Serious events in older Ontario residents receiving bowel preparations for outpatient colonoscopy with various comorbidity profiles: a descriptive, population-based study

Screening for Colorectal Cancer: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force

IMPORTANCE

Colorectal cancer (CRC) remains a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in the US.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the effectiveness, test accuracy, and harms of screening for CRC to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for relevant studies published from January 1, 2015, to December 4, 2019; surveillance through March 26, 2021.

STUDY SELECTION

English-language studies conducted in asymptomatic populations at general risk of CRC.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two reviewers independently appraised the articles and extracted relevant study data from fair- or good-quality studies. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Colorectal cancer incidence and mortality, test accuracy in detecting cancers or adenomas, and serious adverse events.

RESULTS

The review included 33 studies (n = 10 776 276) on the effectiveness of screening, 59 (n = 3 491 045) on the test performance of screening tests, and 131 (n = 26 987 366) on the harms of screening. In randomized clinical trials (4 trials, n = 458 002), intention to screen with 1- or 2-time flexible sigmoidoscopy vs no screening was associated with a decrease in CRC-specific mortality (incidence rate ratio, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.68-0.80]). Annual or biennial guaiac fecal occult blood test (gFOBT) vs no screening (5 trials, n = 419 966) was associated with a reduction of CRC-specific mortality after 2 to 9 rounds of screening (relative risk at 19.5 years, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.84-0.98]; relative risk at 30 years, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.65-0.93]). In observational studies, receipt of screening colonoscopy (2 studies, n = 436 927) or fecal immunochemical test (FIT) (1 study, n = 5.4 million) vs no screening was associated with lower risk of CRC incidence or mortality. Nine studies (n = 6497) evaluated the test accuracy of screening computed tomography (CT) colonography, 4 of which also reported the test accuracy of colonoscopy; pooled sensitivity to detect adenomas 6 mm or larger was similar between CT colonography with bowel prep (0.86) and colonoscopy (0.89). In pooled values, commonly evaluated FITs (14 studies, n = 45 403) (sensitivity, 0.74; specificity, 0.94) and stool DNA with FIT (4 studies, n = 12 424) (sensitivity, 0.93; specificity, 0.85) performed better than high-sensitivity gFOBT (2 studies, n = 3503) (sensitivity, 0.50-0.75; specificity, 0.96-0.98) to detect cancers. Serious harms of screening colonoscopy included perforations (3.1/10 000 procedures) and major bleeding (14.6/10 000 procedures). CT colonography may have harms resulting from low-dose ionizing radiation. It is unclear if detection of extracolonic findings on CT colonography is a net benefit or harm.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

There are several options to screen for colorectal cancer, each with a different level of evidence demonstrating its ability to reduce cancer mortality, its ability to detect cancer or precursor lesions, and its risk of harms.

Cancer Prevention and Screening for Older Adults: Part 1. Lung, Colorectal, Bladder, and Kidney Cancer

The incidence of most cancers increases with age. Cancer is the second most common cause of death in older adults after cardiovascular disease. Many common cancers in older adults can be prevented from occurring or can be identified at an early stage and treated effectively. The prevention and identification of cancer in its early stages, in an attempt to reduce discomfort and disability associated with advanced cancer and cancer treatment, is also a priority. Overscreening for cancer in older adults can lead to unnecessary diagnostic testing and unnecessary treatment. Both older adults and their healthcare providers need guidance on the appropriate use of cancer prevention and screening interventions. This first of a two-part review addresses special considerations regarding cancer prevention for adults aged 65 and older. Screening decisions and the impact of limited life expectancy and an older adult's ability to tolerate cancer treatment are also addressed. Guidance is provided regarding the prevention and early identification of lung, colorectal, bladder, and kidney cancer in older adults. The prevention of breast, prostate, and female urogenital cancers are addressed in Part 2. J Am Geriatr Soc 68:2399-2406, 2020.

A Comparative Study of Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events Following Use of Common Bowel Preparations Among a Colonoscopy Screening Population: Results from a Post-Marketing Observational Study

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopy may be one of the most frequent elective procedures in older adults and is associated with a low occurrence of complications. However, reduction of risks attributable to the bowel preparation may be achieved with the use of effective and safer products.

AIM

The aim of this study was to examine the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) associated with SUPREP(®) [oral sulfate solution (OSS)] and other common prescription bowel preparations (non-OSS).

METHODS

This real-world, observational study used de-identified health insurance claims and laboratory results to identify TEAEs in the 3 months following screening colonoscopy in adults with a prescription for a bowel preparation in the prior 60 days. The unadjusted and adjusted (controlling for patient risk factors) cumulative incidences of TEAEs were estimated using Kaplan-Meier and Poisson regression, respectively.

RESULTS

Among patients ≥45 years, the overall cumulative incidence was significantly lower (p < 0.001) in the OSS cohort than in the non-OSS cohort (unadjusted: 2.31 vs. 2.89 %; adjusted: 1.61 vs. 1.95 %), with significantly lower acute cardiac conditions (1.56 vs. 1.90 %; p < 0.001), renal failure/other serious renal diseases (OSS: 0.21 %, non-OSS: 0.32 %; p < 0.001), and serum electrolyte abnormalities (OSS: 0.39 %, non-OSS: 0.49 %; p = 0.017). There were no significant differences between cohorts in death, seizure disorders, aggravation of gout, and ischemic colitis. Results were similar in the adjusted cumulative incidences.

CONCLUSIONS

In actual use, the overall cumulative incidence of TEAEs was significantly lower in the OSS cohort, demonstrating that OSS is as safe as, or possibly safer than, non-OSS prescription bowel preparations.

The modern bowel preparation in colonoscopy

Adequate bowel preparation is essential for optimal colonoscopy. Suboptimal bowel preparation occurs in 25% to 40% of cases and is associated with canceled procedures, prolonged procedure time, incomplete examination, increased cost, and missed pathology. There are several effective formulations for colon cleansing with a good safety profile. Split dosing should be implemented whenever possible in an effort to enhance tolerance and adherence, and improve mucosal visibility and overall quality of the examination. In this review, modern bowel preparations are discussed including their mechanism of action, mode of use, safety, and how to optimize outcomes.