Effect of Colonoscopy Screening on Risks of Colorectal Cancer and Related Death.

BACKGROUND: Although colonoscopy is widely used as a screening test to detect colorectal cancer, its effect on the risks of colorectal cancer and related death is unclear. METHODS: We performed a pragmatic, randomized trial involving presumptively healthy men and women 55 to 64 years of age drawn from population registries in Poland, Norway, Sweden, and the Netherlands between 2009 and 2014. The participants were randomly assigned in a 1:2 ratio either to receive an invitation to undergo a single screening colonoscopy (the invited group) or to receive no invitation or screening (the usual-care group). The primary end points were the risks of colorectal cancer and related death, and the secondary end point was death from any cause. RESULTS: Follow-up data were available for 84,585 participants in Poland, Norway, and Sweden - 28,220 in the invited group, 11,843 of whom (42.0%) underwent screening, and 56,365 in the usual-care group. A total of 15 participants had major bleeding after polyp removal. No perforations or screening-related deaths occurred within 30 days after colonoscopy. During a median follow-up of 10 years, 259 cases of colorectal cancer were diagnosed in the invited group as compared with 622 cases in the usual-care group. In intention-to-screen analyses, the risk of colorectal cancer at 10 years was 0.98% in the invited group and 1.20% in the usual-care group, a risk reduction of 18% (risk ratio, 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.70 to 0.93). The risk of death from colorectal cancer was 0.28% in the invited group and 0.31% in the usual-care group (risk ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.64 to 1.16). The number needed to invite to undergo screening to prevent one case of colorectal cancer was 455 (95% CI, 270 to 1429). The risk of death from any cause was 11.03% in the invited group and 11.04% in the usual-care group (risk ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.04). CONCLUSIONS: In this randomized trial, the risk of colorectal cancer at 10 years was lower among participants who were invited to undergo screening colonoscopy than among those who were assigned to no screening. (Funded by the Research Council of Norway and others; NordICC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00883792.).

The prospective validation of a scoring system to assess mucosal cleanliness during EGD.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Cleanliness of the mucosa of the upper GI (UGI) tract is critical for performing a high-quality EGD. The aim of this study was to validate a recently developed UGI cleanliness scale (the Polprep: Effective Assessment of Cleanliness in Esophagogastroduodenoscopy [PEACE] system) in the detection of clinically significant lesions (CSLs) in the UGI tract. METHODS: Patients who underwent a complete diagnostic EGD were prospectively enrolled from August 2021 to October 2022. The UGI tract (esophagus, stomach, and duodenum) cleanliness was scored from 0 to 3 for each segment. The primary outcomes were the detection of CSLs and PEACE scores. RESULTS: Of 995 patients enrolled from 5 centers, adequate cleanliness (AQ; all scores ≥2) was found in 929 patients. In multivariate regression analysis, AQ was associated with the number of diagnosed CSLs (odds ratio [OR], 1.78; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06-3.01; P = .03). Other factors related to CSL detection were duration of EGD (OR, 1.29, 95% CI, 1.23-1.35, P < .001), male sex (OR, 1.33, 95% CI, 1.04-1.71; P = .025), and EGD indication (dyspepsia, alarm symptoms, gastritis surveillance, other indications vs GERD) (OR, 0.43 [95% CI, 0.31-0.6, P < .001], OR, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.28-0.67, P < .001], OR, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.25-0.76; P = .004], and OR, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.31-0.62; P < .001], respectively). Twenty-seven patients were diagnosed with UGI neoplasia, all in patients with adequate cleanliness of the UGI tract. CONCLUSIONS: Adequate cleanliness of the UGI tract as assessed with the PEACE system was associated with a significantly higher detection rate of CSLs during EGD. The relationship of this scale with UGI neoplasia detection warrants further investigation.

Rates of repeated colonoscopies to clean the colon from low-risk and high-risk adenomas: results from the EPoS trials.

OBJECTIVE: High-quality colonoscopy (adequate bowel preparation, whole-colon visualisation and removal of all neoplastic polyps) is a prerequisite to start polyp surveillance, and is ideally achieved in one colonoscopy. In a large multinational polyp surveillance trial, we aimed to investigate clinical practice variation in number of colonoscopies needed to enrol patients with low-risk and high-risk adenomas in polyp surveillance. DESIGN: We retrieved data of all patients with low-risk adenomas (one or two tubular adenomas <10 mm with low-grade dysplasia) and high-risk adenomas (3-10 adenomas, ≥1 adenoma ≥10 mm, high-grade dysplasia or villous components) in the European Polyp Surveillance trials fulfilling certain logistic and methodologic criteria. We analysed variations in number of colonoscopies needed to achieve high-quality colonoscopy and enter polyp surveillance by endoscopy centre, and by endoscopists who enrolled ≥30 patients. RESULTS: The study comprised 15 581 patients from 38 endoscopy centres in five European countries; 6794 patients had low-risk and 8787 had high-risk adenomas. 961 patients (6.2%, 95% CI 5.8% to 6.6%) underwent two or more colonoscopies before surveillance began; 101 (1.5%, 95% CI 1.2% to 1.8%) in the low-risk group and 860 (9.8%, 95% CI 9.2% to 10.4%) in the high-risk group. Main reasons were poor bowel preparation (21.3%) or incomplete colonoscopy/polypectomy (14.4%) or planned second procedure (27.8%). Need of repeat colonoscopy varied between study centres ranging from 0% to 11.8% in low-risk adenoma patients and from 0% to 63.9% in high-risk adenoma patients. On the second colonoscopy, the two most common reasons for a repeat (third) colonoscopy were piecemeal resection (26.5%) and unspecified reason (23.9%). CONCLUSION: There is considerable practice variation in the number of colonoscopies performed to achieve complete polyp removal, indicating need for targeted quality improvement to reduce patient burden. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02319928.

Comparison of Quality Measures for Detection of Neoplasia at Screening Colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The proportion of colonoscopies with at least one adenoma (adenoma detection rate [ADR]) is inversely associated with colorectal cancer (CRC) risk and death. The aim of this study was to examine whether such associations exist for colonoscopy quality measures other than ADR. METHODS: We used data from the Polish Colorectal Cancer Screening Program collected in 2000-2011. For all endoscopists who performed ≥100 colonoscopies we calculated detection rates of adenomas (ADR), polyps (PDR), and advanced adenomas (≥10 mm/villous component/high-grade dysplasia [AADR]); and number of adenomas per colonoscopy (APC) and per colonoscopy with ≥1 adenoma (APPC). We followed patients until CRC diagnosed before recommended surveillance, death, or December 31, 2019. We estimated hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using Cox proportional-hazard models. We used Harrell's C statistic to compare the predictive power of the quality measures. RESULTS: Data on 173,287 patients (median age, 56 years; 37.8% male) and 262 endoscopists were used. During a median follow-up of 10 years and 1,490,683 person-years, we identified 395 CRCs. All quality measures were significantly associated with CRC risk and death. The relative reductions in CRC risk were as follows: for ADR ≥24.9% (reference <12.1%; HR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.25-0.66), PDR ≥42.7% (reference <19.9%; HR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.24-0.51), AADR ≥9.1% (reference <4.1%; HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.49-0.96), APC ≥0.37 (reference <0.15; HR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.21-0.58), and APPC ≥1.54 (reference <1.19; HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.35-0.83). AADR was the only quality measure with significantly lower predictive power than ADR (Harrell's C, 59.7 vs 63.4; P = .001). Similar relative reductions were observed for CRC death. CONCLUSIONS: This large observational study confirmed the inverse association between ADR and CRC risk and death. The PDR and APC quality measures appear to be comparable with ADR.

Curriculum for training in endoscopic mucosal resection in the colon: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Position Statement.

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is the standard of care for the complete removal of large (≥ 10 mm) nonpedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs). Increased detection of LNPCPs owing to screening colonoscopy, plus high observed rates of incomplete resection and need for surgery call for a standardized approach to training in EMR. 1 : Trainees in EMR should have achieved basic competence in diagnostic colonoscopy, < 10-mm polypectomy, pedunculated polypectomy, and common methods of gastrointestinal endoscopic hemostasis. The role of formal training courses is emphasized. Training may then commence in vivo under the direct supervision of a trainer. 2 : Endoscopy units training endoscopists in EMR should have specific processes in place to support and facilitate training. 3: A trained EMR practitioner should have mastered theoretical knowledge including how to assess an LNPCP for risk of submucosal invasion, how to interpret the potential difficulty of a particular EMR procedure, how to decide whether to remove a particular LNPCP en bloc or piecemeal, whether the risks of electrosurgical energy can be avoided for a particular LNPCP, the different devices required for EMR, management of adverse events, and interpretation of reports provided by histopathologists. 4: Trained EMR practitioners should be familiar with the patient consent process for EMR. 5: The development of endoscopic non-technical skills (ENTS) and team interaction are important for trainees in EMR. 6: Differences in recommended technique exist between EMR performed with and without electrosurgical energy. Common to both is a standardized technique based upon dynamic injection, controlled and precise snare placement, safety checks prior to the application of tissue transection (cold snare) or electrosurgical energy (hot snare), and interpretation of the post-EMR resection defect. 7: A trained EMR practitioner must be able to manage adverse events associated with EMR including intraprocedural bleeding and perforation, and post-procedural bleeding. Delayed perforation should be avoided by correct interpretation of the post-EMR defect and treatment of deep mural injury. 8: A trained EMR practitioner must be able to communicate EMR procedural findings to patients and provide them with a plan in case of adverse events after discharge and a follow-up plan. 9: A trained EMR practitioner must be able to detect and interrogate a post-endoscopic resection scar for residual or recurrent adenoma and apply treatment if necessary. 10: Prior to independent practice, a minimum of 30 EMR procedures should be performed, culminating in a trainer-guided assessment of competency using a validated assessment tool, taking account of procedural difficulty (e. g. using the SMSA polyp score). 11: Trained practitioners should log their key performance indicators (KPIs) of polypectomy during independent practice. A guide for target KPIs is provided in this document.

Participation in Competing Strategies for Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Randomized Health Services Study (PICCOLINO Study).

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Primary colonoscopy and fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) are considered first-tier tests for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Although colonoscopy is considered the most efficacious test, FIT might achieve higher participation rates. It is uncertain what the best strategy is for offering population-wide CRC screening. METHODS: This was a multicenter randomized health services study performed within the framework of the Polish Colonoscopy Screening Program between January 2019 and March 2020 on screening-naïve individuals. Eligible candidates were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to participate in 1 of 3 competing invitation strategies: control (invitation to screening colonoscopy only); sequential (invitation to primary colonoscopy and invitation for FIT for initial nonresponders); or choice (invitation offering a choice of colonoscopy or FIT). The primary outcome was participation in CRC screening within 18 weeks after enrollment into the study. The secondary outcome was diagnostic yield for advanced neoplasia. RESULTS: Overall, 12,485 individuals were randomized into the 3 study groups. The participation rate in the control group (17.5%) was significantly lower compared with the sequential (25.8%) and choice strategy (26.5%) groups (P < .001 for both comparisons). The colonoscopy rates for participants with positive FITs were 70.0% for the sequential group and 73.3% for the choice group, despite active call-recall efforts. In the intention-to-screen analysis, advanced neoplasia detection rates were comparable among the control (1.1%), sequential (1.0%), and choice groups (1.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Offering a combination of FIT and colonoscopy as a sequential or active choice strategy increases participation in CRC screening. Increased participation in strategies with FIT do not translate into higher detection of advanced neoplasia. ClinicalTrials.gov, Number NCT03790475.

Colonoscopist Performance and Colorectal Cancer Risk After Adenoma Removal to Stratify Surveillance: Two Nationwide Observational Studies.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Colonoscopy surveillance after adenoma removal is an increasing burden in many countries. Surveillance recommendations consider characteristics of removed adenomas, but not colonoscopist performance. We investigated the impact of colonoscopist performance on colorectal cancer risk after adenoma removal. METHODS: We compared colorectal cancer risk after removal of high-risk adenomas, low-risk adenomas, and after negative colonoscopy for all colonoscopies performed by colonoscopists with low vs high performance quality (adenoma detection rate <20% vs ≥20%) in the Polish screening program between 2000 and 2011, with follow-up until 2017. Findings were validated in the Austrian colonoscopy screening program. RESULTS: A total of 173,288 Polish colonoscopies were included in the study. Of 262 colonoscopists, 160 (61.1%) were low performers, and 102 (38.9%) were high performers; 11.1% of individuals had low-risk and 6.6% had high-risk adenomas removed at screening; 82.2% had no adenomas. During 10 years of follow-up, 443 colorectal cancers were diagnosed. For low-risk adenoma individuals, colorectal cancer incidence was 0.55% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.40-0.75) with low-performing colonoscopists vs 0.22% (95% CI 0.14-0.34) with high-performing colonoscopists (hazard ratio [HR] 2.35; 95% CI 1.31-4.21; P = .004). For individuals with high-risk adenomas, colorectal cancer incidence was 1.14% (95% CI 0.87-1.48) with low-performing colonoscopists vs 0.43% (95% CI 0.27-0.69) with high-performing colonoscopists (HR 2.69; 95% CI 1.62-4.47; P < .001). After negative colonoscopy, colorectal cancer incidence was 0.30% (95% CI 0.27-0.34) for individuals examined by low-performing colonoscopists, vs 0.15% (95% CI 0.11-0.20) for high-performing (HR 2.10; 95% CI 1.52-2.91; P < .001). The observed trends were reproduced in the Austrian validation cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that endoscopist performance may be an important contributor in addition to polyp characteristics in determining colorectal cancer risk after colonoscopy screening.

Complete polyp resection with cold snare versus hot snare polypectomy for polyps of 4-9 mm: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic screening with polypectomy reduces the incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC). Incomplete polyp removal may attenuate the effect of screening. This randomized trial compared cold snare polypectomy (CSP) with hot snare polypectomy (HSP) in terms of complete polyp resection. METHODS: We included patients ≥ 40 years of age at eight hospitals in four countries who had at least one non-pedunculated polyp of 4-9 mm detected at colonoscopy. Patients were randomized 1:1 to CSP or HSP. Biopsies from the resection margins were obtained systematically after polypectomy in both groups. We hypothesized that CSP would be non-inferior to HSP, with a non-inferiority margin of 5 %. Logistic regression models were fitted to identify the factors explaining incomplete resection. RESULTS: 425 patients, with 601 polyps, randomized to either CSP or HSP were included in the analysis. Of 318 polyps removed by CSP and 283 polyps removed by HSP, 34 (10.7 %) and 21 (7.4 %) were incompletely resected, respectively, with an adjusted risk difference of 3.2 % (95 %CI -1.4 % to 7.8 %). There was no difference between the groups in terms of post-polypectomy bleeding, perforation, or abdominal pain. Independent risk factors for incomplete removal were serrated histology (odds ratio [OR] 3.96; 95 %CI 1.63 to 9.66) and hyperplastic histology (OR 2.52; 95 %CI 1.30 to 4.86) in adjusted analyses. CONCLUSION: In this randomized trial, non-inferiority for CSP could not be demonstrated. Polyps with serrated histology are more prone to incomplete resection compared with adenomas. CSP can be used safely for small polyps in routine colonoscopy practice.

The Colon Endoscopic Bubble Scale (CEBuS): a two-phase evaluation study.

BACKGROUND: To date, no scale has been validated to assess bubbles associated with bowel preparation. This study aimed to develop and assess the reliability of a novel scale - the Colon Endoscopic Bubble Scale (CEBuS). METHODS: This was a multicenter, prospective, observational study with two online evaluation phases of 45 randomly distributed still colonoscopy images (15 per scale grade). Observers assessed images twice, 2 weeks apart, using CEBuS (CEBuS-0 - no or minimal bubbles, covering < 5 % of the surface; CEBuS-1 - bubbles covering 5 %-50 %; CEBuS-2 - bubbles covering > 50 %) and reporting the clinical action (do nothing; wash with water; wash with simethicone). RESULTS: CEBuS provided high levels of agreement both in evaluation Phase 1 (4 experts) and Phase 2 (6 experts and 13 non-experts), with almost perfect intraobserver reliability: kappa 0.82 (95 % confidence interval 0.75-0.88) and 0.86 (0.85-0.88); interobserver agreement - intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) 0.83 (0.73-0.89) and 0.90 (0.86-0.94). Previous endoscopic experience had no influence on agreement among experts vs. non-experts: kappa 0.86 (0.80-0.91) vs. 0.87 (0.84-0.89) and ICC 0.91 (0.87-0.94) vs. 0.90 (0.86-0.94), respectively. Interobserver agreement on clinical action was ICC 0.63 (0.43-0.78) in Phase 1 and 0.77 (0.68-0.84) in Phase 2. Absolute agreement on clinical action per scale grade was 85 % (82-88) for CEBuS-0, 21 % (16-26) for CEBuS-1, and 74 % (70-78) for CEBuS-2. CONCLUSION: CEBuS proved to be a reliable instrument to standardize the evaluation of colonic bubbles during colonoscopy. Assessment in daily practice is warranted.

Performance measures for colonoscopy in inflammatory bowel disease patients: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Quality Improvement Initiative.

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) presents a short list of performance measures for colonoscopy in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients. Current performance measures for colonoscopy mainly focus on detecting (pre)malignant lesions. However, these performance measures are not relevant for all colonoscopy indications in IBD patients. Therefore, our aim was to provide endoscopy services across Europe and other interested countries with a tool for quality monitoring and improvement in IBD colonoscopy. Eight key performance measures and one minor performance measure were recommended for measurement and evaluation in daily endoscopy practice.

Long-Term Colorectal Cancer Incidence and Mortality After a Single Negative Screening Colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend a 10-year interval between screening colonoscopies, but evidence is limited. OBJECTIVE: To assess the long-term risk for colorectal cancer (CRC) and death from CRC after a high- and low-quality single negative screening colonoscopy. DESIGN: Observational study. SETTING: Polish Colonoscopy Screening Program. PARTICIPANTS: Average-risk individuals aged 50 to 66 years who had a single negative colonoscopy (no neoplastic findings). MEASUREMENTS: Standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) and standardized mortality ratios (SMRs) of CRC after high- and low-quality single negative screening colonoscopy. High-quality colonoscopy included a complete examination, with adequate bowel preparation, performed by endoscopists with an adenoma detection rate of 20% or greater. RESULTS: Among 165 887 individuals followed for up to 17.4 years, CRC incidence (0.28 [95% CI, 0.25 to 0.30]) and mortality (0.19 [CI, 0.16 to 0.21]) were 72% and 81% lower, respectively, than in the general population. High-quality examination resulted in 2-fold lower CRC incidence (SIR, 0.16 [CI, 0.13 to 0.20]) and mortality (SMR, 0.10 [CI, 0.06 to 0.14]) than low-quality examination (SIR, 0.32 [CI, 0.29 to 0.35]; SMR, 0.22 [CI, 0.18 to 0.25]). In multivariable analysis, the hazard ratios for CRC incidence after high-quality versus low-quality colonoscopy were 0.55 (CI, 0.35 to 0.86) for 0 to 5 years, 0.54 (CI, 0.38 to 0.77) for 5.1 to 10 years, and 0.46 (CI, 0.25 to 0.86) for 10 to 17.4 years. Only after high-quality colonoscopy did the SIR and SMR for 10.1 to 17.4 years of follow-up not differ compared with earlier observation periods. LIMITATION: The general population was used as the comparison group. CONCLUSION: A single negative screening colonoscopy was associated with reduced CRC incidence and mortality for up to 17.4 years. Only high-quality colonoscopy yielded profound and stable reductions in CRC incidence and mortality throughout the entire follow-up. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Polish Ministry of Health.

Mortality and Rate of Hospitalization in a Colonoscopy Screening Program From a Randomized Health Services Study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: It is difficult to quantify adverse events related to screening colonoscopy due to lack of valid and adequately powered comparison groups. We compared mortality and rate of unplanned hospitalizations among subjects who underwent screening colonoscopies within the Polish Colonoscopy Screening Program (PCSP) vs unscreened matched controls in Poland. METHODS: Persons 55-64 years old living in the area covered by the PCSP from 2012 through 2015 were assigned in a (1:1) to a group invited for screening colonoscopy (n = 338,477) or a matched group that would be invited 5 years later (controls, n = 338,557). All subjects in the screening group were assigned proposed screening colonoscopy dates (actual dates when invitees confirmed or rescheduled colonoscopy) and those in the control group were assigned virtual dates corresponding to the matched individuals from the screening group. In the screening group, 55,390 subjects (16.4%) underwent screening colonoscopy. Mortality and hospitalization data were obtained from National Registries. We compared mortality and rate of hospitalization between the groups for defined intervals before and after colonoscopy date. Hospitalizations were divided into related and unrelated to colonoscopy based on ICD codes by 3 specialists. Our primary aim was to compare mortality and hospitalization 6 weeks before and 30 days following the actual or virtual date of colonoscopy in the screening or control group. RESULTS: In the intent to treat analysis, overall there were no significant differences in mortality between the colonoscopy group and control group (0.22% vs 0.22%; risk difference less than .01%; 95% CI, decrease of 0.02% to 0.02%; P = .913). The overall rate of unplanned hospitalization was significantly higher for the colonoscopy group (2.39% vs 2.31% for the control group; risk difference, 0.08%; 95% CI, 0.01%-0.15%; P=.026) for the entire observation period. This was due to the higher rate of hospitalizations after screening (1.10% vs 1.01% for the control group; risk difference, 0.09%; 95% CI, 0.04%-0.14%; P < .001) including higher proportion of hospitalizations that were assessed as related to colonoscopy (0.24% vs 0.22% for the control group; risk difference, 0.02%; 95% CI, 0.00%-0.05%; P = .046). In the per-protocol analysis, the overall rate of hospitalizations did not differ significantly between control and screening colonoscopy groups (1.87% vs 1.90%; P=.709). However, screening colonoscopy did increase rates of related hospitalizations after the date of screening (from 0.14% to 0.31%; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: In an analysis of data from the PCSP, we found high-quality evidence that colonoscopy as a screening intervention does not increase mortality before or after colonoscopy. However, it may be associated with a small but significant increase in unplanned hospitalizations, especially after the colonoscopy is completed.

Diminutive Polyps With Advanced Histologic Features Do Not Increase Risk for Metachronous Advanced Colon Neoplasia.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: With advances in endoscopic imaging, it is possible to differentiate adenomatous from hyperplastic diminutive (1-5 mm) polyps during endoscopy. With the optical Resect-and-Discard strategy, these polyps are then removed and discarded without histopathology assessment. However, failure to recognize adenomas (vs hyperplastic polyps), or discarding a polyp with advanced histologic features, could result in a patient being considered at low risk for metachronous advanced neoplasia, resulting in an inappropriately long surveillance interval. We collected data from international cohorts of patients undergoing colonoscopy to determine what proportion of patients are high risk because of diminutive polyps advanced histologic features and their risk for metachronous advanced neoplasia. METHODS: We collected data from 12 cohorts (in the United States or Europe) of patients undergoing colonoscopy after a positive result from a fecal immunochemical test (FIT cohort, n = 34,221) or undergoing colonoscopies for screening, surveillance, or evaluation of symptoms (colonoscopy cohort, n = 30,123). Patients at high risk for metachronous advanced neoplasia were defined as patients with polyps that had advanced histologic features (cancer, high-grade dysplasia, ≥25% villous features), 3 or more diminutive or small (6-9 mm) nonadvanced adenomas, or an adenoma or sessile serrated lesion ≥10 mm. Using an inverse variance random effects model, we calculated the proportion of diminutive polyps with advanced histologic features; the proportion of patients classified as high risk because their diminutive polyps had advanced histologic features; and the risk of these patients for metachronous advanced neoplasia. RESULTS: In 51,510 diminutive polyps, advanced histologic features were observed in 7.1% of polyps from the FIT cohort and 1.5% polyps from the colonoscopy cohort (P = .044); however, this difference in prevalence did not produce a significant difference in the proportions of patients assigned to high-risk status (0.8% of patients in the FIT cohort and 0.4% of patients in the colonoscopy cohort) (P = .25). The proportions of high-risk patients because of diminutive polyps with advanced histologic features who were found to have metachronous advanced neoplasia (17.6%) did not differ significantly from the proportion of low-risk patients with metachronous advanced neoplasia (14.6%) (relative risk for high-risk categorization, 1.13; 95% confidence interval 0.79-1.61). CONCLUSION: In a pooled analysis of data from 12 international cohorts of patients undergoing colonoscopy for screening, surveillance, or evaluation of symptoms, we found that diminutive polyps with advanced histologic features do not increase risk for metachronous advanced neoplasia.

Key performance measures for colonoscopy in the Polish Colonoscopy Screening Program.

BACKGROUND: The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) has published guidelines on key performance measures for colonoscopy. We analyzed whether those standards were met in the Polish Colonoscopy Screening Program (PCSP) and whether the monitoring was feasible. METHODS: We analyzed database records for 43 277 PCSP participants (25 PCSP centers) for the years 2014 - 2015. We used the guideline definitions to calculate values for all key performance measures and compared these with the proposed standards at individual, center, and program level. All data were acquired from the PCSP database, apart from complication data which was assessed from external registries. RESULTS: At the program level, four of five minimum standards and one of two target standards (no set minimum standard) were met. Adequate bowel preparation rate was 91.3 % for the whole program (range among individual centers 79.2 % - 99.2 %). Cecal intubation rate was 97.4 % (93.4 % - 99.4 %). Adenoma detection rate was 29.8 % (19.1 % - 39.1 %). An appropriate polypectomy technique was applied in 62.7 % of cases (0.4 % - 97.8 %). Regarding complications, 7-day hospitalization rate after screening colonoscopy was 0.3 % (n = 127), and 30-day all-cause mortality was 0.02 % (n = 9). Patient feedback was assessed in 66.2 % of colonoscopies (7.6 % - 81.8 %). Appropriate post-polypectomy surveillance was proposed in 95.4 % of cases (range 84.9 % - -99.7 %). It was easy to monitor 6 of 7 key performance measures within the PCSP database, but monitoring complications required the additional effort of data extraction from external registries. CONCLUSIONS: The PCSP meets most proposed minimum standards at program level. Some centers need additional interventions to meet the complete set of quality standards. Use of ESGE performance measures for monitoring colonoscopy is generally feasible in the setting of the colonoscopy screening program.

Modifiable factors associated with patient-reported pain during and after screening colonoscopy.

OBJECTIVE: Pain associated with colonoscopy is a major burden for patients. We investigated modifiable factors associated with patient-reported pain during and after colonoscopy. DESIGN: This cross-sectional analysis included database records from 23 centres participating in a population-based colonoscopy screening programme in Poland. Colonoscopies were performed under three sedation modalities: none, benzodiazepine-opioid sedation or propofol sedation. We used Gastronet (a validated tool) to assess patients' pain during and after colonoscopy; pain was scored on a four-point scale (no, little, moderate or severe pain), with moderate to severe defined as painful. We used multivariate logistic regression models to estimate ORs for painful colonoscopy and calculated risk-adjusted ratios of painful colonoscopies per endoscopist and compared it to the mean rate. RESULTS: Of 35 216 screening colonoscopies in 2014 and 2015 included in our study, 22 725 (64.5%) patients returned valid Gastronet questionnaires. The proportion of examinations described as causing pain during (after) the procedure was 22.5% (14.2%) for unsedated, 19.9% (13.5%) for benzodiazepine-opioid sedation and 2.5% (7.5%) for propofol sedation. Propofol sedation, higher case volume of endoscopists, newest endoscope generation and adequate bowel preparation were significantly associated with lower odds of painful colonoscopy. Pain scores after colonoscopy showed similar associations. Adjusted pain rates during and after colonoscopy varied 11 and over 23-fold, respectively, between endoscopists. CONCLUSION: We identified several independent, modifiable factors associated with pain during and after colonoscopy, of which individual endoscopist was the most important. Dedicated training should be considered to decrease variability among endoscopists.

Performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Quality Improvement Initiative.

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and United European Gastroenterology present a short list of key performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy. We recommend that endoscopy services across Europe adopt the following seven key performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy for measurement and evaluation in daily practice at a center and endoscopist level: 1 Rate of adequate bowel preparation (minimum standard 90 %); 2 Cecal intubation rate (minimum standard 90 %); 3 Adenoma detection rate (minimum standard 25 %); 4 Appropriate polypectomy technique (minimum standard 80 %); 5 Complication rate (minimum standard not set); 6 Patient experience (minimum standard not set); 7 Appropriate post-polypectomy surveillance recommendations (minimum standard not set). Other identified performance measures have been listed as less relevant based on an assessment of their importance, scientific acceptability, feasibility, usability, and comparison to competing measures.

Suspicious macroscopic features of small malignant colorectal polyps.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this analysis was to retrospectively review video recordings of malignant polyps <10 mm in search for suspicious macroscopic features in white light endoscopy. METHODS: Database entries and recordings of screening colonoscopies from a single tertiary referral center between June 2009 and December 2012 were reviewed. Malignant polyps <10 mm were analyzed. The recordings were reviewed by two expert endoscopists in search for suspicious morphological features: irregular contours, central depression, contact bleeding, shape deformity, central depression, chicken skin sign, circumscribed area with abnormal vascular and/or surface pattern. Then, six experienced endoscopists watched the recordings in search of listed features. Next, video recordings of these malignant polyps were mixed with randomly drawn video recordings of 20 non-malignant polyps matched by size and reviewed by 14 blinded endoscopists to assess the sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of malignant polyps. RESULTS: Five of the 8651 (0.06%) subjects who underwent screening colonoscopy during the study period were diagnosed with a malignant polyp <10 mm. Only one of them was ad hoc identified by performing endoscopist as suspicious. On recordings review performed by the experts, each of the four remaining polyps presented at least one suspicious macroscopic feature. Presence of these features was confirmed by experienced endoscopists. The sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of malignant polyp were 73.21% and 85.35%, respectively, if at least two suspicious macroscopic features defined malignant polyp. CONCLUSIONS: On careful white light endoscopy examination small malignant colorectal polyps show suspicious macroscopic features, which were frequently unrecognized by examining endoscopists.

Narrow-band imaging vs Lugol chromoendoscopy in screening for esophageal squamous cell neoplasia: a randomized trial.

INTRODUCTION: To date, there is no established optimal method for endoscopic detection of esophageal squamous cell neoplasia in high­risk individuals. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to compare the performance of narrow­band imaging (NBI) and Lugol chromoendoscopy in screening for esophageal neoplasia among patients with a history of treatment for head and neck squamous cell cancer (HNSCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We randomly assigned 300 patients who had completed curative treatment for HNSCC at least 1 year prior to the inclusion to undergo either NBI or Lugol endoscopy (2:1 ratio). Following white­light examination of the esophagus, the assigned imaging study was performed, and biopsies were taken from any suspicious lesions identified using NBI or Lugol chromoendoscopy. The primary end point was positive predictive value (PPV) of the biopsied lesion for a diagnosis of esophageal neoplasia (high­grade intraepithelial neoplasia [HG­IEN] or invasive esophageal squamous cell carcinoma [ESCC]). The secondary end points included the number of biopsied lesions, duration of esophagus examination, and endoscopy tolerance. RESULTS: In 294 patients included in the final analysis (NBI, n = 204; Lugol chromoendoscopy, n = 90), we diagnosed 3 ESCCs (1.02%) and 2 HG­IENs (0.68%). The PPV of NBI and Lugol chromoendoscopy in per­lesion analysis was 7.69% (95% CI, 0.94%-25.1%) and 8.11% (95% CI, 1.7%-21.9%), respectively (P >0.99). NBI outperformed Lugol chromoendoscopy in terms of the rate of patients requiring biopsy (12.75% vs 41.11%; P = 0.003), duration of esophagus examination (3.5 min vs 5.15 min; P <0.001), and endoscopy tolerance assessed on the visual analog scale (25 mm vs 36.5 mm; P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: With a PPV comparable to that of Lugol chromoendoscopy, but a lower number of biopsies required, shorter examination time, and better patient tolerance, NBI could be considered the primary screening method for ESCC in patients with HNSCC.

Cardiotoxicity of the anticancer therapeutic agent bortezomib.

Recent case reports provided alarming signals that treatment with bortezomib might be associated with cardiac events. In all reported cases, patients experiencing cardiac problems were previously or concomitantly treated with other chemotherapeutics including cardiotoxic anthracyclines. Therefore, it is difficult to distinguish which components of the therapeutic regimens contribute to cardiotoxicity. Here, we addressed the influence of bortezomib on cardiac function in rats that were not treated with other drugs. Rats were treated with bortezomib at a dose of 0.2 mg/kg thrice weekly. Echocardiography, histopathology, and electron microscopy were used to evaluate cardiac function and structural changes. Respiration of the rat heart mitochondria was measured polarographically. Cell culture experiments were used to determine the influence of bortezomib on cardiomyocyte survival, contractility, Ca(2+) fluxes, induction of endoplasmic reticulum stress, and autophagy. Our findings indicate that bortezomib treatment leads to left ventricular contractile dysfunction manifested by a significant drop in left ventricle ejection fraction. Dramatic ultrastructural abnormalities of cardiomyocytes, especially within mitochondria, were accompanied by decreased ATP synthesis and decreased cardiomyocyte contractility. Monitoring of cardiac function in bortezomib-treated patients should be implemented to evaluate how frequently cardiotoxicity develops especially in patients with pre-existing cardiac conditions, as well as when using additional cardiotoxic drugs.