-
1.
Updates on Age to Start and Stop Colorectal Cancer Screening: Recommendations From the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer.
Patel, SG, May, FP, Anderson, JC, Burke, CA, Dominitz, JA, Gross, SA, Jacobson, BC, Shaukat, A, Robertson, DJ
The American journal of gastroenterology. 2022;(1):57-69
Abstract
This document is a focused update to the 2017 colorectal cancer (CRC) screening recommendations from the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, which represents the American College of Gastroenterology, the American Gastroenterological Association, and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. This update is restricted to addressing the age to start and stop CRC screening in average-risk individuals and the recommended screening modalities. Although there is no literature demonstrating that CRC screening in individuals under age 50 improves health outcomes such as CRC incidence or CRC-related mortality, sufficient data support the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force to suggest average-risk CRC screening begin at age 45. This recommendation is based on the increasing disease burden among individuals under age 50, emerging data that the prevalence of advanced colorectal neoplasia in individuals ages 45 to 49 approaches rates in individuals 50 to 59, and modeling studies that demonstrate the benefits of screening outweigh the potential harms and costs. For individuals ages 76 to 85, the decision to start or continue screening should be individualized and based on prior screening history, life expectancy, CRC risk, and personal preference. Screening is not recommended after age 85.
-
2.
Higher rate of en bloc resection with underwater than conventional endoscopic mucosal resection: A meta-analysis.
Tziatzios, G, Gkolfakis, P, Triantafyllou, K, Fuccio, L, Facciorusso, A, Papanikolaou, IS, Antonelli, G, Nagl, S, Ebigbo, A, Probst, A, et al
Digestive and liver disease : official journal of the Italian Society of Gastroenterology and the Italian Association for the Study of the Liver. 2021;(8):958-964
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Previous meta-analysis including nonrandomized studies showed marginal benefit of underwater endoscopic mucosal resection(U-EMR) compared to conventional EMR(C-EMR) in terms of polypectomy outcomes. We evaluated U-EMR compared to C-EMR in the treatment of colorectal polyps with respect to effectiveness and safety by analyzing only randomized controlled trials(RCTs). MATERIAL AND METHODS PubMed and Cochrane Library databases were searched for RCTs published until 11/2020, evaluating U-EMR vs. C-EMR regarding en bloc resection, post-endoscopic resection adenoma recurrence, complete resection, adverse events rates and difference in resection time. Abstracts from Digestive Disease Week, United European Gastroenterology Week and ESGE Days meetings were also searched. Effect size on outcomes is presented as risk ratio(RR; 95% confidence interval[CI]) or mean difference(MD; 95%CI). The I2 test was used for quantifying heterogeneity, while Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation(GRADE) was used to assess strength of evidence. RESULTS Six RCTs analyzing outcomes from 1157 colorectal polypectomies(U-EMR589;C-EMR,568) were included. U-EMR associated with significant higher rate of en bloc resection compared to C-EMR [RR(95%CI):1.26(1.01-1.58); Chi² for heterogeneity=30.43, P<0.0001; I²=84%, GRADE Very low]. This effect was more prominent regarding resection of polyps sized ≥20 mm compared to polyps <20 mm [RR(95%CI):1.64(1.22-2.20) vs. 1.10(0.98-1.23)]. Post-resection recurrence [RR(95%CI):0.52(0.28-0.94);GRADELow] was lower significantly in U-EMR group. In contrast, no significant difference was detected between U-EMR and C-EMR regarding complete resection [RR(95%CI): 1.06(0.91-1.24) GRADEVery low] and adverse events occurrence[RR(95%CI):1.00 (0.72-1.39); GRADELow]. CONCLUSION Meta-analysis of RCTs supports that U-EMR resection achieves higher rate of en bloc resection compared to conventional EMR. This effect is driven when resecting large(≥20 mm) polyps.
-
3.
Sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate versus 4L split-dose polyethylene glycol for bowel cleansing prior to colonoscopy in high fibre diet African patients.
Ray-Offor, E, Opusunju, KA
The Pan African medical journal. 2021;:43
Abstract
INTRODUCTION an adequate bowel preparation is essential for good mucosal inspection during colonoscopy. This study aims to compare the efficacy of two validated oral lavage solutions for colonoscopy preparation in African patients. METHODS a prospective observational study of patients undergoing colonoscopy in a referral endoscopy facility in Port Harcourt, Nigeria, using sodium picosulfate magnesium citrate (SPMC) and 4L split-dose polyethylene glycol (PEG). Variables collated were sociodemographic, primary indication, comorbidities, Aronchick bowel preparation scale, polyp/adenoma detection, caecal intubation and outcome. Statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS version 20. RESULTS one hundred and twenty-four patients received PEG prior to colonoscopy and SPMC in 175 patients. The age range was from 22 to 92 years; mean age of 53.8 ± 14.2 years for PEG group and 55.3 ± 13.2 years for SPMC group (p=0.361). There were 215 males and 84 females. An excellent/good bowel preparation scale was recorded in 77 (62%) PEG group and 130 (74.3%) for SPMC group (p=0.592). PEG was predominantly used in the early years of endoscopists practice with the odds ratio (OR) of no polyp detection in the PEG vs SPMC groups as 1.64 (confidence interval CI 1.06-2.55) versus 0.76 (CI 0.62-0.92), respectively (p=0.016). For no adenoma detection, OR was 4.18 (CI 1.12-15.60) versus OR 0.63 (CI 0.52-0.75), respectively (p=0.012). CONCLUSION there is similar efficacy profile using either split volume PEG or SPMC prior to colonoscopy in these African patients. Polyp and adenoma detection rates are highly dependent on the expertise of the endoscopist.
-
4.
Effect of water exchange method on adenoma miss rate of patients undergoing selective polypectomy: A randomized controlled trial.
Ren, G, Wang, X, Luo, H, Yao, S, Liang, S, Zhang, L, Dong, T, Chen, L, Tao, Q, Guo, X, et al
Digestive and liver disease : official journal of the Italian Society of Gastroenterology and the Italian Association for the Study of the Liver. 2021;(5):625-630
Abstract
BACKGROUND Adenomas may be missed in up to 40% of screening colonoscopies. Although the water exchange (WE) method can improve ADR, as shown in several RCTs, it remains uncertain whether it can increase the detection of missing adenomas compared with standard air-insufflated (AI) colonoscopy. METHODS Patients aged 18-80 years who underwent selective polypectomy were randomly allocated to the WE or AI group. The primary endpoint was the adenoma miss rate (AMR), defined as the number of patients with one or more additional adenomas during the polypectomy procedure divided by the total number of patients in each group. RESULTS A total of 450 patients were enrolled, with 225 in each group. The overall AMRs were 45.8% (103/225) in the WE group and 35.6% (80/225) in the AI group (p = 0.035). More patients in the WE group had at least one missed adenoma in the proximal colon (38.2% vs 24.4%, p = 0.002). The adenoma-level miss rate was also higher in the WE group than in the AI group (35.1% vs 29.0%, p = 0.036). Subgroup analysis showed that patients in the WE group had more missed adenomas located in the proximal colon or with flat shapes. CONCLUSIONS This study confirmed that substantial adenomas were missed in patients undergoing selective polypectomy. The WE method significantly improved the detection of missed adenomas, especially those located in the proximal colon or with flat shapes. (ClnicalTrials.gov number: NCT02880748).
-
5.
A Safety and Efficacy Comparison of a New Sulfate-Based Tablet Bowel Preparation Versus a PEG and Ascorbate Comparator in Adult Subjects Undergoing Colonoscopy.
Di Palma, JA, Bhandari, R, Cleveland, MV, Mishkin, DS, Tesoriero, J, Hall, S, McGowan, J
The American journal of gastroenterology. 2021;(2):319-328
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
INTRODUCTION A new tablet-based bowel prep for colonoscopy has been developed containing poorly absorbed sulfate salts which act to retain water within the intestinal lumen resulting in a copious diarrhea, thereby cleansing the bowel. This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of these oral sulfate tablets (OST) compared with a US FDA-approved bowel prep solution containing PEG3350, electrolytes, and ascorbate (polyethylene glycol and ascorbate [PEG-EA]). METHODS Five hundred fifteen adult patients (mean 57y) were enrolled in this single-blind, multicenter, noninferiority study. Subjects were assigned either PEG-EA or OST to be administered in a split-dose regimen starting the evening before colonoscopy. PEG-EA was taken according to its approved labeling (1 L of prep solution with 16 oz. of additional water) in the evening and again in the morning. OST patients took a total of 24 tablets. OST patients were administered 12 tablets in the evening, and the following morning. Patients consumed 16 ounces of water with each dose of 12 tablets and drank an additional 32 oz. of water with each dose. Colonoscopies were performed by blinded investigators. Cleansing efficacy was evaluated globally and segmentally using a 4-point scale (Excellent-no more than small bits of feces/fluid which can be suctioned easily; achieves clear visualization of the entire colonic mucosa. Good-feces and fluid requiring washing and suctioning, but still achieves clear visualization of the entire colonic mucosa. Fair-enough feces even after washing and suctioning to prevent clear visualization of the entire colonic mucosa. Poor-large amounts of fecal residue and additional bowel preparation required). Scores of Good or Excellent were considered to be a success. Safety was assessed by spontaneously reported adverse events, solicited ratings of expected prep symptoms, and laboratory testing. RESULTS A high rate of cleansing success was seen with OST (92%), which was noninferior to PEG-EA (89%). Only a small proportion of subjects rated their expected gastrointestinal symptoms as severe (<5% for both preps). No clinically significant differences were seen between preps for chemistry and hematology parameters. No serious adverse experiences were reported with OST. DISCUSSION Sulfate tablets achieved a high level of cleansing in the study, comparable with US FDA-approved preps. OST was noninferior to PEG-EA in this study and achieved significantly more Excellent preps overall and in the proximal colon. The OST prep was well-tolerated, with a similar rate of spontaneously reported adverse experiences to PEG-EA and a low rate of severe expected gastrointestinal symptoms.
-
6.
Individual and Joint Associations of Genetic Risk and Healthy Lifestyle Score with Colorectal Neoplasms Among Participants of Screening Colonoscopy.
Erben, V, Carr, PR, Guo, F, Weigl, K, Hoffmeister, M, Brenner, H
Cancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.). 2021;(6):649-658
Abstract
Genetic and lifestyle factors contribute to colorectal cancer risk. We investigated their individual and joint associations with various stages of colorectal carcinogenesis. We assessed associations of a polygenic risk score (PRS) and a healthy lifestyle score (HLS) with presence of nonadvanced adenomas and advanced neoplasms among 2,585 participants of screening colonoscopy from Germany. The PRS and HLS individually showed only weak associations with presence of nonadvanced adenomas; stronger associations were observed with advanced neoplasms (ORs, 95% CI, for highest vs. lowest risk tertile: PRS 2.27, 1.78-2.88; HLS 1.96, 1.53-2.51). The PRS was associated with higher odds of advanced neoplasms among carriers of any neoplasms (1.65, 1.23-2.22). Subjects in the highest risk tertile (vs. lowest tertile) of both scores had higher risks for nonadvanced adenomas (1.77, 1.09-2.86), for advanced neoplasms (3.95, 2.53-6.16) and, among carriers of any neoplasms, for advanced versus nonadvanced neoplasms (2.26, 1.31-3.92). Both scores were individually associated with increased risk of nonadvanced adenomas and, much more pronounced, advanced neoplasms. The similarly strong association in relative terms across all levels of genetic risk implies that a healthy lifestyle may be particularly beneficial in those at highest genetic risk, given that the same relative risk reduction in this group would imply a stronger absolute risk reduction. Genetic factors may be of particular relevance for the transition of nonadvanced to advanced adenomas. PREVENTION RELEVANCE Genetic factors have strong impact on the risk of colorectal neoplasms, which may be reduced by healthy lifestyle. Similarly strong associations in relative terms across all levels of genetic risk imply that a healthy lifestyle may be beneficial due to higher absolute risk reduction in those at highest genetic risk.
-
7.
Adenoma and Advanced Adenoma Detection Rates of Water Exchange, Endocuff, and Cap Colonoscopy: A Network Meta-Analysis with Pooled Data of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Shao, PP, Bui, A, Romero, T, Jia, H, Leung, FW
Digestive diseases and sciences. 2021;(4):1175-1188
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS A network meta-analysis showed that low-cost optimization of existing resources was as effective as distal add-on devices in increasing adenoma detection rate (ADR). We assessed the impacts of water exchange (WE), Endocuff, and cap colonoscopy on ADR and advanced adenoma detection rate (AADR). We hypothesized that WE may be superior at improving ADR and AADR. METHODS The literature was searched for all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that reported ADR as an outcome and included the keywords colonoscopy, and water exchange, Endocuff, or cap. We performed traditional network meta-analyses with random effect models comparing ADR and AADR of each method using air insufflation (AI) as the control and reported the odds ratios with 95% confidence interval. Performances were ranked based on P-score. RESULTS Twenty-one RCTs met inclusion criteria. Fourteen RCTs also reported AADR. Both WE [1.46 (1.20-1.76)] and Endocuff [1.39 (1.17-1.66)] significantly increase ADR, while cap has no impact on ADR [1.00 (0.82-1.22)]. P-scores for WE (0.88), Endocuff (0.79), cap (0.17), and AI (0.17) suggest WE has the highest ADR. WE [1.38 (1.12-1.70)], but not Endocuff [0.96 (0.76-1.21)] or cap [1.06 (0.85-1.32)], significantly increases AADR. P-scores for WE (0.98), cap (0.50), AI (0.31), and Endocuff (0.21) suggest WE is more effective at increasing AADR. The results did not change after adjusting for age, proportion of males, and withdrawal time. CONCLUSION WE may be the modality of choice to maximally improve ADR and AADR.
-
8.
Mobile health technologies supporting colonoscopy preparation: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
El Bizri, M, El Sheikh, M, Lee, GE, Sewitch, MJ
PloS one. 2021;(3):e0248679
Abstract
BACKGROUND Mobile health (mHealth) technologies are innovative solutions for delivering instructions to patients preparing for colonoscopy. OBJECTIVE To systematically review the literature evaluating the effectiveness of mHealth technologies supporting colonoscopy preparation on patient and clinical outcomes. METHODS MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and CENTRAL were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effectiveness of mHealth technologies for colonoscopy preparation on patient and clinical outcomes. Two reviewers independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data, and appraised methodological quality using the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool. Data were pooled using random effects models and when heterogeneity, assessed using I2, was statistically significant, a qualitative synthesis of the data was performed. Publication bias was assessed using a funnel plot. RESULTS Ten RCTs (3,383 participants) met inclusion criteria. MHealth interventions included smartphone apps, SMS text messages, videos, camera apps, and a social media app. Outcomes were bowel cleanliness quality, user satisfaction, colonoscopy quality indicators (cecal intubation time, withdrawal time, adenoma detection rate), adherence to diet, and cancellation/no-show rates. MHealth interventions were associated with better bowel cleanliness scores on the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale [standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.57, 95%CI 0.37-0.77, I2 = 60%, p = 0.08] and the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale [SMD -0.39, 95%CI -0.59-0.19, I2 = 45%, p = 0.16], but they were not associated with rates of willingness to repeat the colonoscopy using the same regimen [odds ratio (OR) 1.88, 95%CI 0.85-4.15, I2 = 48%, p = 0.12] or cancellations/no-shows [OR 0.96, 95%CI 0.68-1.35, I2 = 0%]. Most studies showed that adequate bowel preparation, user satisfaction and adherence to diet were better in the intervention groups compared to the control groups, while inconsistent findings were observed for the colonoscopy quality indicators. All trials were at high risk of bias for lack of participant blinding. Visual inspection of a funnel plot revealed publication bias. CONCLUSIONS MHealth technologies show promise as a way to improve bowel cleanliness, but trials to date were of low methodological quality. High-quality research is required to understand the effectiveness of mHealth technologies on colonoscopy outcomes.
-
9.
Multiclassification of Endoscopic Colonoscopy Images Based on Deep Transfer Learning.
Wang, Y, Feng, Z, Song, L, Liu, X, Liu, S
Computational and mathematical methods in medicine. 2021;:2485934
Abstract
With the continuous improvement of human living standards, dietary habits are constantly changing, which brings various bowel problems. Among them, the morbidity and mortality rates of colorectal cancer have maintained a significant upward trend. In recent years, the application of deep learning in the medical field has become increasingly spread aboard and deep. In a colonoscopy, Artificial Intelligence based on deep learning is mainly used to assist in the detection of colorectal polyps and the classification of colorectal lesions. But when it comes to classification, it can lead to confusion between polyps and other diseases. In order to accurately diagnose various diseases in the intestines and improve the classification accuracy of polyps, this work proposes a multiclassification method for medical colonoscopy images based on deep learning, which mainly classifies the four conditions of polyps, inflammation, tumor, and normal. In view of the relatively small number of data sets, the network firstly trained by transfer learning on ImageNet was used as the pretraining model, and the prior knowledge learned from the source domain learning task was applied to the classification task about intestinal illnesses. Then, we fine-tune the model to make it more suitable for the task of intestinal classification by our data sets. Finally, the model is applied to the multiclassification of medical colonoscopy images. Experimental results show that the method in this work can significantly improve the recognition rate of polyps while ensuring the classification accuracy of other categories, so as to assist the doctor in the diagnosis of surgical resection.
-
10.
Underwater versus conventional endoscopic resection of nondiminutive nonpedunculated colorectal lesions: a prospective randomized controlled trial (with video).
Yen, AW, Leung, JW, Wilson, MD, Leung, FW
Gastrointestinal endoscopy. 2020;(3):643-654.e2
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS Incomplete resection of colorectal neoplasia decreases the efficacy of colonoscopy. Conventional resection (CR) of polyps, performed in a gas-distended colon, is the current standard, but incomplete resection rates of approximately 2% to 30% for nondiminutive (>5 mm), nonpedunculated lesions are reported. Underwater resection (UR) is a novel technique. The aim of this study was to determine the incomplete resection rates of colorectal lesions removed by UR versus CR. METHODS In a randomized controlled trial, patients with small (6-9 mm) and large (≥10 mm) nonpedunculated lesions were assigned to CR (gas-distended lumen) or UR (water-filled, gas-excluded lumen). Small lesions in both arms were removed with a dedicated cold snare. For CR, large lesions were removed with a hot snare after submucosal injection. For UR, large lesions were removed with a hot snare without submucosal injection. Four-quadrant biopsy samples around the resection sites were used to evaluate for incomplete resection. RESULTS Four hundred sixty-two eligible polyps (248 UR vs 214 CR) from 255 patients were removed. Incomplete resection rates for UR and CR were low and did not differ (2% vs 1.9%, P = .91). UR was performed significantly faster for lesions ≥10 mm in size (10-19 mm, 2.9 minutes vs 5.6 minutes, P < .0001); ≥20 mm, 7.3 minutes vs 9.5 minutes, P = .015). CONCLUSIONS Low incomplete resection rates are achievable with UR and CR. UR is effective and safe with the advantage of faster resection and potential cost savings for removal of larger (≥10 mm) lesions by avoiding submucosal injection. As an added approach, UR has potential to improve the cost-effectiveness of colonoscopy by increasing efficiency and reducing cost while maintaining quality. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02889679.).