Effectiveness of Colonoscopy Screening vs Sigmoidoscopy Screening in Colorectal Cancer.

Importance: Randomized clinical screening trials have shown that sigmoidoscopy screening reduces colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality. Colonoscopy has largely replaced sigmoidoscopy for CRC screening, but long-term results from randomized trials on colonoscopy screening are still lacking. Objective: To estimate the additional screening benefit of colonoscopy compared with sigmoidoscopy. Design, Setting, and Participants: This comparative effectiveness simulation study pooled data on 358 204 men and women randomly assigned to sigmoidoscopy screening or usual care in 4 randomized sigmoidoscopy screening trials conducted in Norway, Italy, the US, and UK with inclusion periods in the years 1993 to 2001. The primary analysis of the study was conducted from January 19 to December 30, 2021. Intervention: Invitation to endoscopic screening. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes were CRC incidence and mortality. Using pooled 15-year follow-up data, colonoscopy screening effectiveness was estimated assuming that the efficacy of colonoscopy in the proximal colon was similar to that observed in the distal colon in the sigmoidoscopy screening trials. The simulation model was validated using data from Norwegian participants in a colonoscopy screening trial. Results: This analysis included 358 204 individuals (181 971 women [51%]) aged 55 to 64 years at inclusion with a median follow-up time ranging from 15 to 17 years. Compared with usual care, colonoscopy prevented an estimated 50 (95% CI, 42-58) CRC cases per 100 000 person-years, corresponding to 30% incidence reduction (rate ratio, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.66-0.75]), and prevented an estimated 15 (95% CI, 11-19) CRC deaths per 100 000 person-years, corresponding to 32% mortality reduction (rate ratio, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.61-0.76]). The additional benefit of colonoscopy screening compared with sigmoidoscopy was 12 (95% CI, 10-14) fewer CRC cases and 4 (95% CI, 3-5) fewer CRC deaths per 100 000 person-years, corresponding to percentage point reductions of 6.9 (95% CI, 6.0-7.9) for CRC incidence and 7.6 (95% CI, 5.7-9.6) for CRC mortality. The number needed to switch from sigmoidoscopy to colonoscopy screening was 560 (95% CI, 486-661) to prevent 1 CRC case and 1611 (95% CI, 1275-2188) to prevent 1 CRC death. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this comparative effectiveness study assessing long-term follow-up after CRC screening suggest that there was an additional preventive effect on CRC incidence and mortality associated with colonoscopy screening compared with sigmoidoscopy screening, but the additional preventive effect was less than what was achieved by introducing sigmoidoscopy screening where no screening existed. The results probably represent the upper limit of what may be achieved with colonoscopy screening compared with sigmoidoscopy screening.

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.

15-Year Benefits of Sigmoidoscopy Screening on Colorectal Cancer Incidence and Mortality : A Pooled Analysis of Randomized Trials.

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) by sex and age in randomized trials is uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the 15-year effect of sigmoidoscopy screening on CRC incidence and mortality. DESIGN: Pooled analysis of 4 large-scale randomized trials of sigmoidoscopy screening. SETTING: Norway, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Italy. PARTICIPANTS: Women and men aged 55 to 64 years at enrollment. INTERVENTION: Sigmoidoscopy screening. MEASUREMENTS: Primary end points were cumulative incidence rate ratio (IRR) and mortality rate ratio (MRR) and rate differences after 15 years of follow-up comparing screening versus usual care in intention-to-treat analyses. Stratified analyses were done by sex, cancer site, and age at screening. RESULTS: Analyses comprised 274 952 persons (50.7% women), 137 493 in the screening and 137 459 in the usual care group. Screening attendance was 58% to 84%. After 15 years, the rate difference for CRC incidence was 0.51 cases (95% CI, 0.40 to 0.63 cases) per 100 persons and the IRR was 0.79 (CI, 0.75 to 0.83). The rate difference for CRC mortality was 0.13 deaths (CI, 0.07 to 0.19 deaths) per 100 persons, and the MRR was 0.80 (CI, 0.72 to 0.88). Women had less benefit from screening than men for CRC incidence (IRR for women, 0.84 [CI, 0.77 to 0.91]; IRR for men, 0.75 [CI, 0.70 to 0.81]; P = 0.032 for difference) and mortality (MRR for women, 0.91 [CI, 0.77 to 1.17]; MRR for men, 0.73 [CI, 0.64 to 0.83]; P = 0.025 for difference). There was no statistically significant difference in screening effect between persons aged 55 to 59 years and those aged 60 to 64 years. LIMITATION: Data from the U.K. trial were less granular because of privacy regulations. CONCLUSION: This pooled analysis of all large randomized trials of sigmoidoscopy screening demonstrates a significant and sustained effect of sigmoidoscopy on CRC incidence and mortality for 15 years. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Health Fund of South-East Norway.

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.).

Impact of artificial intelligence on colorectal polyp detection for early-career endoscopists: an international comparative study.

BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI) for polyp detection is being introduced to colonoscopy, but there is uncertainty how this affects endoscopists' ability to detect polyps and neoplasms. We performed a video-based study to address whether AI improved the endoscopists' performance to detect polyps. METHODS: We established a dataset of 200 colonoscopy videos (length 5 s; 100 without polyps and 100 with one polyp). About 33 early-career endoscopists (50-400 colonoscopies performed) from 10 European countries classified each video as either 'polyp present' or 'polyp not present'. The video assessment was performed twice with a four-week interval. The first assessment was performed without any AI tool, whereas the second was performed with an AI tool for polyp detection. The primary endpoint was early-career endoscopists' sensitivity to detect polyps. Gold standard for presence and histology of polyps were confirmed by two expert endoscopists and pathologists, respectively. McNemar's test was used for statistical significance. RESULTS: There were 86 neoplastic and 14 non-neoplastic polyps (mean size 5.6 mm) in the 100 videos with polyps. Early-career endoscopists' sensitivity to detect polyps increased from 86.3% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 85.1-87.5%) to 91.7% (95%CI: 90.7-92.6%) with the AI aid (p < .0001). Their sensitivity to detect neoplastic polyps increased from 85.4% (95% CI: 84.0-86.7%) to 92.1% (95%CI: 91.1-93.1%) with the AI aid (p < .0001). CONCLUSION: The polyp detection AI tool helped early-career endoscopists to increase their sensitivity to identify all polyps and neoplastic polyps during colonoscopy.

The use of Faecal Microbiota Transplantation (FMT) in Europe: A Europe-wide survey.

BACKGROUND: Faecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) is an emerging treatment modality, but its current clinical use and organisation are unknown. We aimed to describe the clinical use, conduct, and potential for FMT in Europe. METHODS: We invited all hospital-based FMT centres within the European Council member states to answer a web-based questionnaire covering their clinical activities, organisation, and regulation of FMT in 2019. Responders were identified from trials registered at clinicaltrials.gov and from the United European Gastroenterology (UEG) working group for stool banking and FMT. FINDINGS: In 2019, 31 FMT centres from 17 countries reported a total of 1,874 (median 25, quartile 10-64) FMT procedures; 1,077 (57%) with Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) as indication, 791 (42%) with experimental indications, and 6 (0•3%) unaccounted for. Adjusted to population size, 0•257 per 100,000 population received FMT for CDI and 0•189 per 100,000 population for experimental indications. With estimated 12,400 (6,100-28,500) annual cases of multiple, recurrent CDI and indication for FMT in Europe, the current European FMT activity covers approximately 10% of the patients with indication. The participating centres demonstrated high safety standards and adherence to international consensus guidelines. Formal or informal regulation from health authorities was present at 21 (68%) centres. INTERPRETATION: FMT is a widespread routine treatment for multiple, recurrent CDI and an experimental treatment. Embedded within hospital settings, FMT centres operate with high standards across Europe to provide safe FMT. A significant gap in FMT coverage suggests the need to raise clinical awareness and increase the FMT activity in Europe by at least 10-fold to meet the true, indicated need. FUNDING: NordForsk under the Nordic Council and Innovation Fund Denmark (j.no. 8056-00006B).

Quality Indicators in Colonoscopy.

OPINION STATEMENT: Colonoscopy is one of the most commonly performed endoscopic procedures. It is the gold standard examination for work-up of colonic symptoms, for follow-up of positive colorectal cancer screening tests and for detection and removal of neoplastic polyps. Colonoscopy is a complex and invasive procedure with a potential not only for colorectal cancer prevention, but also for serious complications. Numerous factors may affect the balance of benefit versus harm of colonoscopy, including the performance of the endoscopist. These factors are commonly called quality indicators. As an increasing number of countries are recommending the general population to undergo colorectal cancer screening, the quality of colonoscopy should be considered a public health concern. Key quality indicators have been identified, and several professional organizations have issued recommendation statements to promote high-quality colonoscopy. To achieve high quality, these key quality indicators must be monitored, results must be analysed, and measures must be undertaken to correct substandard performance. High-quality training in colonoscopy and polypectomy should be a quality assurance priority.

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.

Gradual stiffness versus magnetic imaging-guided variable stiffness colonoscopes: A randomized noninferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Colonoscopes with gradual stiffness have recently been developed to enhance cecal intubation. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine if the performance of gradual stiffness colonoscopes is noninferior to that of magnetic endoscopic imaging (MEI)-guided variable stiffness colonoscopes. METHODS: Consecutive patients were randomized to screening colonoscopy with Fujifilm gradual stiffness or Olympus MEI-guided variable stiffness colonoscopes. The primary endpoint was cecal intubation rate (noninferiority limit 5%). Secondary endpoints included cecal intubation time. We estimated absolute risk differences with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: We enrolled 475 patients: 222 randomized to the gradual stiffness instrument, and 253 to the MEI-guided variable stiffness instrument. Cecal intubation rate was 91.7% in the gradual stiffness group versus 95.6% in the variable stiffness group. The adjusted absolute risk for cecal intubation failure was 4.3% higher in the gradual stiffness group than in the variable stiffness group (upper CI border 8.1%). Median cecal intubation time was 13 minutes in the gradual stiffness group and 10 minutes in the variable stiffness group (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The study is inconclusive with regard to noninferiority because the 95% CI for the difference in cecal intubation rate between the groups crosses the noninferiority margin. (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01895504).

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.

Upper Versus Lower Gastrointestinal Delivery for Transplantation of Fecal Microbiota in Recurrent or Refractory Clostridium difficile Infection: A Collaborative Analysis of Individual Patient Data From 14 Studies.

GOALS: The aim of this study was to compare upper gastrointestinal (UGI) versus lower gastrointestinal (LGI) delivery routes of fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) for refractory or recurrent/relapsing Clostridium difficile infection (CDI). BACKGROUND: FMT has been proven to be a safe and highly effective therapeutic option for CDI. Delivery, however, could be via the UGI or LGI routes, and it is unclear as to which route provides better clinical outcome. STUDY: A systematic search for studies that reported the use of FMT for CDI treatment was conducted. Individual patient data that included demographic (age and sex) and clinical (route of FMT delivery, CDI outcome after FMT, and follow-up time) information were obtained. Kaplan-Meier cumulative hazard curves and Cox proportional hazard models were used to assess clinical failure after FMT by the route of delivery. RESULTS: Data from 305 patients treated with FMT (208 via LGI route and 97 via UGI route) for CDI were analyzed. At 30 and 90 days, the risk of clinical failure was 5.6% and 17.9% in the UGI group compared with 4.9% and 8.5% in the LGI delivery route group, respectively. A time-varying analysis suggested a 3-fold increase in hazard of clinical failure for UGI delivery (hazard ratio, 3.43; 95% confidence interval, 1.32-8.93) in the period after 30 days. CONCLUSIONS: FMT delivered via the LGI seems to be the most effective route for the prevention of recurrence/relapse of CDI. A randomized controlled trial is necessary to confirm whether FMT delivered via the LGI is indeed superior to that delivered via the UGI route.

First quality score for referral letters in gastroenterology-a validation study.

OBJECTIVE: To create and validate an objective and reliable score to assess referral quality in gastroenterology. DESIGN: An observational multicentre study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: 25 gastroenterologists participated in selecting variables for a Thirty Point Score (TPS) for quality assessment of referrals to gastroenterology specialist healthcare for 9 common indications. From May to September 2014, 7 hospitals from the South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority participated in collecting and scoring 327 referrals to a gastroenterologist. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Correlation between the TPS and a visual analogue scale (VAS) for referral quality. RESULTS: The 327 referrals had an average TPS of 13.2 (range 1-25) and an average VAS of 4.7 (range 0.2-9.5). The reliability of the score was excellent, with an intra-rater intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.87 and inter-rater ICC of 0.91. The overall correlation between the TPS and the VAS was moderate (r=0.42), and ranged from fair to substantial for the various indications. Mean agreement was good (ICC=0.47, 95% CI (0.34 to 0.57)), ranging from poor to good. CONCLUSIONS: The TPS is reliable, objective and shows good agreement with the subjective VAS. The score may be a useful tool for assessing referral quality in gastroenterology, particularly important when evaluating the effect of interventions to improve referral quality.

Incentives and participation in a medical survey. / Incentiver og deltagelse i en medisinsk spørreundersøkelse.

BACKGROUND Questionnaire surveys are important for surveying the health and disease behaviour of the population, but recent years have seen a fall in participation. Our study tested whether incentives can increase participation in these surveys.MATERIAL AND METHOD We sent a questionnaire on risk factors for colorectal cancer (height, weight, smoking, self-reported diagnoses, family medical history) to non-screened participants in a randomised colonoscopy screening study for colorectal cancer: participants who were invited but did not attend for colonoscopy examination (screening-invited) and persons who were not offered colonoscopy (control group). The persons were randomised to three groups: no financial incentive, lottery scratch cards included with the form, or a prize draw for a tablet computer when they responded to the form. We followed up all the incentive groups with telephone reminder calls, and before the prize draw for the tablet computer.RESULTS Altogether 3 705 of 6 795 persons (54.5 %) responded to the questionnaire; 43.5 % of those invited for screening and 65.6 % of the control group (p < 0.001). The proportion that answered was not influenced by incentives, either among those invited for screening (42.4 % in the non-prize group, 45.5 % in the lottery scratch card group and 42.6 % in the prize draw group; p = 0.24), or in the control group (65.6 % in the non-prize group, 66.4 % in the lottery scratch card group and 64.7 % in the prize draw group; p = 0.69). Prior to reminder calls, 39.2 % responded. A further 15.3 % responded following telephone reminder calls (14.1 % of the screening-invited and 16.5 % of the control group; p < 0.001).INTERPRETATION Incentives did not increase participation in this medical questionnaire survey. Use of telephone reminder calls and telephone interviews increased participation, but whether this is more effective than other methods requires further study.

Routine vs. on-demand analgesia in colonoscopy: a randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Colonoscopy is frequently performed with opioid analgesia, but the impact of drug delivery timing has not been studied in detail. Low-dose opioids administered before the procedure may provide better pain control than on-demand administration when the patient experiences pain. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 119 outpatients were randomized to receive 50 µg of fentanyl either before colonoscopy (routine group) or on demand if needed during the colonoscopy (on-demand group). Additional fentanyl or midazolam was allowed in both groups if required. The primary outcome was pain measured on both a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS; 0 = no pain, 100 = worst possible pain) and a four-point Likert scale (no, slight, moderate, or severe pain) immediately after the procedure. RESULTS: A total of 61 patients in the routine group and 58 patients in the on-demand group were included in the study. Mean VAS pain scores were 27.4 mm in the routine group and 30.5 mm in the on-demand group (mean difference - 3.2 mm; 95 % confidence interval - 11.9 to 5.5; P = 0.5). On the Likert scale, moderate or severe pain was experienced by 25.0 % and 31.5 % of patients in the routine and on-demand groups, respectively (p = 0.5). Cecal intubation rate and time to reach the cecum were similar between the groups. More patients in the on-demand group (81.0 %) than in the routine group (62.3 %) were able to leave the clinic without the need for recovery time (P = 0.03). CONCLUSION: Routine administration of fentanyl did not provide better analgesia during colonoscopy than on-demand fentanyl, and more patients needed time for recovery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01786434).