Explore the vast range of titles available.

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.

Existing cross-sectional quality measures for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening do not assess longitudinal adherence and thus may overestimate the quality of care. Our goal was to evaluate the adherence to repeated yearly fecal occult blood tests (FOBTs) in order to better understand the extent to which longitudinal adherence may impact screening quality. This was a retrospective cohort analysis of 1,122,645 patients aged 50-75 years seen at any of the 136 Department of Veterans Affairs medical centers across the United States in 2000 and followed through 2005. The primary outcome was receipt of adequate CRC screening as defined by receipt of FOBTs in at least 4 out of 5 years or receipt of any number of FOBTs in addition to at least one colonoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy, or double-contrast barium enema. In a predefined subset of patients receiving exclusively FOBT, adherence with repeated testing was determined over the 5-year study period. Only 41.1% of men and 43.6% of women received adequate screening. Of the 384,527 men who received exclusively FOBT, 42.1% received a single FOBT, 26.0% received 2 tests, 17.8% received 3 tests, and only 14.1% were documented to have received at least 4 tests during the study period. Among the 10,469 female veterans receiving FOBT alone, rates were similar with only 13.7% completing at least 4 FOBTs in the 5-year study period. Adherence to repeated FOBT is low, suggesting that cross-sectional measurements of quality may overestimate the programmatic success of CRC screening.

BACKGROUND:Flexible sigmoidoscopy and fecal immunochemical tests are established diagnostic tests for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and less invasive, less expensive, and easier to conduct than colonoscopy. However, little is known about their joint diagnostic performance compared with colonoscopy. We aimed to assess the expected diagnostic performance of joint use of flexible sigmoidoscopy and fecal immunochemical test. METHODS:We assessed the overall and site-specific prevalences of colorectal neoplasms and the overall sensitivity, specificity, area under the receiver operating characteristics curve of a quantitative fecal immunochemical test (FOB Gold, Sentinel Diagnostics, Milano, Italy) among 3,466 participants in screening colonoscopy in Germany. Results were used to model the expected diagnostic performance of joint use of flexible sigmoidoscopy and fecal immunochemical testing. RESULTS:CRC and advanced adenomas were found in 29 (1%) and 354 (10%) participants, respectively. The area under the curve of fecal immunochemical testing for these outcomes could be raised from 96% to 100% and from 70% to 89%, respectively, by combining it with flexible sigmoidoscopy. At 90% specificity, sensitivity of fecal immunochemical testing would increase from 97% to 100% for CRC and from 40% to 79% for advanced adenomas. CONCLUSIONS:Combining flexible sigmoidoscopy and fecal immunochemical testing might strongly enhance diagnostic performance of each single test to a level close to the diagnostic performance of screening colonoscopy while avoiding many unnecessary colonoscopies.

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND Many older adults in the U.S. do not receive appropriate colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Although primary care physicians’ recommendations to their patients are central to the screening process, little information is available about their recommendations in relation to guidelines for the menu of CRC screening modalities, including fecal occult blood testing (FOBT), flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS), colonoscopy, and double contrast barium enema (DCBE). The objective of this study was to explore potentially modifiable physician and practice factors associated with guideline-consistent recommendations for the menu of CRC screening modalities. METHODS We examined data from a nationally representative sample of 1266 physicians in the U.S. surveyed in 2007. The survey included questions about physician and practice characteristics, perceptions about screening, and recommendations for age of initiation and screening interval for FOBT, FS, colonoscopy and DCBE in average risk adults. Physicians’ screening recommendations were classified as guideline consistent for all, some, or none of the CRC screening modalities recommended. Analyses used descriptive statistics and polytomous logit regression models. RESULTS Few (19.1%; 95% CI:16.9%, 21.5%) physicians made guideline-consistent recommendations across all CRC screening modalities that they recommended. In multivariate analysis, younger physician age, board certification, north central geographic region, single specialty or multi-specialty practice type, fewer patients per week, higher number of recommended modalities, use of electronic medical records, greater influence of patient preferences for screening, and published clinical evidence were associated with guideline-consistent screening recommendations (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS Physicians’ CRC screening recommendations reflect both overuse and underuse, and few made guideline-consistent CRC screening recommendations across all modalities they recommended. Interventions that focus on potentially modifiable physician and practice factors that influence overuse and underuse and address the menu of recommended screening modalities will be important for improving screening practice.

Rectal cancer requires a multidisciplinary and multimodality treatment approach. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) provide a framework for delivering consistent, evidence-based health care. We compared provincial/territorial CPGs across Canada to identify areas of variability and evaluate their quality. We retrieved CPGs from Canadian organizations responsible for cancer care oversight and evaluated their quality and developmental methodology using the AGREE-II instrument. Recommendations for diagnostic and staging investigations, treatment by stage, and post-treatment surveillance of stage I–III rectal cancers were abstracted and compared. We identified 7 sets of CPGs for analysis, varying in content, presentation, quality, and year last updated. Differences were noted in locoregional staging: 4 recommended magnetic resonance imaging over endorectal ultrasonography, 2 recommended either modality, and 3 specified scenarios for one over the other. Recommendations also varied for use of staging computed tomography of the chest versus chest radiography and for surgical management and indications for transanal excision. Recommendations for neoadjuvant therapy in stage II/III disease also differed: 3 guidelines recommended long-course chemoradiation over short-course radiation therapy alone, while 3 others recommended short-course radiation in specific clinical scenarios. Adjuvant chemotherapy for stage II/III disease was uniformly recommended, with variable protocols. The use of proctosigmoidoscopy and interval/duration of endoscopic post-treatment surveillance varied among guidelines. Canadian CPGs vary in their recommendations for staging, treatment, and surveillance of rectal cancer. Some of these differences reflect areas with limited definitive evidence. Consistent guidelines with uniform implementation across provinces/territories may lead to more equitable care to patients. Le cancer rectal requiert une approche thérapeutique multidisciplinaire et multimodalité. Les guides de pratique clinique (GPC) procurent un cadre pour assurer la prestation de soins de santé constants reposant sur des données probantes. Nous avons comparé les GPC des provinces et des territoires canadiens pour identifier les secteurs où ils varient et pour en évaluer la qualité. Nous avons obtenu les GPC des organisations canadiennes responsables des soins oncologiques et nous avons évalué leur qualité et la méthodologie de leur élaboration au moyen de l’outil AGREE II (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation). Nous avons extrait et comparé les recommandations en ce qui concerne les épreuves diagnostiques et la stadification, les traitements en fonction du stade et la surveillance post-thérapeutique du cancer rectal de stade I à III. Nous avons recensé 7 GPC aux fins de cette analyse; leur contenu, leur présentation, leur qualité et l’année de leur plus récente mise à jour variaient. Des différences ont été observées au plan de la stadification locorégionale : 4 recommandaient l’imagerie par résonnance magnétique plutôt que l’échographie endorectale, 2 recommandaient l’une ou l’autre et 3 précisaient des circonstances où utiliser l’une plutôt que l’autre. Les recommandations variaient aussi pour ce qui est de l’utilisation de la scintigraphie c. radiographie thoracique de stadification, de la prise en charge chirurgicale et des indications de l’excision transanale. Les recommandations variaient également en ce qui concerne le traitement néoadjuvant pour la maladie de stade II/III : 3 guides recommandaient un traitement par chimioradiothérapie à long terme plutôt qu’une brève radiothérapie seule, tandis que 3 autres recommandaient une radiothérapie brève dans certains cas particuliers. La chimiothérapie adjuvante pour la maladie de stade II/III était uniformément recommandée, mais les protocoles variaient. L’utilisation de la proctosigmoïdoscopie et l’intervalle/durée de la surveillance endoscopique post-thérapeutique variaient d’un guide à l’autre. Les GPC canadiens varient quant à leurs recommandations pour la stadification, le traitement et la surveillance du cancer rectal. Certaines de ces différences témoignent du manque de données probantes concluantes dans certains secteurs. L’uniformisation des guides et de leur application entre les provinces et les territoires pourrait faciliter une prestation plus équitable des soins aux patients.

Objective Flexible sigmoidoscopy is useful to look for an underlying aetiology in fistula-in-ano. This study was aimed to assess the yield of routine flexible sigmoidoscopy in patients presenting with fistula-in-ano. A retrospective analysis of 159 consecutive patients with fistula-in-ano who underwent routine flexible sigmoidoscopy was performed. Sigmoidoscopy findings were recorded on a standard uniform format using a computer database. Those with a known aetiology were excluded. Results The median age was 39 (range: 14–74) years and the majority were males (n = 128, 80.5%). Forty-nine patients (30.8%) presented with a recurrent fistula-in-ano. On flexible sigmoidoscopy, internal opening was seen in only 23 patients (14.4%). Furthermore, incidental findings of haemorrhoids (n = 5, 3.1%) and polyps (n = 7, 4.4%) were found. One patient (0.6%) had a healed anal fissure, 5 patients (3.1%) had inflamed mucosa and 2 patients (1.3%) had ulcers. Only two patients with inflamed mucosa were diagnosed to have Crohn’s disease on histology. Therefore, flexible sigmoidoscopy was not helpful in the majority to locate the internal opening. Only two patients had evidence of an underlying aetiology, which was Crohn’s disease. However, they had recurrent complex fistulae and other associated symptoms. Therefore, flexible sigmoidoscopy may be reserved for selected group of patients with symptoms of an underlying aetiology.

Each year the American Cancer Society publishes a summary of existing recommendations for early detection, including updates, and/or emerging issues that are relevant to screening for cancer. Smith provides an update of the most recent data pertaining to participation rates in cancer screening by age, gender, and ethnicity.

Background: Flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) is a complex technical procedure performed in a variety of settings, by examiners with diverse professional backgrounds, training, and experience. Potential variation in technical quality may have a profound impact on the effectiveness of FS on the early detection and prevention of colorectal cancer. Aim: We propose a set of consensus and evidence based recommendations to assist the development of continuous quality improvement programmes around the delivery of FS for colorectal cancer screening. Recommendations: These recommendations address the intervals between FS examinations, documentation of results, training of endoscopists, decision making around referral for colonoscopy, policies for antibiotic prophylaxis and management of anticoagulation, insertion of the FS endoscope, bowel preparation, complications, the use of non-physicians as FS endoscopists, and FS endoscope reprocessing. For each of these areas, continuous quality improvement targets are recommended, and research questions are proposed.

Background and study aim: Inadequate colorectal cancer screening wastes limited endoscopic resources. We examined patients factors associated with inadequate flexible sigmoidoscopy (FSG) screening at baseline screening and repeat screening 3–5 years later in 10 geographically-dispersed screening centers participating in the ongoing Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial. Methods: A total of 64,554 participants (aged 55–74) completed baseline questionnaires and underwent FSG at baseline. Of these, 39,385 participants returned for repeat screening. We used logistic regression models to assess factors that are associated with inadequate FSG (defined as a study in which the depth of insertion of FSG was <50cm or visual inspection was limited to <90% of the mucosal surface but without detection of a polyp or mass). Results: Of 7084 (11%) participants with inadequate FSG at baseline, 6496 (91.7%) had <50cm depth of insertion (75.3% due to patient discomfort) and 500 (7.1%) participants had adequate depth of insertion but suboptimal bowel preparation. Compared to 55–59 year age group, advancing age in 5-year increments (odds ratios (OR) from 1.08 to 1.51) and female sex (OR=2.40; 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.27–2.54) were associated with inadequate FSG. Obesity (BMI >30kg/m2) was associated with reduced odds (OR=0.67; 95% CI: 0.62–0.72). Inadequate FSG screening at baseline was associated with inadequate FSG at repeat screening (OR=6.24; 95% CI: 5.78–6.75). Conclusions: Sedation should be considered for patients with inadequate FSG or an alternative colorectal cancer screening method should be recommended.