Explore the vast range of titles available.

This document updates the colorectal cancer (CRC) screening recommendations of the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force of Colorectal Cancer (MSTF), which represents the American College of Gastroenterology, the American Gastroenterological Association, and The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. CRC screening tests are ranked in 3 tiers based on performance features, costs, and practical considerations. The first-tier tests are colonoscopy every 10 years and annual fecal immunochemical test (FIT). Colonoscopy and FIT are recommended as the cornerstones of screening regardless of how screening is offered. Thus, in a sequential approach based on colonoscopy offered first, FIT should be offered to patients who decline colonoscopy. Colonoscopy and FIT are recommended as tests of choice when multiple options are presented as alternatives. A risk-stratified approach is also appropriate, with FIT screening in populations with an estimated low prevalence of advanced neoplasia and colonoscopy screening in high prevalence populations. The second-tier tests include CT colonography every 5 years, the FIT-fecal DNA test every 3 years, and flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5 to 10 years. These tests are appropriate screening tests, but each has disadvantages relative to the tier 1 tests. Because of limited evidence and current obstacles to use, capsule colonoscopy every 5 years is a third-tier test. We suggest that the Septin9 serum assay (Epigenomics, Seattle, Wash) not be used for screening. Screening should begin at age 50 years in average-risk persons, except in African Americans in whom limited evidence supports screening at 45 years. CRC incidence is rising in persons under age 50, and thorough diagnostic evaluation of young persons with suspected colorectal bleeding is recommended. Discontinuation of screening should be considered when persons up to date with screening, who have prior negative screening (particularly colonoscopy), reach age 75 or have <10 years of life expectancy. Persons without prior screening should be considered for screening up to age 85, depending on age and comorbidities. Persons with a family history of CRC or a documented advanced adenoma in a first-degree relative age <60 years or 2 first-degree relatives with these findings at any age are recommended to undergo screening by colonoscopy every 5 years, beginning 10 years before the age at diagnosis of the youngest affected relative or age 40, whichever is earlier. Persons with a single first-degree relative diagnosed at ≥60 years with CRC or an advanced adenoma can be offered average-risk screening options beginning at age 40 years.

Colonoscopy with polypectomy reduces the incidence of and mortality from colorectal cancer (CRC).1,2 It is the cornerstone of effective prevention.3 The National Polyp Study showed that removal of adenomas during colonoscopy is associated with a reduction in CRC mortality by up to 50% relative to population controls.1,2 The lifetime risk to develop CRC in the United States is approximately 4.3%, with 90% of cases occurring after the age of 50 years.4 The recent reductions in CRC incidence and mortality have been largely attributed to the widespread uptake of CRC screening with polypectomy.5 The techniques and outcomes of polyp removal using colonoscopy, however, had historically remained understudied and thus, practice widely varied. A pooled analysis from 8 surveillance studies that followed participants with adenomas after a baseline colonoscopy suggested that although the majority (50%) of post-colonoscopy colon cancers were likely due to missed lesions, close to one-fifth of incident cancers were related to incomplete resection.7 Polypectomy techniques have expanded in parallel with advances in endoscopic imaging, technology, and tools. [...]the applications of cold snare polypectomy for small lesions, which can remove adenomatous tissue en bloc with surrounding normal mucosa, and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for large and flat lesions, which utilizes submucosal injection to lift the lesion before snare resection, have evolved to improve complete and safer resection. Literature Review We performed a systematic review of the literature based on a defined search by a medical librarian of the Ovid Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases from 1946 to December 2017, as well as reviews of manual references and scientific meeting abstracts of the American College of Gastroenterology, American Gastroenterology Association, American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, and United European Gastroenterology Week from 2014–2017.

Specifically, we will discuss 6 key questions that address the following 3 tasks: endoscopic recognition of colorectal polyps with deep submucosal invasion that should be referred directly to surgery; optimal endoscopic resection techniques and specimen handling when an increased risk of superficial submucosally invasive polyp is identified; and weighing the risks and benefits of surgery when an endoscopically removed polyp is found to have submucosal invasion. Grading of Evidence The US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer (USMSTF) consists of gastroenterologists with expertise in colorectal neoplasia (ie, CRC and precursor lesions, such as polyps). According to this classification, malignant polyps would fall under category 5.2 (submucosal carcinoma and beyond).Table 2. [...]the use of terms such as carcinoma or cancer in describing lesions confined to the mucosa may cause undue alarm to endoscopists, surgeons, patients, or primary care providers, and can lead to unnecessary surgery.

Purpose Many studies have reported on the use of narrow band imaging (NBI) colonoscopy to differentiate neoplastic from non-neoplastic colorectal polyps. It has potential to replace pathological diagnosis of diminutive polyps. We aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis on the real-time diagnostic operating characteristics of NBI colonoscopy. Methods We searched PubMed, SCOPUS and Cochrane databases and abstracts. We used a two-level bivariate meta-analysis following a random effects model to summarise the data and fit hierarchical summary receiver-operating characteristic (HSROC) curves. The area under the HSROC curve serves as an indicator of the diagnostic test strength. We calculated summary sensitivity, specificity and negative predictive value (NPV). We assessed agreement of surveillance interval recommendations based on endoscopic diagnosis compared to pathology. Results For NBI diagnosis of colorectal polyps, the area under the HSROC curve was 0.92 (95% CI 0.90 to 0.94), based on 28 studies involving 6280 polyps in 4053 patients. The overall sensitivity was 91.0% (95% CI 87.6% to 93.5%) and specificity was 82.6% (95% CI 79.0% to 85.7%). In eight studies (n=2146 polyps) that used high-confidence diagnostic predictions, sensitivity was 93.8% and specificity was 83.3%. The NPVs exceeded 90% when 60% or less of all polyps were neoplastic. Surveillance intervals based on endoscopic diagnosis agreed with those based on pathology in 92.6% of patients (95% CI 87.9% to 96.3%). Conclusions NBI diagnosis of colorectal polyps is highly accurate—the area under the HSROC curve exceeds 0.90. High-confidence predictions provide >90% sensitivity and NPV. It shows high potential for real-time endoscopic diagnosis.

In this article, we aim to illustrate the use of simulation-based mastery learning (SBML) (5) in assisting practicing gastroenterologists to acquire and enhance critical skills required for optimizing patient safety and outcomes. SIMULATION-BASED MASTERY LEARNING Mastery learning (ML) is a well-developed and robust form of competency-based education that ensures all the graduates learn uniformly. Importantly, simulator use is an essential component of ML because learners can practice while receiving feedback and demonstrate competency before advancing to the next task and ultimately meeting the course objectives (6). Flowchart of our simulation-based mastery learning exercise to acquire knowledge and skills on the over-the-scope clip application.

Background Colorectal adenocarcinoma with depth of invasion ≤1,000 μm from the muscularis mucosa and favorable histology is now considered for local resection. We aimed to examine the strength of evidence for this emerging practice. Methods We searched Medline, Scopus, and Cochrane (1950–2011), then performed a meta-analysis on the risk of lymph node metastasis in nonpedunculated (sessile and nonpolypoid) T1 colorectal cancers. We included studies with nonpedunculated lesions, actual invasion depth, and pathologic factors of interest. Synchronous, polyposis or secondary cancers, and chemoradiation studies were excluded. Our primary outcome was the risk of LNM. We analyzed using Review Manager; we estimated heterogeneity using Cochran Q χ 2 test and I 2 . We generated summary risk ratios using a random effects model, performed sensitivity analyses, and evaluated the quality of evidence using GRADEPro. Results We identified 209 articles; 5 studies ( n  = 1213 patients) met the inclusion criteria. The risk of LNM in nonpedunculated ≤1,000 μm is 1.9 % (95 % confidence interval 0.5–4.8 %). The risk for all T1 is 13 % (95 % confidence interval 11.5–15.4 %). Characteristics protective against LNM were ≤1,000 μm invasion, well differentiation, absence of lymphatic and vascular invasion, and absence of tumor budding. We did not detect significant study heterogeneity. The quality of evidence was poor. Conclusions Well-differentiated nonpedunculated T1 colorectal cancer invasive into the submucosa ≤1,000 μm, without lymphovascular involvement or tumor budding, has the lowest risk of nodal metastasis. Importantly, the risk was not zero (1.9 %), and the qualitative formal analysis of data was not strong. As such, endoscopic resection alone may be adequate in select patients with submucosal invasive colorectal cancers, but more studies are needed. Overall, the quality of evidence was poor; data were from small retrospective studies from limited geographic regions.

The Multi-Society Task Force, in collaboration with invited experts, developed guidelines to assist health care providers with the appropriate provision of genetic testing and management of patients at risk for and affected with Lynch syndrome as follows: Figure 1 provides a colorectal cancer risk assessment tool to screen individuals in the office or endoscopy setting; Figure 2 illustrates a strategy for universal screening for Lynch syndrome by tumor testing of patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer; Figures 3,4,5,6 provide algorithms for genetic evaluation of affected and at-risk family members of pedigrees with Lynch syndrome; Table 10 provides guidelines for screening at-risk and affected persons with Lynch syndrome; and Table 12 lists the guidelines for the management of patients with Lynch syndrome. A detailed explanation of Lynch syndrome and the methodology utilized to derive these guidelines, as well as an explanation of, and supporting literature for, these guidelines are provided.