Assessing Individual Risk for High-Risk Early Colorectal Neoplasm for Pre-Selection of Screening in Shanghai, China: A Population-Based Nested Case-Control Study

Development and evaluation of a risk prediction tool for risk-adapted screening of colorectal cancer in China

Risk prediction tools for colorectal cancer (CRC) have potential to improve the efficiency of population-based screening by facilitating risk-adapted strategies. However, such an applicable tool has yet to be established in the Chinese population. In this study, a risk score was created using data from the China Kadoorie Biobank (CKB), a nationwide cohort study of 409,854 eligible participants. Diagnostic performance of the risk score was evaluated in an independent CRC screening programme, which included 91,575 participants who accepted colonoscopy at designed hospitals in Zhejiang Province, China. Over a median follow-up of 11.1 years, 3136 CRC cases were documented in the CKB. A risk score was created based on nine questionnaire-derived variables, showing moderate discrimination for 10-year CRC risk (C-statistic = 0.68, 95 % CI: 0.67-0.69). In the CRC screening programme, the detection rates of CRC were 0.25 %, 0.82 %, and 1.93 % in low-risk (score <6), intermediate-risk (score: 6-19), and high-risk (score >19) groups, respectively. The newly developed score exhibited a C-statistic of 0.65 (95 % CI: 0.63-0.66), surpassing the widely adopted tools such as the Asia-Pacific Colorectal Screening (APCS), modified APCS, and Korean Colorectal Screening scores (all C-statistics = 0.60). In conclusion, we developed a novel risk prediction tool that is useful to identify individuals at high risk of CRC. A user-friendly online calculator was also constructed to encourage broader adoption of the tool.

LWJ-M30, a conjugate of DM1 and B6, for the targeted therapy of colorectal cancer with improved therapeutic effects†

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most prevalent cancers worldwide as well as a significant cause of mortality. The conventional treatment could cause serious side effects and induce drug resistance, recurrence and metastasis of cancers. Hence, specific targeting of cancer cells without affecting the normal tissues is currently an urgent necessity in cancer therapy. The emerging of peptide–drug conjugates (PDC) is regarded as a promising approach to address malignant tumors. LWJ-M30, a conjugate of DM1 and B6 peptide, targeted transferrin receptors (TfRs) on the surface of the CRC cells, showing a powerful anti-cancer effect. LWJ-M30 significantly inhibited the HCT116 cells proliferation and migration in vitro. LWJ-M30 also dramatically decreased the level of polymeric tubulin, while the disruption of microtubules caused the cell cycle to be arrested in the G2/M phase. LWJ-M30 induced the HCT116 cells apoptosis both in vivo and in vitro. The results in vivo demonstrated that LWJ-M30 could inhibit the HCT116 growth without affecting the mouse body weight. Taking these results together, our data indicated that LWJ-M30 could improve the therapeutic effects of DM1 while reducing the systemic toxicity in normal tissues.

LWJ-M30 targeted TfR, dramatically decreased the level of polymeric tubulin, while the disruption of microtubules meant the cell cycle was arrested in the G2/M phase and thus caused cells apoptosis.

Choice of injection time of conscious sedation and its impact on pain control in colonoscopy

Purpose

The aim of this study was to identify the effect of different injection times on pain during colonoscopy procedure.

Methods

In this retrospective study, the data of patients who underwent colonoscopy from June 2020 to September 2020 were assessed to investigate the effect of different injection time of sedative drugs (midazolam and dezocine). The primary endpoint was evaluating the pain intensity of the patients using visual analogue scale (VAS) immediately after colonoscopy .

Results

A total of 152 patients were eligible for this study. Of them, 76 received midazolam and dezocine injection 1 min prior to the colonoscopy procedure (the 1 Min group) and the other 76 patients received the injection 3 min prior to the procedure (the 3 Min group). The vital signs of all patients were stable except for one patient who was diagnosed with inflammatory bowel disease in the 3 Min group. A transient drop in blood pressure for this patient was observed during colonoscopy but returned to normal after general treatment. The two groups had similar rates of cecal intubation (84.21% vs. 90.97%, P = 0.22), addition of sedative drugs during procedure (2.63% vs. 5.26%, P = 0.68), and adequate bowel preparation (Boston Bowel Preparation Scale ≥6, 61.84% vs. 61.84%, P = 1.0). However, patients in the 3 Min group had significantly lower VAS than those in the 1 Min group [0 (0, 1) vs. 1 (0, 2), P = 0.041].

Conclusion

The timing of drug injection during conscious sedation may affect pain control during colonoscopy, with 3 min prior to the procedure showing lower VAS.

A scoping review of risk-stratified bowel screening: current evidence, future directions

PURPOSE

In this scoping review, we examined the international literature on risk-stratified bowel screening to develop recommendations for future research, practice and policy.

METHODS

Six electronic databases were searched from inception to 18 October 2021: Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Forward and backwards citation searches were also undertaken. All relevant literature were included.

RESULTS

After de-deduplication, 3,629 records remained. 3,416 were excluded at the title/abstract screening stage. A further 111 were excluded at full-text screening stage. In total, 102 unique studies were included. Results showed that risk-stratified bowel screening programmes can potentially improve diagnostic performance, but there is a lack of information on longer-term outcomes. Risk models do appear to show promise in refining existing risk stratification guidelines but most were not externally validated and less than half achieved good discriminatory power. Risk assessment tools in primary care have the potential for high levels of acceptability and uptake, and therefore, could form an important component of future risk-stratified bowel screening programmes, but sometimes the screening recommendations were not adhered to by the patient or healthcare provider. The review identified important knowledge gaps, most notably in the area of organisation of screening services due to few pilots, and what risk stratification might mean for inequalities.

CONCLUSION

We recommend that future research focuses on what organisational challenges risk-stratified bowel screening may face and a consideration of inequalities in any changes to organised bowel screening programmes.