Explore the vast range of titles available.

BackgroundOpen access colonoscopy (OAC) has gained widespread acceptance and has the potential to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. However, there is little data evaluating its appropriateness for CRC prevention.AimsThe aim of this study is to evaluate the appropriateness of OAC in CRC screening and polyp surveillance by comparing to procedures ordered by gastroenterologists (NOAC). As secondary outcomes, we compared the quality of bowel preparation and adenoma detection rate (ADR) between OAC and NOAC.MethodsIt is retrospective single-center study. Inclusion criteria included patients > 50 years of age undergoing a colonoscopy for CRC screening and surveillance. Appropriateness was defined as those colonoscopies performed within 12 months of the recommended 2012 consensus guidelines. Secondary outcomes included the quality of bowel preparation and ADR.Results5211 colonoscopies met inclusion criteria, and 64.9% were OAC. Screening OAC was appropriately 91.6% and NOAC 92.9% of the time (p = 0.179). Surveillance NOAC were inappropriate in 26.4% of cases, and surveillance OAC was 32.6% (p = 0.008). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that OAC did not influence ADR (OR for NOAC 0.97; 95% CI 0.86–1.1; p = 0.644) or an adequate bowel preparation (OR for NOAC 1.11; 95% CI 0.91–1.36; p = 0.306).ConclusionOAC performed similarly to NOAC for screening indications, quality of bowel preparation, and ADR. However, more surveillance procedures were inappropriate in the OAC group although both groups had a high number of inappropriate indications. Although OAC can be efficiently performed for screening indications, measures to decrease inappropriate surveillance colonoscopies are needed.

These consensus guidelines were jointly commissioned by the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG), the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (ACPGBI) and Public Health England (PHE). They provide an evidence-based framework for the use of surveillance colonoscopy and non-colonoscopic colorectal imaging in people aged 18 years and over. They are the first guidelines that take into account the introduction of national bowel cancer screening. For the first time, they also incorporate surveillance of patients following resection of either adenomatous or serrated polyps and also post-colorectal cancer resection. They are primarily aimed at healthcare professionals, and aim to address:Which patients should commence surveillance post-polypectomy and post-cancer resection?What is the appropriate surveillance interval?When can surveillance be stopped? two or more premalignant polyps including at least one advanced colorectal polyp (defined as a serrated polyp of at least 10 mm in size or containing any grade of dysplasia, or an adenoma of at least 10 mm in size or containing high-grade dysplasia); or five or more premalignant polyps The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument provided a methodological framework for the guidelines. The BSG’s guideline development process was used, which is National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) compliant.two or more premalignant polyps including at least one advanced colorectal polyp (defined as a serrated polyp of at least 10 mm in size or containing any grade of dysplasia, or an adenoma of at least 10 mm in size or containing high-grade dysplasia); or five or more premalignant polyps The key recommendations are that the high-risk criteria for future colorectal cancer (CRC) following polypectomy comprise either:two or more premalignant polyps including at least one advanced colorectal polyp (defined as a serrated polyp of at least 10 mm in size or containing any grade of dysplasia, or an adenoma of at least 10 mm in size or containing high-grade dysplasia); or five or more premalignant polyps This cohort should undergo a one-off surveillance colonoscopy at 3 years. Post-CRC resection patients should undergo a 1 year clearance colonoscopy, then a surveillance colonoscopy after 3 more years.

Colonoscopy should be delivered by endoscopists performing high quality procedures. The British Society of Gastroenterology, the UK Joint Advisory Group on GI Endoscopy, and the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland have developed quality assurance measures and key performance indicators for the delivery of colonoscopy within the UK. This document sets minimal standards for delivery of procedures along with aspirational targets that all endoscopists should aim for.

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.

AbstractObjectiveTo estimate benefits and harms of different colorectal cancer screening strategies, stratified by (baseline) 15-year colorectal cancer risk.DesignMicrosimulation modelling study using MIcrosimulation SCreening ANalysis-Colon (MISCAN-Colon).SettingA parallel guideline committee (BMJ Rapid Recommendations) defined the time frame and screening interventions, including selection of outcome measures.PopulationNorwegian men and women aged 50-79 years with varying 15-year colorectal cancer risk (1-7%).ComparisonsFour screening strategies were compared with no screening: biennial or annual faecal immunochemical test (FIT) or single sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy at 100% adherence.Main outcome measuresColorectal cancer mortality and incidence, burdens, and harms over 15 years of follow-up. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.ResultsOver 15 years of follow-up, screening individuals aged 50-79 at 3% risk of colorectal cancer with annual FIT or single colonoscopy reduced colorectal cancer mortality by 6 per 1000 individuals. Single sigmoidoscopy and biennial FIT reduced it by 5 per 1000 individuals. Colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, and annual FIT reduced colorectal cancer incidence by 10, 8, and 4 per 1000 individuals, respectively. The estimated incidence reduction for biennial FIT was 1 per 1000 individuals. Serious harms were estimated to be between 3 per 1000 (biennial FIT) and 5 per 1000 individuals (colonoscopy); harms increased with older age. The absolute benefits of screening increased with increasing colorectal cancer risk, while harms were less affected by baseline risk. Results were sensitive to the setting defined by the guideline panel. Because of uncertainty associated with modelling assumptions, we applied a GRADE rating of low certainty evidence to all estimates.ConclusionsOver a 15 year period, all screening strategies may reduce colorectal cancer mortality to a similar extent. Colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy may also reduce colorectal cancer incidence, while FIT shows a smaller incidence reduction. Harms are rare and of similar magnitude for all screening strategies.

AbstractUpdate to this articleIn October 2022, three years after the initial publication of this guideline, the first trial of the effect of colonoscopy screening was published. The implications of this new evidence for the current recommendations were evaluated by the guideline panel in January 2023. The guideline panel judged that this new evidence did not alter the current recommendations, and therefore that an update of the following guideline was not needed (see table 2 for details).Clinical questionRecent 15-year updates of sigmoidoscopy screening trials provide new evidence on the effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening. Prompted by the new evidence, we asked: “Does colorectal cancer screening make an important difference to health outcomes in individuals initiating screening at age 50 to 79? And which screening option is best?”Current practiceNumerous guidelines recommend screening, but vary on recommended test, age and screening frequency. This guideline looks at the evidence and makes recommendations on screening for four screening options: faecal immunochemical test (FIT) every year, FIT every two years, a single sigmoidoscopy, or a single colonoscopy.RecommendationsThese recommendations apply to adults aged 50-79 years with no prior screening, no symptoms of colorectal cancer, and a life expectancy of at least 15 years. For individuals with an estimated 15-year colorectal cancer risk below 3%, we suggest no screening (weak recommendation). For individuals with an estimated 15-year risk above 3%, we suggest screening with one of the four screening options: FIT every year, FIT every two years, a single sigmoidoscopy, or a single colonoscopy (weak recommendation). With our guidance we publish the linked research, a graphic of the absolute harms and benefits, a clear description of how we reached our value judgments, and linked decision aids.How this guideline was createdA guideline panel including patients, clinicians, content experts and methodologists produced these recommendations using GRADE and in adherence with standards for trustworthy guidelines. A linked systematic review of colorectal cancer screening trials and microsimulation modelling were performed to inform the panel of 15-year screening benefits and harms. The panel also reviewed each screening option’s practical issues and burdens. Based on their own experience, the panel estimated the magnitude of benefit typical members of the population would value to opt for screening and used the benefit thresholds to inform their recommendations.The evidenceOverall there was substantial uncertainty (low certainty evidence) regarding the 15-year benefits, burdens, and harms of screening. Best estimates suggested that all four screening options resulted in similar colorectal cancer mortality reductions. FIT every two years may have little or no effect on cancer incidence over 15 years, while FIT every year, sigmoidoscopy, and colonoscopy may reduce cancer incidence, although for FIT the incidence reduction is small compared with sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy. Screening related serious gastrointestinal and cardiovascular adverse events are rare. The magnitude of the benefits is dependent on the individual risk, while harms and burdens are less strongly associated with cancer risk.Understanding the recommendationBased on benefits, harms, and burdens of screening, the panel inferred that most informed individuals with a 15-year risk of colorectal cancer of 3% or higher are likely to choose screening, and most individuals with a risk of below 3% are likely to decline screening. Given varying values and preferences, optimal care will require shared decision making.

Central reading, that is, independent, off-site, blinded review or reading of imaging endpoints, has been identified as a crucial component in the conduct and analysis of inflammatory bowel disease clinical trials. Central reading is the final step in a workflow that has many parts, all of which can be improved. Furthermore, the best reading algorithm and the most intensive central reader training cannot make up for deficiencies in the acquisition stage (clinical trial endoscopy) or improve on the limitations of the underlying score (outcome instrument). In this review, academic and industry experts review scoring systems, and propose a theoretical framework for central reading that predicts when improvements in statistical power, affecting trial size and chances of success, can be expected: Multireader models can be conceptualised as statistical or non-statistical (social). Important organisational and operational factors, such as training and retraining of readers, optimal bowel preparation for colonoscopy, video quality, optimal or at least acceptable read duration times and other quality control matters, are addressed as well. The theory and practice of central reading and the conduct of endoscopy in clinical trials are interdisciplinary topics that should be of interest to many, regulators, clinical trial experts, gastroenterology societies and those in the academic community who endeavour to develop new scoring systems using traditional and machine learning approaches.

ObjectiveOutside clinical trials, the effectiveness of chromoendoscopy (CE) for long-standing IBD surveillance is controversial. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of CE for neoplasia detection and characterisation, in real-life.DesignFrom June 2012 to 2014, patients with IBD were prospectively included in a multicentre cohort study. Each colonic segment was evaluated with white light followed by 0.4% indigo carmine CE. Specific lesions' features were recorded. Optical diagnosis was assessed. Dysplasia detection rate between expert and non-expert endoscopists and learning curve were ascertained.ResultsNinety-four (15.7%) dysplastic (1 cancer, 5 high-grade dysplasia, 88 low-grade dysplasia) and 503 (84.3%) non-dysplastic lesions were detected in 350 patients (47% female; mean disease duration: 17 years). Colonoscopies were performed with standard definition (41.5%) or high definition (58.5%). Dysplasia miss rate with white light was 40/94 (57.4% incremental yield for CE). CE-incremental detection yield for dysplasia was comparable between standard definition and high definition (51.5% vs 52.3%, p=0.30). Dysplasia detection rate was comparable between expert and non-expert (18.5% vs 13.1%, p=0.20). No significant learning curve was observed (8.2% vs 14.2%, p=0.46). Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for dysplasia optical diagnosis were 70%, 90%, 58% and 94%, respectively. Endoscopic characteristics predictive of dysplasia were: proximal location, loss of innominate lines, polypoid morphology and Kudo pit pattern III–V.ConclusionsCE presents a high diagnostic yield for neoplasia detection, irrespectively of the technology and experience available in any centre. In vivo, CE optical diagnosis is highly accurate for ruling out dysplasia, especially in expert hands. Lesion characteristics can aid the endoscopist for in situ therapeutic decisions.Trial registration numberNCT02543762.