Risk of Cancers Proximal to the Colon in Fecal Immunochemical Test Positive Screenees in a Colorectal Cancer Screening Program.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: In more than half of the colorectal cancer screening participants with a positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT) result, no advanced neoplasia (AN) is detected at colonoscopy. The positive FIT result could also be generated by cancers located proximal to the colon: upper gastrointestinal, oral cavity, nose, and throat cancers. We evaluated screenees' risk of being diagnosed with a cancer proximal to the colon within the 3 years and compared risks between those with a positive vs those with a negative FIT. METHODS: Data of Dutch colorectal cancer screening participants who underwent biennial FIT-based screening 2014-2018 were collected from the national screening database and linked to the National Cancer Registry. Screenees were classified into 3 groups: FIT-positives with AN (FIT+/AN+), FIT-positives without AN (FIT+/AN-), and FIT-negatives (FIT-). We compared the cumulative incidence of cancers proximal to the colon in each group 3 years after FIT. A Cox regression analysis with left truncation and right censoring, using FIT positivity as time-dependent variable and stratified for sex, was performed to compare the hazard of cancers proximal to the colon in participants who were FIT-positive vs FIT-negative. RESULTS: Three-year cumulative incidence of cancers proximal to the colon in FIT+/AN+ (n = 65,767), FIT+/AN- (n = 50,661), and FIT- (n = 1,831,647) screenees was 0.7%, 0.6%, and 0.4%, respectively (P < .001). FIT-positives were older and more frequently male than FIT-negatives (P < .001). Significantly more cancers proximal to the colon were detected among FIT-positives (P < .001; hazard ratio, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.44-1.67). CONCLUSION: FIT-positive screenees were at significantly increased risk of being diagnosed with a cancer proximal to the colon within 3 years after FIT, although the 3-year cumulative incidence was still less than 1%.

Stable hemoglobin concentration with fecal immunochemical test at high temperatures in a Caribbean colorectal cancer screening program.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: High temperatures may reduce fecal immunochemical test (FIT) positivity and colorectal cancer (CRC) detection sensitivity. We investigated the effect of temperature on hemoglobin concentration [Hb], in the FOB Gold®. Additionally, we examined FIT pick-up, storage, return times and specimen collection. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In vitro experiments with buffer containing FIT devices, inoculated with Hb-spiked stool. For 7 days, 144 samples were stored in groups of 36 at 4 °C, 22 °C, 30 °C, and 50 °C. Additionally, 54 samples were stored in groups of 18 at 34 °C, 42 °C and 50 °C for 20 h. Paired t-tests and repeated measure ANOVA assessed [Hb] change. Sixty-five screening participants completed a FIT-handling questionnaire. RESULTS: After 7 days, mean [Hb] was stable at 30 °C (0.8 µg Hb/g;95 %CI: -1.5 to 3.1;p = 0.50). For 50 °C, mean [Hb] decreased within 2 days (-21.3 µg Hb/g;95 %CI: -30.2 to -12.5;p < 0.001) and after 20 h (-63.0 µg Hb/g;95 %CI: -88.7 to -37.3;p < 0.001), respectively. All other temperature categories showed significant mean [Hb] increase. Same-day FIT return was reported by 80 %. Eighty-seven percent experienced specimen collection as easy and 33 % kept the FIT refrigerated after collection. CONCLUSIONS: The FOB Gold® is suitable for CRC screening in tropical climates. Although most respondents indicated same-day sample return, we recommend avoiding FIT storage above 30 °C for longer than7 days.

Intraductal Papillary Mucinous Neoplasms in High-Risk Individuals: Incidence, Growth Rate, and Malignancy Risk.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: In high-risk individuals (HRIs), we aimed to assess the cumulative incidence of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs) and compare IPMN growth, neoplastic progression rate, and the value of growth as predictor for neoplastic progression to these in sporadic IPMNs. METHODS: We performed annual surveillance of Dutch HRIs, involving carriers of germline pathogenic variants (PVs) and PV-negative familial pancreatic cancer kindreds. HRIs with IPMNs were compared with Italian individuals without familial risk under surveillance for sporadic IPMNs. RESULTS: A total of 457 HRIs were followed for 48 (range 2-172) months; the estimated cumulative IPMN incidence was 46% (95% confidence interval, 28%-64%). In comparison with 442 control individuals, IPMNs in HRIs were more likely to grow ≥2.5 mm/y (31% vs 7%; P < .001) and develop worrisome features (32% vs 19%; P = .010). PV carriers with IPMNs more often displayed neoplastic progression (n = 3 [11%] vs n = 6 [1%]; P = .011), while familial pancreatic cancer kindreds did not (n = 0 [0%]; P = 1.000). The malignancy risk in a PV carrier with an IPMN was 23% for growth rates ≥2.5 mm/y (n = 13), 30% for ≥5 mm/y (n = 10), and 60% for ≥10 mm/y (n = 5). CONCLUSIONS: The cumulative incidence of IPMNs in HRIs is higher than previously reported in the general population. Compared with sporadic IPMNs, they have an increased growth rate. PV carriers with IPMNs are suggested to be at a higher malignancy risk. Intensive follow-up should be considered for PV carriers with an IPMN growing ≥2.5 mm/y, and surgical resection for those growing ≥5 mm/y.

Cross-sectional risk models using quantitative fecal hemoglobin in colorectal cancer screening: a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Fecal Immunochemical Testing (FIT) is a central tool in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. To improve the selection of individuals for colonoscopy, risk models combining FIT with additional CRC risk factors have been developed. This systematic review aims to provide an overview of the current noninvasive FIT-based risk models for CRC screening to facilitate future implementation. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature search for risk models that combined quantitative fecal hemoglobin with clinical data or noninvasive biomarkers and that were intended for CRC screening. Risk of bias was assessed using the PROBAST tool. RESULTS: Twenty risk models reported across 29 publications were included. The overall risk of bias was high. In studies that compared risk models to FIT, 11/12 (92%) risk models had a significantly higher c-statistic than FIT only. 16/20 risk models (80%) had not been externally validated and only one model has been implemented so far. CONCLUSION: FIT-based risk models have the potential to improve the yield of CRC screening. Unfortunately, all included publications had a high risk of bias and most risk models have not yet been externally validated. The prospect of improved CRC screening with risk models should encourage more rigorous evaluation in existing screening programs.

Diagnostic yield of a risk model versus faecal immunochemical test only: a randomised controlled trial in a colorectal cancer screening programme.

BACKGROUND: Combining the faecal immunochemical test (FIT) result with risk factors for advanced neoplasia (AN) may increase the yield of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening without increasing the number of colonoscopies. We conducted a randomised controlled trial in the Dutch CRC screening programme to evaluate a previously developed risk model including FIT, age, sex, smoking status, and CRC family history. METHODS: A total of 22,748 individuals aged 56-75 years were pre-randomised to the risk-model group or the FIT-only group. Both groups received the FIT; those allocated to the risk-model group also received a single-page questionnaire. Study participants with a positive result (FIT ≥ 15 µg Hb/g faeces and/or risk ≥0.10) were referred for colonoscopy. The primary outcome measure was the proportion of invitees in whom AN was detected. RESULTS: In the risk-model group, 3113/11,364 invitees (27%) returned the FIT and questionnaire versus 3061/11,384 invitees (27%) in the FIT-only group (p = 0.40). The yield of AN was 3.70/1000 invitees in the risk-model group versus 3.43/1000 in the FIT-only group (absolute difference: 0.27/1000, 95%CI: -1.30 to 1.82, p = 0.82). CONCLUSIONS: Combining FIT with risk factors for CRC did not increase the yield of AN compared to FIT-only in an existing CRC screening programme. There was no difference in participation between groups. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04490551 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Decision-making on colorectal cancer screening in Curaçao - interviews with the target population.

BACKGROUND: During the first year of the population based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening program on Curaçao, about 20% of invitees participated. This study explored the target population's perceptions and awareness on CRC (screening), beliefs on the program provision, their preferences and information needs for informed decision-making. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews with 23 individuals, who were not yet invited for CRC screening, were recorded, transcribed, coded and analyzed. RESULTS: CRC (screening) was discussed in the context of personal health, where own responsibility and food were important. Cancer was perceived as an unpredictable disease that causes suffering and leads to death and was also associated with fear. Despite being aware of the program, most respondents were not familiar with the screening procedure. Provision of the screening program was regarded positively and as an opportunity to contribute to health improvement. This seemed related to the expressed trust in the Caribbean Prevention Center (program organizer). Respondents preferred to make independent decisions about CRC screening participation. A personal approach, visual aids and media were the preferred sources of information. CONCLUSION: The results of our interviews suggest that it may be beneficial to provide information on CRC screening in Curaçao within the context of personal health. While including sensitivity to fears and respect for the autonomy of the target population. Finally, electronic media maybe useful in supporting informed decision-making.

High quality colonoscopy: using textbook process as a composite quality measure.

BACKGROUND : High quality colonoscopy is fundamental to good patient outcomes. "Textbook outcome" has proven to be a feasible multidimensional measure for quality assurance between surgical centers. In this study, we sought to establish the "textbook process" (TP) as a new composite measure for the optimal colonoscopy process and assessed how frequently TP was attained in clinical practice and the variation in TP between endoscopists. METHODS : To reach consensus on the definition of TP, international expert endoscopists completed a modified Delphi consensus process. The achievement of TP was then applied to clinical practice. Prospectively collected data in two endoscopy services were retrospectively evaluated. Data on colonoscopies performed for symptoms or surveillance between 1 January 2018 and 1 August 2021 were analyzed. RESULTS : The Delphi consensus process was completed by 20 of 27 invited experts (74.1 %). TP was defined as a colonoscopy fulfilling the following items: explicit colonoscopy indication; successful cecal intubation; adequate bowel preparation; adequate withdrawal time; acceptable patient comfort score; provision of post-polypectomy surveillance recommendations in line with guidelines; and the absence of the use of reversal agents, early adverse events, readmission, and mortality. In the two endoscopy services studied, TP was achieved in 5962/8227 colonoscopies (72.5 %). Of 48 endoscopists performing colonoscopy, attainment of TP varied significantly, ranging per endoscopist from 41.0 % to 89.1 %. CONCLUSION : This study proposes a new composite measure for colonoscopy, namely "textbook process." TP gives a comprehensive summary of performance and demonstrates significant variation between endoscopists, illustrating the potential benefit of TP as a measure in future quality assessment programs.

Endoscopic Recurrence or Anastomotic Wound Healing Phenomenon after Ileocolic Resection for Crohn's Disease: The Challenges of Accurate Endoscopic Scoring.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Adequate endoscopic scoring in Crohn's disease [CD] is crucial, as it dictates the need for initiating postoperative medical therapy and is utilized as an outcome parameter in clinical trials. Here we aimed to observe anastomotic wound healing in relation to endoscopic scoring of both inverted and everted stapled lines in side-to-side anastomoses. METHODS: Two prospective patient cohorts were included: ileocolic resection [ICR] for CD, and right-sided colon resection for colorectal cancer [CRC]. Videos taken during colonoscopy 6 months postoperatively were evaluated. The Simplified Endoscopic Activity Score for Crohn's Disease and modified Rutgeerts score were determined. The primary outcome was the presence of ulcerations in CD patients on both the inverted and the everted stapled lines. Secondary outcomes were the presence of anastomotic ulcerations in CRC patients and the number of cases having ulcerations exclusively at the inverted stapled line. RESULTS: Of the 82 patients included in the CD cohort, ulcerations were present in 63/82 [76.8%] at the inverted- vs 1/71 [1.4%] at the everted stapled line. Likewise in the CRC cohort, ulcerations were present in 4/6 [67.7%] at the inverted vs 0/6 [0%] at the everted stapled line. In total, 27% of the 63 patients in the CD cohort had ulcerations exclusively on the inverted stapled line. CONCLUSION: Inverted stapled lines heal with ulcerations, whereas everted stapled lines heal without any ulcerations, in both CD and non-CD patients. The abnormalities at the inverted stapled line might interfere with endoscopic scoring of recurrence, with potentially an impact on patients' quality of life and on healthcare costs if postoperative treatment is initiated incorrectly.

Missed colorectal cancers in a fecal immunochemical test-based screening program: Molecular profiling of interval carcinomas.

BACKGROUND: For optimizing fecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based screening programs, reducing the rate of missed colorectal cancers (CRCs) by FIT (FIT-interval CRCs) is an important aspect. Knowledge of the molecular make-up of these missed lesions could facilitate more accurate detection of all (precursor) lesions. AIM: To compare the molecular make-up of FIT-interval CRCs to lesions that are detected by FIT [screen-detected CRCs (SD-CRCs)]. METHODS: FIT-interval CRCs observed in a Dutch pilot-program of FIT-based screening were compared to a control group of SD-CRCs in a 1:2 ratio, resulting in 27 FIT-interval CRC and 54 SD-CRCs. Molecular analyses included microsatellite instability (MSI), CpG island methylator phenotype (CIMP), DNA sequence mutations and copy number alterations (CNAs). RESULTS: Although no significant differences were reached, FIT-interval CRCs were more often CIMP positive and MSI positive (33% CIMP in FIT-interval CRCs vs 21% in SD-CRCs (P = 0.274); 19% MSI in FIT-interval CRCs vs 12% in SD-CRCs (P = 0.469)), and showed more often serrated pathway associated features such as BRAF (30% vs 12%, P = 0.090) and PTEN (15% vs 2.4%, P = 0.063) mutations. APC mutations, a classic feature of the adenoma-carcinoma-sequence, were more abundant in SD-CRCs (68% vs 40% in FIT-interval CRCs P = 0.035). Regarding CNAs differences between the two groups; FIT-interval CRCs less often showed gains at the regions 8p11.22-q24.3 (P = 0.009), and more often gains at 20p13-p12.1 (P = 0.039). CONCLUSION: Serrated pathway associated molecular features seem to be more common in FIT-interval CRCs, while classic adenoma carcinoma pathway associated molecular features seem to be more common in SD-CRCs. This indicates that proximal serrated lesions may be overrepresented among FIT-interval CRCs.

What can We Learn From High-Performing Screening Programs to Increase Bowel Cancer Screening Participation in Australia?

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most diagnosed cancer in men and women and second most common cause of cancer death in Australia; Australia's CRC incidence and mortality are among the world's highest. The Australian National Bowel Cancer Screening Program began in 2006; however, only 33% of those approached for the first time by the Program between 2018 and 2019 returned the kit. Of the 5.7 million kits sent during this period, only 44% were returned. Our aim was to identify practices and features of national bowel cancer screening programs in countries with similar programs but higher screening participation, to identify potential interventions for optimising Australian CRC screening participation. METHODS: We searched published and grey literature for CRC screening programs reporting at least 50% screening participation using postal invitation and free return of iFOBT home kits. Interviews were conducted with cancer registry staff and academic researchers, focused on participant and practitioner engagement in screening. RESULTS: National programs in Netherlands, Scotland, Denmark, and Finland reported over 50% screening participation rates for all invitation rounds. Shared characteristics include small populations within small geographic areas relative to Australia; relatively high literacy; a one-sample iFOBT kit; national registration systems for population cancer screening research; and screening program research including randomised trials of program features. CONCLUSIONS: Apart from the one-sample kit, we identified no single solution to persistent Australian low uptake of screening. Research including randomised trials within the program promises to increase participation. IMPACT: This screening program comparison suggests that within-program intervention trials will lead to increased Australian screening participation.

Urban density differences in colorectal cancer screening participation and screening yield in The Netherlands.

Lower socioeconomic status has been associated with higher colorectal cancer incidence and lower participation in population-based screening with faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) but regional variations in participation may also exist. We analysed differences in participation and yield in colorectal cancer screening by urban density level. Data of all invitees to the Dutch colorectal cancer screening programme in 2014-2015 were included. Primary outcomes were participation (returning FIT), FIT positive predictive value, and screening yield (advanced neoplasia detected in invitees). Differences were explored across five levels of urban density. In total 1,873,639 screening invitees were included. FIT participation was 77.3% in the lowest versus 62.8% in the highest urban areas (RR 1.23; 95%CI 1.23-1.24). FIT positive predictive value was 58.6% in the lowest versus 55.2% in the highest urban areas (RR 1.06; 95% CI 1.04-1.09). Screening yield was also higher in the lowest (2.1%-2.3%) compared to the highest urban areas (1.8%). Compared to socioeconomic status, differences in urban density were associated with larger differences in screening participation. In conclusion, participation is lower and fewer cases of advanced neoplasia are detected in areas with a high urban density in the Dutch colorectal cancer screening programme. Differences in urban density could be used in tailoring regional strategies to target barriers in colorectal cancer screening.

Serrated polyp detection and risk of interval post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer: a population-based study.

BACKGROUND: Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is a well-established quality indicator for colonoscopy and is inversely associated with the incidence of interval post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer. However, interval post-colonoscopy colorectal cancers frequently develop from serrated polyps, which are not included in the ADR. Therefore, the proximal serrated polyp detection rate (PSPDR) has been proposed as a quality indicator, but its association with interval post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer has not been studied. We aimed to evaluate this potential association based on data collected in the Dutch colorectal cancer screening programme. METHODS: In this population-based study, using colonoscopy data from the Dutch faecal immunochemical test-based colorectal cancer screening programme and cancer data from the Netherlands Cancer Registry, we evaluated the association between endoscopists' individual PSPDR and their patients' risk of interval post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer with a shared frailty Cox proportional-hazard regression analysis. Participants in the screening programme who were eligible for inclusion were aged 55-76 years, had a positive faecal immunochemical test (cutoff 15 µg Hb/g faeces at start and changed mid-2014 to 47 µg Hb/g faeces), were asymptomatic, and underwent a colonoscopy between Jan 1, 2014, and Dec 31, 2020. The PSPDR was defined as the proportion of colonoscopies in which at least one serrated polyp proximal to the descending colon was detected, confirmed by histopathology. The ADR was defined as the proportion of all colonoscopies in which at least one conventional adenoma was detected, confirmed by histopathology. Detection rates were determined for each endoscopist individually. We additionally evaluated the risk of interval post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer for endoscopists with a PSPDR and ADR above the median versus endoscopists with either one or both parameters below the median. This study is registered with the Netherlands Trial Registry, NL8350. FINDINGS: During the study period, 329 104 colonoscopies were done, of which 277 555, done by 441 endoscopists, were included in the PSPDR calculations. The median PSPDR was 11·9% (IQR 8·3-15·8) and median ADR was 66·3% (61·4-69·9). The correlation between the PSDPR and ADR was moderate (r=0·59; p<0·0001). During a median follow-up of 33 months (IQR 21-42), 305 interval post-colonoscopy colorectal cancers were detected. For each percentage point increase in PSPDR, the adjusted interval post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer hazard was 7% lower (hazard ratio [HR] 0·93, 95% CI 0·90-0·95; p<0·0001). Compared with endoscopists with a PSPDR greater than 11·9% and ADR greater than 66·3%, the HR of interval post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer for endoscopists with a low PSPDR and high ADR was 1·79 (95% CI 1·22-2·63), for endoscopists with a high PSPDR and low ADR was 1·97 (1·19-3·24), and for endoscopists with a low PSPDR and low ADR was 2·55 (1·89-3·45). INTERPRETATION: The PSPDR of an endoscopist is inversely associated with the incidence of interval post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer. Implementation of PSPDR monitoring, in addition to ADR monitoring, could optimise colorectal cancer prevention. FUNDING: None.

Case-mix adjustment to compare colonoscopy performance between endoscopy centers: a nationwide registry study.

BACKGROUND : Nonmodifiable patient and endoscopy characteristics might influence colonoscopy performance. Differences in these so-called case-mix factors are likely to exist between endoscopy centers. This study aimed to examine the importance of case-mix adjustment when comparing performance between endoscopy centers. METHODS : Prospectively collected data recorded in the Dutch national colonoscopy registry between 2016 and 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. Cecal intubation rate (CIR) and adequate bowel preparation rate (ABPR) were analyzed. Additionally, polyp detection rate (PDR) was studied in screening colonoscopies following a positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT). Variation in case-mix factors between endoscopy centers and expected outcomes for each performance measure were calculated per endoscopy center based on case-mix factors (sex, age, American Society of Anesthesiologist [ASA] score, indication) using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: 363 840 colonoscopies were included from 51 endoscopy centers. Mean percentages per endoscopy center were significantly different for age > 65 years, male patients, ASA ≥ III, and diagnostic colonoscopies (all P < 0.001). In the FIT-positive screening population, significant differences were observed between endoscopy centers for age > 65 years, male patients, and ASA ≥ III (all P ≤ 0.001). The expected CIR, ABPR, and PDR ranged from 95.0 % to 96.9 %, from 93.6 % to 96.4 %, and from 76.2 % to 79.1 %, respectively. Age, sex, ASA classification, and indication were significant case-mix factors for CIR and ABPR. In the FIT-positive screening population, age, sex, and ASA classification were significant case-mix factors for PDR. CONCLUSION: Our findings emphasize the importance of considering case-mix adjustment when comparing colonoscopy performance measures between endoscopy centers.

Endoscopic full-thickness resection of T1 colorectal cancers: a retrospective analysis from a multicenter Dutch eFTR registry.

BACKGROUND: Complete endoscopic resection and accurate histological evaluation for T1 colorectal cancer (CRC) are critical in determining subsequent treatment. Endoscopic full-thickness resection (eFTR) is a new treatment option for T1 CRC < 2 cm. We aimed to report clinical outcomes and short-term results. METHODS: Consecutive eFTR procedures for T1 CRC, prospectively recorded in our national registry between November 2015 and April 2020, were retrospectively analyzed. Primary outcomes were technical success and R0 resection. Secondary outcomes were histological risk assessment, curative resection, adverse events, and short-term outcomes. RESULTS: We included 330 procedures: 132 primary resections and 198 secondary scar resections after incomplete T1 CRC resection. Overall technical success, R0 resection, and curative resection rates were 87.0 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 82.7 %-90.3 %), 85.6 % (95 %CI 81.2 %-89.2 %), and 60.3 % (95 %CI 54.7 %-65.7 %). Curative resection rate was 23.7 % (95 %CI 15.9 %-33.6 %) for primary resection of T1 CRC and 60.8 % (95 %CI 50.4 %-70.4 %) after excluding deep submucosal invasion as a risk factor. Risk stratification was possible in 99.3 %. The severe adverse event rate was 2.2 %. Additional oncological surgery was performed in 49/320 (15.3 %), with residual cancer in 11/49 (22.4 %). Endoscopic follow-up was available in 200/242 (82.6 %), with a median of 4 months and residual cancer in 1 (0.5 %) following an incomplete resection. CONCLUSIONS: eFTR is relatively safe and effective for resection of small T1 CRC, both as primary and secondary treatment. eFTR can expand endoscopic treatment options for T1 CRC and could help to reduce surgical overtreatment. Future studies should focus on long-term outcomes.

Continuous monitoring of colonoscopy performance in the Netherlands: first results of a nationwide registry.

BACKGROUND: To optimize colonoscopy quality, several performance measures have been developed. These are usually assessed without distinction between the indications for colonoscopy. This study aimed to assess the feasibility of linking two national registries (one for colonoscopy and one for adverse events of gastrointestinal endoscopies in the Netherlands), and to describe the results of colonoscopy quality per indication. METHODS: This retrospective study was conducted with prospectively collected data of the Dutch Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Audit (DGEA) and the Dutch Registration of Complications in Endoscopy (DRCE). Data between 01-01-2016 and 01-01-2019 were analyzed. To calculate adverse event rates, data were linked at the level of endoscopy service. RESULTS: During the 3-year study period, 266 981 colonoscopies were recorded in DGEA. Of all indications, cecal intubation rate was highest in fecal immunochemical test (FIT)-positive screening colonoscopies (97.1 %), followed by surveillance (93.2 %), diagnostic (90.7 %), and therapeutic colonoscopies (83.1 %). The highest rate of adequate bowel preparation was observed in FIT-positive screening colonoscopies (97.1 %). A total of 1540 colonoscopy-related adverse events occurred (0.58 % of all colonoscopies). Bleeding and perforation and rates were highest for therapeutic (1.56 % and 0.51 %, respectively) and FIT-positive screening (0.72 % and 0.06 %, respectively) colonoscopies. The colonoscopy-related mortality was 0.006 %. CONCLUSION: This study describes the first results of the Dutch national colonoscopy registry, which was successfully linked to data from the national registry for adverse events of gastrointestinal endoscopies. In this large dataset, performance varied between indications. Our results emphasize the importance of defining benchmarks per indication in future guidelines.

Novel classification for adverse events in GI endoscopy: the AGREE classification.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Standardized registration and evaluation of adverse events (AEs) are essential to assess the safety of endoscopic procedures. We propose a novel classification system, named adverse events in GI endoscopy (AGREE), adapted from a widely accepted surgical tool. METHODS: The Clavien-Dindo classification for surgical AEs was adapted for endoscopy. To validate the novel classification, we assessed if the severity of AEs, as perceived by 10 endoscopists, 10 endoscopy nurses, and 10 patients, corresponded with the severity grading used in the AGREE classification in 10 pairwise comparisons. We additionally assessed the correlation between the AGREE classification and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) classification. The acceptability of the AGREE classification was evaluated through an international questionnaire. RESULTS: The perception of endoscopists, endoscopy nurses, and patients corresponded with the severity grading of the AGREE classification in 80% of cases (238/299). The AGREE classification significantly correlated with the ASGE classification (ρ = .760). Fifty-seven of 84 experts (68%) completed a questionnaire regarding the acceptability of the AGREE classification. The experts consulted considered the AGREE classification as simple (86%), reproducible (98%), logical (98%), and useful (96%). Most case presentations (84%) were correctly graded according to the AGREE classification. CONCLUSIONS: The AGREE classification provides a standardized and reproducible approach to the assessment of AEs in diagnostic and therapeutic GI endoscopy. Broad implementation of the AGREE classification may facilitate the evaluation of AEs across different endoscopists, disciplines, endoscopy services, and regions. This standardization of AE reporting will support improved quality assurance in GI endoscopy.

[How important is the quality of colonoscopy, considering the population screening for colorectal cancer?] / Hoe belangrijk is de kwaliteit van coloscopie?

Colonoscopy is the reference standard for the detection of polyps and colorectal cancer (CRC). If during colonoscopy, all colorectal lesions are detected and completely removed, this individual will be long-term protected from CRC. The quality of the colonoscopy procedure is essential for an optimal protective effect. Recently published data of negative colonoscopies within the Polish Colonoscopy Screening Program, with a maximum follow-up of 17.4 years, demonstrated that high-quality colonoscopy was associated with a lower CRC incidence and mortality compared to low-quality colonoscopy. Colonoscopy quality was defined by completeness of colonoscopy, quality of the bowel preparation and number of detected colorectal lesions. These results suggest that the interval after a negative colonoscopy for the next screening might be safely prolonged, preventing unnecessary costs and risks for the patient. The quality of the initial colonoscopy is essential and a high quality will be fundamental for surveillance guidelines in the near future.

Individualized faecal immunochemical test cut-off based on age and sex in colorectal cancer screening.

The risk of having colorectal cancer (CRC) or its precursors vary with age and sex. Yet, most CRC screening programs using the quantitative faecal immunochemical test (FIT) use a uniform FIT cut-off. We aimed to calculate individualized FIT cut-offs based on age and sex. Data from a study of 1,112 asymptomatic average-risk screening participants undergoing colonoscopy without preselection were used to build a logistic regression model to calculate the risk of having advanced neoplasia (AN) at colonoscopy using age, sex, and FIT concentration as variables. We calculated age- and sex-adjusted FIT cut-off concentrations based on a uniform risk threshold. In a total of 101 of the 1,112 participants AN was detected at colonoscopy. We selected a risk threshold that would produce a specificity of 96.9% in the study group, matching the specificity of FIT at a cut-off of 20 µg Hb/g faeces. At this threshold, age- and sex-adjusted FIT cut-off concentrations ranged from 36.9 µg Hb/g faeces for 50-year-old women to 9.5 µg Hb/g faeces for 75-year old men. At this level of specificity, the risk-based model reached a sensitivity for AN of 28.7% (95%CI: 20.8 to 38.2) versus 27.7% (95%CI: 19.9 to 37.1) for FIT only. Using a risk threshold instead of a uniform FIT-based threshold for inviting screening participants to follow-up colonoscopy ensures that everyone has a comparable risk of AN prior to colonoscopy and may improve the detection of advanced neoplasia, although the absolute magnitude of the increase is likely to be limited.

Evaluation of a panel of tumor-specific differentially-methylated DNA regions in IRF4, IKZF1 and BCAT1 for blood-based detection of colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Differentially-methylated regions (DMRs) are characteristic of colorectal cancer (CRC) and some occur more frequently than common mutations. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical utility of assaying circulating cell-free DNA for methylation in BCAT1, IKZF1 and IRF4 for detection of CRC. METHODS: A multiplexed real-time PCR assay targeting DMRs in each of the three genes was developed. Assay accuracy was explored in plasma specimens banked from observational cross-sectional trials or from volunteers scheduled for colonoscopy or prior to CRC surgery. RESULTS: 1620 specimens were suitable for study inclusion including 184 and 616 cases with CRC and adenomas, respectively, and 820 cases without neoplasia (overall median age, 63.0 years; 56% males). Combining the PCR signals for all targeted DMRs returned the best sensitivity for CRC (136/184, 73.9%, 95% CI 67.1-79.7), advanced adenomas (53/337, 15.7%, 95% CI 12.0-20.1) and high-grade dysplastic (HGD) adenomas (9/35, 25.7%, 95% CI 14.0-42.3) with a 90.1%, specificity for neoplasia (739/820, 95% CI 87.9-92.0, p < 0.01). Detection of methylation in all three genes were more likely in CRC cases than those without it (OR 28.5, 95% CI 7.3-121.2, p < 0.0001). Of the 81 positive cases without neoplasia, 62 (76.5%) were positive by a single PCR replicate only and predominantly due to detection of methylated BCAT1 (53.2%). Single replicate positivity was significantly higher than that in CRC (26/136, 19.1%, p < 0.0001), and single BCAT1 replicate positivity was more likely in cases without neoplasia than in CRC (OR 17.7, 95% CI 6.6-43.3, p < 0.0001). When a positive result was limited to those with ≥ 1 PCR replicate positive for either IKZF1 or IRF4, or at least two replicates positive for BCAT1, the multi-panel test maintained a high sensitivity for CRC (131/184, 71.2%, 95% CI 64.3-77.3) and HGD adenomas (8/35, 22.9%, 95% CI 11.8-39.3, p = 0.029) but improved specificity significantly (772/820, 94.1%, 95% CI 92.3-95.6, p < 0.0001 vs. any PCR replicate positive). CONCLUSION: The multi-panel methylation assay differentiates cases with CRC from those without it and does so with high specificity when criteria for BCAT1 detection are applied. The marker panel is flexible and studies in those at average risk for CRC are now warranted to determine which panel configuration best suits screening goals. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN12611000318987. Registered 25 March 2011, https://www.anzctr.org.au/ ACTRN12611000318987.