World Endoscopy Organization Consensus Statements on Post-Colonoscopy and Post-Imaging Colorectal Cancer

AGA Clinical Practice Update on New Technology and Innovation for Surveillance and Screening in Barrett's Esophagus: Expert Review

DESCRIPTION

The purpose of this best practice advice (BPA) article from the Clinical Practice Update Committee of the American Gastroenterological Association is to provide an update on advances and innovation regarding the screening and surveillance of Barrett's esophagus.

METHODS

The BPA statements presented here were developed from expert review of existing literature combined with discussion and expert opinion to provide practical advice. Formal rating of the quality of evidence or strength of BPAs was not the intent of this clinical practice update. This expert review was commissioned and approved by the AGA Institute Clinical Practice Updates Committee (CPUC) and the AGA Governing Board to provide timely guidance on a topic of high clinical importance to the AGA membership, and underwent internal peer review by the CPUC and external peer review through standard procedures of Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: Screening with standard upper endoscopy may be considered in individuals with at least 3 established risk factors for Barrett's esophagus (BE) and esophageal adenocarcinoma, including individuals who are male, non-Hispanic white, age >50 years, have a history of smoking, chronic gastroesophageal reflux disease, obesity, or a family history of BE or esophageal adenocarcinoma. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: Nonendoscopic cell-collection devices may be considered as an option to screen for BE. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: Screening and surveillance endoscopic examination should be performed using high-definition white light endoscopy and virtual chromoendoscopy, with endoscopists spending adequate time inspecting the Barrett's segment. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: Screening and surveillance exams should define the extent of BE using a standardized grading system documenting the circumferential and maximal extent of the columnar lined esophagus (Prague classification) with a clear description of landmarks and the location and characteristics of visible lesions (nodularity, ulceration), when present. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: Advanced imaging technologies such as endomicroscopy may be used as adjunctive techniques to identify dysplasia. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: Sampling during screening and surveillance exams should be performed using the Seattle biopsy protocol (4-quadrant biopsies every 1-2 cm and target biopsies from any visible lesion). BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: Wide-area transepithelial sampling may be used as an adjunctive technique to sample the suspected or established Barrett's segment (in addition to the Seattle biopsy protocol). BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: Patients with erosive esophagitis should be biopsied when concern of dysplasia or malignancy exists. A repeat endoscopy should be performed after 8 weeks of twice a day proton pump inhibitor therapy. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: Tissue systems pathology-based prediction assay may be utilized for risk stratification of patients with nondysplastic BE. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 10: Risk stratification models may be utilized to selectively identify individuals at risk for Barrett's associated neoplasia. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 11: Given the significant interobserver variability among pathologists, the diagnosis of BE-related neoplasia should be confirmed by an expert pathology review. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 12: Patients with BE-related neoplasia should be referred to endoscopists with expertise in advanced imaging, resection, and ablation. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 13: All patients with BE should be placed on at least daily proton pump inhibitor therapy. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 14: Patients with nondysplastic BE should undergo surveillance endoscopy in 3 to 5 years. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 15: In patients undergoing surveillance after endoscopic eradication therapy, random biopsies should be taken of the esophagogastric junction, gastric cardia, and the distal 2 cm of the neosquamous epithelium as well as from all visible lesions, independent of the length of the original BE segment.

Linked color imaging improves visibility of colorectal serrated lesion by high color contrast to surrounding mucosa

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to objectively evaluate the efficacy of linked color imaging (LCI) in diagnosing colorectal serrated lesions by utilizing visibility scores and color differences.

METHODS

We examined 89 serrated lesions, including 36 hyperplastic polyps (HPs), 47 sessile serrated lesions (SSLs), and six traditional serrated adenomas (TSAs). Visibility changes were scored by six endoscopists as follows: 4, excellent; 3, good; 2, fair; and 1, poor. Furthermore, images obtained by white-light imaging (WLI) or LCI were assessed using the CIELAB color space in the lesion and adjacent mucosa. We calculated the mean color values (L*, a*, and b*) measured at five regions of interest of the sample lesion and surrounding mucosa and derived the color difference (ΔE*).

RESULTS

The visibility scores of both HPs and SSLs in LCI were significantly higher than that in WLI (HPs, 3.67/2.89, P < 0.001; SSLs, 3.07/2.36, P < 0.001). Furthermore, SSLs showed a significantly higher L* value and significantly lower a* and b* values in LCI than the adjacent mucosae (L*, 61.76/58.23, P = 0.016; a*, 14.91/17.58, P = 0.019; b*, 20.42/24.21, P = 0.007), while WLI produced no significant difference in any color value. A similar trend was apparent in HPs. In all serrated groups, LCI revealed significantly greater ΔE* values between the lesion and adjacent mucosa than WLI (HPs, 11.54/6.12; SSLs, 13.43/7.67; TSAs, 35.00/22.48).

CONCLUSION

Linked color imaging showed higher color contrast between serrated lesions and the surrounding mucosae compared with WLI, indicating improved visibility of colorectal serrated lesion using LCI.

Third Asia-Pacific consensus recommendations on colorectal cancer screening and postpolypectomy surveillance

The Asia-Pacific region has the largest number of cases of colorectal cancer (CRC) and one of the highest levels of mortality due to this condition in the world. Since the publishing of two consensus recommendations in 2008 and 2015, significant advancements have been made in our knowledge of epidemiology, pathology and the natural history of the adenoma-carcinoma progression. Based on the most updated epidemiological and clinical studies in this region, considering literature from international studies, and adopting the modified Delphi process, the Asia-Pacific Working Group on Colorectal Cancer Screening has updated and revised their recommendations on (1) screening methods and preferred strategies; (2) age for starting and terminating screening for CRC; (3) screening for individuals with a family history of CRC or advanced adenoma; (4) surveillance for those with adenomas; (5) screening and surveillance for sessile serrated lesions and (6) quality assurance of screening programmes. Thirteen countries/regions in the Asia-Pacific region were represented in this exercise. International advisors from North America and Europe were invited to participate.

Rate of pancreatic cancer following a negative endoscopic ultrasound and associated factors

BACKGROUND : Data are limited regarding pancreatic cancer diagnosed following a pancreaticobiliary endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) that does not diagnose pancreatic cancer. We have studied the frequency of, and factors associated with, post-EUS pancreatic cancer (PEPC) and 1-year mortality. METHODS : Between 2010 and 2017, patients with pancreatic cancer and a preceding pancreaticobiliary EUS were identified in a national cohort using Hospital Episode Statistics. Patients with a pancreaticobiliary EUS 6-18 months before a later pancreatic cancer diagnosis were the PEPC cases; controls were those with pancreatic cancer diagnosed within 6 months of pancreaticobiliary EUS. Multivariable logistic regression models examined the factors associated with PEPC and a Cox regression model examined factors associated with 1-year cumulative mortality. RESULTS : 9363 pancreatic cancer patients were studied; 93.5 % identified as controls (men 53.2 %; median age 68 [interquartile range (IQR) 61-75]); 6.5 % as PEPC cases (men 58.2 %; median age 69 [IQR 61-77]). PEPC was associated with older age (≥ 75 years compared with < 65 years, odds ratio [OR] 1.42, 95 %CI 1.15-1.76), increasing co-morbidity (Charlson co-morbidity score > 5, OR 1.90, 95 %CI 1.49-2.43), chronic pancreatitis (OR 3.13, 95 %CI 2.50-3.92), and diabetes mellitus (OR 1.58, 95 %CI 1.31-1.90). Metal biliary stents (OR 0.57, 95 %CI 0.38-0.86) and EUS-FNA (OR 0.49, 95 %CI 0.41-0.58) were inversely associated with PEPC. PEPC was associated with a higher cumulative mortality at 1 year (hazard ratio 1.12, 95 %CI 1.02-1.24), with only 14 % of PEPC patients (95 %CI 12 %-17 %) having a surgical resection, compared with 21 % (95 %CI 20 %-22 %) of controls. CONCLUSIONS : PEPC occurred in 6.5 % of patients and was associated with chronic pancreatitis, older age, more co-morbidities, and specifically diabetes mellitus. PEPC was associated with a worse prognosis and lower surgical resection rates.

Long-term Outcomes After Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Large Colorectal Epithelial Neoplasms: A Prospective, Multicenter, Cohort Trial From Japan

BACKGROUND & AIMS

To determine the long-term outcomes after colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), we conducted a large, multicenter, prospective cohort trial with a 5-year observation period.

METHODS

Between February 2013 and January 2015, we consecutively enrolled 1740 patients with 1814 colorectal epithelial neoplasms ≥20 mm who underwent ESD. Patients with noncurative resection (non-CR) lesions underwent additional radical surgery, as needed. After the initial treatment, intensive 5-year follow-up with planned multiple colonoscopies was conducted to identify metastatic and/or local recurrences. Primary outcomes were overall survival, disease-specific survival, and intestinal preservation rates. The rates of local recurrence and metachronous invasive cancer were evaluated as the secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

The 5-year overall survival, disease-specific survival, and intestinal preservation rates were 93.6%, 99.6%, and 88.6%, respectively. Patients with CR lesions had no metastatic occurrence, and patients with non-CR lesions had 4 metastatic occurrences. Kaplan-Meier curves revealed that overall survival and disease-specific survival rates were significantly higher in patients with CR lesions than in those with non-CR lesions (P > .001 and P = .009, respectively). Local recurrence occurred in only 8 lesions (0.5%), which were successfully resected by subsequent endoscopic treatment. Multiple logistic regression analyses revealed that piecemeal resection (hazard ratio, 8.19; 95% CI, 1.47-45.7; P = .02) and margin-positive resection (hazard ratio, 8.06; 95% CI, 1.76-37.0; P = .007) were significant independent predictors of local recurrence after colorectal ESD. Fifteen metachronous invasive cancers (1.0%) were identified during surveillance colonoscopy, most of which required surgical resection.

CONCLUSIONS

A favorable long-term prognosis indicates that ESD can be the standard treatment for large colorectal epithelial neoplasms.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

UMIN000010136.

Colorectal Cancer After Screening Colonoscopy: 10-Year Incidence by Site and Detection Rate at First Repeat Colonoscopy

INTRODUCTION

We aimed to describe cumulative colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence after screening colonoscopy stratified by tumor location, age, and sex as well as CRC detection rate at first repeat colonoscopy.

METHODS

Using the German Pharmacoepidemiological Research Database, we included persons with screening colonoscopy and assessed cumulative CRC incidence after baseline screening colonoscopy with snare polypectomy (cohort 1) and without polypectomy (cohort 2). We also determined the CRC detection rate at first repeat colonoscopy by time since screening colonoscopy.

RESULTS

Overall, 1,095,381 persons were included. The 10-year cumulative CRC incidence was 1.5% in cohort 1 and 0.6% in cohort 2. The proportion of proximal CRC increased with age: In women of cohort 1, 47% of CRCs in the age group 55-64 years were proximal (men: 42%) while in the age group 65-74 years, this proportion was 55% (men: 49%). In cohort 2, similar patterns were observed. In cohort 1, the CRC detection rate at first repeat colonoscopy among persons examined within 6-8 years after screening colonoscopy was more than twice as high compared with those examined within 4-6 years (1.7% vs 0.8%).

DISCUSSION

Among persons followed up after screening colonoscopy, we observed a steadily increasing predominance of proximal CRC, and this shift showed distinct patterns by age and sex. Because our study suggests higher CRC detection rates among persons with a later repeat colonoscopy, the role of delayed surveillance and the benefit of a reminder system should be explored.

Adenoma Detection Rate and Risk for Interval Postcolonoscopy Colorectal Cancer in Fecal Immunochemical Test-Based Screening : A Population-Based Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

The adenoma detection rate (ADR) is an essential quality indicator for endoscopists performing colonoscopies for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening as it is associated with postcolonoscopy CRCs (PCCRCs). Currently, data on ADRs of endoscopists performing colonoscopies in fecal immunochemical testing (FIT)-based screening, the most common screening method, are scarce. Also, the association between the ADR and PCCRC has not been demonstrated in this setting.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the association between the ADR and PCCRC risk in colonoscopies done after a positive FIT result.

DESIGN

Population-based cohort.

SETTING

Dutch, FIT-based, CRC screening program.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients undergoing colonoscopy, done by accredited endoscopists, after a positive FIT result.

MEASUREMENTS

Quality indicator performance and PCCRC incidence for colonoscopies in FIT-positive screenees were assessed. The PCCRCs were classified as interval, a cancer detected before recommended surveillance, or noninterval. The association between ADR and interval PCCRC was evaluated with a multivariable Cox regression model and PCCRC incidence was determined for different ADRs.

RESULTS

362 endoscopists performed 116 360 colonoscopies with a median ADR of 67%. In total, 209 interval PCCRCs were identified. The ADR was associated with interval PCCRC, with an adjusted hazard ratio of 0.95 (95% CI, 0.92 to 0.97) per 1% increase in ADR. For every 1000 patients undergoing colonoscopy, the expected number of interval PCCRC diagnoses after 5 years was approximately 2 for endoscopists with ADRs of 70%, compared with more than 2.5, almost 3.5, and more than 4.5 for endoscopists with ADRs of 65%, 60%, and 55%, respectively.

LIMITATION

The relative short duration of follow-up (median, 52 months) could be considered a limitation.

CONCLUSION

The ADR of endoscopists is inversely associated with the risk for interval PCCRC in FIT-positive colonoscopies. Endoscopists performing colonoscopy in FIT-based screening should aim for markedly higher ADRs compared with primary colonoscopy.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

None.

Artificial intelligence in gastrointestinal endoscopy - Evolution to a new era

Artificial intelligence (AI) systems based on machine learning have evolved in the last few years with an increasing applicability in gastrointestinal endoscopy. Thanks to AI, an image (input) can be transformed into a clinical decision (output). Although AI systems have been initially studied to improve detection (CADe) and characterization of colorectal lesions (CADx), other indications are being currently investigated as detection of blind spots, scope guidance, or delineation/measurement of lesions. The objective of these review is to summarize the current evidence on applicability of AI systems in gastrointestinal endoscopy, highlight strengths and limitations of the technology and review regulatory and ethical aspects for its general implementation in gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Dietary Intervention for Preventing Colorectal Cancer: A Practical Guide for Physicians

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a disease with high prevalence and mortality. Estimated preventability for CRC is approximately 50%, indicating that altering modifiable factors, including diet and body weight, can reduce CRC risk. There is strong evidence that dietary factors including whole grains, high-fiber, red and processed meat, and alcohol can affect the risk of CRC. An alternative strategy for preventing CRC is use of a chemopreventive supplement that provides higher individual exposure to nutrients than what can be obtained from the diet. These include calcium, vitamin D, folate, n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids, and phytochemicals. Several intervention trials have shown that these dietary chemopreventives have positive protective effects on development and progression CRC. Research on chemoprevention with phytochemicals that possess anti-inflammatory and/or, anti-oxidative properties is still in the preclinical phase. Intentional weight loss by bariatric surgery has not been effective in decreasing long-term CRC risk. Physicians should perform dietary education for patients who are at high risk of cancer for changing their dietary habits and behaviour. An increased understanding of the role of individual nutrients linked to the intestinal micro-environment and stages of carcinogenesis would facilitate the development of the best nutritional formulations for preventing CRC.

Key factors for improving adenoma detection rate

INTRODUCTION

Colonoscopy is a fundamental tool in colorectal cancer (CRC) prevention. Nevertheless, one-fourth of colorectal neoplasms are still missed during colonoscopy, potentially being the main reason for post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC). Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is currently known as the best quality indicator correlating with PCCRC incidence.

AREAS COVERED

We performed a literature review in order to summarize evidences investigating key factors affecting ADR: endoscopists education and training, patient management, endoscopic techniques, improved navigation (exposition defect), and enhanced lesions recognition (vision defect) were considered.

EXPERT OPINION

'Traditional' factors, such as split dose bowel preparation, adequate withdrawal time, and right colon second view, held a significant impact on ADR. Several devices and technologies have been developed to promote high-quality colonoscopy, however artificial intelligence may be considered the most promising tool for ADR improvement, provided that endoscopists education and recording are guaranteed.

Sessile serrated lesions: Clinicopathological characteristics, endoscopic diagnosis, and management

The 2019 World Health Organization (WHO) Classification of Tumours of the Digestive System (5th edition) introduced the term "sessile serrated lesion" (SSL) to replace the term "sessile serrated adenoma/polyp" (SSA/P). SSLs are early precursor lesions in the serrated neoplasia pathway that result in colorectal carcinomas with BRAF mutations, methylation for DNA repair genes, a CpG island methylator phenotype, and high levels of microsatellite instability. Some of these lesions can rapidly become dysplastic or invasive carcinomas that exhibit high lymphatic invasion and lymph node metastasis potential. The 2019 WHO classification noted that dysplasia arising in an SSL most likely is an advanced polyp, regardless of the morphologic grade of the dysplasia. Detecting SSLs with or without dysplasia is critical; however, detection of SSLs is challenging, and their identification by endoscopists and pathologists is inconsistent. Furthermore, indications for their endoscopic treatment have not been established. Moreover, SSLs are considered to contribute to the development of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancers. Herein, the clinicopathological and endoscopic characteristics of SSLs, including features determined using white light and image-enhanced endoscopy, therapeutic indications, therapeutic methods, and surveillance are reviewed based on the literature. This information may lead to more intensive research to improve detection, diagnosis, and rates of complete resection of these lesions and reduce post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer rates.

Post-endoscopy Barrett's neoplasia after a negative index endoscopy: a systematic review and proposal for definitions and performance measures in endoscopy

BACKGROUND

A high rate of neoplasia, both high grade dysplasia (HGD) and esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) has been reported in Barrett's esophagus at index endoscopy, but precise rates of post-endoscopy Barrett's neoplasia (PEBN) are unknown.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed examining electronic databases (inception to October 2021) for studies reporting PEBN. Consistent with the definitions of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer proposed by the World Endoscopy Organization, we defined neoplasia (HGD/EAC) detected at index endoscopy and/or within 6 months of a negative index endoscopy as "prevalent" neoplasia, that detected after 6 months of a negative index endoscopy and prior to next surveillance interval (i. e. 3 years) as PEBN or "interval" neoplasia, and that detected after 36 months from a negative index endoscopy as "incident" neoplasia. The pooled incidence rates and proportions relative to total neoplasia were analyzed.

RESULTS

11 studies (n = 59 795; 61 % men; mean [SD] age 62.3 [3.3] years) met the inclusion criteria. The pooled incidence rates were: prevalent neoplasia 4.5 % (95 %CI 2.2 %-8.9 %) at baseline and an additional 0.3 % (0.1 %-0.7 %) within the first 6 months, PEBN 0.52 % (0.46 %-0.58 %), and incident neoplasia 1.4 % (0.9 %-2.1 %). At 3 years from the index endoscopy, PEBN accounted for 3 % of total Barrett's neoplasia, while prevalent neoplasia accounted for 97 %.

CONCLUSION

Neoplasia detected at or within 6 months of index endoscopy accounts for most cases of Barrett's neoplasia (> 90 %). PEBN accounts for ~3 % of cases and can be used for validation in future. This highlights the importance of a high quality index endoscopy in Barrett's esophagus and the need to establish quality benchmarks to measure endoscopists' performance.

Association Between Endoscopist Specialty and Colonoscopy Quality: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Colonoscopy quality indicators provide measurable assessments of performance, but significant provider-level variations exist. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess whether endoscopist specialty is associated with adenoma detection rate (ADR) - the primary outcome - or cecal intubation rate, adverse event rates, and post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer rates.

METHODS

We searched EMBASE, Google Scholar, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials from inception to December 14, 2020. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts. Citations underwent duplicate full-text review, with disagreements resolved by a third reviewer. Data were abstracted in duplicate. The DerSimonian and Laird random effects model was used to calculate pooled odds ratios (ORs) with respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Risk of bias was assessed using Risk of Bias in Non-randomised Studies of Interventions.

RESULTS

Of 11,314 citations, 36 studies representing 3,500,832 colonoscopies were included. Compared with colonoscopies performed by gastroenterologists, those by surgeons were associated with lower ADRs (OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.74-0.88) and lower cecal intubation rates (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.63-0.92). Compared with colonoscopies performed by gastroenterologists, those by other (non-gastroenterologist, non-surgeon) endoscopists were associated with lower ADRs (OR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.87-0.96), higher perforation rates (OR, 3.02; 95% CI, 1.65-5.51), and higher post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer rates (OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.14-1.33). Substantial to considerable heterogeneity existed for most analyses, and overall certainty in the evidence was low according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations framework.

CONCLUSION

Colonoscopies performed by surgeons or other endoscopists were associated with poorer quality metrics and outcomes compared with those performed by gastroenterologists. Targeted quality improvement efforts may be warranted.

Risk of Colorectal Cancer and Advanced Polyps One Year After Excision of High-Risk Adenomas

BACKGROUND

Patients with multiple or large adenomas are considered to be high-risk for metachronous colorectal cancer.

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate the risks of detecting colorectal cancer, advanced adenoma, and advanced serrated polyps at 1-year surveillance colonoscopy in patients with >5 adenomas or adenomas >20 mm.

DESIGN

Descriptive, retrospective, multicentric, cohort study. We calculated the absolute risk of developing colorectal cancer, advanced adenomas, and advanced serrated polyps at the 1-year surveillance colonoscopy. Potential risk factors for advanced neoplasia at follow-up were evaluated with univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses.

SETTINGS

This study included data from a multicenter cohort colorectal cancer screening program, conducted from January 2014 to December 2015, based on fecal immunochemical tests in Spain.

PATIENTS

We included 2119 participants with at least 1 adenoma ≥20 mm or ≥5 adenomas of any size.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

We calculated the absolute risk of developing colorectal cancer, advanced adenomas, and advanced serrated polyps at the 1-year surveillance colonoscopy. Potential risk factors for advanced neoplasia at follow-up were evaluated with univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses.

RESULTS

At 1 year, participants displayed 6 colorectal cancers (0.3%), 228 advanced adenomas (10.5%), and 58 advanced serrated polyps (2.7%). The adjusted analysis identified 2 factors associated with advanced neoplasia: >5 adenomas (odds ratio 1.53; 95% CI: 1.15-2.03; p = 0.004) and polyps in a proximal location (OR 1.52; 95% CI: 1.15-2.02; p = 0.004).

LIMITATIONS

First, the sample size was relatively small compared to other studies with similar aims. Another limitation was the lack of a comparison group, which could have provided more practical results in terms of surveillance recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

The colorectal cancer detection rate at a 1-year colonoscopy surveillance was low among patients classified at high risk of advanced neoplasia. The risk factors for advanced neoplasia were ≥5 adenomas and proximal polyps at baseline. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B820 .

RIESGO DE CNCER COLORRECTAL Y DE PLIPOS AVANZADOS UN AO DESPUS DE LA RESECCIN DE ADENOMAS DE ALTO RIESGO

ANTECEDENTES:Los pacientes con adenomas múltiples o grandes se consideran de alto riesgo para desarrollar cáncer colorrectal metacrónico.OBJETIVO:Evaluar los riesgos de detectar cáncer colorrectal, adenoma avanzado y pólipos serrados avanzados en la colonoscopia de seguimiento al año, en pacientes con un número mayor o igual a 5 adenomas o adenomas de 20 mm o más.DISEÑO:Estudio descriptivo, retrospectivo, multicéntrico, de cohortes. Calculamos el riesgo absoluto de desarrollar cáncer colorrectal, adenomas avanzados y pólipos serrados avanzados en la colonoscopia de vigilancia al año. Los factores de riesgo potenciales para el desarrollo de una neoplasia avanzada en el seguimiento, fueron evaluados mediante un análisis de regresión logística univariable y multivariable.AJUSTES:Este estudio incluyó datos de un programa de cribado de cáncer colorrectal de cohorte multicéntrico, realizado entre enero de 2014 y diciembre de 2015, con base en pruebas inmunoquímicas de materia fecal, en España.PACIENTES:Incluimos 2119 participantes con al menos un adenoma ≥20 mm o con cinco o más adenomas de cualquier tamaño.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Calculamos el riesgo absoluto de desarrollar cáncer colorrectal, adenomas avanzados y pólipos serrados avanzados en la colonoscopia de vigilancia al año. Los potenciales factores de riesgo para desarrollar una neoplasia avanzada en el seguimiento, se evaluaron mediante un análisis de regresión logística univariable y multivariable.RESULTADOS:Al año se encontraron en los pacientes participantes, 6 cánceres colorrectales (0,3%), 228 adenomas avanzados (10,5%) y 58 pólipos serrados avanzados (2,7%). Mediante el análisis ajustado se identificaron dos factores asociados con el desarrollo de neoplasia avanzada: un número igual o mayor a 5 adenomas (razón de probabilidades 1,53; IC del 95%: 1,15-2,03; p = 0,004) y la presencia de pólipos en una ubicación proximal (razón de probabilidades 1,52; IC del 95%: 1,15-2,02; p = 0,004).LIMITACIONES:Primero, el tamaño de la muestra fue relativamente pequeño en comparación con otros estudios con objetivos similares. Otra limitación fue la falta de un grupo comparativo, que podría haber proporcionado resultados más prácticos, en términos de recomendaciones de vigilancia.CONCLUSIÓNES:La tasa de detección de cáncer colorrectal mediante una colonoscopia de vigilancia al año, fue baja entre los pacientes clasificados como de alto riesgo de neoplasia avanzada. Los factores de riesgo para desarrollar una neoplasia avanzada fueron; un número igual o mayor a 5 adenomas y la presencia de pólipos proximales en la colonoscopia inicial de base. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B820 . ( Traducción-Eduardo Londoño-Schimmer ).

Clinically significant serrated polyp detection rates and risk for postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer: data from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Higher adenoma detection rates reduce the risk of postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC). Clinically significant serrated polyps (CSSPs; defined as any sessile serrated polyp, traditional serrated adenoma, large [≥1 cm] or proximal hyperplastic polyp >5 mm) also lead to PCCRC, but there are no data on associated CSSP detection rates (CSSDRs). We used data from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry (NHCR) to investigate the association between PCCRC risk and endoscopist CSSDR.

METHODS

We included NHCR patients with 1 or more follow-up events: either a colonoscopy or a colorectal cancer (CRC) diagnosis identified through linkage with the New Hampshire State Cancer Registry. We defined our outcome, PCCRC, in 3 time periods: CRC diagnosed 6 to 36 months, 6 to 60 months, or all examinations (6 months or longer) after an index examination. We excluded patients with CRC diagnosed at or within 6 months of the index examination, with incomplete examinations, or with inflammatory bowel disease. The exposure variable was endoscopist CSSDR at the index colonoscopy. Cox regression was used to model the hazard of PCCRC on CSSDR controlling for age, sex, index findings, year of examination, personal history of colorectal neoplasia, and having more than 1 surveillance examination.

RESULTS

One hundred twenty-eight patients with CRC diagnosed at least 6 months after their index examination were included. Our cohort included 142 endoscopists (92 gastroenterologists). We observed that the risk for PCCRC 6 months or longer after the index examination was significantly lower for examinations performed by endoscopists with CSSDRs of 3% to <9% (hazard ratio [HR], .57; 95% confidence interval [CI], .39-.83) or 9% or higher (HR, .39; 95% CI, .20-.78) relative to those with CSSDRs under 3%.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study is the first to demonstrate a lower PCCRC risk after examinations performed by endoscopists with higher CSSDRs. Both CSSDRs of 9% and 3% to <9% had statistically lower risk of PCCRC than CSSDRs of <3%. These data validate CSSDR as a clinically relevant quality measure for endoscopists.

Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Miss Rate of Colorectal Neoplasia

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Artificial intelligence (AI) may detect colorectal polyps that have been missed due to perceptual pitfalls. By reducing such miss rate, AI may increase the detection of colorectal neoplasia leading to a higher degree of colorectal cancer (CRC) prevention.

METHODS

Patients undergoing CRC screening or surveillance were enrolled in 8 centers (Italy, UK, US), and randomized (1:1) to undergo 2 same-day, back-to-back colonoscopies with or without AI (deep learning computer aided diagnosis endoscopy) in 2 different arms, namely AI followed by colonoscopy without AI or vice-versa. Adenoma miss rate (AMR) was calculated as the number of histologically verified lesions detected at second colonoscopy divided by the total number of lesions detected at first and second colonoscopy. Mean number of lesions detected in the second colonoscopy and proportion of false negative subjects (no lesion at first colonoscopy and at least 1 at second) were calculated. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were adjusted by endoscopist, age, sex, and indication for colonoscopy. Adverse events were also measured.

RESULTS

A total of 230 subjects (116 AI first, 114 standard colonoscopy first) were included in the study analysis. AMR was 15.5% (38 of 246) and 32.4% (80 of 247) in the arm with AI and non-AI colonoscopy first, respectively (adjusted OR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.23-0.62). In detail, AMR was lower for AI first for the ≤5 mm (15.9% vs 35.8%; OR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.21-0.55) and nonpolypoid lesions (16.8% vs 45.8%; OR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.13-0.43), and it was lower both in the proximal (18.3% vs 32.5%; OR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.26-0.78) and distal colon (10.8% vs 32.1%; OR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.11-0.57). Mean number of adenomas at second colonoscopy was lower in the AI-first group as compared with non-AI colonoscopy first (0.33 ± 0.63 vs 0.70 ± 0.97, P < .001). False negative rates were 6.8% (3 of 44 patients) and 29.6% (13 of 44) in the AI and non-AI first arms, respectively (OR, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.05-0.67). No difference in the rate of adverse events was found between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

AI resulted in an approximately 2-fold reduction in miss rate of colorectal neoplasia, supporting AI-benefit in reducing perceptual errors for small and subtle lesions at standard colonoscopy.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov, Number: NCT03954548.

Prevalence of adenomatous polyposis in a fecal immunochemical test-based colorectal cancer screening program and risk of advanced neoplasia during follow-up

BACKGROUND : Current guidelines recommend genetic counseling and intensive colonoscopy surveillance for patients with ≥ 10 colorectal adenomas based on scarce data. We investigated the prevalence of this condition in a fecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based colorectal (CRC) screening program, and the incidence of metachronous lesions during follow-up.

METHODS

We retrospectively included all FIT-positive participants with ≥ 10 adenomas at index colonoscopy between 2010 and 2018. Surveillance colonoscopies were collected until 2019. Patients with inherited syndromes, serrated polyposis syndrome, total colectomy, or lacking surveillance data were excluded. The cumulative incidence of CRC and advanced neoplasia were analyzed by Kaplan-Meier analysis. Risk factors for metachronous advanced neoplasia were investigated by multivariable logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

215 of 9582 participants (2.2 %) had ≥ 10 adenomas. Germline genetic testing was performed in 92 % of patients with ≥ 20 adenomas, identifying two inherited syndromes (3.3 %). The 3-year cumulative incidence of CRC and advanced neoplasia were 1 % and 16 %, respectively. In 39 patients (24.2 %), no polyps were found on first surveillance colonoscopy. The presence of an advanced adenoma was independently associated with a higher risk of advanced neoplasia at first surveillance colonoscopy (odds ratio 3.91, 95 %CI 1.12-13.62; P = 0.03). Beyond the first surveillance colonoscopy, the risk of metachronous advanced neoplasia was lower.

CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence of ≥ 10 adenomas in a FIT-based CRC screening program was 2.2 %; a small proportion of inherited syndromes were detected, even amongst those with ≥ 20 adenomas. A low rate of post-colonoscopy CRC was observed and the risk of advanced neoplasia beyond the first surveillance colonoscopy tended to progressively decrease throughout successive follow-ups.

The Efficacy of Senna Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

The quality of bowel preparation is an extremely important determinant of colonoscopy results. However, the efficacy of senna regimens in improving bowel cleanliness is uncertain. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to synthesize data on whether using a senna bowel preparation regimen enhances the bowel cleanliness. We searched Web of Science Core Collection, MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Scopus databases (from the inception to August 2021). The primary efficacy outcome was bowel cleanliness. Secondary outcomes included patient compliance, tolerance, and adverse events. Eleven trials fulfilled the inclusion criteria (3,343 patients. Overall, we found no significant differences in bowel cleanliness between the senna regimen and other bowel preparation regimens (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 1.02 [0.63, 1.67], p = 0.93). There was significant difference in tolerance (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 1.66 [1.08, 2.54], p = .02) and compliance (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 3.05 [1.42, 6.55], p = .004). The senna regimen yielded a significantly greater proportion of no nausea (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 1.84 [1.45, 2.32]) and vomiting (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 1.65 [0.81, 3.35]). Compared with other bowel preparation regimens, the senna regimen may be effective and safe in bowel cleaning before colonoscopy, with superior compliance and tolerance.

Comparison with first round findings of faecal haemoglobin concentrations and clinical outcomes in the second round of a biennial faecal immunochemical test based colorectal cancer screening programme

Objective

How faecal haemoglobin concentrations (f-Hb) vary from one round to the next in a colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programme, and relate to colonoscopy findings, are unknown. Our aim was to use data from the first two rounds of the faecal immunochemical test (FIT) based Scottish Bowel Screening Programme (SBoSP) to explore these issues.

Methods

Faecal haemoglobin concentration (f-Hb) percentiles in the second round were compared with those in the first when the first round yielded a negative FIT result (<80 µg Hb/g faeces), a positive FIT but no colonoscopy, CRC, all adenoma, and a negative colonoscopy. In addition, the outcomes in the first and second rounds were compared.

Results

The profiles of f-Hb in the first and second rounds differed in (a) those who had had a negative FIT result in the first round and (b) those in whom neoplastic pathology had been found. In contrast, the pattern of difference between profiles in those who had had a negative colonoscopy was very similar to that in those in whom an adenoma had been found. In addition, the risk of CRC being diagnosed in the second round after a negative colonoscopy in the first was 3.0%, not very different to that after a negative test result (4.9%).

Conclusions

Adenomas may be rarely the cause of a positive FIT result. An alternative explanation as to why these are detected using FIT is required. In addition, a negative colonoscopy for a positive FIT result does not rule out the finding of significant neoplastic pathology in the next round.

Association of Physician Adenoma Detection Rates With Postcolonoscopy Colorectal Cancer

Importance

Although colonoscopy is frequently performed in the United States, there is limited evidence to support threshold values for physician adenoma detection rate as a quality metric.

Objective

To evaluate the association between physician adenoma detection rate values and risks of postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer and related deaths.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Retrospective cohort study in 3 large integrated health care systems (Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, and Kaiser Permanente Washington) with 43 endoscopy centers, 383 eligible physicians, and 735 396 patients aged 50 to 75 years who received a colonoscopy that did not detect cancer (negative colonoscopy) between January 2011 and June 2017, with patient follow-up through December 2017.

Exposures

The adenoma detection rate of each patient's physician based on screening examinations in the calendar year prior to the patient's negative colonoscopy. Adenoma detection rate was defined as a continuous variable in statistical analyses and was also dichotomized as at or above vs below the median for descriptive analyses.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome (postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer) was tumor registry-verified colorectal adenocarcinoma diagnosed at least 6 months after any negative colonoscopy (all indications). The secondary outcomes included death from postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer.

Results

Among 735 396 patients who had 852 624 negative colonoscopies, 440 352 (51.6%) were performed on female patients, median patient age was 61.4 years (IQR, 55.5-67.2 years), median follow-up per patient was 3.25 years (IQR, 1.56-5.01 years), and there were 619 postcolonoscopy colorectal cancers and 36 related deaths during more than 2.4 million person-years of follow-up. The patients of physicians with higher adenoma detection rates had significantly lower risks for postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer (hazard ratio [HR], 0.97 per 1% absolute adenoma detection rate increase [95% CI, 0.96-0.98]) and death from postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer (HR, 0.95 per 1% absolute adenoma detection rate increase [95% CI, 0.92-0.99]) across a broad range of adenoma detection rate values, with no interaction by sex (P value for interaction = .18). Compared with adenoma detection rates below the median of 28.3%, detection rates at or above the median were significantly associated with a lower risk of postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer (1.79 vs 3.10 cases per 10 000 person-years; absolute difference in 7-year risk, -12.2 per 10 000 negative colonoscopies [95% CI, -10.3 to -13.4]; HR, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.52-0.73]) and related deaths (0.05 vs 0.22 cases per 10 000 person-years; absolute difference in 7-year risk, -1.2 per 10 000 negative colonoscopies [95%, CI, -0.80 to -1.69]; HR, 0.26 [95% CI, 0.11-0.65]).

Conclusions and Relevance

Within 3 large community-based settings, colonoscopies by physicians with higher adenoma detection rates were significantly associated with lower risks of postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer across a broad range of adenoma detection rate values. These findings may help inform recommended targets for colonoscopy quality measures.

Does computer-aided diagnostic endoscopy improve the detection of commonly missed polyps? A meta-analysis

Background/Aims

Colonoscopy is the gold standard diagnostic method for colorectal neoplasia, allowing detection and resection of adenomatous polyps; however, significant proportions of adenomas are missed. Computer-aided detection (CADe) systems in endoscopy are currently available to help identify lesions. Diminutive (≤5 mm) and nonpedunculated polyps are most commonly missed. This meta-analysis aimed to assess whether CADe systems can improve the real-time detection of these commonly missed lesions.

Methods

A comprehensive literature search was performed. Randomized controlled trials evaluating CADe systems categorized by morphology and lesion size were included. The mean number of polyps and adenomas per patient was derived. Independent proportions and their differences were calculated using DerSimonian and Laird random-effects modeling.

Results

Seven studies, including 2,595 CADe-assisted colonoscopies and 2,622 conventional colonoscopies, were analyzed. CADe-assisted colonoscopy demonstrated an 80% increase in the mean number of diminutive adenomas detected per patient compared with conventional colonoscopy (0.31 vs. 0.17; effect size, 0.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.09–0.18); it also demonstrated a 91.7% increase in the mean number of nonpedunculated adenomas detected per patient (0.32 vs. 0.19; effect size, 0.05; 95% CI, 0.02–0.07).

Conclusions

CADe-assisted endoscopy significantly improved the detection of most commonly missed adenomas. Although this method is a potentially exciting technology, limitations still apply to current data, prompting the need for further real-time studies.

The present and future of gastroenterology and hepatology: an international SWOT analysis (the GASTROSWOT project)

GASTROSWOT is a strategic analysis of the current and projected states of the different subspecialties in gastroenterology that aims to provide guidance for research, clinical, and financial planning in gastroenterology. We executed a consensus-based international strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) analysis. Four general coordinators, six field coordinators, and 12 experts participated in the study. SWOTs were provided for the following fields: neurogastroenterology, functional gastrointestinal disorders, and upper gastrointestinal diseases; inflammatory bowel disease; pancreatology and biliary diseases; endoscopy; gastrointestinal oncology; and hepatology. The GASTROSWOT analysis highlights the following in the current state of the field of gastroenterology: the incidence and complexity of several gastrointestinal diseases, including malignancies, are increasing; the COVID-19 pandemic has affected patient care on several levels; and with the advent of technical innovations in gastroenterology, a well trained workforce and strategic planning are required to optimise health-care utilisation. The analysis calls attention to the following in the future of gastroenterology: artificial intelligence and the use of big data will speed up discovery and smarter health-care provision in the field; the growth and diversification of gastroenterological specialties will improve specialised care for patients, but could promote fragmentation of care and health system inefficiencies; and furthermore, thoughtful planning is needed to reach an effective balance between the need for subspecialists and the value of general gastroenterology services.

Characteristics and Survival of Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease and Postcolonoscopy Colorectal Cancers

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Postcolonoscopy colorectal cancers (PCCRCs) account for up to 50% of colorectal cancers (CRCs) in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). We investigated characteristics of IBD patients with PCCRC and their survival.

METHODS

We identified IBD patients (ulcerative colitis [UC] and Crohn's disease) diagnosed with CRC from 1995 to 2015. We defined PCCRC as diagnosed between 6 and 36 months, and detected CRC (dCRC) as diagnosed within 6 months after colonoscopy. We computed prevalence ratios comparing PCCRC vs dCRC and followed up patients from the diagnosis of PCCRC/dCRC until death, emigration, or study end. Mortality was compared using Cox proportional hazards regression models adjusted for sex, age, year of CRC diagnosis, and stage. The main analyses focused on patients with UC.

RESULTS

Among 23,738 UC patients undergoing colonoscopy, we identified 352 patients with CRC, of whom 103 (29%) had PCCRC. Compared with dCRC, PCCRC was associated with a higher prevalence of metastatic cancer (33% vs 20%; prevalence ratio, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.13-2.38), cancers showing mismatch repair deficiency (79% vs 56%; prevalence ratio, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.13-1.72), and proximally located cancers (54% vs 40%; prevalence ratio, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.06-1.69). The 1- and 5-year adjusted hazard ratios of death for PCCRC vs dCRC among UC patients were 1.29 (95% CI, 0.77-2.18) and 1.24 (95% CI, 0.86-1.79), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The characteristics of UC-related PCCRC suggest tumor biology as an important factor in the progression to cancer. However, the prognosis of PCCRC appears similar to that of dCRC.

Quality Indicators for the Detection and Removal of Colorectal Polyps and Interventions to Improve Them

Modifiable risk factors for postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer include suboptimal lesion detection (missed neoplasms) and inadequate lesion removal (incomplete polypectomy) during colonoscopy. Competent detection and removal of colorectal polyps are thus fundamental to ensuring adequate colonoscopy quality. Several well-researched quality metrics for polyp detection have been implemented into clinical practice, chief among these the adenoma detection rate. Less data are available on quality indicators for polyp removal, which currently include complete resection rates and skills assessment tools. This review summarizes the available literature on quality indicators for the detection and removal of colorectal polyps, as well as interventions to improve them.

Patient and Endoscopic Characteristics of Postcolonoscopy Colon Cancer-A Case-control Study

Background and Aims

Colonoscopy is imperfect for colorectal cancer (CRC) prevention. Postcolonoscopy CRC (PCCRC) is defined as CRC detected after a screening or surveillance colonoscopy. PCCRCs can be divided into noninterval CRC and interval CRC. We performed a case-control study to identify risk factors for PCCRCs and to compare risks between noninterval and interval PCCRCs.

Methods

We designed a retrospective case-control study. Using a Vermont tumor registry data set, we identified all PCCRCs diagnosed at our medical center from January 2012 to September 2017. Cases were matched 1:3 with controls of the same age, sex, and index colonoscopy date.

Results

Fifty-four PCCRCs were matched with 162 controls and divided into noninterval (N = 27) and interval (N = 27) subsets. Overall PCCRC risk and noninterval PCCRC risk were significantly associated with history of polyps (odds ratio [OR] PCCRC = 2.71, OR noninterval = 4.41), sessile serrated polyps (OR PCCRC = 3.94, OR noninterval = 5.79), and high-risk adenoma (HRA) (OR PCCRC = 6.58, OR noninterval = 16.46) and with the index colonoscopy having a large polyp (OR PCCRC = 4.45, OR noninterval = 10.46) or having an HRA (OR PCCRC = 3.68, OR noninterval = 8.04). PCCRC risk and interval PCCRC risk were significantly associated with follow-up recommendations that did not correlate with American Gastroenterological Association surveillance guidelines (OR PCCRC = 3.30, OR interval = 4.85). Approximately 30% of PCCRCs could be attributed to endoscopic quality.

Conclusion

Overall PCCRC risk and noninterval PCCRC risk were significantly associated with traditional CRC risk factors including precancerous polyps and HRA on the index colonoscopy. Interval PCCRC was not associated with these risk factors. Many PCCRCs can be attributed to endoscopic quality, and nonadherence to CRC surveillance guidelines may be a novel risk factor.

Lynch syndrome; towards more personalized management?

Lynch syndrome is the most common inherited cause of colorectal (lifetime risk up to 70%) and endometrial cancer. The diagnosis of Lynch syndrome facilitates preventive measures aimed at reducing the incidence and mortality of cancer. Colonoscopic surveillance for colorectal cancer, aspirin, and prophylactic hysterectomy and bilateral salpo-oopherectomy for endometrial and/or ovarian cancer have demonstrated to effectively reduce cancer mortality in this population. However, the lifetime risk of each cancer in people with Lynch syndrome is gene-specific and may be modified by environmental factors. Furthermore, the benefits of surveillance strategies need to be balanced against the risk of over-diagnosis and be supported by evidence of improved outcomes from cancer diagnosis in surveillance. Therefore, people with Lynch syndrome may benefit from a personalized management approach.

Quality of Colonoscopy Is Associated With Adenoma Detection and Postcolonoscopy Colorectal Cancer Prevention in Lynch Syndrome

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Colonoscopy reduces colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality in Lynch syndrome (LS) carriers. However, a high incidence of postcolonoscopy CRC (PCCRC) has been reported. Colonoscopy is highly dependent on endoscopist skill and is subject to quality variability. We aimed to evaluate the impact of key colonoscopy quality indicators on adenoma detection and prevention of PCCRC in LS.

METHODS

We conducted a multicenter study focused on LS carriers without previous CRC undergoing colonoscopy surveillance (n = 893). Incident colorectal neoplasia during surveillance and quality indicators of all colonoscopies were analyzed. We performed an emulated target trial comparing the results from the first and second surveillance colonoscopies to assess the effect of colonoscopy quality indicators on adenoma detection and PCCRC incidence. Risk analyses were conducted using a multivariable logistic regression model.

RESULTS

The 10-year cumulative incidence of adenoma and PCCRC was 60.6% (95% CI, 55.5%-65.2%) and 7.9% (95% CI, 5.2%-10.6%), respectively. Adequate bowel preparation (odds ratio [OR], 2.07; 95% CI, 1.06-4.3), complete colonoscopies (20% vs 0%; P = .01), and pan-chromoendoscopy use (OR, 2.14; 95% CI, 1.15-3.95) were associated with significant improvement in adenoma detection. PCCRC risk was significantly lower when colonoscopies were performed during a time interval of less than every 3 years (OR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.14-0.97). We observed a consistent but not significant reduction in PCCRC risk for a previous complete examination (OR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.03-1.28), adequate bowel preparation (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.17-3.24), or previous use of high-definition colonoscopy (OR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.02-2.33).

CONCLUSIONS

Complete colonoscopies with adequate bowel preparation and chromoendoscopy use are associated with improved adenoma detection, while surveillance intervals of less than 3 years are associated with a reduction of PCCRC incidence. In LS, high-quality colonoscopy surveillance is of utmost importance for CRC prevention.

Utilization and reproducibility of World Endoscopy Organization post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer algorithms: retrospective analysis

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) diagnosed following a cancer-negative colonoscopy is termed post-colonoscopy CRC (PCCRC). In addition to calculating PCCRC rates, the World Endoscopy Organization (WEO) recommends review of individual PCCRC cases, including categorization into interval/non-interval PCCRCs, and root cause analysis to determine the most plausible explanation. We aimed to test the usability, reproducibility, and outcomes of the WEO algorithms.

METHODS

All CRC cases diagnosed from January 2015 to December 2016 in a single organization were cross referenced with local endoscopy and pathology databases to identify cases of PCCRC. We assessed: 1) WEO most plausible explanation for PCCRC; and 2) WEO PCCRC interval/non-interval subtype categorization. Interobserver agreement was measured using Cohen's kappa (κ). Cases with interobserver variation underwent panel discussion to reach consensus.

RESULTS

Among 527 patients with CRC, 48 PCCRCs were identified. A consistent most plausible explanation was found in 97 % of cases, showing almost perfect agreement (κ = 0.94). Most PCCRCs (66 %) were attributed to "possible missed lesion, prior examination adequate." Interval/non-interval categorization was consistent in 77 %, showing substantial agreement (κ = 0.67). Following panel discussion, consensus was reached in all cases. Overall, 15 % were categorized as interval and 85 % as non-interval PCCRCs (12 % type A, 31 % type B, and 42 % type C).

CONCLUSIONS

Review of PCCRC cases using WEO recommendations was performed accurately at a local level using readily available clinical information. The high number of non-interval type B PCCRCs suggests a significant proportion of PCCRCs could be avoided by better adherence to recommended surveillance intervals.

Diagnostic Performance of a Fecal Immunochemical Test-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening Program According to Ambient Temperature and Humidity

Exposure of the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) to different ambient temperatures and humidity is unavoidable in population-based screening programs in Southern European countries, and it could lead to a decrease in target colorectal lesions. The objective was to evaluate the effect of ambient temperature and humidity on the FIT sensitivity in a population-based screening program for colorectal cancer (CRC) using an ecological design. The retrospective cohort included individuals aged 50−69 years who participated in CRC screening (Barcelona) from 2010−2015, and were followed until 2017 to identify interval CRCs. The positivity rate, and detection rates for advanced polyps and CRC were compared according to ambient temperature, humidity, and quarters of the year. A positive FIT was defined as the detection of ≥20 μg Hb/g in feces. The monthly ambient temperature and humidity were recorded on the day that the FIT was performed. In total, 92,273 FIT results from 53,860 participants were analyzed. The FIT positivity rate was lower at >24 °C than at ≤24 °C (p = 0.005) but was not affected by humidity. The temperature’s impact on positivity did not lead to a decrease in the FIT detection rate for advanced neoplasia or the interval cancer detection rate in a program where the samples were refrigerated until the analysis and screening invitations were discontinued in July and August.

Magnitude and Time-Trend Analysis of Postendoscopy Esophageal Adenocarcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Identification of postendoscopy esophageal adenocarcinoma (PEEC) among Barrett's esophagus (BE) patients presents an opportunity to improve survival of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). We aimed to estimate the proportion of PEEC within the first year after BE diagnosis.

METHODS

Multiple databases (Medline, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane databases) were searched until September 2020 for original studies with at least 1-year follow-up evaluation that reported EAC and/or high-grade dysplasia (HGD) in the first year after index endoscopy in nondysplastic BE, low-grade dysplasia, or indefinite dysplasia. The proportions of PEEC defined using EAC alone and EAC+HGD were calculated by dividing EAC or EAC+HGD in the first year over the total number of EAC or EAC+HGD, respectively.

RESULTS

We included 52 studies with 145,726 patients and a median follow-up period of 4.8 years. The proportion of PEEC (EAC) was 21% (95% CI, 13-31) and PEEC (EAC+HGD) was 26% (95% CI, 19-34). Among studies with nondysplastic BE only, the PEEC (EAC) proportion was 17% (95% CI, 11-23) and PEEC (EAC+HGD) was 14% (95% CI, 8-19). Among studies with 5 or more years of follow-up evaluation, the PEEC (EAC) proportion was 10% and PEEC (EAC+HGD) was 19%. Meta-regression analysis showed a strong inverse relationship between PEEC and incident EAC (P < .001). The PEEC (EAC) proportion increased from 5% in studies published before 2000 to 30% after 2015. Substantial heterogeneity was observed for most analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

PEEC accounts for a high proportion of HGD/EACs and is proportional to reduction in incident EAC. Using best endoscopic techniques now and performing future research on improving neoplasia detection through implementation of quality measures and educational tools is needed to reduce PEEC.

Validation of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC) cases reported at national level following local root cause analysis: REFLECT study

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to determine aetiology of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancers (PCCRCs) identified from population-based data through local root cause analysis at a high-volume mixed secondary and tertiary referral centre.

DESIGN/METHOD

A subset of national cancer registration data, collected by the National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service, was used to determine PCCRCs diagnosed between 2005 and 2013 at our centre.Root cause analysis was performed for each identified PCCRC, using World Endoscopy Organisation recommendations, to validate it and assess most plausible explanation. We also assessed whether patient, clinician and/or service factors were primarily responsible.

RESULTS

Of 107 'PCCRC' cases provided from the national dataset, 20 were excluded (16 missing data, 4 duplicates). 87 'PCCRC' cases were included of which 58 were true PCCRCs and 29 false PCCRCs.False PCCRCs comprised 17 detected cancers (cancer diagnosed within 6 months of negative colonoscopy) and 12 cases did not meet PCCRC criteria. Inflammatory bowel disease was the most common risk factor (18/58) and the most common site was rectum (19/58). The most common explanation was 'possible missed lesion, prior examination negative but inadequate' (23/58) and clinician factors were primarily responsible for PCCRC occurrence in most cases (37/58).

CONCLUSION

Our single-centre study shows, after local analysis, there was misclassification of PCCRCs identified from a population-based registry. The degree of such error will vary between registries. Most PCCRCs occurred in cases of sub-optimal examination as indicated by poor photodocumentation. Effective mechanisms to feedback root cause analyses are critical for quality improvement.

Risk of a post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer in patients with type 2 diabetes: a Danish population-based cohort study

Objective

Prevalent type 2 diabetes (T2D) is associated with an increased risk of colorectal cancer and could impair the quality of bowel preparation for colonoscopy. This may in turn increase the risk of overlooked precancerous polyps and subsequent risk of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC). We investigated whether patients with T2D are at increased risk of PCCRC compared with patients without T2D.

Design

We conducted a population-based cohort study of patients with T2D and without T2D undergoing colonoscopy in Denmark (1995–2015). We investigated the risk of PCCRC by calculating >6 to 36 months cumulative incidence proportions (CIPs) treating death and colectomy as competing risks. Using Cox proportional-hazards regression analyses, we also computed HRs of PCCRC, comparing patients with T2D and non-T2D. According to the World Endoscopy Organization guidelines, we calculated PCCRC 3-year rates to estimate the proportions of T2D and non-T2D CRC patients experiencing PCCRC.

Results

We identified 29 031 patients with T2D and 333 232 patients without T2D undergoing colonoscopy. We observed 250 PCCRCs among patients with T2D and 1658 PCCRCs among patients without T2D. The >6 to 36 months CIP after a first-time colonoscopy was 0.64% (95% CI 0.55% to 0.74%) for T2D and 0.36% (95% CI 0.34% to 0.38%) for patients without T2D. The HRs of PCCRC were 1.43 (95% CI 1.21 to 1.72) after a first-time colonoscopy and 1.18 (95% CI 0.75 to 1.85) after a second-time colonoscopy. The PCCRC 3-year rate was 7.9% for patients with T2D and 7.4% for patients without T2D.

Conclusion

T2D may be associated with an increased HR of PCCRC.

Molecular pathways in post-colonoscopy versus detected colorectal cancers: results from a nested case-control study

BACKGROUND

Post-colonoscopy colorectal cancers (PCCRCs) pose challenges in clinical practice. PCCRCs occur due to a combination of procedural and biological causes. In a nested case-control study, we compared clinical and molecular features of PCCRCs and detected CRCs (DCRCs).

METHODS

Whole-genome chromosomal copy number changes and mutation status of genes commonly affected in CRC were examined by low-coverage WGS and targeted sequencing, respectively. MSI and CIMP status was also determined.

RESULTS

In total, 122 PCCRCs and 98 DCRCs with high-quality DNA were examined. PCCRCs were more often located proximally (P < 0.001), non-polypoid appearing (P = 0.004), early stage (P = 0.009) and poorly differentiated (P = 0.006). PCCRCs showed significantly less 18q loss (FDR < 0.2), compared to DCRCs. No significant differences in mutations were observed. PCCRCs were more commonly CIMP high (P = 0.014) and MSI (P = 0.029). After correction for tumour location, only less 18q loss remained significant (P = 0.005).

CONCLUSION

Molecular features associated with the sessile serrated lesions (SSLs) and non-polypoid colorectal neoplasms (CRNs) are more commonly seen in PCCRCs than in DCRCs. These together with the clinical features observed support the hypothesis that SSLs and non-polypoid CRNs are contributors to the development of PCCRCs. The future focus should be directed at improving the detection and endoscopic removal of these non-polypoid CRN and SSLs.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NTR3093 in the Dutch trial register ( www.trialregister.nl ).

Ultrasound Image Features under Decomposition Algorithm to Analyze the Nursing Intervention on Patients with Colon Polyps Undergoing Endoscopic Resection

Based on the ultrasonic imaging and endoscopic resection of the intelligent segmentation algorithm, this study is aimed at exploring whether nursing intervention can promote the good recovery of patients with colon polyps, hoping to find a new method for clinical treatment of the colon polyps. Patients with colon polyps were divided into an experimental group (fine nursing) and a control group (general nursing). The colonoscopy polyp ultrasound image was preprocessing to select the seed points and background points. The random walk decomposition algorithm was applied to calculate the probability of each marked point, and then, the marked image was outputted. The accuracy of the intelligent segmentation algorithm was 81%. The incidence of complications in the experimental group was 4.83%, which was lower than 16.66% in the control group, and the difference was statistically obvious (P < 0.05). Perioperative refined nursing intervention for colon polyp patients undergoing endoscopic electrosurgical resection can decrease postoperative adverse reactions; reduce postoperative mucosal perforation, blood in the stool, abdominal pain, and small bleeding; lower the incidence of postoperative complications; and allow patients to recover quickly, enhancing the life comfort of patient.

A Review of the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Colorectal Cancer Screening: Implications and Solutions

The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted all aspects of medical care, including cancer screening and preventative measures. Colorectal cancer screening declined significantly at the onset of the pandemic as the result of an intentional effort to conserve resources, prioritize emergencies and reduce risk of transmission. There has already been an increase in diagnosis at more advanced stages and symptomatic emergencies due to suspended screenings. As endoscopy units find their way back to pre-pandemic practices, a backlog of cases remains. The missed CRC diagnoses amongst the missed screenings carry a risk of increased morbidity and mortality which will only increase as time-to-diagnosis grows. This review discusses the impact of COVID-19 on colonoscopy screening rates, trends in stages/symptoms/circumstances at diagnosis, and economic and social impact of delayed diagnosis. Triaging and use of FITs are proposed solutions to the challenge of catching up with the large number of pandemic-driven missed CRC screenings.

Risk of post colonoscopy colorectal cancer following screening colonoscopy with low-risk or no adenomas: A population-based study

AIM

In the Danish faecal occult blood test based bowel cancer screening programme, the first round was rolled out over 4 years. After roll-out, the planned faecal test recall procedure for individuals with either no or low risk adenomas at colonoscopy is 8 and 2 years, respectively. Here, we aimed to investigate the post colonoscopy colorectal cancer incidence in these two groups.

METHODS

All Danish screening individuals from 2014 to 2015 with a positive faecal test and either no or low risk adenomas at colonoscopy were included and followed for 3 years post screening for the event of colorectal cancer through national registries.

RESULTS

Out of 533,023 submitted faecal tests and 36,673 positive tests, 17,627 had no or low risk adenomas. We identified 60 (0.34%) individuals diagnosed with colorectal cancer within 3 years, 18 (0.29%) in the low risk adenoma group, and 42 (0.37%) in the no adenomas group (p = 0.44). Advancing age (HR = 1.079, p < 0.001) and higher faecal test value (HR = 1.001, p = 0.002) increased hazard of colorectal cancer occurrence, whereas male sex (HR = 1.3, p = 0.308) and having low risk adenomas (HR = 0.729, p = 0.264) did not.

CONCLUSION

We found no difference in post colonoscopy colorectal cancer occurrence between individuals with either no or low risk adenomas. Instead, advancing age and increased faecal test value was associated with a higher risk of post colonoscopy colorectal cancer.

Systematic review with meta-analysis: the prevalence of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancers using the World Endoscopy Organization nomenclature

INTRODUCTION

Post-colonoscopy colorectal cancers (PCCRCs) have been proposed as a performance metric for colonoscopy quality assurance programs. Previously, there was no standardised terminology or reporting methods. In 2018, the World Endoscopy Organization (WEO) advised standardised definitions and prevalence calculation methodology.

AIMS

To assess PCCRC burden using WEO standardised methods, to explore causes of heterogeneity, and to review changes in prevalence over time METHODS: We updated a prior systematic review by searching Ovid MEDLINE and EMBASE databases from 1 January 2013 to 31 January 2021 to identify population-based studies (or multicentre studies representative of the local population) reporting PCCRC prevalence (PROSPERO [CRD42020183796]). Two authors independently determined study eligibility, assessed quality, and extracted data. We estimated the PCCRC 3-year prevalence using WEO-recommended methodologies and investigated between-study sources of heterogeneity. We examined changes in prevalence over time.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies reporting on 25 872 PCCRC cases met eligibility criteria. Pooled PCCRC 3 year prevalence was 8.2% (95% CI = 6.9%-9.4%, I²  = 98.2%) across four European studies using WEO precise methodology. Proximal PCCRC prevalence was greater than distal (9.7% [95% CI = 7.0%-12.4%] vs 5.4% [95% CI = 2.9%-7.8%], I²  = 99.2%). Seven studies reporting PCCRC rates over time showed no consistent trend: four showed a decrease, one an increase and two were unchanged. Between-study heterogeneity was high.

CONCLUSIONS

Pooled 3-year PCCRC prevalence was 8.2% (95% CI = 6.9%-9.4%). Despite WEO standardised methodology to define and calculate PCCRC rates, there was significant heterogeneity among studies. Comparing rates between populations remains challenging and additional studies are needed to better understand the global PCCRC burden to inform quality assurance programs.

Analysis of Post-Colonoscopy Colorectal Cancer and Its Subtypes in a Screening Programme

Using the algorithm of the World Endoscopy Organisation (WEO), we have studied retrospectively all colorectal cancers, both detected and non-detected by the Basque Country screening programme from 2009 to 2017. In the screening programme 61,335 colonoscopies were performed following a positive Faecal Immunochemical test (FIT) (≥20 µg Hb/g faeces) and the 128 cases of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC) detected were analysed. Among them, 50 interval type PCCRCs were diagnosed (before the recommended surveillance), 0.8 cases per 1000 colonoscopies performed, and 78 non-interval type PCCRCs (in the surveillance carried out at the recommended time or delayed), 1.3 per 1000 colonoscopies. Among the non-interval type PCCRCs, 61 cases were detected in the surveillance carried out at the recommended time (type A) and 17 when the surveillance was delayed (type B), 1 case per 1000 colonoscopies performed and 0.28 cases per 1000 colonoscopies performed, respectively. Interval type PCCRC is less frequent than non-interval type PCCRC. In interval type PCCRCs, CRCs detected in advanced stages (stages III-IV) were significantly more frequent than those detected in early stages, compared to those of non-interval type PCCRCs (OR = 3.057; 95% CI, 1.410-6.625; p < 0.005). Non-interval type B PCCRCs are less frequent than non-interval type A PCCRCs, but the frequency of advanced stages is higher in interval type B PCCRCs.

A Polyp Worth Removing: A Paradigm for Measuring Colonoscopy Quality and Performance of Novel Technologies for Polyp Detection

Leaving no significant polyp behind while avoiding risks due to unnecessary resections is a commonsense strategy to safely and effectively prevent colorectal cancer (CRC) with colonoscopy. It also alludes to polyps worth removing and, therefore, worth finding. The majority of "worthy" precancerous polyps are adenomas, which for over 2 decades, have received the most attention in performance research and metrics. Consequently, the detection rate of adenomas is currently the only validated, outcome-based measure of colonoscopy demonstrated to correlate with reduced risk of postcolonoscopy CRC. However, a third or more of postcolonoscopy CRCs originate from sessile serrated polyps (SSPs), which are notoriously difficult to find, diagnose and completely resect. Among serrated polyps, the agreement among pathologists differentiating SSPs from non-neoplastic hyperplastic polyps is moderate at best. This lack of ground truth precludes SSPs from consideration in primary metrics of colonoscopy quality or performance of novel polyp detection technologies. By instead leveraging the distinct endoscopic and clinical features of serrated polyps, including those considered important due to proximal location and larger size, clinically significant serrated polyps represent serrated polyps worth removing, enriched with subtle precancerous SSPs. With the explosion of technologies to assist polyp detection, now is the time to broaden benchmarks to include clinically significant serrated polypss alongside adenomas, a measure that is relevant both for assessing the performance of endoscopists, and for assessing new polyp detection technologies.

Risk of a post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer diagnosis in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: a population-based cohort study

BACKGROUND : Post-colonoscopy colorectal cancers (PCCRCs) may account for up to 50 % of all colorectal cancers (CRCs) diagnosed in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). This may reflect a high colonoscopy frequency; however, evidence remains limited. METHODS : We conducted a cohort study of IBD and non-IBD patients undergoing colonoscopy. We calculated cumulative incidence proportions (CIPs) of PCCRC at 7-36 months after first-time and subsequent colonoscopies. We also computed crude and adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) of PCCRC, comparing IBD with non-IBD patients undergoing first-time and subsequent colonoscopies. Separate analyses were conducted for consecutive colonoscopies. We calculated 3-year rates of PCCRC to estimate the proportion of IBD and non-IBD CRC patients experiencing PCCRC. RESULTS : We observed 138 and 1909 PCCRCs among 34 688 IBD and 358 217 non-IBD patients who underwent colonoscopy. The CIP of PCCRC after first-time colonoscopy was 0.21 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.17 %-0.27 %) for IBD patients and 0.37 % (95 %CI 0.35 %-0.39 %) for non-IBD patients. The adjusted HR of PCCRC after a first-time colonoscopy was 0.96 (95 %CI 0.75-1.22) and the adjusted HRs after subsequent colonoscopies had point estimates around 1.0. The 3-year PCCRC rate was 24.3 % (95 %CI 20.4 %-28.7 %) for IBD and 7.5 % (95 %CI 7.2 %-7.8 %) for non-IBD patients. CONCLUSIONS : Although PCCRCs accounted for a substantial proportion of all IBD-related CRCs, IBD patients had a low CIP of PCCRC. The elevated 3-year PCCRC rates may, among other factors, stem from the increased colonoscopy frequency in IBD patients.

Clinical and endoscopic characteristics of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancers detected within 10 years after a previous negative examination

Background and study aims We sometimes encounter colorectal cancer (CRC) that is discovered during the time interval between initial colonoscopy and the recommended follow-up examination. Although several studies reported such cases of CRC, most were based on registry data, which implied that the endoscopic quality was not consistent or guaranteed. We aimed to clarify these clinical and endoscopic characteristics at our high-volume center where a retrospective survey could be precisely performed.

Patients and methods We retrospectively analyzed patients with CRC who underwent endoscopic resection or surgery from April 2002 to December 2010, categorizing them into two groups: a “study group” of patients with a negative colonoscopy during the previous 10 years, and a “control group” of patients without a previous colonoscopy or with a previous colonoscopy more than 10 years prior.

Results A total of 2042 patients had CRC, among which 55 patients were classified into the study group and the remaining 1989 into the control group. The CRC cases in the study group showed a significant association with smaller (< 30 mm) tumor size (odds ratio [OR] 2.3; 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.3–4.0) and proximal tumor site (OR 1.7; 95 %CI 0.9–2.9). In addition, right-sided and depressed-type T1 CRCs were significantly more common in the study group.

Conclusions Tumor size and location were associated with CRCs detected within 10 years after the negative examination. In addition, depressed-type T1 CRCs were more common. Therefore, we should pay more attention to small, right-sided, or depressed-type tumors in daily colonoscopy.

Screening and prevention of colorectal cancer

Mortality from colorectal cancer is reduced through screening and early detection; moreover, removal of neoplastic lesions can reduce cancer incidence. While understanding of the risk factors, pathogenesis, and precursor lesions of colorectal cancer has advanced, the cause of the recent increase in cancer among young adults is largely unknown. Multiple invasive, semi- and non-invasive screening modalities have emerged over the past decade. The current emphasis on quality of colonoscopy has improved the effectiveness of screening and prevention, and the role of new technologies in detection of neoplasia, such as artificial intelligence, is rapidly emerging. The overall screening rates in the US, however, are suboptimal, and few interventions have been shown to increase screening uptake. This review provides an overview of colorectal cancer, the current status of screening efforts, and the tools available to reduce mortality from colorectal cancer.