Explore the vast range of titles available.

Guidelines suggest screening of individuals who are at increased risk of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). Tools for identifying patients at risk of Barrett's esophagus have been validated. Here, we aimed to compare and validate the tools for the primary outcomes of interest: EAC and esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma (EGJAC). Retrospective longitudinal analysis of the Kaiser Permanente Northern California Multiphasic Health Checkup Cohort, a community-based cohort including 206,974 patients enrolled between 1964 and 1973 followed through 2016. Baseline questionnaires and anthropometrics classified predictor variables for each tool and were linked to cancer registry outcomes. Analyses used logistic regression, Cox proportional hazards regression, and Kaplan-Meier survival curves. We identified 168 incident EAC cases and 151 EGJAC cases at a mean of 32 years after enrollment (mean follow-up among controls 26 years). Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms predicted incident EAC (hazard ratio 2.66; 95% confidence interval 1.01, 7.00), but not EGJAC. The Nord-Trøndelag Health Study tool, Kunzmann tool, and Michigan Barrett's Esophagus pREdiction Tool were more accurate than GERD for predicting EAC, with individuals in the fourth quartile of Kunzmann having 17-fold the risk of those in the 1st quartile (hazard ratio = 16.7, 95% confidence interval = 4.72, 58.8). Each tool also predicted incident EGJAC with smaller magnitudes of effect. The study independently validated 4 tools for predicting incident EAC and EGJAC in a large community-based population. The Kunzmann tool appears best calibrated; all appear preferable to using GERD alone for risk stratification. Future studies should determine how best to implement such tools into clinical practice.

Risk factors for Barrett's esophagus include gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms, age, abdominal obesity, and tobacco use. We aimed to develop a tool using these factors to predict the presence of Barrett's esophagus. Male colorectal cancer (CRC) screenees were recruited to undergo upper endoscopy, identifying newly diagnosed cases of Barrett's esophagus. Logistic regression models predicting Barrett's esophagus using GERD symptoms alone and together with abdominal obesity, tobacco use, and age were compared. Barrett's esophagus was found in 70 (8.5%) of 822 CRC screenees. Mutually adjusting for other covariates, Barrett's esophagus was associated with weekly GERD (odds ratio (OR)=2.33, 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.34, 4.05), age (OR per 10 years=1.53, 95% CI=1.05, 2.25), waist-to-hip ratio (OR per 0.10=1.44, 95% CI=0.898, 2.32) and pack-years of cigarette use (OR per 10 pack-years=1.09, 95% CI=1.04, 1.14). A model including those four factors had a greater area under the receiver operating characteristics curve than did a model based on GERD frequency and duration alone (0.72 vs. 0.61, P<0.001), and it had a net reclassification improvement index of 19-25%. The prevalence of Barrett's esophagus was substantial in our population of older overweight men. A model based on GERD, age, abdominal obesity, and cigarette use more accurately classified the presence of Barrett's esophagus than did a model based on GERD alone. Following validation of the tool in another population, its use in clinical practice might improve the efficiency of screening for Barrett's esophagus.

Background. In some health care systems, patients face long wait times for screening colonoscopy. We sought to assess whether patients at low risk for colorectal cancer (CRC) would be willing to delay their own colonoscopy so higher-risk peers could undergo colonoscopy sooner. Methods. We surveyed 1054 Veterans regarding their attitudes toward repeat colonoscopy and risk-based prioritization. We used multivariable regression to identify patient factors associated with willingness to delay screening for a higher-risk peer. Results. Despite a physician recommendation to stop screening, 29% of respondents reported being “not at all likely” to stop. However, 94% reported that they would be willing to delay their own colonoscopy for a higher-risk peer. Greater trust in physician and greater health literacy were positively associated with willingness to wait, while greater perceived threat of CRC and Black or Latino race/ethnicity were negatively associated with willingness to wait. Conclusion. Despite high enthusiasm for repeat screening, patients were willing to delay their own colonoscopy for higher-risk peers. Appealing to altruism could be effective when utilizing scarce resources.

INTRODUCTION:Guidelines suggest screening of individuals who are at increased risk of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). Tools for identifying patients at risk of Barrett's esophagus have been validated. Here, we aimed to compare and validate the tools for the primary outcomes of interest: EAC and esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma (EGJAC).METHODS:Retrospective longitudinal analysis of the Kaiser Permanente Northern California Multiphasic Health Checkup Cohort, a community-based cohort including 206,974 patients enrolled between 1964 and 1973 followed through 2016. Baseline questionnaires and anthropometrics classified predictor variables for each tool and were linked to cancer registry outcomes. Analyses used logistic regression, Cox proportional hazards regression, and Kaplan-Meier survival curves.RESULTS:We identified 168 incident EAC cases and 151 EGJAC cases at a mean of 32 years after enrollment (mean follow-up among controls 26 years). Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms predicted incident EAC (hazard ratio 2.66; 95% confidence interval 1.01, 7.00), but not EGJAC. The Nord-Trøndelag Health Study tool, Kunzmann tool, and Michigan Barrett's Esophagus pREdiction Tool were more accurate than GERD for predicting EAC, with individuals in the fourth quartile of Kunzmann having 17-fold the risk of those in the 1st quartile (hazard ratio = 16.7, 95% confidence interval = 4.72, 58.8). Each tool also predicted incident EGJAC with smaller magnitudes of effect.DISCUSSION:The study independently validated 4 tools for predicting incident EAC and EGJAC in a large community-based population. The Kunzmann tool appears best calibrated; all appear preferable to using GERD alone for risk stratification. Future studies should determine how best to implement such tools into clinical practice.

Guidelines for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening recommend an individualized approach in older adults that is informed by consideration of life expectancy and cancer risk. However, little is known about how patients perceive individualized screening recommendations. To assess veterans' attitudes toward and comfort with cessation of low-value CRC screening (defined as screening in a patient for whom the benefit is expected to be small based on quantitative estimates from hypothetical risk calculators). This survey study included patients older than 50 years who had undergone prior screening colonoscopy with normal results at the Veterans Affairs Ann Arbor Healthcare System. A total of 1500 surveys were mailed to potential participants from November 1, 2010, to January 1, 2012. Survey data were analyzed from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2017. Response to the question, \"If you personally had serious health problems that were likely to shorten your life and your doctor did not think screening would be of much benefit based on the calculator, how comfortable would you be with not getting any more screening colonoscopies?\" Of the 1500 surveys mailed, 85 were returned to sender, leaving 1415 potential respondents; 1054 of these respondents (median age range, 60-69 years; 884 [85.9%] white and 965 [94.2%] male) completed the survey (response rate, 74.5%). A total of 300 (28.7%) were not at all comfortable with cessation of low-value CRC screening, and 509 (49.3%) thought that age should never be used to decide when to stop screening. In addition, 332 (31.7%) thought it was not at all reasonable to use life expectancy calculators, and 255 (24.3%) thought it was not at all reasonable to use CRC risk calculators to guide these decisions. In ordered logistic regression analysis, factors associated with more comfort with screening cessation were (1) higher trust in physician (odds ratio [OR], 1.19; 95% CI, 1.07-1.32), (2) higher perceived health status (OR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.23-1.61), and (3) higher barriers to screening (OR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.11-1.30). Factors that were associated with less comfort with screening cessation included (1) greater perceived effectiveness of screening (OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.80-0.94) and (2) greater perceived threat of CRC (OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.73-0.89). The findings suggest that many veterans have strong preferences against screening cessation even when given detailed information about why the benefit may be low. Efforts to tailor screening recommendations may be met by resistance unless they are accompanied by efforts to address underlying perceptions about the benefit of screening.

Background Trainees learn colonoscopy skills at varying speeds. We hypothesized that a fellow’s ability to reliably reach the splenic flexure early in training could predict the number of procedures required to achieve competency in intubating the cecum. Methods This was a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. The most proximal site in the colon reached independently by GI fellows was recorded on consecutive colonoscopies. The number of procedures required to achieve splenic flexure intubation rate (SFIR) ≥ 90 % by cumulative summation learning curve and cecal intubation rate (CIR) ≥ 90 % by rolling average was calculated. Fellows were then dichotomized into “Early” versus “Late” learners based on the median number of procedures required to achieve SFIR ≥ 90 %. The number of procedures required to achieve CIR ≥ 90 % was then compared between the groups. Results Fellows achieved SFIR ≥ 90 % at a median of 37 colonoscopies. Fellows who achieved SFIR competency early achieved CIR ≥ 90 % at a mean of 208 procedures versus 352 procedures in the fellows who achieved SFIR competency late ( p  = 0.03). Conclusions Data from a single academic medical center show that whether a trainee will learn endoscopy quickly compared to his/her peers can be predicted early in their endoscopy training by tracking SFIR. This knowledge could be used to customize endoscopy curriculum.