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

Protocol for a national, multicentre study of post-endoscopy colorectal and upper gastrointestinal cancers: The POET study

AIM

The primary aim of the study is to define the post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC) three-year rate and the post-endoscopy upper gastrointestinal cancer (PEUGIC) three-year rate across public hospitals in Aotearoa New Zealand.

METHOD

This retrospective cohort study will be conducted via the trainee-led STRATA Collaborative network. All public hospitals in Aotearoa New Zealand will be eligible to participate. Data will be collected on all adult patients who are diagnosed with colorectal adenocarcinoma within 6 to 48 months of a colonoscopy and all adult patients diagnosed with gastroesophageal cancer within 6 to 48 months of an upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. The study period will be from 2010 to 2022. The primary outcome is the PCCRC 3-year rate and the PEUGIC 3-year rate. Secondary aims are to define and characterize survival after PCCRC or PEUGIC, the cause of PCCRC as based on the World Endoscopy Organization System of Analysis definitions, trends over time, and centre level variation.

CONCLUSION

This protocol describes the methodology for a nationwide retrospective cohort study on PCCRC and PEUGIC in Aotearoa New Zealand. These data will lay the foundation for future studies and quality improvement initiatives.

Low Colorectal Cancer Risk After Resection of High-Risk Pedunculated Polyps

BACKGROUND

Post-fecal immunochemical test (FIT) colonoscopy represents a setting with an enriched prevalence of advanced adenomas. Due to an expected higher risk of colorectal cancer (CRC), postpolypectomy surveillance is recommended, generating a substantially increased load on endoscopy services. The aim of our study was to investigate postpolypectomy CRC risk in a screening population of FIT+ subjects after resection of low-risk adenomas (LRAs) or high-risk adenomas (HRAs).

METHODS

We retrieved data from a cohort of patients undergoing postpolypectomy surveillance within a FIT-based CRC screening program in Italy between 2002 and 2017 and followed-up to December 2021. Main outcomes were postpolypectomy CRC incidence and mortality risks according to type of adenoma (LRA/HRA) removed at colonoscopy as well as morphology, size, dysplasia, and location of the index lesion. We adopted as comparators FIT+/colonoscopy-negative and FIT- patients. The absolute risk was calculated as the number of incident CRCs per 100,000 person-years of follow-up. We used Cox multivariable regression models to identify associations between CRC risks and patient- and polyp-related variables.

RESULTS

Overall, we included 87,248 post-FIT+ colonoscopies (133 endoscopists). Of these, 42,899 (49.2%) were negative, 21,650 (24.8%) had an LRA, and 22,709 (26.0%) an HRA. After a median follow-up of 7.25 years, a total of 635 CRCs were observed. For patients with LRAs, CRC incidence (hazard ratio [HR], 1.18; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.92-1.53) was not increased compared with the FIT+/colonoscopy-negative group, while for HRAs a significant increase in CRC incidence (HR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.14-2.04) was found. The presence of 1 or more risk factors among proximal location, nonpedunculated morphology, and high-grade dysplasia explained most of this excess CRC risk in the HRA group (HR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.36-2.52). Patients with only distal pedunculated polyps without high-grade dysplasia, representing 39.2% of HRA, did not have increased risk compared with the FIT- group (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.59-1.28).

CONCLUSIONS

CRC incidence is significantly higher in patients with HRAs diagnosed at colonoscopy. However, such excess risk does not appear to apply to patients with only distal pedunculated polyps without high-grade dysplasia, an observation that could potentially reduce the burden of surveillance in FIT programs.

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

BACKGROUND

Post-colonoscopy colorectal cancers (PCCRCs) may account for up to 30% of all colorectal cancers (CRCs) diagnosed in patients with diverticular disease; however, absolute and relative risks of PCCRC among these patients undergoing colonoscopy remain unknown.

METHODS

We performed a cohort study (1995-2015) including patients with and without diverticular disease who underwent colonoscopy. We calculated 7-36-month cumulative incidence proportions (CIPs) of PCCRC. We used Cox proportional hazards regression models to compute hazard ratios (HRs) of PCCRC, comparing patients with and without diverticular disease, as a measure of relative risk. We calculated 3-year PCCRC rates, as per World Endoscopy Organization recommendations, to estimate the proportion of CRC patients with and without diverticular disease who were considered to have PCCRC. We stratified all analyses by PCCRC location.

RESULTS

We observed 373 PCCRCs among 56 642 patients with diverticular disease and 1536 PCCRCs among 306 800 patients without diverticular disease. The PCCRC CIP after first-time colonoscopy was 0.45% (95%CI 0.40%-0.51%) for patients with and 0.36% (95%CI 0.34%-0.38%) for patients without diverticular disease. Comparing patients with and without diverticular disease undergoing first-time colonoscopy, the adjusted HR was 0.84 (95%CI 0.73-0.97) for PCCRC and 1.23 (95%CI 1.01-1.50) for proximal PCCRCs. The 3-year PCCRC rate was 19.0% (22.3% for proximal PCCRCs) for patients with and 6.5% for patients without diverticular disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the absolute risk was low, the relative risk of proximal PCCRCs may be elevated in patients with diverticular disease undergoing colonoscopy compared with patients without the disease.

Type 2 diabetes mellitus and post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer: clinical and molecular characteristics and survival

PURPOSE

Studies suggest that patients with type two diabetes mellitus (T2D) may be at increased risk of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC). We investigated clinical and molecular characteristics and survival of T2D patients with PCCRC to elucidate how T2D-related PCCRC may arise.

METHODS

We identified T2D patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) from 1995 to 2015 and computed prevalence ratios (PRs) comparing clinical and molecular characteristics of CRC in T2D patients with PCCRC vs. in T2D patients with colonoscopy-detected CRC (dCRC). We also followed T2D patients from the diagnosis of PCCRC/dCRC until death, emigration, or study end and compared mortality using Cox-proportional hazards regression models adjusted for sex, age, year of CRC diagnosis, and CRC stage.

RESULTS

Compared with dCRC, PCCRC was associated with a higher prevalence of proximal CRCs (54% vs. 40%; PR: 1.43, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.27-1.62) in T2D patients. We found no difference between PCCRC vs. dCRC for CRC stage, histology, and mismatch repair status. The proportion of CRCs that could be categorized as PCCRC decreased over time. Within one year after CRC, 63% of PCCRC vs. 78% of dCRC patients were alive (hazard ratio [HR] 1.85 [95% CI 1.47-2.31]). Within five years after CRC, 44% of PCCRC vs. 54% of dCRC patients were still alive (HR 1.44 [95% CI 1.11-1.87]).

CONCLUSION

The increased prevalence of proximally located PCCRCs and the poorer survival may suggest overlooked colorectal lesions as a predominant explanation for T2D-related PCCRC, although altered tumor progression cannot be ruled out.

Quantifying the cost savings and health impacts of improving colonoscopy quality: an economic evaluation

OBJECTIVE

To estimate and quantify the cost implications and health impacts of improving the performance of English endoscopy services to the optimum quality as defined by postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC) rates.

DESIGN

A semi-Markov state-transition model was constructed, following the logical treatment pathway of individuals who could potentially undergo a diagnostic colonoscopy. The model consisted of three identical arms, each representing a high, middle or low-performing trust's endoscopy service, defined by PCCRC rates. A cohort of 40-year-old individuals was simulated in each arm of the model. The model's time horizon was when the cohort reached 90 years of age and the total costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were calculated for all trusts. Scenario and sensitivity analyses were also conducted.

RESULTS

A 40-year-old individual gains 0.0006 QALYs and savings of £6.75 over the model lifetime by attending a high-performing trust compared with attending a middle-performing trust and gains 0.0012 QALYs and savings of £14.64 compared with attending a low-performing trust. For the population of England aged between 40 and 86, if all low and middle-performing trusts were improved to the level of a high-performing trust, QALY gains of 14 044 and cost savings of £249 311 295 are possible. Higher quality trusts dominated lower quality trusts; any improvement in the PCCRC rate was cost-effective.

CONCLUSION

Improving the quality of endoscopy services would lead to QALY gains among the population, in addition to cost savings to the healthcare provider. If all middle and low-performing trusts were improved to the level of a high-performing trust, our results estimate that the English National Health Service would save approximately £5 million per year.

Colorectal cancer and advanced adenoma characteristics according to causative mismatch repair gene variant in Japanese colorectal surveillance for Lynch syndrome

BACKGROUND

The optimal interval of colonoscopy (CS) surveillance in cases with Lynch syndrome (LS), and stratification according to the causative mismatch repair gene mutation, has received much attention. To verify a feasible and effective CS surveillance strategy, we investigated the colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence at different intervals and the characteristics of precancerous colorectal lesions of LS cases.

METHODS

This retrospective multicenter study was conducted in Japan. CRCs and advanced adenomas (AAs) in 316 LS cases with germline pathogenic variants (path_) were analyzed according to the data of 1,756 registered CS.

RESULTS

The mean time interval for advanced CRCs (ACs) detected via CS surveillance was 28.7 months (95% confidence interval: 13.8-43.5). The rate of AC detection within (2.1%) and beyond 2 years (8.7%) differed significantly (p = 0.0003). AAs accounted for 43%, 46%, and 41% of lesions < 10 mm in size in the MLH1-, MSH2-, and MSH6-groups, respectively. The lifetime incidence of metachronous CRCs requiring intestinal resection for path_MLH1, path_MSH2, and path_MSH6 cases was 34%, 23%, and 14% in these cases, respectively. The cumulative CRC incidence showed a trend towards a 10-year delay for path_MSH6 cases as compared with that for path_MLH1 and path_MSH2 cases.

CONCLUSIONS

In cases with path_MLH1, path_MSH2, and path_MSH6, maintaining an appropriate CS surveillance interval of within 2 years is advisable to detect of the colorectal lesion amenable to endoscopic treatment. path_MSH6 cases could be stratified with path_MLH1 and MSH2 cases in terms of risk of metachronous CRC and age of onset.

In vivo staging of colitis, adenoma and carcinoma in CRC progression by combination of H4R/DRD4-targeted fluorescent probes

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most prevalent malignancy and the second leading cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide. Currently, CRC staging heavily relies on invasive surgical procedures for in vitro pathological analysis, which entails long detection cycles and increases the risk of metastasis. There is an urgent need for specific biomarkers to classify adenomas and cancers, while early in vivo staging detection could potentially reduce mortality and morbidity rates. This study focused on Type IV histamine receptor (H4R), which is highly expressed only in the inflammatory stage, and Dopamine receptor D4 (DRD4), which is highly expressed in colorectal adenoma and carcinoma stages. Fluorescent targeted molecular probes H4R-Cy5 and DRD4-M were constructed respectively. The in vitro cell level proves that H4R-Cy5 only has high specificity for RAW264.7 cells, and DRD4-M only has good affinity for HT29 cells. In inflammation-HT29 subcutaneous tumors, H4R-Cy5 and DRD4-M can target inflammation and tumor lesions respectively. In addition, this study is the first to combine the two probes to explore the feasibility of in vivo non-invasive staging on CRC mouse models. The results show that H4R-Cy5 can distinguish and identify the stages of inflammation in vivo, and the DRD4-M probe can accurately identify the stages of colorectal adenoma and carcinoma in vivo. The combination of these two probes can achieve precise non-invasive staging of colitis, adenoma and carcinoma, which is a major advance in the development of accurate diagnostic methods for colorectal precancerous lesions and has important implications for the selection of treatment strategies.

Big data approach in the field of gastric and colorectal cancer research

Big data is characterized by three attributes: volume, variety,, and velocity. In healthcare setting, big data refers to vast dataset that is electronically stored and managed in an automated manner and has the potential to enhance human health and healthcare system. In this review, gastric cancer (GC) and postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC) will be used to illustrate application of big data approach in the field of gastrointestinal cancer research. Helicobacter pylori (HP) eradication only reduces GC risk by 46% due to preexisting precancerous lesions. Apart from endoscopy surveillance, identifying medications that modify GC risk is another strategy. Population-based cohort studies showed that long-term use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) associated with higher GC risk after HP eradication, while aspirin and statins associated with lower risk. While diabetes mellitus conferred 73% higher GC risk, metformin use associated with 51% lower risk, effect of which was independent of glycemic control. Nonetheless, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NA-NSAIDs) are not associated with lower GC risk. CRC can still occur after initial colonoscopy in which no cancer was detected (i.e. PCCRC). Between 2005 and 2013, the rate of interval-type PCCRC-3y (defined as CRC diagnosed between 6 and 36 months of index colonoscopy which was negative for CRC) was 7.9% in Hong Kong, with >80% being distal cancers and higher cancer-specific mortality compared with detected CRC. Certain clinical and endoscopy-related factors were associated with PCCRC-3 risk. Medications shown to have chemopreventive effects on PCCRC include statins, NA-NSAIDs, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers.

Effect of an E-learning resource on endoscopists' proximal serrated polyp detection rate: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Recent studies demonstrated that a higher proximal serrated polyp detection rate (PSPDR) among endoscopists is associated with a lower risk of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC) incidence and death for their patients. Our objective was to evaluate the effect of an e-learning resource on PSPDR.

METHODS

We performed a multicenter randomized controlled trial within the Dutch fecal immunochemical test-based colorectal cancer screening program. Endoscopists were randomized using block randomization per center to either receive a 60-minute e-learning resource on serrated polyp detection or not. PSPDR was calculated based on all colonoscopies performed during a 27-month pre-intervention and a 17-month post-intervention period. The primary end point was difference in PSPDR between intervention and control arms (intention to treat) using mixed effect logistic regression modeling, with time (pre-intervention/post-intervention) and interaction between time and arm (intervention/control) as fixed effects, and endoscopists as random effects.

RESULTS

116 endoscopists (57 intervention, 59 controls) were included, and performed 27494 and 33888 colonoscopies, respectively. Median PSPDR pre-intervention was 13.6% (95%CI 13.0-14.1) in the intervention arm and 13.8% (95%CI 13.3-14.3) in controls. Post-intervention PSPDR was significantly higher over time in the intervention arm than in controls (17.1% vs. 15.4%, P=0.01).

CONCLUSION

In an era of increased awareness and increasing PSPDRs, endoscopists who undertook a one-time e-learning course significantly accelerated the increase in PSPDR compared with endoscopists who did not undertake the e-learning. Widespread implementation might reduce PCCRC incidence.

Cancer Biology or Ineffective Surveillance? A Multicentre Retrospective Analysis of Colitis-Associated Post-Colonoscopy Colorectal Cancers

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Inflammatory bowel disease [IBD] is associated with high rates of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer [PCCRC], but further in-depth qualitative analyses are required to determine whether they result from inadequate surveillance or aggressive IBD cancer evolution.

METHODS

All IBD patients who had a colorectal cancer [CRC] diagnosed between January 2015 and July 2019 and a recent [<4 years] surveillance colonoscopy at one of four English hospital trusts underwent root cause analyses as recommended by the World Endoscopy Organisation to identify plausible PCCRC causative factors.

RESULTS

In total, 61% [n = 22/36] of the included IBD CRCs were PCCRCs. They developed in patients with high cancer risk factors [77.8%; n = 28/36] requiring annual surveillance, yet 57.1% [n = 20/35] had inappropriately delayed surveillance. Most PCCRCs developed in situations where [i] an endoscopically unresectable lesion was detected [40.9%; n = 9/22], [ii] there was a deviation from the planned management pathway [40.9%; n = 9/22], such as service-, clinician- or patient-related delays in acting on a detected lesion, or [iii] lesions were potentially missed as they were typically located within areas of active inflammation or post-inflammatory change [36.4%; n = 8/22].

CONCLUSIONS

IBD PCCRC prevention will require more proactive strategies to reduce endoscopic inflammatory burden, and to improve lesion optical characterization, adherence to recommended surveillance intervals, and patient acceptance of prophylactic colectomy. However, the significant proportion appearing to originate from non-adenomatous-looking mucosa which fail to yield neoplasia on biopsy yet display aggressive cancer evolution highlights the limitations of current surveillance. Emerging molecular biomarkers may play a role in enhancing cancer risk stratification in future clinical practice.

Lead Time and Immortal Time Biases Impact the Calculation of Post-colonoscopy Colorectal Cancer Survival

The World Endoscopy Organization (WEO) standardized the reporting of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancers (PCCRCs), which account for 7% to 10% of colorectal cancers (CRCs).1 PCCRCs are diagnosed 6 to 36 months after a false negative colonoscopy. Detected CRCs (dCRCs) are diagnosed ≤6 months after an index true positive colonoscopy.2 PCCRC prognosis is unclear, with outcomes reported as comparable,3 superior,4 or inferior5,6 to those of dCRC. Because WEO terminology defines cases relative to the index colonoscopy, conventional survival analyses of PCCRC are susceptible to lead time and immortal time biases. We evaluated the influence of these biases on mortality in a population-based retrospective cohort of 10,938 dCRCs (93.8%) and 717 PCCRCs (6.2%). This study was set within Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC), a large integrated health system, whose members are similar in demographic and socioeconomic characteristics to the Northern California region.7.

Emerge of colorectal cancer in Lynch syndrome despite colonoscopy surveillance: A challenge of hide and seek

Even with colonoscopy surveillance, Lynch syndromes (LS) carriers still develop colorectal cancer (CRC). The cumulative incidence of CRCs under colonoscopy surveillance varies depending on the affected mismatch repair (MMR) gene. However, the precise mechanisms driving these epidemiological patterns remain incompletely understood. In recent years, several potential mechanisms explaining the occurrence of CRCs during colonoscopy surveillance have been proposed in individuals with and without LS. These encompass biological factors like concealed/accelerated carcinogenesis through a bypassed adenoma stage and accelerated progression from adenomas. Alongside these, various colonoscopy-related factors may contribute to formation of CRCs under colonoscopy surveillance, like missed yet detectable (pre)cancerous lesions, detected yet incompletely removed (pre)cancerous lesions, and colonoscopy-induced carcinogenesis due to tumor cell reimplantation. In this comprehensive literature update, we reviewed these potential factors and evaluated their relevance to each MMR group in an attempt to raise further awareness and stimulate research regarding this conflicting phenomenon.

Efficacy of artificial intelligence in reducing miss rates of GI adenomas, polyps, and sessile serrated lesions: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The aim of this study was to determine if utilization of artificial intelligence (AI) in the course of endoscopic procedures can significantly diminish both the adenoma miss rate (AMR) and the polyp miss rate (PMR) compared with standard endoscopy.

METHODS

We performed an extensive search of various databases, encompassing PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Scopus, until June 2023. The search terms used were artificial intelligence, machine learning, deep learning, transfer machine learning, computer-assisted diagnosis, convolutional neural networks, gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy, endoscopic image analysis, polyp, adenoma, and neoplasms. The main study aim was to explore the impact of AI on the AMR, PMR, and sessile serrated lesion miss rate.

RESULTS

A total of 7 randomized controlled trials were included in this meta-analysis. Pooled AMR was markedly lower in the AI group versus the non-AI group (pooled relative risk [RR], .46; 95% confidence interval [CI], .36-.59; P < .001). PMR was also reduced in the AI group in contrast with the non-AI control (pooled RR, .43; 95% CI, .27-.69; P < .001). The results showed that AI decreased the miss rate of sessile serrated lesions (pooled RR, .43; 95% CI, .20 to .92; P < .05) and diminutive adenomas (pooled RR, .49; 95% CI, .26-.93) during endoscopy, but no significant effect was observed for advanced adenomas (pooled RR, .48; 95% CI, .17-1.37; P = .17). The average number of polyps (Hedges' g = -.486; 95% CI, -.697 to -.274; P = .000) and adenomas (Hedges' g = -.312; 95% CI, -.551 to -.074; P = .01) detected during the second procedure also favored AI. However, AI implementation did not lead to a prolonged withdrawal time (P > .05).

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis suggests that AI technology leads to significant reduction of miss rates for GI adenomas, polyps, and sessile serrated lesions during endoscopic surveillance. These results underscore the potential of AI to improve the accuracy and efficiency of GI endoscopic procedures.

Post-colonoscopy colorectal cancers in a national fecal immunochemical test-based colorectal cancer screening program

BACKGROUND

Post-colonoscopy colorectal cancers (PCCRCs) decrease the effect of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs. To enable PCCRC incidence reduction in the long-term, we classified PCCRCs diagnosed after colonoscopies performed in a fecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based screening program.

METHODS

PCCRCs diagnosed after colonoscopies performed between 2014-2016 for a positive FIT in the Dutch CRC screening program were included. PCCRCs were categorized according to the World Endoscopy Organization consensus statement into (a) interval PCCRC (diagnosed before the recommended surveillance); (b) non-interval type A (diagnosed at the recommended surveillance interval); (c) non-interval type B (diagnosed after the recommended surveillance interval); or (d) non-interval type C (diagnosed after the intended recommended surveillance interval, with surveillance not implemented owing to co-morbidity). The most probable etiology was determined by root-cause analysis. Tumor stage distributions were compared between categories.

RESULTS

116362 colonoscopies were performed after a positive FIT with 9978 screen-detected CRCs. During follow-up, 432 PCCRCs were diagnosed. The 3-year PCCRC rate was 2.7%. PCCRCs were categorized as interval (53.5%), non-interval type A (14.6%), non-interval type B (30.6%), and non-interval type C (1.4%). The most common etiology for interval PCCRCs was possible missed lesion with adequate examination (73.6%); they were more often diagnosed at an advanced stage (stage III/IV; 53.2%) compared with non-interval type A (15.9%; P<0.001) and non-interval type B (40.9%; P=0.03) PCCRCs.

CONCLUSIONS

The 3-year PCCRC rate was low in this FIT-based CRC screening program. Approximately half of PCCRCs were interval PCCRCs. These were mostly caused by missed lesions and were diagnosed at a more advanced stage. This emphasizes the importance of high quality colonoscopy with optimal polyp detection.

Endoscopist adenomas-per-colonoscopy detection rates and risk for postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer: data from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Adenomas per colonoscopy (APC) may be a better measure of colonoscopy quality than adenoma detection rate (ADR) because it credits endoscopists for each detected adenoma. There are few data examining the association between APC and postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC) incidence. We used data from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry to examine APC and PCCRC risk.

METHODS

We included New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry patients with an index examination and at least 1 follow-up event, either a colonoscopy or a colorectal cancer (CRC) diagnosis. Our outcome was PCCRC defined as any CRC diagnosed ≥6 months after an index examination. The exposure variable was endoscopist-specific APC quintiles of .25, .40, .50, and .70. Cox regression was used to model the hazard of PCCRC on APC, controlled for age, sex, year of index examination, index findings, bowel preparation, and having more than 1 surveillance examination.

RESULTS

In 32,535 patients, a lower hazard for PCCRC (n = 178) was observed for higher APCs as compared to APCs of <.25 (reference): .25 to <.40: hazard ratio (HR), .35; 95% confidence interval (CI), .22-.56; .40 to <.50: HR, .31; 95% CI, .20-.49; .50 to <.70: HR, .20; 95% CI, .11-.36; and ≥.70: HR, .19; 95% CI, .09-.37. When examining endoscopists with an ADR of at least 25%, an APC of <.50 was associated with a significantly higher hazard than an APC of ≥.50 (HR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.06-2.56). A large proportion of endoscopists-one-fifth (32 of 152; 21.1%)-had an ADR of ≥25% but an APC of <.50.

CONCLUSIONS

Our novel data demonstrating lower PCCRC risk in examinations performed by endoscopists with higher APCs suggest that APC could be a useful quality measure. Quality improvement programs may identify important deficiencies in endoscopist detection performance by measuring APC for endoscopists with an ADR of ≥25%.

Extracellular vesicles-derived CXCL4 is a candidate serum tumor biomarker for colorectal cancer

Extracellular vesicles (EVs) were promising circulating biomarkers for multiple diseases, but whether serum EVs-derived proteins could be used as a reliable tumor biomarker for colorectal cancer (CRC) remained inconclusive. In this study, we identified CXCL4 by a 4D data-independent acquisition-based quantitative proteomics assay of serum EVs-derived proteins in 40 individuals and subsequently analyzed serum EVs-derived CXCL4 levels by ELISA in 2 cohorts of 749 individuals. The results revealed that EVs-derived CXCL4 levels were dramatically elevated in CRC patients than in benign colorectal polyp patients or healthy controls (HC). Furthermore, receiver operating characteristic curves revealed that EVs-derived CXCL4 exhibited superior diagnostic performance with area under the curve of 0.948 in the training cohort. Additionally, CXCL4 could effectively distinguish CRC in stage I/II from HC. Notably, CRC patients with high levels of EVs-derived CXCL4 have shorter 2-year progression-free survival than those with low levels. Overall, our findings demonstrated that serum EVs-derived CXCL4 was a candidate diagnostic and prognostic biomarker for CRC.

Linked color imaging improves colorectal lesion detection especially for low performance endoscopists: An international trial in Asia

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Linked color imaging (LCI) is an image-enhanced endoscopy technique that accentuates the color difference between red and white, potentially improving the adenoma detection rate (ADR). However, it remains unclear whether LCI performance in detecting colorectal lesions differs based on endoscopists' experience levels. We aimed to evaluate the differences in LCI efficacy based on the experience levels of endoscopists by conducting an exploratory analysis.

METHODS

In this post hoc analysis of an international randomized controlled trial comparing the detection of adenoma and other lesions using colonoscopy with LCI and high-definition white light imaging (WLI), we included patients from 11 institutions across four countries/regions: Japan, Thailand, Taiwan, and Singapore. We retrospectively reviewed differences in the lesion detection of LCI according to endoscopists' colonoscopy history or ADR.

RESULTS

We included 1692 and 1138 patients who underwent colonoscopies performed by 54 experts (experience of ≥ 5000 colonoscopies) and by 43 non-experts (experience of < 5000 colonoscopies), respectively. Both expert and non-expert groups showed a significant improvement in ADR with LCI compared to WLI (expert, 61.7% vs 46.4%; P < 0.001; non-expert, 56.6% vs 46.4%; P < 0.001). LCI had no effect on sessile serrated lesion detection rate in non-experts (3.1% vs 2.5%; P = 0.518). LCI significantly improved detection rates in endoscopists with relatively low detection performance, defined as an ADR < 50%.

CONCLUSIONS

This exploratory study analyzed data from a previous trial and revealed that LCI is useful for both experts and non-experts and is even more beneficial for endoscopists with relatively low detection performance using WLI.

Incidence, characteristics, and predictive factors of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC) is colorectal cancer (CRC) diagnosed after a colonoscopy in which no cancer is found.

OBJECTIVE

As PCCRC has become an important quality indicator, we determined its rates, characteristics, and index colonoscopy-related predictive factors.

METHODS

We carried out a multicenter, observational, retrospective study between 2015 and 2018. Rates were calculated for PCCRC developing up to 10 years after colonoscopy. PCCRC was categorized according to the most plausible explanation using World Endoscopy Organization methodology. Our PCCRC population was compared to a control cohort without CRC matched 1:4 by sex, age, index colonoscopy date, indication, endoscopist, and hospital.

RESULTS

One hundred seven PCCRC and 2508 detected CRC were diagnosed among 101,524 colonoscopy (0.1%), leading to rates of 0.4%, 2.2%, 3.1%, and 4.1% at 1, 3, 5, and 10 years, respectively. PCCRC was in right (42.4%), left (41.4%), and transverse (16.4%) colon with 31.5% at stage I, 24.7% stage II, 32.6% stage III, and 11.2% stage IV. Twenty point three percent were classified as incomplete resection, 5.4% as unresected lesions, 48.6% as missed lesions with adequate colonoscopy, and 25.7% as missed lesions with inadequate colonoscopy. The median time from colonoscopy to PCCRC was 42 months. Previous inadequate preparation (OR 3.05, 95%CI 1.73-5.36) and piecemeal polypectomy (OR 19.89, 95%CI 8.67-45.61) were independently associated with PCCRC.

CONCLUSIONS

In our population, 4.1% of CRC cases were PCCRC. Most of these lesions were in right colon and attributable to lesions not visualized despite adequate bowel cleansing. Previous inadequate cleansing and piecemeal polypectomy were associated with PCCRC.

Linked-color imaging versus high definition white-light endoscopy for evaluation of post-polypectomy scars of nonpedunculated lesions: LCI-Scar study

BACKGROUND

Detection and treatment of recurrence after piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection of nonpedunculated colorectal polyps are crucial for avoidance of post-colonoscopy cancer. Linked-color imaging (LCI) has demonstrated improved polyp detection but has never been assessed for evaluation of post-polypectomy scars. Our aim was to compare sensitivity and negative predictive value (NPV) between LCI and white-light endoscopy (WLE) for detection of post-polypectomy recurrence.

METHODS

Patients undergoing surveillance colonoscopy after resection of lesions ≥15 mm were included in this prospective, single-center, randomized, crossover study. Each post-polypectomy scar underwent two examinations, one with LCI and the other with WLE, performed by two blinded endoscopists. Blue-light imaging (BLI) was then applied. A diagnosis of recurrence with a level of confidence was made for each modality and histopathology was the gold standard.

RESULTS

129 patients with 173 scars were included. Baseline patient, lesion, and procedural characteristics were similar in both arms. Recurrence was detected in 56/173 (32.4%), with 27/56 (48.2%) adenomas and 29/56 (51.8%) serrated lesions. LCI had greater sensitivity (96.4% [95%CI 87.8%-99.5%]) versus WLE (89.3% [95%CI 78.1%-95.9%]) and greater NPV (98.1% [95%CI 93.4%-99.8%] versus 94.6% [95%CI 88.7%-98.0%]). Paired concordance between modalities was 96.0%. In discordant cases, LCI identified four true-positive cases not detected by WLE and reclassified one false-positive of WLE. WLE reclassified two false positives of LCI without any increase in recurrence detection.

CONCLUSIONS

LCI was highly accurate and had greater ability than WLE to rule out recurrence on post-polypectomy scars after resection of large polyps.

Postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer: Prevalence, categorization and root-cause analysis based on the World Endoscopic Organization system

AIMS

The World Endoscopy Organization (WEO) recommends that endoscopy units implement a process to identify postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC). The aims of this study were to assess the 3-year PCCRC rate and to perform root-cause analyses and categorization in accordance with the WEO recommendations.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Cases of colorectal cancers (CRCs) in a tertiary care center were retrospectively included from January 2018 to December 2019. The 3-year and 4-year PCCRC rates were calculated. A root-cause analysis and categorization of PCCRCs (interval and type A, B, C noninterval PCCRCs) were performed. The level of agreement between two expert endoscopists was assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 530 cases of CRC were included. A total of 33 were deemed PCCRCs (age 75.8±9.5 years; 51.5% women). The 3-year and 4-year PCCRC rates were 3.4% and 4.7%, respectively. The level of agreement between the two endoscopists was acceptable either for the root-cause analysis (k=0.958) or for the categorization (k=0.76). The most plausible explanations of the PCCRCs were 8 "likely new PCCRCs", 1 (4%) "detected, not resected", 3 (12%) "detected, incomplete resection", 8 (32%) "missed lesion, inadequate examination", and 13 (52%) "missed lesion, adequate examination". Most PCCRCs were deemed noninterval Type C PCCRCs (N=17, 51.5%).

CONCLUSION

WEO recommendations for root-cause analysis and categorization are useful to detect areas for improvement. Most PCCRCs were avoidable and were likely due to missed lesions during an otherwise adequate examination.

Features of colorectal adenomas among young patients with Lynch syndrome according to path_MMR: Results from the PRED-IdF registry

BACKGROUND

Lynch syndrome (LS) is the most frequent inherited colorectal cancer syndrome.

AIM

To assess the burden of adenoma in LS patients under 50 years-old followed in the PRED-IdF network.

METHODS

From January 2010 to January 2019, all patients under 50 years of age with a confirmed LS germline mutation were included. The main objective was the description of adenomas characteristics according to path_MMR.

RESULTS

We analyzed data from 708 patients (mean age 34.8 ± 8.6), of which 41.8 % were male. Among these patients, 37.6% had path_MLH1, 45.4% path_MSH2, 13.9% path_MSH6, 2.9% path_PMS2, and 1.2% path_EpCAM. The analysis included 1721 (70.9%) follow-up colonoscopies. A total of 682 adenomas were detected, including 140 (20.5%) advanced adenomas. The adenoma detection rates during the first and follow-up colonoscopies were 19.2% and 20.5%, respectively. Most adenomas were <10 mm (57.9%), located in the proximal colon (334, 48.9%), and presented as non-polypoid lesions (493, 72.3%). The median growth time for adenomas was 23 months (range 9-114) irrespective of the path_MMR mutation (p = 0.62).

CONCLUSION

LS patients under 50 years of age have a high burden of adenomas, particularly small non-polypoid adenomas located in the proximal colon. These results highlight the need for intensive screening, with a particular focus on the proximal colon.

Proportions and characteristics of interval cancer in annual fecal immunochemical test screening and postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer: Results from a Japanese multicenter prospective study using questionnaires, the C-DETECT study

OBJECTIVES

There are several types of colorectal cancer (CRC) according to the detection methods and intervals, including interval CRC (iCRC) and postcolonoscopy CRC (PCCRC). We aimed to examine their proportions and characteristics.

METHODS

We conducted a multicenter prospective study using questionnaires in Japan ("C-DETECT study"), in which differences in CRC characteristics according to detection methods and intervals were examined from consecutive adult patients. Because the annual fecal immunochemical test (FIT) was used in population-based screening, the annual FIT-iCRC was assessed.

RESULTS

In total, 1241 CRC patients (1064 with invasive CRC) were included. Annual FIT-iCRC (a), 3-year PCCRC (b), and CRC detected within 1 year after a positive FIT with noncompliance to colonoscopy (c) accounted for 4.5%, 7.0%, and 3.9% of all CRCs, respectively, and for 3.9%, 5.4%, and 4.3% of invasive CRCs, respectively. The comparison among these (a, b, c) and other CRCs (d) demonstrated differences in the proportions of ≥T2 invasion ([a] 58.9%, [b] 44.8%, [c] 87.5%, [d] 73.0%), metastasis ([a] 33.9%, [b] 21.8%, [c] 54.2%, [d] 43.9%), right-sided CRC ([a] 42.9%, [b] 40.2%, [c] 18.8%, [d] 28.6%), and female sex ([a] 53.6%, [b] 49.4%, [c] 27.1%, [d] 41.6%). In metastatic CRC, (a) and (b) showed a higher proportions of BRAF mutations ([a] [b] 12.0%, [c] [d] 3.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

Annual FIT-iCRC and 3-year PCCRC existed in nonnegligible proportions. They were characterized by higher proportions of right-sided tumors, female sex, and BRAF mutations. These findings suggest that annual FIT-iCRC and 3-year PCCRC may have biological features different from those of other CRCs.

Artificial intelligence-assisted real-time monitoring of effective withdrawal time during colonoscopy: a novel quality marker of colonoscopy

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The importance of withdrawal time during colonoscopy cannot be overstated in mitigating the risk of missed lesions and postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer. We evaluated a novel colonoscopy quality metric called the effective withdrawal time (EWT), which is an artificial intelligence (AI)-derived quantitative measure of quality withdrawal time, and its association with various colonic lesion detection rates as compared with standard withdrawal time (SWT).

METHODS

Three hundred fifty video recordings of colonoscopy withdrawal (from the cecum to the anus) were assessed by the new AI model. The primary outcome was adenoma detection rate (ADR) according to different quintiles of EWT. Multivariate logistic regression, adjusting for baseline covariates, was used to determine the adjusted odd ratios (ORs) for EWT on lesion detection rates, with the lowest quintile as reference. The area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve of EWT was compared with SWT.

RESULTS

The crude ADR in different quintiles of EWT, from lowest to highest, was 10.0%, 31.4%, 33.3%, 53.5%, and 85.7%. The ORs of detecting adenomas and polyps were significantly higher in all top 4 quintiles when compared with the lowest quintile. Each minute increase in EWT was associated with a 49% increase in ADR (aOR, 1.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.36-1.65). The area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve of EWT was also significantly higher than SWT on adenoma detection (.80 [95% CI, .75-.84] vs .70 [95% CI, .64-.74], P < .01).

CONCLUSIONS

AI-derived monitoring of EWT is a promising novel quality indicator for colonoscopy, which is more associated with ADR than SWT.

Performance evaluation of a computer-aided polyp detection system with artificial intelligence for colonoscopy

OBJECTIVES

A computer-aided detection (CAD) system was developed to support the detection of colorectal lesions by deep learning using video images of lesions and normal mucosa recorded during colonoscopy. The study's purpose was to evaluate the stand-alone performance of this device under blinded conditions.

METHODS

This multicenter prospective observational study was conducted at four Japanese institutions. We used 326 videos of colonoscopies recorded with patient consent at institutions in which the Ethics Committees approved the study. The sensitivity of successful detection of the CAD system was calculated using the target lesions, which were detected by adjudicators from two facilities for each lesion appearance frame; inconsistencies were settled by consensus. Successful detection was defined as display of the detection flag on the lesion for more than 0.5 s within 3 s of appearance.

RESULTS

Of the 556 target lesions from 185 cases, detection success sensitivity was 97.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] 95.8-98.5%). The "successful detection sensitivity per colonoscopy" was 93% (95% CI 88.3-95.8%). For the frame-based sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were 86.6% (95% CI 84.8-88.4%), 84.7% (95% CI 83.8-85.6%), 34.9% (95% CI 32.3-37.4%), and 98.2% (95% CI 97.8-98.5%), respectively.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

University Hospital Medical Information Network (UMIN000044622).

Post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer: A population-based cohort study of fecal occult blood test-positive colonoscopies

BACKGROUND

Data on post-colonoscopy colorectal cancers (PCCRCs) after fecal occult blood test (FOBT)-positive colonoscopies is scarce (guaiac-based (gFOBT) or fecal immunochemical test (FIT)).

AIMS

Evaluate the prevalence and characteristics of PCCRCs in the French gFOBT CRC screening program.

METHODS

Retrospective population-based cohort study of all gFOBT-positive colonoscopies performed among individuals aged 50-74 between 2003 and 2014 within the CRC screening program organized in the Haut-Rhin (Alsace, France). The main outcome was PCCRC-3y rate. Adenoma detection rates (ADRs) calculated on gFOBT-positive colonoscopies were compared to those calculated on FIT-positive colonoscopies performed by the same gastroenterologists.

RESULTS

Overall, 9106 gFOBT-positive colonoscopies performed by 36 gastroenterologists were included. Sixteen PCCRC-3y and 31 PCCRC-5y were diagnosed (68.8 % and 58.1 % were true interval PCCRCs respectively). The unadjusted PCCRC-3y rate was 2.4 % [95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.4 %-3.9 %]. The risk for PCCRC-5y was significantly higher when the gastroenterologist's ADR was <35 % compared to ≥35 % (HR 2.17 [95 %CI 1.19-3.93]). The mean absolute difference for ADR between gFOBT- and FIT-positive colonoscopies was 16.3 % in favor of FIT-positive colonoscopies.

CONCLUSION

PCCRC-3y prevalence was low, estimated at 2.4 %. We suggest that the minimum standard for ADR in gFOBT- and FIT-positive colonoscopies should be set at 35 % and 50 % to 55 % respectively, in the French screening program.

Why is early detection of colon cancer still not possible in 2023?

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is a fundamental tool in the prevention and early detection of one of the most prevalent and lethal cancers. Over the years, screening, particularly in those settings where it is well organized, has succeeded in reducing the incidence of colon and rectal cancer and improving the prognosis related to them. Despite considerable advancements in screening technologies and strategies, the effectiveness of CRC screening programs remains less than optimal. This paper examined the multifaceted reasons behind the persistent lack of effectiveness in CRC screening initiatives. Through a critical analysis of current methodologies, technological limitations, patient-related factors, and systemic challenges, we elucidated the complex interplay that hampers the successful reduction of CRC morbidity and mortality rates. While acknowledging the advancements that have improved aspects of screening, we emphasized the necessity of addressing the identified barriers comprehensively. This study aimed to raise awareness of how important CRC screening is in reducing costs for this disease. Screening and early diagnosis are not only important in improving the prognosis of patients with CRC but can lead to an important reduction in the cost of treating a disease that is often diagnosed at an advanced stage. Spending more sooner can mean saving money later.

What are the priority quality indicators for colonoscopy in real-world clinical practice?

Colonoscopy is widely used as a colorectal cancer (CRC) screening tool. The effectiveness of a screening colonoscopy is associated with a decreased risk of CRC. However, colonoscopy is an operator-dependent procedure, and endoscopists' quality performance varies widely. This article reviewed the priority metrics and practices that contribute to high-quality screening colonoscopy in real-world clinical practice. With growing evidence, quality indicators have been subject to intense research and associated with reducing postcolonoscopy CRC incidence and mortality. Some quality metrics can reflect an endoscopy unit-based practice (i.e. quality of bowel preparation and withdrawal time). Other quality indicators primarily reflect individuals' skill and knowledge (i.e. cecal intubation rate, adenoma detection rate, and appropriately assigned follow-up colonoscopy interval). Measurement and improvement of priority quality indicators for colonoscopy should be made at both the endoscopist and unit levels. Substantial evidence supports the impact of high-quality colonoscopy in reducing the incidence of postcolonoscopy CRC.

Post-colonoscopy rectal cancer in Swedish patients with Crohn's disease 2001-2015: a population-based case review study

OBJECTIVE

Post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC) is a key quality indicator of colonoscopy, and PCCRC rates are high in the IBD population. Rectal cancer, an important risk factor for PCCRC among patients with Crohn's disease (CD), has not previously been examined.

METHODS

Swedish adult patients with CD who underwent a colonoscopy within 36 months before a rectal cancer diagnosis between 2001 and 2015 were identified through the National Patient and Cancer registers. Their medical records were reviewed and a root-cause analysis and a sub-categorization according to the World Endoscopic Organization (WEO) were performed.

RESULTS

Of 24 patients with CD and PCCRC in the rectum, 79% were men and the median age was 50 (IQR 45-59) years. The median disease duration was 21.5 (IQR 19-30) years. The cancer was located in the distal 5 cm of the rectum in 63% of the cases. Retroversion in the rectum was reported in only one case. The most common plausible explanation for PCCRC was 'possible missed lesion, prior examination adequate' (63%); when adding retroversion in the rectum, instead 77% of examinations were considered negative but deemed as inadequate. The most common PCCRC sub-category was non-interval type C (54%) and B (37%). Among those with type C, 38% should have been included in surveillance according to present guidelines.

CONCLUSION

Better adherence to surveillance guidelines and more meticulous follow-up is warranted. The importance of performing rectal palpation and retroversion in the rectum is underscored and we suggest that this is included in the WEO algorithm.

Interval post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer following a negative colonoscopy in a fecal immunochemical test-based screening program

BACKGROUND

 In the Dutch colorectal (CRC) screening program, fecal immunochemical test (FIT)-positive individuals are referred for colonoscopy. If no relevant findings are detected at colonoscopy, individuals are reinvited for FIT screening after 10 years. We aimed to assess CRC risk after a negative colonoscopy in FIT-positive individuals.

METHODS

 In this cross-sectional cohort study, data were extracted from the Dutch national screening information system. Participants with a positive FIT followed by a negative colonoscopy between 2014 and 2018 were included. A negative colonoscopy was defined as a colonoscopy during which no more than one nonvillous, nonproximal adenoma < 10 mm or serrated polyp < 10 mm was found. The main outcome was interval post-colonoscopy CRC (iPCCRC) risk. iPCCRC risk was reviewed against the risk of interval CRC after a negative FIT (FIT IC) with a 2-year screening interval.

RESULTS

 35 052 FIT-positive participants had a negative colonoscopy and 24 iPCCRCs were diagnosed, resulting in an iPCCRC risk of 6.85 (95 %CI 4.60-10.19) per 10 000 individuals after a median follow-up of 1.4 years. After 2.5 years of follow-up, age-adjusted iPCCRC risk was approximately equal to FIT IC risk at 2 years.

CONCLUSION

 Risk of iPCCRC within a FIT-based CRC screening program was low during the first years after colonos-copy but, after 2.5 years, was the same as the risk in FIT-negative individuals at 2 years, when they are reinvited for screening. Colonoscopy quality may therefore require further improvement and FIT screening interval may need to be reduced after negative colonoscopy.

Optimization of colonoscopy quality: Comprehensive review of the literature and future perspectives

Colonoscopy is crucial in preventing colorectal cancer (CRC) and reducing associated mortality. This comprehensive review examines the importance of high-quality colonoscopy and associated quality indicators, including bowel preparation, cecal intubation rate, withdrawal time, adenoma detection rate (ADR), complete resection, specimen retrieval, complication rates, and patient satisfaction, while also discussing other ADR-related metrics. Additionally, the review draws attention to often overlooked quality aspects, such as nonpolypoid lesion detection, as well as insertion and withdrawal skills. Moreover, it explores the potential of artificial intelligence in enhancing colonoscopy quality and highlights specific considerations for organized screening programs. The review also emphasizes the implications of organized screening programs and the need for continuous quality improvement. A high-quality colonoscopy is crucial for preventing postcolonoscopy CRC- and CRC-related deaths. Health-care professionals must develop a thorough understanding of colonoscopy quality components, including technical quality, patient safety, and patient experience. By prioritizing ongoing evaluation and refinement of these quality indicators, health-care providers can contribute to improved patient outcomes and develop more effective CRC screening programs.

Low Incidence of Colorectal Advanced Neoplasia During Surveillance in Individuals with a Family History of Colorectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Family history of colorectal cancer (CRC) is used to stratify individuals into risk categories which determine timing of initial screening and ongoing CRC surveillance. Evidence for long-term CRC risk following a normal index colonoscopy in family history populations is limited.

AIMS

To assess the incidence of advanced neoplasia and associated risk factors in a population undergoing surveillance colonoscopies due to family history of CRC.

METHODS

Surveillance colonoscopy findings were examined in 425 individuals with a family history of CRC, a normal index colonoscopy and a minimum of 10 years of follow-up colonoscopies. Advanced neoplasia risk was determined for three CRC family history categories (near-average, medium and high-risk), accounting for demographics and time after the first colonoscopy.

RESULTS

The median follow-up was 13.5 years (IQR 11.5-16.0), with an incidence of advanced neoplasia of 14.35% (61/425). The number of affected relatives and age of CRC diagnosis in the youngest relative did not predict the risk of advanced neoplasia (p > 0.05), with no significant differences in advanced neoplasia incidence between the family history categories (p = 0.16). Patients ≥ 60 years showed a fourfold (HR 4.14, 95% CI 1.33-12.89) higher advanced neoplasia risk during surveillance than those < 40 years at index colonoscopy. With each subsequent negative colonoscopy, the risk of advanced neoplasia at ongoing surveillance was reduced.

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of advanced neoplasia was low (14.35%), regardless of the family history risk category, with older age being the main risk for advanced neoplasia. Delaying onset of colonoscopy or lengthening surveillance intervals could be a more efficient use of resources in this population.

Application of artificial intelligence in colorectal cancer screening by colonoscopy: Future prospects (Review)

Colorectal cancer (CRC) has become a severe global health concern, with the third‑high incidence and second‑high mortality rate of all cancers. The burden of CRC is expected to surge to 60% by 2030. Fortunately, effective early evidence‑based screening could significantly reduce the incidence and mortality of CRC. Colonoscopy is the core screening method for CRC with high popularity and accuracy. Yet, the accuracy of colonoscopy in CRC screening is related to the experience and state of operating physicians. It is challenging to maintain the high CRC diagnostic rate of colonoscopy. Artificial intelligence (AI)‑assisted colonoscopy will compensate for the above shortcomings and improve the accuracy, efficiency, and quality of colonoscopy screening. The unique advantages of AI, such as the continuous advancement of high‑performance computing capabilities and innovative deep‑learning architectures, which hugely impact the control of colorectal cancer morbidity and mortality expectancy, highlight its role in colonoscopy screening.

Root-cause Analysis of 762 Danish Post-colonoscopy Colorectal Cancer Patients

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The term post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC) refers to colorectal cancer (CRC) diagnosed after a negative colonoscopy. Using the root-cause algorithm proposed by the World Endoscopy Organization, we aimed to investigate plausible explanations for PCCRCs and potential changes in plausible explanations for PCCRCs over time in a Danish Region.

METHODS

During 1995 to 2021, we used national health registries and electronic medical records in the Central Denmark Region to identify PCCRC cases, defined as CRCs recorded within 6 to 48 months after a colonoscopy. We then applied the World Endoscopy Organization algorithm to categorize explanations for PCCRC as follows: (A) possible missed lesion, prior examination adequate; (B) possible missed lesion, prior examination inadequate; (C) detected lesion, not resected; or (D) likely incomplete resection of previously identified lesion. PCCRCs were identified before (1995-2013) and after (2014-2021) implementation of nationwide fecal immunochemical test-based CRC screening and quality indicators for colonoscopy.

RESULTS

We identified 762 PCCRCs, 53.5% among males and 57% among individuals ≥70 years. Forty-five percent were located in the proximal colon. We identified 616 (80.8%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 74.6%-87.5%) category A PCCRCs; 36 (4.7%; 95% CI, 3.3%-6.5%) category B PCCRCs; 26 (3.4%; 95% CI, 2.2%-4.9%) category C PCCRCs; and 84 (11%; 95% CI, 8.8%-13.6%) category D PCCRCs. Similar patterns were observed during the early (1995-2013) and late (2014-2021) study periods.

CONCLUSIONS

Most PCCRCs originate from possible missed lesions and incompletely resected lesions during the complete study period. These findings indicate the importance of quality assurance of colonoscopy procedures and polypectomy techniques.

Screening History and 7-Year Survival in 32,099 Colorectal Cancer Patients: A Population-Based Cohort Study

Background

It is unclear whether colorectal cancer screening history, regardless of stage, is an independent predictor of survival, and if the screening advantage persists after diagnosis. 32 099 patients with colorectal cancer were enrolled in this population-based cohort study.

Methods

We used data from the Taiwan Cancer Registry on patients with a first-time diagnosis of colorectal cancer between 2013 and 2015. In addition, we utilized data from a nationwide database of colorectal cancer screening programs to evaluate patients' screening histories, and sourced outcome data from the National Death Registry, tracking patients up to the last day of 2019.

Results

Compared with fecal immunochemical testing (FIT)-positive patients with a follow-up examination, the adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) for death from colorectal cancer were 1.40 (1.26-1.56) for FIT-positive patients without a follow-up examination, 1.63 (1.48-1.78) for FIT-negative patients, and 1.76 (1.65-1.89) for never screened patients. The adjusted hazard ratios for the FIT-positive patients with a follow-up examination increased when diagnosis was delayed by more than 12 months and were 1.2 after a 2-year delay. The adjusted hazard ratios for FIT-negative patients were approximately 2.0, decreased rapidly to 1.6, and stabilized after the 9th time-to-diagnosis month.

Conclusion

In colorectal cancer patients, screening history prior to diagnosis is an independent prognostic factor, regardless of cancer stage or other variables. This study recommends that physicians take screening history into account during diagnosis to optimize follow-up and management for patients at higher risk.

Impact of a scalable training program on the quality of colonoscopy performance and risk of postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopist adenoma detection rates (ADRs) vary widely and are associated with patients' risk of postcolonoscopy colorectal cancers (PCCRCs). However, few scalable physician-directed interventions demonstrably both improve ADR and reduce PCCRC risk.

METHODS

Among patients undergoing colonoscopy, we evaluated the influence of a scalable online training on individual-level ADRs and PCCRC risk. The intervention was a 30-minute, interactive, online training, developed using behavior change theory, to address factors that potentially impede detection of adenomas. Analyses included interrupted time series analyses for pretraining versus posttraining individual-physician ADR changes (adjusted for temporal trends) and Cox regression for associations between ADR changes and patients' PCCRC risk.

RESULTS

Across 21 endoscopy centers and all 86 eligible endoscopists, ADRs increased immediately by an absolute 3.13% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.31-4.94) in the 3-month quarter after training compared with .58% per quarter (95% CI, .40-.77) and 0.33% per quarter (95% CI, .16-.49) in the 3-year pretraining and posttraining periods, respectively. Posttraining ADR increases were higher among endoscopists with pretraining ADRs below the median. Among 146,786 posttraining colonoscopies (all indications), each 1% absolute increase in screening ADR posttraining was associated with a 4% decrease in their patients' PCCRC risk (hazard ratio, .96; 95% CI, .93-.99). An ADR increase of ≥10% versus <1% was associated with a 55% reduced risk of PCCRC (hazard ratio, .45; 95% CI, .24-.82).

CONCLUSIONS

A scalable, online behavior change training intervention focused on modifiable factors was associated with significant and sustained improvements in ADR, particularly among endoscopists with lower ADRs. These ADR changes were associated with substantial reductions in their patients' risk of PCCRC.

Postcolonoscopy Colorectal Cancer in a Referral Center for Colorectal Cancer: Prevalence and Risk Factors

Background and Aims

Colonoscopy is effective to detect and remove colorectal lesions. However, after a negative colonoscopy, cancers could be detected during the interval follow-up. This study was designed to identify characteristics and risk factors for postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer - interval type.

Methods

Medical records of individuals who were newly diagnosed with colorectal cancer between January 2018 and December 2019 were reviewed. Clinical, demographic, and endoscopic variables were analyzed. Those with the diagnosis of colorectal cancer between two consecutive colonoscopies performed within the appropriated surveillance range were considered to have postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer - interval type. A comparison between the group of patients with non-postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer - interval type and the group of patients with postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer - interval type was then performed.

Results

During the study period, 491 patients were newly diagnosed with colorectal cancer. Among them, 61 (12.4%) had postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer - interval subtype. Postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer - interval type was three times more prevalent on the proximal colon (p = 0.014) and was associated with the presence of two or more cardiovascular risk factors (aOR = 4.25; p = 0.016), cholecystectomy in the past (aOR = 10.09; p = 0.019), and family history of colorectal cancer on a first-degree relative (aOR = 4.25; p = 0.006). Moreover, isolated cardiovascular risk factors revealed a protective effect for the absence of all cardiovascular risk factors (aOR = 20; p = 0.034). The ROC curve associated with the multivariate model revealed a predictive power of 77.8% (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer - interval type is more common in the proximal colon and in patients with a family history (first-degree relative) of colorectal cancer, two or more cardiovascular risk factors, and a history of cholecystectomy. All of these are easily detectable in clinical practice and may be of extreme importance in the control of postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer in the near future.

Magnitude and Time-Trends of Post-Endoscopy Esophageal Adenocarcinoma and Post-Endoscopy Esophageal Neoplasia in a Population-Based Cohort Study: The Nordic Barrett's Esophagus Study

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Post-endoscopy esophageal adenocarcinoma (PEEC) and post-endoscopy esophageal neoplasia (PEEN) undermine early cancer detection in Barrett's esophagus (BE). We aimed to assess the magnitude and conduct time-trend analysis of PEEC and PEEN among patients with newly diagnosed BE.

METHODS

This population-based cohort study was conducted in Denmark, Finland, and Sweden between 2006 and 2020 and included 20,588 patients with newly diagnosed BE. PEEC and PEEN were defined as esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) or high-grade dysplasia (HGD)/EAC, respectively, diagnosed 30-365 days from BE diagnosis (index endoscopy). HGD/EAC diagnosed from 0-29 days and HGD/EAC diagnosed >365 days from BE diagnosis (incident HGD/EAC) were assessed. Patients were followed up until HGD/EAC, death, or end of study period. Incidence rates (IR) per 100,000 person-years with 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were calculated using Poisson regression.

RESULTS

Among 293 patients diagnosed with EAC, 69 (23.5%) were categorized as PEEC, 43 (14.7%) as index EAC, and 181 (61.8%) as incident EAC. The IRs/100,000 person-years for PEEC and incident EAC were 392 (95% CI, 309-496), and 208 (95% CI, 180-241), respectively. Among 279 patients diagnosed with HGD/EAC (Sweden only), 17.2% were categorized as PEEN, 14.6% as index HGD/EAC, and 68.1% as incident HGD/EAC. IRs/100,000 person-years for PEEN, and incident HGD/EAC were 421 (95% CI, 317-558), and 285 (95% CI, 247-328), respectively. Sensitivity analyses that varied time interval for occurrence of PEEC/PEEN demonstrated similar results. A time-trend analysis for IRs demonstrated rising incidence rates of PEEC/PEEN.

CONCLUSIONS

Almost a quarter of all EACs are detected within a year after an ostensibly negative upper endoscopy in patients with newly diagnosed BE. Interventions to improve detection may reduce PEEC/PEEN rates.

Risk of Incident and Fatal Colorectal Cancer After Young-Onset Adenoma Diagnosis: A National Cohort Study

INTRODUCTION

Colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality rates are increasing in adults aged <50 years. Young-onset adenoma (YOA)-adenoma detected in adults younger than 50 years-may signify increased CRC risk, but this association has not been widely studied. Our aim was to compare the risk of incident and fatal CRC in adults aged <50 years with YOA diagnosis compared with those with a normal colonoscopy.

METHODS

We conducted a cohort study of US Veterans aged 18-49 years who received colonoscopy between 2005 and 2016. The primary exposure of interest was YOA. Primary outcomes included incident and fatal CRC. We used Kaplan-Meier curves to calculate cumulative incident and fatal CRC risk and Cox models to examine relative CRC risk.

RESULTS

The study cohort included 54,284 Veterans aged <50 years exposed to colonoscopy, among whom 13% (n = 7,233) had YOA at start of follow-up. Cumulative 10-year CRC incidence was 0.11% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.00%-0.27%) after any adenoma diagnosis, 0.18% (95% CI: 0.02%-0.53%) after advanced YOA diagnosis, 0.10% (95% CI: 0.00%-0.28%) after nonadvanced adenoma diagnosis, and 0.06% (95% CI: 0.02%-0.09%) after normal colonoscopy. Veterans with advanced adenoma had 8-fold greater incident CRC risk than those with normal colonoscopy (hazard ratio: 8.0; 95% CI: 1.8-35.6). Across groups, no differences in fatal CRC risk were observed.

DISCUSSION

Young-onset advanced adenoma diagnosis was associated with 8-fold increased incident CRC risk compared with normal colonoscopy. However, cumulative CRC incidence and mortality at 10 years among individuals with either young onset non-advanced or advanced adenoma diagnosis were both relatively low.

Recommendations for Optimal Endoscopic Localization of Colorectal Neoplasms: A Delphi Consensus of National Experts

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopy is the standard of care for diagnosis and evaluation of colorectal cancers before surgery. However, varied practices and heterogenous documentation affects communication between endoscopists and operating surgeons, hampering surgical planning.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to develop recommendations for the use of standardized localization and reporting practices for colorectal lesions identified during lower GI endoscopy.

DESIGN

A systematic review of existing endoscopy guidelines and thorough narrative review of the overall endoscopy literature were performed to identify existing practices recommended globally.

SETTING

An online Delphi process was used to establish consensus recommendations based on a literature review.

PATIENTS

Colorectal surgeons and gastroenterologists from across Canada who had previously demonstrated leadership in endoscopy, managed large endoscopy programs, produced high-impact publications in the field of endoscopy, or participated in the development of endoscopy guidelines were selected to participate.

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcomes measured were colorectal lesion localization and documentation practice recommendations important to planning surgical or advanced endoscopic excisions.

RESULTS

A total of 129 of 197 statements achieved consensus after 3 rounds of voting by 23 experts from across Canada. There was more than 90% participation in each round. Recommendations varied according to lesion location in the cecum, colon, or rectum and whether the referral was planned for surgical or advanced endoscopic resection. Recommendations were provided for appropriate documentation, indications, location, and method of tattoo placement, in addition to photograph and real-time 3-dimensional scope configuration device use.

LIMITATIONS

Because of a paucity of evidence, recommendations are based primarily on expert opinion. There may be bias, as all representatives were based in Canada.

CONCLUSIONS

Best practices to optimize endoscopic lesion localization and communication are not addressed in previous guidelines. This consensus involving national experts in colorectal surgery and gastroenterology provides a framework for efficient and effective colorectal lesion localization. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/C71 .

RECOMENDACIONES PARA LA LOCALIZACIN ENDOSCPICA PTIMA DE LAS NEOPLASIAS COLORRECTALES UN CONSENSO DELPHI DE EXPERTOS NACIONALES

ANTECEDENTES:La colonoscopia es el estándar de atención para el diagnóstico y la evaluación de los cánceres colorrectales antes de la cirugía. Sin embargo, las prácticas variadas y la documentación heterogénea afectan la comunicación entre los endoscopistas y los cirujanos operadores, lo que dificulta la planificación quirúrgica.OBJETIVO:Este estudio tuvo como objetivo desarrollar recomendaciones para el uso de prácticas estandarizadas de localización y notificación de lesiones colorrectales identificadas en la endoscopia gastrointestinal inferior.DISEÑO:Se realizó una revisión sistemática de las pautas de endoscopia existentes y una revisión narrativa exhaustiva de la literatura general sobre endoscopia para identificar las prácticas existentes recomendadas a nivel mundial. Se utilizó un proceso Delphi en línea para establecer recomendaciones de consenso basadas en la revisión de la literatura.PARTICIPANTES:Se seleccionaron para participar cirujanos colorrectales y gastroenterólogos de todo Canadá que previamente habían demostrado liderazgo en endoscopia, manejado grandes programas de endoscopia, producido publicaciones de alto impacto en el campo de la endoscopia o que habían participado en el desarrollo de pautas de endoscopia.RESULTADOS:Localización de lesiones colorrectales y recomendaciones prácticas de documentación importantes para planificar escisiones quirúrgicas o endoscópicas avanzadas.RESULTADOS:129 de 197 declaraciones lograron consenso después de tres rondas de votación de 23 expertos de todo Canadá. Hubo >90% de participación en cada ronda. Las recomendaciones variaron según la ubicación de la lesión en el ciego, colon o recto, y si se planificó la derivación para resección quirúrgica o endoscópica avanzada. Se proporcionaron recomendaciones para la documentación adecuada, las indicaciones, la ubicación y el método de colocación del tatuaje, además de la fotografía y el uso del dispositivo de configuración del alcance 3D en tiempo real.LIMITACIONES:Debido a la escasez de evidencia, las recomendaciones se basan principalmente en la opinión de expertos. Puede haber sesgo, ya que los representantes tenían su sede en Canadá.CONCLUSIONES:Las mejores prácticas para optimizar la localización y comunicación de lesiones endoscópicas no se abordan en las guías anteriores. Este consenso que involucra a expertos nacionales en cirugía colorrectal y gastroenterología proporciona un marco para la localización eficiente y efectiva de lesiones colorrectales. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/C71 . (Traducción-Dr. Mauricio Santamaria ).

Development and validation of a risk prediction model for post-polypectomy colorectal cancer in the USA: a prospective cohort study

Background

Effective risk stratification tools for post-polypectomy colorectal cancer (PPCRC) are lacking. We aimed to develop an effective risk stratification tool for the prediction of PPCRC in three large population-based cohorts and to validate the tool in a clinical cohort.

Methods

Leveraging the integrated endoscopic, histopathologic and epidemiologic data in three U.S population-based cohorts of health professional (the Nurses' Health Study (NHS) I, II and Health Professionals Follow-up Study (HPFS)), we developed a risk score to predict incident PPCRC among 26,741 patients with a polypectomy between 1986 and 2017. We validated the PPCRC score in the Mass General Brigham (MGB) Colonoscopy Cohort (Boston, Massachusetts, U.S) of 76,603 patients with a polypectomy between 2007 and 2018. In all four cohorts, we collected detailed data on patients' demographics, endoscopic history, polyp features, and lifestyle factors at polypectomy. The outcome, incidence of PPCRC, was assessed by biennial follow-up questionnaires in the NHS/HPFS cohorts, and through linkage to the Massachusetts Cancer Registry in the MGB cohort. In all four cohorts, individuals who were diagnosed with CRC or died before baseline or within six months after baseline were excluded. We used Cox regression to calculate the hazard ratio (HR), 95% confidence interval (CI) and assessed the discrimination using C-statistics and reclassification using the Net Reclassification Improvement (NRI).

Findings

During a median follow-up of 12.8 years (interquartile range (IQR): 9.3, 16.7) and 5.1 years (IQR: 2.7, 7.8) in the NHS/HPFS and MGB cohorts, we documented 220 and 241 PPCRC cases, respectively. We identified a PPCRC risk score based on 11 predictors. In the validation cohort, the PPCRC risk score showed a strong association with PPCRC risk (HR for high vs. low, 3.55, 95% CI, 2.59-4.88) and demonstrated a C-statistic (95% CI) of 0.75 (0.70-0.79), and was discriminatory even within the low- and high-risk polyp groups (C-statistic, 0.73 and 0.71, respectively) defined by the current colonoscopy surveillance recommendations, leading to a NRI of 45% (95% CI, 36-54%) for patients with PPCRC.

Interpretation

We developed and validated a risk stratification model for PPCRC that may be useful to guide tailored colonoscopy surveillance. Further work is needed to determine the optimal surveillance interval and test the added value of other predictors of PPCRC beyond those included in the current study, along with implementation studies.

Funding

US National Institutes of Health, the American Cancer Society, the South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority, the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft.

Colorectal cancer and advanced adenoma incidence during post-polypectomy surveillance: a national cohort study in the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme

BACKGROUND

Improved colonoscopy quality has led to debate about whether all post-polypectomy surveillance is justified. We evaluated surveillance within the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) to determine the yield of surveillance and identify predictive factors for surveillance outcome.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study of individuals undergoing post-polypectomy surveillance between July 2006 and January 2017. BCSP records were linked to the National Cancer Registration Database to identify interval-type post-colonoscopy colorectal cancers (CRCs). Advanced adenoma and CRC at surveillance were documented. CRC incidence was compared with the general population using standardized incidence ratios (SIRs). Predictors of advanced adenomas at first surveillance (S1), and CRC during follow-up, were identified.

RESULTS

44 151 individuals (23 078 intermediate risk; 21 073 high risk) underwent 64 544 surveillance episodes. Advanced adenoma and CRC yields were, respectively, 10.0 % and 0.5 % at S1, 8.5 % and 0.4 % at S2, and 10.8 % and 0.4 % at S3. S1 yield was lowest in those with one index adenoma ≥ 10 mm (advanced adenoma 6.1 %; CRC 0.3 %). The SIR was 0.76 (95 %CI 0.66-0.88), accounted for by the intermediate risk group (intermediate risk SIR 0.61, 95 %CI 0.49-0.75; high risk SIR 0.95, 95 %CI 0.79-1.15). Adenoma multiplicity, presence of a large nonpedunculated adenoma, and greater villous component were associated with advanced adenoma at S1. Older age and multiplicity were significantly associated with CRC risk.

CONCLUSION

This large, national analysis found low levels of CRC in those undergoing surveillance and low advanced adenoma yield in most subgroups. Less intensive surveillance in some subgroups is warranted, and surveillance may be avoided in those with a single large adenoma.

Polyps are detected more often in early colonoscopies

OBJECTIVE

To examine the time variation in polyp detection for colonoscopies performed in a tertiary hospital and to explore independent factors that predict polyp detection rate (PDR).

METHODS

Data on all patients who underwent colonoscopy for the diagnostic purpose at our endoscopy center in Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University from January 2021 to December 2021 were reviewed. The start time of included colonoscopies for eligible patients was recorded. PDR and polyps detected per colonoscopy (PPC) were calculated. The endoscopists' schedules were classified into full-day and half-day shifts according to their participation in the morning and afternoon colonoscopies.

RESULTS

Data on a total of 12116 colonoscopies were analyzed, with a PDR of 38.03% for all the patients and 46.38% for patients ≥50 years. PDR and PPC significantly decreased as the day progressed (both p < .001). For patients ≥50 years, PDR declined below 40% at 13:00-13:59 and 16:00-16:59. The PDR in the morning was higher than that in the afternoon for both half-day (p = .019) and full-day procedures (p < .001). In multivariate analysis, start time, patient gender, age, conscious sedation, and bowel preparation quality significantly predicted PDR (p < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

The polyp detection declined as the day progressed. A continuous work schedule resulted in a subpar PDR. Colonoscopies performed in the morning had a higher PDR than that in the afternoon. Patient gender, age, conscious sedation, and bowel preparation quality were identified as the independent predictors of PDR.

Adenoma detection rate in colonoscopy: how can it be improved?

INTRODUCTION

The introduction of widespread colonoscopy screening programs has helped in decreasing the incidence of Colorectal Cancer (CRC). However, 'back-to-back' colonoscopies revealed relevant percentage of missed adenomas. Quality indicators were created to further homogenize detection performances and decrease the incidence of post-colonoscopy CRC. Among them, the Adenoma Detection Rate (ADR), defined as the percentage obtained by dividing the number of endoscopic procedures in which at least one adenoma was resected, by the total number of procedures, was found to be inversely associated with the risks of interval colorectal cancer, advanced-stage interval cancer, and fatal interval cancer.

AREAS COVERED

In this paper, we performed a comprehensive review of the literature focusing on promising new devices and technologies, which are meant to positively affect the endoscopist performance in detecting adenomas, therefore increasing ADR.

EXPERT OPINION

Considering the current knowledge, although several devices and technologies have been proposed with this intent, the recent implementation of AI ranked over all of the other strategies and it is likely to become the new standard within few years. However, the combination of different device/technologies need to be investigated in the future aiming at even further increasing of endoscopist detection performances.

Perceived Importance of the Benefits and Harms of Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Best-Worst Scaling Study

OBJECTIVES

To elicit the relative importance of the benefits and harms of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening among potential screening participants in the Dutch population.

METHODS

In a consensus meeting with 11 experts, risk reduction of CRC and CRC deaths (benefits) and complications from colonoscopy, stress of receiving positive fecal immunological test (FIT) results, as well as false-positive and false-negative FIT results (harms) were selected as determinant end points to consider during decision making. We conducted an online best-worst scaling survey among adults aged 55 to 75 years from the Dutch Health Care Consumer Panel of The Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research to elicit preference values for these outcomes. The preference values were estimated using conditional logit regression.

RESULTS

Of 265 participants, 234 (89%) had ever participated in CRC screening. Compared with the stress of receiving a positive FIT result, the outcome perceived most important was the risk of CRC death (odds ratio [OR] 4.5; 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.9-5.1), followed by risk of CRC (OR 4.1; 95% CI 3.6-4.7), a false-negative FIT result (OR 3.1; 95% CI 2.7-3.5), colonoscopy complications (OR 1.6; 95% CI 1.4-1.8), and a false-positive FIT result (OR 1.4; 95% CI 1.3-1.6). The magnitude of these differences in perceived importance varied according to age, educational level, ethnic background, and whether the individual had previously participated in CRC screening.

CONCLUSION

Dutch men and women eligible for FIT-based CRC screening perceive the benefits of screening to be more important than the harms.

Post-colonoscopy cancer rate at a tertiary referral hospital in Australia: A data linkage analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Colorectal cancer (CRC) diagnosed following a cancer-negative colonoscopy is termed as post-colonoscopy CRC (PCCRC). The World Endoscopy Organization has recently standardized the definition of PCCRC-3Y (CRC developing within 3 years of a cancer-negative colonoscopy). In the present study, we sought to assess PCCRC-3Y rate, perform root-cause analyses, and identify factors associated with development of PCCRC at a tertiary referral hospital in Australia.

METHODS

All patients undergoing colonoscopy from 2011 to 2018 were matched to a population-based cancer register. PCCRC-3Y rate was assessed for years 2011-2015. All PCCRC cases that developed within 6-48 months after a cancer-negative colonoscopy underwent root-cause analyses. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize data.

RESULTS

Among 17 828 patients undergoing colonoscopy, 367 CRC cases were diagnosed during the study period. This included nine PCCRC cases, which developed at a median of 14 months (range 7-34 months) after cancer-negative colonoscopy. The PCCRC-3Y rate for years 2011-2015 was 2.16% (95% CI 0.91-5.15). All nine PCCRC cases were moderately or poorly differentiated adenocarcinomas; seven of nine were early-stage CRC (stages I and II) and six of nine probably represented missed lesions at index colonoscopy despite an apparently adequate examination. History of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) (odds ratio [OR] 21.9, 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.6-103.7, P < 0.001) and diverticulosis (OR 5.4, 95% CI 1.4-20.5, P = 0.01) were significantly associated with development of missed CRC.

CONCLUSIONS

In our tertiary referral colonoscopy cohort, PCCRC-3Y rate was 2.16% (95% CI 0.91-5.15). IBD and diverticulosis were significantly associated with risk of PCCRC. The majority of PCCRC lesions were likely missed at index colonoscopy, despite an apparently adequate examination.