Post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC) rates vary considerably depending on the method used to calculate them: a retrospective observational population-based study of PCCRC in the English National Health Service

An artificial intelligence-assisted system versus white light endoscopy alone for adenoma detection in individuals with Lynch syndrome (TIMELY): an international, multicentre, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Computer-aided detection (CADe) systems for colonoscopy have been shown to increase small polyp detection during colonoscopy in the general population. People with Lynch syndrome represent an ideal target population for CADe-assisted colonoscopy because adenomas, the primary cancer precursor lesions, are characterised by their small size and higher likelihood of showing advanced histology. We aimed to evaluate the performance of CADe-assisted colonoscopy in detecting adenomas in individuals with Lynch syndrome.

METHODS

TIMELY was an international, multicentre, parallel, randomised controlled trial done in 11 academic centres and six community centres in Belgium, Germany, Italy, and Spain. We enrolled individuals aged 18 years or older with pathogenic or likely pathogenic MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, or EPCAM variants. Participants were consecutively randomly assigned (1:1) to either CADe (GI Genius) assisted white light endoscopy (WLE) or WLE alone. A centre-stratified randomisation sequence was generated through a computer-generated system with a separate randomisation list for each centre according to block-permuted randomisation (block size 26 patients per centre). Allocation was automatically provided by the online AEG-REDCap database. Participants were masked to the random assignment but endoscopists were not. The primary outcome was the mean number of adenomas per colonoscopy, calculated by dividing the total number of adenomas detected by the total number of colonoscopies and assessed in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04909671.

FINDINGS

Between Sept 13, 2021, and April 6, 2023, 456 participants were screened for eligibility, 430 of whom were randomly assigned to receive CADe-assisted colonoscopy (n=214) or WLE (n=216). 256 (60%) participants were female and 174 (40%) were male. In the intention-to-treat analysis, the mean number of adenomas per colonoscopy was 0·64 (SD 1·57) in the CADe group and 0·64 (1·17) in the WLE group (adjusted rate ratio 1·03 [95% CI 0·72-1·47); p=0·87). No adverse events were reported during the trial.

INTERPRETATION

In this multicentre international trial, CADe did not improve the detection of adenomas in individuals with Lynch syndrome. High-quality procedures and thorough inspection and exposure of the colonic mucosa remain the cornerstone in surveillance of Lynch syndrome.

FUNDING

Spanish Gastroenterology Association, Spanish Society of Digestive Endoscopy, European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, Societat Catalana de Digestologia, Instituto Carlos III, Beca de la Marato de TV3 2020. Co-funded by the European Union.

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.

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.

The durability of previous examinations for cancer: Danish nationwide cohort study

OBJECTIVE

Patients previously examined for cancer with a negative result may present in general practice with ongoing or new symptoms or signs suggestive of cancer. This paper explores the potential existence of a relatively safe period for cancer occurrence after receiving negative examination results for specific types of cancer, including lung (CT thorax), upper gastrointestinal (gastroscopy), colorectal (colonoscopy), bladder (cystoscopy), and breast (clinical mammography).

DESIGN

Register-based time-to-event analyses.

SETTING

Denmark.

SUBJECTS

All 3.3 million citizens aged 30-85 years who on January first, 2017, had not previously been diagnosed with the specific type of cancer were categorized based on the time since their most recent examination.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Using 1-year follow-up, we calculated the age- and sex-adjusted hazard ratios of being diagnosed with the related cancer, with non-examined individuals as reference. Negative examination results were defined as the absence of a cancer diagnosis within 6 months following the examination.

RESULTS

Previous negative examination results were common, also among those diagnosed with cancer during follow-up. For 10 years after a negative colonoscopy the risk of diagnosing a colorectal cancer was nearly halved. However, already 1 year after a clinical mammography and 2 years after a CT thorax the risk of diagnosing the related cancers was significantly higher among those with a previous negative result compared to non-examined individuals.

CONCLUSION

This study did not identify a post-examination period in which the cancer risk, compared to non-examined individuals, was sufficiently low to confidently rule out any of the investigated cancers.

Nationally Automated Colonoscopy Performance Feedback Increases Polyp Detection: The NED APRIQOT Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer incidence and mortality rates are higher for endoscopists with low polyp detection rates. Using the UK's National Endoscopy Database (NED), which automatically captures real-time data, we assessed if providing feedback of case-mix-adjusted mean number of polyps (aMNP), as a key performance indicator, improved endoscopists' performance. Feedback was delivered via a theory-informed, evidence-based audit and feedback intervention.

METHODS

This multicenter, prospective, NED Automated Performance Reports to Improve Quality Outcomes Trial randomized National Health Service endoscopy centers to intervention or control. Intervention-arm endoscopists were e-mailed tailored monthly reports automatically generated within NED, informed by qualitative interviews and behavior change theory. The primary outcome was endoscopists' aMNP during the 9-month intervention.

RESULTS

From November 2020 to July 2021, 541 endoscopists across 36 centers (19 intervention; 17 control) performed 54,770 procedures during the intervention, and 15,960 procedures during the 3-month postintervention period. Comparing the intervention arm with the control arm, endoscopists during the intervention period: aMNP was nonsignificantly higher (7%; 95% CI, -1% to 14%; P = .08). The unadjusted MNP (10%; 95% CI, 1%-20%) and polyp detection rate (10%; 95% CI, 4%-16%) were significantly higher. Differences were not maintained in the postintervention period. In the intervention arm, endoscopists accessing NED Automated Performance Reports to Improve Quality Outcomes Trial webpages had a higher aMNP than those who did not (aMNP, 118 vs 102; P = .03).

CONCLUSIONS

Although our automated feedback intervention did not increase aMNP significantly in the intervention period, MNP and polyp detection rate did improve significantly. Engaged endoscopists benefited most and improvements were not maintained postintervention; future work should address engagement in feedback and consider the effectiveness of continuous feedback.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRY

 www.isrctn.org ISRCTN11126923 .

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.

Artificial intelligence in screening and diagnosis of surgical diseases: A narrative review

Artificial intelligence (AI) is playing an increasing role in several fields of medicine. It is also gaining popularity among surgeons as a valuable screening and diagnostic tool for many conditions such as benign and malignant colorectal, gastric, thyroid, parathyroid, and breast disorders. In the literature, there is no review that groups together the various application domains of AI when it comes to the screening and diagnosis of main surgical diseases. The aim of this review is to describe the use of AI in these settings. We performed a literature review by searching PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Embase for all studies investigating the role of AI in the surgical setting, published between January 01, 2000, and June 30, 2023. Our focus was on randomized controlled trials (RCTs), meta-analysis, systematic reviews, and observational studies, dealing with large cohorts of patients. We then gathered further relevant studies from the reference list of the selected publications. Based on the studies reviewed, it emerges that AI could strongly enhance the screening efficiency, clinical ability, and diagnostic accuracy for several surgical conditions. Some of the future advantages of this technology include implementing, speeding up, and improving the automaticity with which AI recognizes, differentiates, and classifies the various conditions.

Occurrence of Colorectal Cancer After a Negative Colonoscopy in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND/AIM

Despite the application of colorectal cancer (CRC) surveillance guidelines, the detection of early neoplastic lesions might be difficult in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). To explore the risk of post-colonoscopy CRC (PCCRC) in patients with IBD we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed (PROSPERO; no. CRD42023453049). We included studies reporting the 3-year PCCRC (PCCRC-3y) prevalence, according to World Endoscopy Organization (WEO)-endorsed definition, in IBD and non-IBD patients. As primary outcome we evaluated the PCCRC-3y prevalence, according to WEO definitions, in IBD- and non-IBD patients and calculated the odds ratio (OR). The secondary outcome was to assess risk factors for PCCRC development in IBD patients.

RESULTS

Three retrospective observational cohort studies were included. The pooled PCCRC-3y rate in patients with IBD was 30.8% [95% confidence interval (CI)=24.4-37.5%] and in non-IBD patients was 6.8% (95%CI=6.2-7.4%). The PCCRC-3y occurrence in IBD patients was significantly higher than that in non-IBD patients (OR=6.04; 95%CI=4.04-9.4; I2=95%), but a high heterogeneity among studies was noted. Furthermore, patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) had a significantly higher prevalence of PCCRC than patients with Crohn's Disease (CD): 30.9% (95%CI=27.8-34.2%) vs. 22.3% (95%CI=18-27%), respectively (OR=1.6, 95%CI=1.2-2.2; I2=0%).

CONCLUSION

One-third of CRC in IBD patients were PCCRC, and these numbers were significantly higher when compared with those in non-IBD patients. Furthermore, the prevalence of PCCRC in patients with UC was higher compared to those with CD. However, prospective studies are required to better characterize risk factors for PCCRC development in patients with IBD.

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.

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.

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.

Adenoma Detection Rate and Colorectal Cancer Risk in Fecal Immunochemical Test Screening Programs : An Observational Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs based on fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) represent the standard of care for population-based interventions. Their benefit depends on the identification of neoplasia at colonoscopy after FIT positivity. Colonoscopy quality measured by adenoma detection rate (ADR) may affect screening program effectiveness.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the association between ADR and postcolonoscopy CRC (PCCRC) risk in a FIT-based screening program.

DESIGN

Retrospective population-based cohort study.

SETTING

Fecal immunochemical test-based CRC screening program between 2003 and 2021 in northeastern Italy.

PATIENTS

All patients with a positive FIT result who had a colonoscopy were included.

MEASUREMENTS

The regional cancer registry supplied information on any PCCRC diagnosed between 6 months and 10 years after colonoscopy. Endoscopists' ADR was categorized into 5 groups (20% to 39.9%, 40% to 44.9%, 45% to 49.9%, 50% to 54.9%, and 55% to 70%). To examine the association of ADR with PCCRC incidence risk, Cox regression models were fitted to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs.

RESULTS

Of the 110 109 initial colonoscopies, 49 626 colonoscopies done by 113 endoscopists between 2012 and 2017 were included. After 328 778 person-years follow-up, 277 cases of PCCRC were diagnosed. Mean ADR was 48.3% (range, 23% and 70%). Incidence rates of PCCRC from lowest to highest ADR group were 13.13, 10.61, 7.60, 6.01, and 5.78 per 10 000 person-years. There was a significant inverse association between ADR and PCCRC incidence risk, with a 2.35-fold risk increase (95% CI, 1.63 to 3.38) in the lowest group compared with the highest. The adjusted HR for PCCRC associated with 1% increase in ADR was 0.96 (CI, 0.95 to 0.98).

LIMITATION

Adenoma detection rate is partly determined by FIT positivity cutoff; exact values may vary in different settings.

CONCLUSION

In a FIT-based screening program, ADR is inversely associated with PCCRC incidence risk, mandating appropriate colonoscopy quality monitoring in this setting. Increasing endoscopists' ADR may significantly reduce PCCRC risk.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

None.

An Evaluation of Critical Factors for the Cost-Effectiveness of Real-Time Computer-Aided Detection: Sensitivity and Threshold Analyses Using a Microsimulation Model

BACKGROUND

The use of computer-aided detection (CAD) increases the adenoma detection rates (ADRs) during colorectal cancer (CRC) screening/surveillance. This study aimed to evaluate the requirements for CAD to be cost-effective and the impact of CAD on adenoma detection by endoscopists with different ADRs.

METHODS

We developed a semi-Markov microsimulation model to compare the effectiveness of traditional colonoscopy (mean ADR, 26%) to colonoscopy with CAD (mean ADR, 37%). CAD was modeled as having a $75 per-procedure cost. Extensive 1-way sensitivity and threshold analysis were performed to vary cost and ADR of CAD. Multiple scenarios evaluated the potential effect of CAD on endoscopists' ADRs. Outcome measures were reported in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, with a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/quality-adjusted life year.

RESULTS

When modeling CAD improved ADR for all endoscopists, the CAD cohort had 79 and 34 fewer lifetime CRC cases and deaths, respectively, per 10,000 persons. This scenario was dominant with a cost savings of $143 and incremental effectiveness of 0.01 quality-adjusted life years. Threshold analysis demonstrated that CAD would be cost-effective up to an additional cost of $579 per colonoscopy, or if it increases ADR from 26% to at least 30%. CAD reduced CRC incidence and mortality when limited to improving ADRs for low-ADR endoscopists (ADR <25%), with 67 fewer CRC cases and 28 CRC deaths per 10,000 persons compared with traditional colonoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

As CAD is implemented clinically, it needs to improve mean ADR from 26% to at least 30% or cost less than $579 per colonoscopy to be cost-effective when compared with traditional colonoscopy. Further studies are needed to understand the impact of CAD on community practice.

Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Colonoscopy for Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted colonoscopy improves polyp detection and characterization in colonoscopy. However, data from large-scale multicenter randomized controlled trials (RCT) in an asymptomatic population are lacking.

METHODS

This multicenter RCT aimed to compare AI-assisted colonoscopy with conventional colonoscopy for adenoma detection in an asymptomatic population. Asymptomatic subjects 45-75 years of age undergoing colorectal cancer screening by direct colonoscopy or fecal immunochemical test were recruited in 6 referral centers in Hong Kong, Jilin, Inner Mongolia, Xiamen, and Beijing. In the AI-assisted colonoscopy, an AI polyp detection system (Eagle-Eye) with real-time notification on the same monitor of the endoscopy system was used. The primary outcome was overall adenoma detection rate (ADR). Secondary outcomes were mean number of adenomas per colonoscopy, ADR according to endoscopist's experience, and colonoscopy withdrawal time. This study received Institutional Review Board approval (CRE-2019.393).

RESULTS

From November 2019 to August 2021, 3059 subjects were randomized to AI-assisted colonoscopy (n = 1519) and conventional colonoscopy (n = 1540). Baseline characteristics and bowel preparation quality between the 2 groups were similar. The overall ADR (39.9% vs 32.4%; P < .001), advanced ADR (6.6% vs 4.9%; P = .041), ADR of expert (42.3% vs 32.8%; P < .001) and nonexpert endoscopists (37.5% vs 32.1%; P = .023), and adenomas per colonoscopy (0.59 ± 0.97 vs 0.45 ± 0.81; P < .001) were all significantly higher in the AI-assisted colonoscopy. The median withdrawal time (8.3 minutes vs 7.8 minutes; P = .004) was slightly longer in the AI-assisted colonoscopy group.

CONCLUSIONS

In this multicenter RCT in asymptomatic patients, AI-assisted colonoscopy improved overall ADR, advanced ADR, and ADR of both expert and nonexpert attending endoscopists. (ClinicalTrials.gov, Number: NCT04422548).

A Focused Clinical Review of Lynch Syndrome

Lynch syndrome (LS) is an autosomal dominant condition that increases an individual's risk of a constellation of cancers. LS is defined when an individual has inherited pathogenic variants in the mismatch repair genes. Currently, most people with LS are undiagnosed. Early detection of LS is vital as those with LS can be enrolled in cancer reduction strategies through chemoprophylaxis, risk reducing surgery and cancer surveillance. However, these interventions are often invasive and require refinement. Furthermore, not all LS associated cancers are currently amenable to surveillance. Historically only those with a strong family history suggestive of LS were offered testing; this has proved far too restrictive. New criteria for testing have recently been introduced including the universal screening for LS in associated cancers. This has increased the number of people being diagnosed with LS but has also brought about unique challenges such as when to consent for germline testing and questions over how and who should carry out the consent. The results of germline testing for LS can be complicated and the diagnostic pathway is not always clear. Furthermore, by testing only those with cancer for LS we fail to identify these individuals before they develop potentially fatal pathology. This review will outline these challenges and explore solutions. Furthermore, we consider the potential future of LS care and the related treatments and interventions which are the current focus of research.

Characteristics of Interval Colorectal Cancer: A Canadian Retrospective Population-Level Analysis from Newfoundland and Labrador

Interval colorectal cancers (I-CRCs) arise during the interval time period between scheduled colonoscopies. Predicting which patients are at risk of I-CRCs remains an elusive undertaking, but evidence would suggest that most I-CRCs arise from lesions missed on index endoscopy. The procedural factors that lead to missed lesions are numerous and lack consensus in the literature. In Canada, the province of Newfoundland and Labrador has the highest incidence of CRCs. In this study our aim was to examine I-CRCs (3-60 months after last colonoscopy) in NL through a population-level analysis covering 67% of the province from 2001-2018. We estimated the I-CRC rate to be up to 9.3%. Median age of I-CRC diagnosis was 67.1 years with an interval time of 2.9 years. About 57% of these tumors occurred proximal to the splenic flexure, with 53% presenting as local disease. No temporal differences were observed in interval time or tumor distribution. On univariate and multivariable logistical regression, risk of right-sided I-CRC did not correlate to the index colonoscopy indication, bowel preparation quality, size of largest polyp removed, colonoscopy completion rate, or stage at presentation. Improvements in synoptic reporting utilization and national registries are needed to identity risk factors and reduce I-CRC frequency.

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.

Artificial intelligence and machine learning in colorectal cancer

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a heterogeneous illness characterized by various epigenetic and microenvironmental changes and is the third-highest cause of cancer-related death in the US. Artificial intelligence (AI) with its ability to allow automatic learning and improvement from experiences using statistical methods and Deep learning has made a distinctive contribution to the diagnosis and treatment of several cancer types. This review discusses the uses and application of AI in CRC screening using automated polyp detection assistance technologies to the development of computer-assisted diagnostic algorithms capable of accurately detecting polyps during colonoscopy and classifying them. Furthermore, we summarize the current research initiatives geared towards building computer-assisted diagnostic algorithms that aim at improving the diagnostic accuracy of benign from premalignant lesions. Considering the evolving transition to more personalized and tailored treatment strategies for CRC, the review also discusses the development of machine learning algorithms to understand responses to therapies and mechanisms of resistance as well as the future roles that AI applications may play in assisting in the treatment of CRC with the aim to improve disease outcomes. We also discuss the constraints and limitations of the use of AI systems. While the medical profession remains enthusiastic about the future of AI and machine learning, large-scale randomized clinical trials are needed to analyze AI algorithms before they can be used.

Colonoscopy surveillance following adenoma removal to reduce the risk of colorectal cancer: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopy surveillance is recommended for some patients post polypectomy. The 2002 UK surveillance guidelines classify post-polypectomy patients into low, intermediate and high risk, and recommend different strategies for each classification. Limited evidence supports these guidelines.

OBJECTIVES

To examine, for each risk group, long-term colorectal cancer incidence by baseline characteristics and the number of surveillance visits; the effects of interval length on detection rates of advanced adenomas and colorectal cancer at first surveillance; and the cost-effectiveness of surveillance compared with no surveillance.

DESIGN

A retrospective cohort study and economic evaluation.

SETTING

Seventeen NHS hospitals.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients with a colonoscopy and at least one adenoma at baseline.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Long-term colorectal cancer incidence after baseline and detection rates of advanced adenomas and colorectal cancer at first surveillance.

DATA SOURCES

Hospital databases, NHS Digital, the Office for National Statistics, National Services Scotland and Public Health England.

METHODS

Cox regression was used to compare colorectal cancer incidence in the presence and absence of surveillance and to identify colorectal cancer risk factors. Risk factors were used to stratify risk groups into higher- and lower-risk subgroups. We examined detection rates of advanced adenomas and colorectal cancer at first surveillance by interval length. Cost-effectiveness of surveillance compared with no surveillance was evaluated in terms of incremental costs per colorectal cancer prevented and per quality-adjusted life-year gained.

RESULTS

Our study included 28,972 patients, of whom 14,401 (50%), 11,852 (41%) and 2719 (9%) were classed as low, intermediate and high risk, respectively. The median follow-up time was 9.3 years. Colorectal cancer incidence was 140, 221 and 366 per 100,000 person-years among low-, intermediate- and high-risk patients, respectively. Attendance at one surveillance visit was associated with reduced colorectal cancer incidence among low-, intermediate- and high-risk patients [hazard ratios were 0.56 (95% confidence interval 0.39 to 0.80), 0.59 (95% confidence interval 0.43 to 0.81) and 0.49 (95% confidence interval 0.29 to 0.82), respectively]. Compared with the general population, colorectal cancer incidence without surveillance was similar among low-risk patients and higher among high-risk patients [standardised incidence ratios were 0.86 (95% confidence interval 0.73 to 1.02) and 1.91 (95% confidence interval 1.39 to 2.56), respectively]. For intermediate-risk patients, standardised incidence ratios differed for the lower- (0.70, 95% confidence interval 0.48 to 0.99) and higher-risk (1.46, 95% confidence interval 1.19 to 1.78) subgroups. In each risk group, incremental costs per colorectal cancer prevented and per quality-adjusted life-year gained with surveillance were lower for the higher-risk subgroup than for the lower-risk subgroup. Incremental costs per quality-adjusted life-year gained were lowest for the higher-risk subgroup of high-risk patients at £7821.

LIMITATIONS

The observational design means that we cannot assume that surveillance caused the reductions in cancer incidence. The fact that some cancer staging data were missing places uncertainty on our cost-effectiveness estimates.

CONCLUSIONS

Surveillance was associated with reduced colorectal cancer incidence in all risk groups. However, in low-risk patients and the lower-risk subgroup of intermediate-risk patients, colorectal cancer incidence was no higher than in the general population without surveillance, indicating that surveillance might not be necessary. Surveillance was most cost-effective for the higher-risk subgroup of high-risk patients.

FUTURE WORK

Studies should examine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of post-polypectomy surveillance without prior classification of patients into risk groups.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial is registered as ISRCTN15213649.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 26. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

A Deep Learning Approach for Detecting Colorectal Cancer via Raman Spectra

Objective and Impact Statement. Distinguishing tumors from normal tissues is vital in the intraoperative diagnosis and pathological examination. In this work, we propose to utilize Raman spectroscopy as a novel modality in surgery to detect colorectal cancer tissues. Introduction. Raman spectra can reflect the substance components of the target tissues. However, the feature peak is slight and hard to detect due to environmental noise. Collecting a high-quality Raman spectroscopy dataset and developing effective deep learning detection methods are possibly viable approaches. Methods. First, we collect a large Raman spectroscopy dataset from 26 colorectal cancer patients with the Raman shift ranging from 385 to 1545 cm  - 1 . Second, a one-dimensional residual convolutional neural network (1D-ResNet) architecture is designed to classify the tumor tissues of colorectal cancer. Third, we visualize and interpret the fingerprint peaks found by our deep learning model. Results. Experimental results show that our deep learning method achieves 98.5% accuracy in the detection of colorectal cancer and outperforms traditional methods. Conclusion. Overall, Raman spectra are a novel modality for clinical detection of colorectal cancer. Our proposed ensemble 1D-ResNet could effectively classify the Raman spectra obtained from colorectal tumor tissues or normal tissues.

Current Approaches in Managing Colonic Serrated Polyps and Serrated Polyposis

For decades, conventional adenomas were the only known precursor lesions of colorectal cancer (CRC). Accordingly, education and research regarding CRC prevention were mainly focused on adenomas. The groundbreaking discovery that serrated polyps (SPs) also have the potential to develop into CRCs, and seem to account for a considerable proportion of sporadic CRCs, has led to a paradigm shift in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of CRC. Studies in recent years have led to our current understanding of SPs and associated CRC, but a lot of work is still to be done to further improve knowledge about this serrated neoplasia pathway and the clinical management of SPs and serrated polyposis syndrome (SPS). In this review, we reflect on the current understanding of SPs with respect to terminology, detection, resection, and surveillance and reflect on the management of SPS.

Measuring and Improving Quality of Colonoscopy for Colorectal Cancer Screening

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is largely preventable, yet it remains a major public health issue as it is the third most common and deadly malignancy in the United States. While there are many ways to screen for CRC, colonoscopy remains the gold standard as it is the only test that is both cancer-detecting and cancer-preventing through removal of precancerous polyps. Through identifying and removing neoplastic lesions, colonoscopy reduces CRC incidence by 31%-91% and CRC mortality by 65%-88%. However, colonoscopy is not an infallible test-there is a chance for missed lesions during the exam and there is substantial variation in outcomes among endoscopists. To enhance the quality of colonoscopic exams, and ultimately to improve CRC outcomes, quality indicators have been developed for measuring endoscopists' performance. In this review, we describe the colonoscopic quality indicators and benchmarks recommended by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy/American College of Gastroenterology Task Force on Quality in Endoscopy for screening colonoscopies in average-risk individuals. Measuring and monitoring endoscopists' performance on these measures are critical first steps in striving toward conducting high quality exams. We also review the evidence for interventions that aim to improve critical measures including adenoma detection rate, withdrawal time, cecal intubation, and bowel preparation quality. Finally, we provide a preview of the forthcoming Advancing Care for Appropriate Colon Health Merit-Based Incentive Payment System Value Pathway by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and its potential impact on clinical practice.

Can image-enhanced endoscopy improve adenoma detection rate?

An accumulating body of evidence has shown that detection and resection of pre-cancerous adenoma by colonoscopy could effectively prevent colorectal cancer (CRC) and its related mortality. Among various colonoscopy quality indicators, such as cecal intubation rate, withdrawal time, and adenoma detection rate (ADR); ADR is the most important and most closely associated with the subsequent risk of CRC. Image-enhanced endoscopy (IEE), including digital and dye-based IEE, was originally developed to discriminate neoplastic from non-neoplastic lesions but later studies have demonstrated that it can also enhance lesion detection by enhancing the contrast between the lesion and background colonic mucosa. Nevertheless, using IEE in colonoscopy for lesion detection is still not the standard way of practice in the real world. For a better understanding of current IEE modalities, this review introduces and compares the currently available IEE modalities and their efficacy in detecting adenoma from the results of randomized controlled trials or meta-analyses.

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.

Artificial intelligence and computer-aided diagnosis for colonoscopy: where do we stand now?

Computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) for colonoscopy with use of artificial intelligence (AI) is catching increased attention of endoscopists. CAD allows automated detection and pathological prediction, namely optical biopsy, of colorectal polyps during real-time endoscopy, which help endoscopists avoid missing and/or misdiagnosing colorectal lesions. With the increased number of publications in this field and emergence of the AI medical device that have already secured regulatory approval, CAD in colonoscopy is now being implemented into clinical practice. On the other side, drawbacks and weak points of CAD in colonoscopy have not been thoroughly discussed. In this review, we provide an overview of CAD for optical biopsy of colorectal lesions with a particular focus on its clinical applications and limitations.

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.

Recurrence of Colorectal Neoplastic Polyps After Incomplete Resection

BACKGROUND

Incomplete resection of neoplastic polyps is considered an important reason for the development of colorectal cancer. However, there are no data on the natural history of polyps that were incompletely removed.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the risk for metachronous neoplasia during surveillance colonoscopy after documented incomplete polyp resection.

DESIGN

Observational cohort study of patients who participated in the CARE (Complete Adenoma REsection) study (2009 to 2012).

SETTING

2 academic medical centers.

PATIENTS

Patients who had resection of a 5- to 20-mm neoplastic polyp, had a documented complete or incomplete resection, and had a surveillance examination.

MEASUREMENTS

Segment metachronous neoplasia, defined as the proportion of colon segments with at least 1 neoplastic polyp at first surveillance examination, was measured. Segment metachronous neoplasia was compared between segments with a prior incomplete polyp resection (incomplete segments) and those with a prior complete resection (complete segments), accounting for clustering of segments within patients.

RESULTS

Of 233 participants in the original study, 166 (71%) had at least 1 surveillance examination. Median time to surveillance was shorter after incomplete versus complete resection (median, 17 vs. 45 months). The risk for any metachronous neoplasia was greater in segments with incomplete versus complete resection (52% vs. 23%; risk difference [RD], 28% [95% CI, 9% to 47%]; P = 0.004). Incomplete segments also had a greater number of neoplastic polyps (mean, 0.8 vs. 0.3; RD, 0.50 [CI, 0.1 to 0.9]; P = 0.008) and greater risk for advanced neoplasia (18% vs. 3%; RD, 15% [CI, 1% to 29%]; P = 0.034). Incomplete resection was the strongest independent factor associated with metachronous neoplasia (odds ratio, 3.0 [CI, 1.12 to 8.17]).

LIMITATION

Potential patient selection bias due to incomplete follow-up.

CONCLUSION

This natural history study found a statistically significantly greater risk for future neoplasia and advanced neoplasia in colon segments after incomplete resection compared with segments with complete resection.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

None.

Important Quality Metrics and Standardization in Endoscopy

Quality metrics and standardization has become critical as the Affordable Care Act mandates that the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services change reimbursement from volume to a value-based system. While the most commonly used quality indicators are related to that of colonoscopy, quality metrics for other procedures and endoscopy units have been developed mainly by the American College of Gastroenterology and the American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Data to show that these quality metrics, especially in the field of advanced endoscopy as well as in the era of COVID-19 pandemic, can improve patient outcomes, are anticipated.

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.

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.

Suppressive effects of dental pulp stem cells and its conditioned medium on development and migration of colorectal cancer cells through MAPKinase pathways

OBJECTIVES

Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) extensively interact with cancer cells and other stromal cells in the tumor microenvironment. However, the role of MSCs in colorectal cancer (CRC) development and metastasis is controversial. Strong evidence demonstrated that conditioned medium (CM) obtained from MSCs regulates main cellular functions such as proliferation, differentiation, migration, and communication due to its cell secretomes. This study was designed to determine the inhibitory effect of dental pulp stem cells (DPSC) and its extracted conditioned medium (DPSC-CM) in CRC progression.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The inhibitory effects of DPSC-CM on growth, apoptosis, and migration of CRC cells were evaluated by resazurin, flow cytometry of propidium iodide (PI) stained cells, and wound closure assay, respectively. Western blotting detected the expression of MAPKinase and apoptotic proteins. Also, the homing ability of DPSCs and the invasion ability of CRC cells under indirect co-culture were assayed by the Boyden chamber assay.

RESULTS

DPSC-CM reduced the viability and induced the apoptosis of CRC cells significantly. Western blot analysis confirmed the increase in cytochrome C, phospho-JNK/SAPK to JNK/SAPK ratio, cleaved-caspase 8 and 3 in treated CRC cells with DPSC-CM, and decrease in phospho-ERK (P44/42 MAPK) to ERK (P44/42 MAPK) ratio, which are involved in induction of apoptosis and growth inhibition of cancer cells with minimal change in normal cells. Also, DPSCs could migrate (homing ability) to Caco₂ and SW48 cells significantly.

CONCLUSION

To sum up, DPSC-CM had significant apoptotic and growth inhibitory effects on the CRC cells through the MAPKinase and apoptosis signaling pathways.

A single-centre analysis of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A prospective registration of patients with colorectal cancer and a colonoscopy within the last 10 years. We tried to classify these post-colonoscopy colorectal cancers (PCCRCs) by most reasonable explanation and into subcategories suggested by the World Endoscopy Organization (WEO) and calculated the unadjusted PCCRC rate.

RESULTS

47 PCCRCs were identified. The average age at diagnosis of PCCRC was 73 years. PCCRCs were more located in the right colon with a higher percentage of MSI-positive and B-RAF mutated tumours. The average period between index colonoscopy and diagnosis of PCCRC was 4.2 years. Sixty-eight % of all PCCRCs could be explained by procedural factors. The mean PCCRC-3y of our department was 2.46%.

CONCLUSIONS

The data of our centre are in line with the data of the literature from which can be concluded that most postcolonoscopy colorectal cancers are preventable. The PCCRC-3y is an important quality measure for screening colonoscopy. Ideally all centres involved in the population screening should measure the PCCRC-3 y annually, with cooperation of the cancer registry and reimbursement data provided by the Intermutualistic Agency (IMA).

Artificial Intelligence in Colorectal Cancer Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment. A New Era

The development of artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms has permeated the medical field with great success. The widespread use of AI technology in diagnosing and treating several types of cancer, especially colorectal cancer (CRC), is now attracting substantial attention. CRC, which represents the third most commonly diagnosed malignancy in both men and women, is considered a leading cause of cancer-related deaths globally. Our review herein aims to provide in-depth knowledge and analysis of the AI applications in CRC screening, diagnosis, and treatment based on current literature. We also explore the role of recent advances in AI systems regarding medical diagnosis and therapy, with several promising results. CRC is a highly preventable disease, and AI-assisted techniques in routine screening represent a pivotal step in declining incidence rates of this malignancy. So far, computer-aided detection and characterization systems have been developed to increase the detection rate of adenomas. Furthermore, CRC treatment enters a new era with robotic surgery and novel computer-assisted drug delivery techniques. At the same time, healthcare is rapidly moving toward precision or personalized medicine. Machine learning models have the potential to contribute to individual-based cancer care and transform the future of medicine.

Clinical and endoscopist factors associated with post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer in a population-based sample

AIM

Factors associated with verified post-colonoscopy colorectal cancers (PCCRC) have not been well defined and survival for these patients is not well described. We aimed to assess the association of patient, tumour and endoscopist characteristics with PCCRC.

METHODS

Using population-based data, we identified individuals diagnosed with CRC from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2005 who underwent a colonoscopy within 3 years prior to diagnosis. Detected cancers were those diagnosed ≤6 months following colonoscopy; PCCRC were diagnosed >6 months to ≤3 years following colonoscopy. Post-colonoscopy and detected cancers were verified through chart review using a hospital-based simple random sampling frame. We used multivariable conditional logistic regression to determine the association of patient, tumour and endoscopist factors with PCCRC and compared overall survival using Cox proportional hazard models.

RESULTS

Using the random sampling frame, we identified 498 patients with PCCRC and 498 with detected CRC; we obtained records and confirmed 367 patients with PCCRC and 412 with detected cancers. In multivariable analysis, patient age (OR 1.01; 95% CI 1.00-1.03) and tumour location (distal vs. proximal OR 0.36; 95% CI 0.25-0.53) were associated with PCCRC; endoscopist quality measures were not significantly associated with PCCRC. We did not find significant differences in overall survival between PCCRC and detected cancers (hazard ratio 1.12; 95% CI 0.92-1.32).

CONCLUSION

Although endoscopic quality measures are important for CRC prevention, endoscopist factors were not associated with PCCRC. This study highlights the need for further research into the role of tumour biology in PCCRC development.

Artificial Intelligence in Lower Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: The Current Status and Future Perspective

The present manuscript aims to review the history, recent advances, evidence, and challenges of artificial intelligence (AI) in colonoscopy. Although it is mainly focused on polyp detection and characterization, it also considers other potential applications (i.e., inflammatory bowel disease) and future perspectives. Some of the most recent algorithms show promising results that are similar to human expert performance. The integration of AI in routine clinical practice will be challenging, with significant issues to overcome (i.e., regulatory, reimbursement). Medico-legal issues will also need to be addressed. With the exception of an AI system that is already available in selected countries (GI Genius; Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA), the majority of the technology is still in its infancy and has not yet been proven to reach a sufficient diagnostic performance to be adopted in the clinical practice. However, larger players will enter the arena of AI in the next few months.

Artificial intelligence: Thinking outside the box

Artificial intelligence (AI) for luminal gastrointestinal endoscopy is rapidly evolving. To date, most applications have focused on colon polyp detection and characterization. However, the potential of AI to revolutionize our current practice in endoscopy is much more broadly positioned. In this review article, the Authors provide new ideas on how AI might help endoscopists in the future to rediscover endoscopy practice.

Predictive Value of Carcinoembryonic Antigen in Symptomatic Patients without Colorectal Cancer: A Post-Hoc Analysis within the COLONPREDICT Cohort

We aimed to assess the risk of cancer in patients with abdominal symptoms after a complete colonoscopy without colorectal cancer (CRC), according to the carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) concentration, as well as its diagnostic accuracy. For this purpose, we performed a post-hoc analysis within a cohort of 1431 patients from the COLONPREDICT study, prospectively designed to assess the fecal immunochemical test accuracy in detecting CRC. Over 36.5 ± 8.4 months, cancer was detected in 115 (8%) patients. Patients with CEA values higher than 3 ng/mL revealed an increased risk of cancer (HR 2.0, 95% CI 1.3-3.1), CRC (HR 4.4, 95% CI 1.1-17.7) and non-gastrointestinal cancer (HR 1.7, 95% CI 1.0-2.8). A new malignancy was detected in 51 (3.6%) patients during the first year and three variables were independently associated: anemia (OR 2.8, 95% CI 1.3-5.8), rectal bleeding (OR 0.3, 95% CI 0.1-0.7) and CEA level >3 ng/mL (OR 3.4, 95% CI 1.7-7.1). However, CEA was increased only in 31.8% (95% CI, 16.4-52.7%) and 50% (95% CI, 25.4-74.6%) of patients with and without anemia, respectively, who would be diagnosed with cancer during the first year of follow-up. On the basis of this information, CEA should not be used to assist in the triage of patients presenting with lower bowel symptoms who have recently been ruled out a CRC.

Postcolonoscopy Colorectal Cancer in Sweden From 2003 to 2012: Survival, Tumor Characteristics, and Risk Factors

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The rate of postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC) is a measure of colonoscopy quality, but there are conflicting results from studies of survival times of patients with PCCRC. We assessed survival times of patients with PCCRC and characterized the microscopic and macroscopic features of postcolonoscopy colorectal tumors.

METHODS

We performed a population-based cohort study using data from a database in Sweden, on 458,937 colonoscopies (54.0% women) performed from 2003 through 2012. Rates of colorectal cancer within 3 years of a colonoscopy were calculated based on the World Endoscopy Organization guidelines. Risk factors were evaluated using Poisson regression analysis. We used Cox regression models and Kaplan-Meier analyses, stratified by sex, to assess conditional survival. Logistic regression models were used to evaluate features of postcolonoscopy colorectal tumors, including stage location (right, left, or rectum) differentiation grade (high or low), synchronous tumors, perineural growth, resection margins, and mucinous and vessel characteristics.

RESULTS

Within 36 months after a colonoscopy, there were 19,184 individuals who had received a diagnosis of CRC; 1384 of these were PCCRCs (7.2%). The proportion of individuals with PCCRC decreased from 9.4% in 2003 to 6.1% in 2012. The largest risk factors for PCCRC were a prior diagnosis of CRC (relative risk [RR], 3.31; 95% CI, 2.71-4.04), ulcerative colitis (RR, 5.44; 95% CI, 4.75-6.23), Crohn's disease (RR, 3.81; 95% CI, 2.98-4.87), and prior polypectomy (RR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.97-2.72). Individuals with PCCRCs had shorter survival times than individuals with CRCs detected during the index colonoscopy. Multivariate hazard ratios for PCCRC were 2.75 for men (95% CI, 2.21-3.42) and 2.00 for women (95% CI, 1.59-2.52), respectively. Individuals with left-side PCCRC had shorter survival times than patients with CRC detected during the index colonoscopy. Postcolonoscopy colorectal tumors had increased odds of low differentiation grade (odds ratio, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.09-1.49) compared with colorectal tumors detected during the index colonoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

In an analysis of colonoscopies in Sweden, the rate of PCCRCs decreased from 9.4% in 2003 to 6.1% in 2012. Diseases that require surveillance (such as prior colorectal neoplasms and inflammatory bowel diseases) are the largest risk factors for PCCRC. Patients with PCCRC have shorter survival times than patients with CRC detected during their initial colonoscopy-especially women and patients with left-side tumors.

Scope of Artificial Intelligence in Screening and Diagnosis of Colorectal Cancer

Globally, colorectal cancer is the third most diagnosed malignancy. It causes significant mortality and morbidity, which can be reduced by early diagnosis with an effective screening test. Integrating artificial intelligence (AI) and computer-aided detection (CAD) with screening methods has shown promising colorectal cancer screening results. AI could provide a “second look” for endoscopists to decrease the rate of missed polyps during a colonoscopy. It can also improve detection and characterization of polyps by integration with colonoscopy and various advanced endoscopic modalities such as magnifying narrow-band imaging, endocytoscopy, confocal endomicroscopy, laser-induced fluorescence spectroscopy, and magnifying chromoendoscopy. This descriptive review discusses various AI and CAD applications in colorectal cancer screening, polyp detection, and characterization.

Educational interventions are associated with improvements in colonoscopy quality indicators: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and study aims  The quality of screening-related colonoscopy depends on several physician- and patient-related factors. Adenoma detection rate (ADR) varies considerably between endoscopists. Educational interventions aim to improve endoscopists' ADRs, but their overall impact is uncertain. We aimed to assess whether there is an association between educational interventions and colonoscopy quality indicators. Methods  A comprehensive search was performed through August 2019 for studies reporting any associations between educational interventions and any colonoscopy quality indicators. Our primary outcome of interest was ADR. Two authors assessed eligibility criteria and extracted data independently. Risk of bias was also assessed for included studies. Pooled rate ratios (RR) with 95 % confidence intervals (CI) were reported using DerSimonian and Laird random effects models. Results  From 2,253 initial studies, eight were included in the meta-analysis for ADR, representing 86,008 colonoscopies. Educational interventions were associated with improvements in overall ADR (RR 1.29, 95 % CI 1.25 to 1.42, 95 % prediction interval 1.09 to 1.53) and proximal ADR (RR 1.39, 95 % CI 1.29 to 1.48), with borderline increases in withdrawal time, ([WT], mean difference 0.29 minutes, 95 % CI - 0.12 to 0.70 minutes). Educational interventions did not affect cecal intubation rate ([CIR], RR 1.01, 95 % CI 1.00 to 1.01). Heterogeneity was considerable across many of the analyses. Conclusions  Educational interventions are associated with significant improvements in ADR, in particular, proximal ADR, and are not associated with improvements in WT or CIR. Educational interventions should be considered an important option in quality improvement programs aiming to optimize the performance of screening-related colonoscopy.

Rates of Incomplete Resection of 1- to 20-mm Colorectal Polyps: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Incomplete resection of neoplastic colorectal polyps can result in postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the incomplete resection rate (IRR) of colorectal polyps and associated factors.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, EBM Reviews, and CINAHL to identify full-text articles that reported IRRs of polyps 1 to 20 mm, published until March 2019. Exclusion criteria were studies of inflammatory bowel disease cohorts, referrals for difficult polypectomy, polyp sizes larger than 20 mm, and endoscopic submucosal resection and/or dissection as polypectomy approaches. IRRs were calculated based on findings from biopsies taken at polypectomy sites or assessments of margins of resected polyps. The primary outcome was IRR for snare removal of polyps 1 to 20 mm. Secondary outcomes included IRR for polyps 1 to 10 mm and 10 to 20 mm, IRR for hot and cold snare removal of polyps 1 to 10 mm and 10 to 20 mm, IRR of snare removal with or without submucosal injection, and IRR for forceps and cold snare removal of polyps 1 to 5 mm.

RESULTS

We identified 6148 reports and used 32 studies, with a total of 9282 polyps, in our quantitative analysis. The IRR for snare removal of polyps 1 to 20 mm was 13.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 10.3-17.3; 13 studies, 5128 polypectomies). IRRs were 15.9% for snare removal of polyps 1 to 10 mm (95% CI 9.6-22.1; 9 studies, 2531 polypectomies) and 20.8% for snare removal of polyps 10 to 20 mm (95% CI 12.9-28.8; 6 studies, 412 polypectomies). The IRR for hot snare removal of polyps 1 to 10 mm was 14.2% (95% CI 5.2-23.2) vs 17.3% for cold snare polypectomy (95% CI 14.3‒20.3). The IRR for forceps removal of polyps 1 to 5 mm was 9.9% (95% CI 7.1-13.0) vs 4.4% for snare polypectomy (95% CI 2.9-6.1).

CONCLUSIONS

In a systematic review and meta-analysis, we found that colorectal polyps 1 to 20 mm are frequently incompletely resected, and that risk increases for polyps 10 mm or larger. There is no difference in IRRs of cold vs hot snares for polyps 1 to 10 mm. Snare polypectomy should be used over forceps for polyps 1 to 5 mm.

Relationship between the polyp detection rate and the post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer rate

AIM

the adenoma detection rate is the quality indicator of colonoscopy that is most closely related to the development of interval colorectal cancer or post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer. However, the recording of this indicator in different units of gastrointestinal endoscopy is obstructed due to the large consumption of resources required for its calculation. Several alternatives have been proposed, such as the polyp detection rate. The objective of this study was to evaluate the relationship between the polyp detection rate and its influence on post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer rate.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

in this study, 12,482 colonoscopies conducted by 14 endoscopists were analyzed. The polyp detection rate was calculated for each endoscopist. Endoscopists were grouped into quartiles (Q1, Q2, Q3, and Q4), from lowest to highest polyp detection rate, in order to evaluate whether there were any differences in the development of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer.

RESULTS

the lowest polyp detection rate was 20.66% and the highest was 52.16%, with a median of 32.78 and a standard deviation of ± 8.54. A strong and positive association between polyp endoscopy diagnosis and adenoma histopathology result was observed and a linear regression was performed. A significantly higher post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer rate was observed in the group of endoscopists with a lower polyp detection rate (p < 0.02).

CONCLUSION

polyp detection rate is a valuable quality indicator of colonoscopy and its calculation is much simpler than that of the adenoma detection rate. In our study, the prevalence of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer was inversely and significantly related to the endoscopists' polyp detection rate.