Factors associated with complete clip closure after endoscopic mucosal resection of large colorectal polyps

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIM : Delayed bleeding is a common adverse event following endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of large colorectal polyps. Prophylactic clip closure of the mucosal defect after EMR of nonpedunculated polyps larger than 20 mm reduces the incidence of severe delayed bleeding, especially in proximal polyps. This study aimed to evaluate factors associated with complete prophylactic clip closure of the mucosal defect after EMR of large polyps. METHODS : This is a post hoc analysis of the CLIP study (NCT01936948). All patients randomized to the clip group were included. Main outcome was complete clip closure of the mucosal resection defect. The defect was considered completely closed when no remaining mucosal defect was visible and clips were less than 1 cm apart. Factors associated with complete closure were evaluated in multivariable analysis. RESULTS : In total, 458 patients (age 65, 58 % men) with 494 large polyps were included. Complete clip closure of the resection defect was achieved for 338 polyps (68.4 %); closure was not complete for 156 (31.6 %). Factors associated with complete closure in adjusted analysis were smaller polyp size (odds ratio 1.06 for every millimeter decrease [95 % confidence interval 1.02-1.08]), good access (OR 3.58 [1.94-9.59]), complete submucosal lifting (OR 2.28 [1.36-3.90]), en bloc resection (OR 5.75 [1.48-22.39]), and serrated histology (OR 2.74 [1.35-5.56]). CONCLUSIONS : Complete clip closure was not achieved for almost one in three resected large nonpedunculated polyps. While stable access and en bloc resection facilitate clip closure, most factors associated with clip closure are not modifiable. This highlights the need for alternative closure options and measures to prevent bleeding.

Population-based organized screening by faecal immunochemical testing and colorectal cancer mortality: a natural experiment

BACKGROUND

Population-based organized screening programmes for colorectal cancer (CRC) are underway worldwide, with many based on the faecal immunochemical test (FIT). No clinical trials assessing FIT compared with no screening are planned, and few studies have assessed the population impact of such programmes.

METHODS

Before 2010, 11 out of 50 Spanish provinces initiated population-based organized screening programmes with FIT for an average-risk population aged 50-69 years. We used a quasi-experimental design across Spanish provinces between 1999 and 2016 to evaluate their impact on population age-standardized mortality and incidence rates due to CRC. Difference-in-differences and synthetic control analyses were performed to test for validation of statistical assumptions and to assess the dynamics of screening-associated changes in outcomes over time.

RESULTS

No differences in outcome trends between exposed (n = 11) and control (n = 36) provinces were observed for up to 7 years preceding the implementation of screening. Relative to controls, exposed provinces experienced a mean increase in age-standardized incidence of 10.08% [95% confidence interval (CI) (5.09, 15.07)] 2 years after implementation, followed by a reduction in age-standardized mortality rates due to CRC of 8.82% [95% CI (3.77, 13.86)] after 7 years. Results were similar for both women and men. No associated changes were observed in adjacent age bands not targeted by screening, nor for 10 other major causes of death in the exposed provinces.

CONCLUSIONS

FIT-based organized screening in Spain was associated with reductions in population colorectal cancer mortality. Further research is warranted in order to assess the replicability and external validity of our findings, and on gender-specific use of FIT in organized screening.

When and How To Use Endoscopic Tattooing in the Colon: An International Delphi Agreement

BACKGROUND & AIMS

There is a lack of clinical studies to establish indications and methodology for tattooing, therefore technique and practice of tattooing is very variable. We aimed to establish a consensus on the indications and appropriate techniques for colonic tattoo through a modified Delphi process.

METHODS

The baseline questionnaire was classified into 3 areas: where tattooing should not be used (1 domain, 6 questions), where tattooing should be used (4 domains, 20 questions), and how to perform tattooing (1 domain 20 questions). A total of 29 experts participated in the 3 rounds of the Delphi process.

RESULTS

A total of 15 statements were approved. The statements that achieved the highest agreement were as follows: tattooing should always be used after endoscopic resection of a lesion with suspicion of submucosal invasion (agreement score, 4.59; degree of consensus, 97%). For a colorectal lesion that is left in situ but considered suitable for endoscopic resection, tattooing may be used if the lesion is considered difficult to detect at a subsequent endoscopy (agreement score, 4.62; degree of consensus, 100%). A tattoo should never be injected directly into or underneath a lesion that might be removed endoscopically at a later point in time (agreement score, 4.79; degree of consensus, 97%). Details of the tattoo injection should be stated clearly in the endoscopy report (agreement score, 4.76; degree of consensus, 100%).

CONCLUSIONS

This expert consensus has developed different statements about where tattooing should not be used, when it should be used, and how that should be done.

Fecal MicroRNA-Based Algorithm Increases Effectiveness of Fecal Immunochemical Test-Based Screening for Colorectal Cancer

BACKGROUND & AIMS

An algorithm based on fecal levels of 2 microRNAs (miR-421 and miR-27a-3p), fecal hemoglobin concentration, and patient age and sex can identify patients with advanced colorectal neoplasia. We investigated whether this algorithm, called miRFec, could increase effectiveness and efficiency of fecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs.

METHODS

We obtained data and fecal samples from 767 persons with a positive result from the FIT who then underwent colonoscopy examination while participating a population-based CRC screening program, from March 2011 through May 2017 in Barcelona, Spain. Fecal miRNAs were isolated from the buffer contained in the original FIT collection device and analyzed by quantitative reverse transcription PCR. Aims were to evaluate the usefulness of the miRFec algorithm in identifying persons at greatest risk for CRC who should be prioritized for colonoscopy examination and individuals at low risk for whom colonoscopy could be avoided.

RESULTS

Of the 767 study subjects, 414 (54.0%) were found by colonoscopy to have advanced colorectal neoplasia (67 with CRC and 347 with advanced adenomas) and 353 (46.0%) were found to have either non-advanced adenomas (n = 136) or a normal examination (n = 217). MiRFec algorithm scores (1-4) were independently associated with the presence of advanced colorectal neoplasia (P < .001). The miRFec algorithm differentiated patients with CRC from those with non-advanced adenomas or normal colonoscopy with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 90% (95% CI, 86-94). Subjects with miRFec scores in the 4th quartile (above 3.09, high-risk group) were 8-fold more likely to have advanced colorectal neoplasia than subjects with miRFec scores in the 1st quartile (below 2.14, low-risk group). Subjects in the low-risk group had a positive predictive value below 30% for detection of advanced colorectal neoplasia. When we used a 50% specificity cut-off value, the miRFec algorithm identified 97% of patients with CRC and would allow 264 subjects (34.4%) to avoid colonoscopy examination.

CONCLUSIONS

An algorithm based on fecal levels of 2 miRNAs and hemoglobin, patient age and sex (miRFec) differentiated patients with CRC from those with non-advanced adenomas or normal colonoscopy with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve value of 90% and avoided 34% of colonoscopies. Inclusion of this algorithm in FIT-based CRC screening programs could increase their effectiveness and efficiency.

Colon capsule endoscopy versus CT colonography in FIT-positive colorectal cancer screening subjects: a prospective randomised trial-the VICOCA study

BACKGROUND

Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) and CT colonography (CTC) are minimally invasive techniques for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Our objective is to compare CCE and CTC for the identification of patients with colorectal neoplasia among participants in a CRC screening programme with positive faecal immunochemical test (FIT). Primary outcome was to compare the performance of CCE and CTC in detecting patients with neoplastic lesions.

METHODS

The VICOCA study is a prospective, single-centre, randomised trial conducted from March 2014 to May 2016; 662 individuals were invited and 349 were randomised to CCE or CTC before colonoscopy. Endoscopists were blinded to the results of CCE and CTC.

RESULTS

Three hundred forty-nine individuals were included: 173 in the CCE group and 176 in the CTC group. Two hundred ninety individuals agreed to participate: 147 in the CCE group and 143 in the CTC group. In the intention-to-screen analysis, sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive values for the identification of individuals with colorectal neoplasia were 98.1%, 76.6%, 93.7% and 92.0% in the CCE group and 64.9%, 95.7%, 96.8% and 57.7% in the CTC group. In terms of detecting significant neoplastic lesions, the sensitivity of CCE and CTC was 96.1% and 79.3%, respectively. Detection rate for advanced colorectal neoplasm was higher in the CCE group than in the CTC group (100% and 93.1%, respectively; RR = 1.07; p = 0.08). Both CCE and CTC identified all patients with cancer. CCE detected more patients with any lesion than CTC (98.6% and 81.0%, respectively; RR = 1.22; p = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

Although both techniques seem to be similar in detecting patients with advanced colorectal neoplasms, CCE is more sensitive for the detection of any neoplastic lesion.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02081742 . Registered: September 16, 2013.

Genetic Counseling for Hereditary Gastric and Pancreatic Cancer in High-Risk Gastrointestinal Cancer Clinics: An Effective Strategy

The identification of high-risk groups of gastric (GC) and pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PC) due to a hereditary basis could imply a benefit in the affected families by establishing personalized preventive strategies. We aimed at assessing the diagnostic yield of GC/PC hereditary syndromes in individuals evaluated based on specific clinical criteria. In total, 77 unrelated individuals (45 from GC group/32 from PC group) were recruited: 51 (66.2%) cancer diagnosis ≤60 years, 3 (4%) with personal history of GC/PC and other cancer and 23 (29.8%) due to family history. Immunohistochemical analysis of DNA mismatch repair proteins was performed in 38 (49.3%) available tumors, being pathological in one (2%) GC. A genetic analysis was performed if clinical criteria of hereditary syndrome were fulfilled, identifying a mutation in 10/22 (45.5%) families [7/16 (43.7%) with GC and 3/6 (50%) with PC] and 19 (24.7%) fulfilled criteria of familial cancer. Diagnosis of cancer <40 years and personal history of other cancers were independent risk factors of a hereditary syndrome [OR:11.3 (95%IC 1.9–67); p = 0.007 and OR:17.4 (95% IC 2.5–119.9); p = 0.004; respectively]. The selection of patients based on clinical criteria leads to high diagnostic yield, detecting a causative germline mutation in almost half of the cases; therefore, both meticulous genetic counseling and use of multi-gen panels is crucial.

Efficacy and Tolerability of High- vs Low-Volume Split-Dose Bowel Cleansing Regimens for Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Efficacy of bowel preparation is an important determinant of outcomes of colonoscopy. It is not clear whether approved low-volume polyethylene glycol (PEG) and non-PEG regimens are as effective as high-volume PEG regimens when taken in a split dose.

METHODS

In a systematic review of multiple electronic databases through January 31, 2019 with a registered protocol (PROSPERO: CRD42019128067), we identified randomized controlled trials that compared low- vs high-volume bowel cleansing regimens, administered in a split dose, for colonoscopy. The primary efficacy outcome was rate of adequate bowel cleansing, and the secondary efficacy outcome was adenoma detection rate. Primary tolerability outcomes were compliance, tolerability, and willingness to repeat. We calculated relative risk (RR) and 95% CI values and assessed heterogeneity among studies by using the I² statistic. The overall quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE framework.

RESULTS

In an analysis of data from 17 randomized controlled trials, comprising 7528 patients, we found no significant differences in adequacy of bowel cleansing between the low- vs high-volume split-dose regimens (86.1% vs 87.4%; RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.98-1.02) and there was minimal heterogeneity (I² = 17%). There was no significant difference in adenoma detection rate (RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.87-1.08) among 4 randomized controlled trials. Compared with high-volume, split-dose regimens, low-volume split-dose regimens had higher odds for compliance or completion (RR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.02-1.10), tolerability (RR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.12-1.74), and willingness to repeat bowel preparation (RR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.20-1.66). The overall quality of evidence was moderate.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on a systematic review of 17 randomized controlled trials, low-volume, split-dose regimens appear to be as effective as high-volume, split-dose regimens in bowel cleansing and are better tolerated, with superior compliance.

Identification and Validation of MicroRNA Profiles in Fecal Samples for Detection of Colorectal Cancer

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) is effective in the population at average risk. The most extended strategy in organized programs involves the fecal immunochemical test, which is limited by low sensitivity for the detection of advanced adenomas (AAs). We aimed to identify microRNA (miRNA) signatures in fecal samples that identify patients with AAs or CRC and might be used in noninvasive screening.

METHODS

Our study comprised 4 stages. In the discovery phase, we performed genome-wide miRNA expression profiling of 124 fresh, paired colorectal tumor and nontumor samples (30 CRC; 32 AAs) from patients in Spain. In the technical validation stage, miRNAs with altered expression levels in tumor vs nontumor tissues were quantified by reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction in fecal samples from a subset of patients included in the discovery phase (n = 39) and individuals without colorectal neoplasms (controls, n = 39). In the clinical validation stage, the miRNAs found to be most significantly up-regulated by quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction analysis were measured in an independent set of fecal samples (n = 767) from patients with positive results from fecal immunochemical tests in a CRC screening program. Finally, we developed a model to identify patients with advanced neoplasms (CRCs or AAs) based on their miRNA profiles, using findings from colonoscopy as the reference standard.

RESULTS

Among 200 and 324 miRNAs significantly deregulated in CRC and AA tissues, respectively, 7 and 5 of these miRNAs were also found to be deregulated in feces (technical validation). Of them, MIR421, MIR130b-3p, and MIR27a-3p were confirmed to be upregulated in fecal samples from patients with advanced neoplasms. In our model, the combination of fecal level of MIR421, MIR27a-3p, and hemoglobin identified patients with CRC with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.93, compared with an AUC of 0.67 for fecal hemoglobin concentration alone.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that increased levels of 2 miRNAs and hemoglobin in feces can identify patients with AAs or CRC more accurately than fecal hemoglobin concentration alone. Assays for these miRNAs might be added to fecal tests for the detection of CRC or AAs.

Advanced imaging for detection and differentiation of colorectal neoplasia: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline - Update 2019

1:  ESGE suggests that high definition endoscopy, and dye or virtual chromoendoscopy, as well as add-on devices, can be used in average risk patients to increase the endoscopist's adenoma detection rate. However, their routine use must be balanced against costs and practical considerations.Weak recommendation, high quality evidence. 2:  ESGE recommends the routine use of high definition systems in individuals with Lynch syndrome.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 3:  ESGE recommends the routine use, with targeted biopsies, of dye-based pancolonic chromoendoscopy or virtual chromoendoscopy for neoplasia surveillance in patients with long-standing colitis.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 4:  ESGE suggests that virtual chromoendoscopy and dye-based chromoendoscopy can be used, under strictly controlled conditions, for real-time optical diagnosis of diminutive (≤ 5 mm) colorectal polyps and can replace histopathological diagnosis. The optical diagnosis has to be reported using validated scales, must be adequately photodocumented, and can be performed only by experienced endoscopists who are adequately trained, as defined in the ESGE curriculum, and audited.Weak recommendation, high quality evidence. 5:  ESGE recommends the use of high definition white-light endoscopy in combination with (virtual) chromoendoscopy to predict the presence and depth of any submucosal invasion in nonpedunculated colorectal polyps prior to any treatment. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 6:  ESGE recommends the use of virtual or dye-based chromoendoscopy in addition to white-light endoscopy for the detection of residual neoplasia at a piecemeal polypectomy scar site. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 7:  ESGE suggests the possible incorporation of computer-aided diagnosis (detection and characterization of lesions) to colonoscopy, if acceptable and reproducible accuracy for colorectal neoplasia is demonstrated in high quality multicenter in vivo clinical studies. Possible significant risks with implementation, specifically endoscopist deskilling and over-reliance on artificial intelligence, unrepresentative training datasets, and hacking, need to be considered. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.

Endoscopic management of Lynch syndrome and of familial risk of colorectal cancer: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline

ESGE recommends that individuals with Lynch syndrome should be followed in dedicated units that practice monitoring of compliance and endoscopic performance measures.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence, level of agreement 100 %.ESGE recommends starting colonoscopy surveillance at the age of 25 years for MLH1 and MSH2 mutation carriers and at the age of 35 years for MSH6 and PMS2 mutation carriers.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence, level of agreement 100 %. ESGE recommends the routine use of high-definition endoscopy systems in individuals with Lynch syndrome. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence, level of agreement 100 %. ESGE suggests the use of chromoendoscopy may be of benefit in individuals with Lynch syndrome undergoing colonoscopy; however routine use must be balanced against costs, training, and practical considerations.Weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence, level of agreement 89 %.ESGE recommends definition of familial risk of colorectal cancer as the presence of at least two first-degree relatives with colorectal cancer or at least one first-degree relative with colorectal cancer before the age of 50 years.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence, level of agreement 92 %.ESGE recommends colonoscopy surveillance in first-degree relatives of colorectal cancer patients in families that fulfill the definition of familial risk of colorectal cancer.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence, level of agreement 100 %.

Endoscopic management of polyposis syndromes: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline

ESGE recommends that individuals with hereditary gastrointestinal polyposis syndromes should be surveilled in dedicated units that provide monitoring of compliance and endoscopic performance measures. Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence, level of agreement 90 %.ESGE recommends performing esophagogastroduodenoscopy, small-bowel examination, and/or colonoscopy earlier than the planned surveillance procedure if a patient is symptomatic. Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence, level of agreement 100 %.

Bowel preparation for colonoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline - Update 2019

ESGE recommends a low fiber diet on the day preceding colonoscopy.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE recommends the use of enhanced instructions for bowel preparation.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE suggests adding oral simethicone to bowel preparation.Weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE recommends split-dose bowel preparation for elective colonoscopy.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.ESGE recommends, for patients undergoing afternoon colonoscopy, a same-day bowel preparation as an acceptable alternative to split dosing.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.ESGE recommends to start the last dose of bowel preparation within 5 hours of colonoscopy, and to complete it at least 2 hours before the beginning of the procedure.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE recommends the use of high volume or low volume PEG-based regimens as well as that of non-PEG-based agents that have been clinically validated for routine bowel preparation. In patients at risk for hydroelectrolyte disturbances, the choice of laxative should be individualized.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.

Rectal Aberrant Crypt Foci in Humans Are Not Surrogate Markers for Colorectal Cancer Risk

INTRODUCTION

Over the past 20 years, aberrant crypt foci (ACF) have emerged as potential precursors and biomarkers for colorectal cancer (CRC). However, data regarding their molecular pathogenesis, as well as their endoscopic and histological identification, remain inconsistent.

METHODS

A wide cohort of ACF from 100 control subjects and 100 case patients, including patients with adenoma and CRC, were characterized for endoscopic, morphologic, and molecular features.

RESULTS

We observed that among all the endoscopic features evaluated, only the number of large ACF correlated with CRC risk (P = 0.003), whereas the histological classification, as assessed by 2 different pathologists, was inconsistent and did not differ between control and case patients. Moreover, only a few APC and BRAF mutations and no microsatellite instability were detected in our samples. KRAS mutations were detected in 16.3% of ACF samples, which also exhibited increased MGMT hypermethylation. However, none of those events were found to be predictive of CRC risk.

DISCUSSION

Although ACF might be preneoplastic lesions of the colon, they are not suitable biomarkers for assessing CRC progression.

Colorectal cancer after negative colonoscopy in fecal immunochemical test-positive participants from a colorectal cancer screening program

Background and study aims  Colorectal cancer (CRC) risk after a positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT) and negative colonoscopy is unknown. We aimed to ascertain the cumulative incidence of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC) and the manifestation of other lesions that could explain the test positivity in individuals with a negative colonoscopy in a population screening program. Patients and method  Observational study in participants from the first round of a CRC screening program (2010 - 2012) with positive-FIT (≥ 20 μg/g of feces) and negative colonoscopy (without neoplasia). A 42- to 76-month follow-up was performed searching in the National Health Service database and by a brief structured telephonic interview. Results  Of 2659 FIT-positive individuals who underwent colonoscopy, 811 (30.5 %) had a negative colonoscopy. Three PCCRC (0.4 %) were detected within 11 - 28 months and accelerated carcinogenesis was ruled out. Among those with normal colonoscopy, 32 (5 %) relevant lesions were detected at follow-up. One-third of them (11/32) were significant neoplasias: a gastric cancer, a small-bowel lymphoma, six advanced colorectal adenomas, and the three PCCRC. The 21 remaining lesions were inflammatory, vascular disorders, or non-advanced colorectal adenomas. Conclusions  The vast majority (95 %) of individuals did not present any subsequent lesion that could explain the FIT positivity. The very low incidence (0.4 %) and characteristics of PCCRC observed in our cohort reinforce the concept that, although a positive FIT preselects high risk individuals, a high quality colonoscopy is the paramount factor in preventing PCCRC. Improving quality standards of colonoscopy are required to strengthen the current CRC screening strategies.

Population-based colorectal cancer screening: Interval cancers and relationship with the quantitative faecal immunological for hemoglobin

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE

The sensitivity of colorectal cancer screening programmes determines their effectiveness and is directly related to the interval cancer (IC). This study describes the frequency and characteristics of the IC of the Programme of Barcelona, Spain, and analyses its relationship with the quantitative value of the screening test (FIT).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

ICs after negative FIT of the first two rounds of the Programme (2010-2013) were included, observation period until July 2017. The information source of the ICs was their notification by professionals and patients, hospital databases and CMBD (Spanish Minimum Basic Data Set).

RESULTS

The sensitivity of the Programme is 82%. ICs are diagnosed more in proximal and rectal colon and in advanced stages than screening cancers, and have higher FIT values than overall people with negative FIT.

CONCLUSIONS

The sensitivity is acceptable and comparable to that of other programmes. The quantitative value of FIT in people with negative test should be included in the personalisation strategies of screening to reduce the risk of IC.