite stability Mucinous tumors More likely to exhibit LINE-1 hypomethylation and TP53 sequence variations Signet-ring morphology Less frequently harbor KRAS, BRAF V600E, and APC sequence variations Perineural/venous invasion Promoter methylation of CpG islands Abbreviations: APC, adenomatous polyposis coli; BRAF, B-Raf; KRAS, K-Ras; LINE-1, long interspersed nuclear elements; TP53, tumor protein 53.

The year 1969 marked a revolution in the diagnosis of colorectal cancer (CRC). It is when Dr Wolff developed the colonoscope and quickly realized its potential in both diagnosis and treatment of colonic neoplasms. Over the past 50 years there has been exponential increase in utilization of colonoscopy with over 1 million colonoscopies performed annually throughout Australasia. Endoscopic removal of pre‐malignant lesions has been proven to reduce the incidence and mortality of colorectal. Although timing and frequency of surveillance colonoscopy plays a crucial role in risk reduction of CRC, this is dependent upon the findings of the index colonoscopy. The goal of screening colonoscopy is to detect CRC and identify and remove pre‐malignant neoplasms that risk progression to CRC. With increasing uptake of bowel screening throughout Australasia, there is increasing pressure to ensure all endoscopists and endoscopy units perform at a universal high‐quality. All too often high demand and constant delays compromise colonoscopy quality. Without clear and concise quality indicators with transparent measurement and audit, these flaws can quickly jeopardize screening goals and patient outcomes. This review aims to explore six key quality indicators and explore the evidence behind the current recommended standards. These key indicators include; rate of adequate bowel preparation, caecal intubation rate, adenoma detection rate, withdrawal time, complication rates and surveillance intervals.

Management of advanced or recurrent pelvic cancer has evolved dramatically over the past few decades. Patients who were previously considered inoperable are now candidates for potentially curative surgery and avoid suffering with intractable symptoms. Up to 10% of primary rectal cancers present with isolated advanced local disease and between 10% and 15% of patients develop localized recurrence following proctectomy. Advances in surgical technique, reconstruction and multidisciplinary involvement have led to a reduction in mortality and morbidity and culminated in higher R0 resection rates with superior longer‐term survival outcomes. Recent studies boast over 50% 5‐year survival for rectal with an R0 resection. Exenteration has cemented itself as an important treatment option for advanced primary/recurrent pelvic tumours, however, there are still a few controversies. This review will discuss some of these issues, including: limitations of resection and the approach to high/wide tumours; the role of acute exenteration; re‐exenteration; exenteration in the setting of metastatic disease and palliation; the role of radiotherapy (including intra‐operative and re‐irradiation); management of the empty pelvis; and the impact on quality of life and function.