Differences between men and women with respect to colorectal cancer mortality despite screening colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Women aged 55 to 59 years have a similar prevalence rate and number needed to screen for colorectal adenomas as men at a 10-year younger age. The aim of this study was to determine sex-specific differences in colorectal cancer mortality and estimate the association with adenomas at screening colonoscopy. METHODS: This retrospective study analyzed 323,139 individuals who underwent colonoscopy within a national colorectal cancer screening program in Austria between January 2007 and December 2020. RESULTS: Median patient age was 60 years (interquartile range, 54-67), and the sex distribution in all age groups was nearly identical. Men had significantly higher odds of having an adenoma or serrated polyp, low-risk polyp, high-risk polyp, or colorectal cancer detected at colonoscopy than women (odds ratio [OR] 1.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.80-1.86; OR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.44-1.49; OR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.69-1.80; and OR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.70-2.05, respectively). Strikingly, male sex, when compared with female sex, was associated with an almost 2-fold (hazard ratio, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.05-2.67) increased risk to die from colorectal cancer when an adenoma or serrated polyp was found at the screening colonoscopy and a 4-fold (hazard ratio, 4.14; 95% CI, 2.72-6.3) increased risk when a high-risk polyp was found at the screening colonoscopy. The cumulative incidence for death of colorectal cancer for 60-year-old individuals was 8.5-fold higher in men as compared with women. Markedly, this sex gap narrowed with increasing age, whereas the difference in deaths of other causes remained similar in all age groups. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings strengthen the necessity of sex-specific screening recommendations. Importantly, further prospective studies should focus on sex differences in tumor biology to propose personalized surveillance guidelines.

Polyp size is associated with colorectal cancer death across histologic polyp subtypes: a retrospective study of a screening colonoscopy registry.

BACKGROUND: Surveillance colonoscopy after polyps have been detected at screening aims to reduce the risk for subsequent colorectal cancer, so-called post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC). Inconsistencies exist as to whether the risk should be stratified by histologic subtype. We aimed to compare the risk for PCCRC mortality in screening participants with sessile serrated lesions (SSLs)/traditional serrated adenomas (TSAs), hyperplastic polyps (HPPs), or conventional adenomas. METHODS: Screening colonoscopy registry data were linked to death registry data between 2010 and 2022. We assessed the association of PCCRC death after a diagnosis of SSL/TSA, conventional adenoma, or HPP by Cox regression, and stratified by polyp size ≥10 and <10 mm. RESULTS: 383,801 participants were included in the analysis. There were 1490 HPPs ≥10 mm (2.6%), compared with 1853 SSL/TSAs (19.6%) and 10,960 conventional adenomas (12.9%). When adjusted for polyp location, the association of polyp size ≥10 mm with PCCRC death was of similar magnitude in participants with conventional adenomas (hazard ratio [HR] 3.68, 95%CI 2.49-5.44), SSL/TSAs (HR 2.55, 95%CI 1.13-5.72), and HPPs (HR 5.01, 95%CI 2.45-10.22). Participants with HPPs mostly died of tumors in the distal colon (54.1%; n = 20), while participants with SSL/TSAs more frequently died of proximal tumors (33.3%; n = 3). CONCLUSIONS: Across all histologic types, participants with polyps ≥10 mm had at least a two-fold increase in the likelihood of PCCRC death compared with those with polyps <10 mm. These data suggest that size, rather than histologic subtype, should be a determinant for risk stratification after screening colonoscopy.

Colorectal polypectomy and endoscopic mucosal resection: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline - Update 2024.

1: ESGE recommends cold snare polypectomy (CSP), to include a clear margin of normal tissue (1-2 mm) surrounding the polyp, for the removal of diminutive polyps (≤ 5 mm).Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 2: ESGE recommends against the use of cold biopsy forceps excision because of its high rate of incomplete resection.Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. 3: ESGE recommends CSP, to include a clear margin of normal tissue (1-2 mm) surrounding the polyp, for the removal of small polyps (6-9 mm).Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 4: ESGE recommends hot snare polypectomy for the removal of nonpedunculated adenomatous polyps of 10-19 mm in size.Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 5: ESGE recommends conventional (diathermy-based) endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for large (≥ 20 mm) nonpedunculated adenomatous polyps (LNPCPs).Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 6: ESGE suggests that underwater EMR can be considered an alternative to conventional hot EMR for the treatment of adenomatous LNPCPs.Weak recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. 7: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) may also be suggested as an alternative for removal of LNPCPs of ≥ 20 mm in selected cases and in high-volume centers.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 8: ESGE recommends that, after piecemeal EMR of LNPCPs by hot snare, the resection margins should be treated by thermal ablation using snare-tip soft coagulation to prevent adenoma recurrence.Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 9: ESGE recommends (piecemeal) cold snare polypectomy or cold EMR for SSLs of all sizes without suspected dysplasia.Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. 10: ESGE recommends prophylactic endoscopic clip closure of the mucosal defect after EMR of LNPCPs in the right colon to reduce to reduce the risk of delayed bleeding.Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 11: ESGE recommends that en bloc resection techniques, such as en bloc EMR, ESD, endoscopic intermuscular dissection, endoscopic full-thickness resection, or surgery should be the techniques of choice in cases with suspected superficial invasive carcinoma, which otherwise cannot be removed en bloc by standard polypectomy or EMR.Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence.

Polyp characteristics at screening colonoscopy and post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer mortality: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Polyp size and high-grade dysplasia in polyps at screening colonoscopy are considered risk factors for post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC) development and death, which might be averted by surveillance colonoscopy. However, robust evidence backing these risk factors is lacking. We aimed to investigate whether polyp size or dysplasia grade is associated with PCCRC mortality. METHODS: This was a retrospective study including individuals of the Austrian Quality Certificate for Screening Colonoscopy who underwent a colonoscopy between January 2007 and December 2020. We investigated the association of polyp size and dysplasia in polyps with PCCRC mortality according to Cox regression analysis. In addition, whether patients with certain polyp characteristics had similar risk for CRC death compared with the Austrian population was assessed by calculating standardized mortality ratios (SMRs). RESULTS: A total of 316,001 individuals were included. After a median follow-up time of 5.27 years (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.25-5.29), a significant association of polyps 10 to 20 mm (hazard ratio, 4.00; 95% CI, 2.46-6.50; P < .001) as well as high-grade dysplasia (hazard ratio, 6.61; 95% CI, 3.31-13.2; P < .001) with PCCRC death was observed. PCCRC mortality was significantly lower than the expected CRC mortality in the general population in patients with polyps <10 mm and without high-grade dysplasia (SMR, .27; 95% CI, .21-.33; P < .001), which was not observed for patients with polyps ≥10 mm or with high-grade dysplasia (SMR, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.64-2.57; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Polyp size ≥10 mm and high-grade dysplasia are associated with PCCRC mortality in screening patients. The data suggest that these patients might benefit most from surveillance colonoscopy.

Comparison of adenoma detection rate and proximal serrated polyp detection rate and their effect on post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer mortality in screening patients.

BACKGROUND: Patients with serrated polyps are at increased risk for post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC); however, evidence for a dedicated serrated polyp detection rate is lacking. The aim of this study was to investigate the association of the proximal serrated polyp detection rate (PSDR) and adenoma detection rate (ADR) with PCCRC death. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis within the Austrian quality assurance program for screening colonoscopy. Spearman's rank coefficient was calculated for the assessment of association between ADR and PSDR. Whether ADR or PSDR were associated with colorectal cancer mortality was assessed by Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: 229/729 screening colonoscopies performed by 308 endoscopists were analyzed. The ADR (hazard ratio [HR] per 1 percentage point increase 0.98, 95 %CI 0.96-0.99) as well as the PSDR (HR per 1 percentage point increase 0.97, 95 %CI 0.94-0.99) were significantly associated with PCCRC death. The correlation coefficient of the ADR and PSDR calculated at every colonoscopy was 0.70 (95 %CI 0.70-0.71), and the corresponding PSDR value for an ADR performance standard of 25 % was 11.1 %. At the end of the study period, 86 endoscopists (27.9 %) reached an ADR of > 25 % and a PSDR of > 11.1 %. CONCLUSIONS: The ADR as well as the PSDR were associated with PCCRC death. Striving for a high PSDR in addition to a high ADR might reduce the risk for PCCRC mortality in patients undergoing screening colonoscopy.

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.

Interval cancer after colonoscopy in the Austrian National Screening Programme: influence of physician and patient factors.

OBJECTIVE: Postscreening colorectal cancer (PSCRC) after screening colonoscopy is associated with endoscopists' performance and characteristics of resected lesions. Prior studies have shown that adenoma detection rate (ADR) is a decisive factor for PSCRC, but correlations with other parameters need further analysis and ADR may change over time. DESIGN: Cohort study including individuals undergoing screening colonoscopy between 1/2008 and 12/2019 performed by physicians participating in a quality assurance programme in Austria. Data were linked with hospitalisation data for the diagnosis of PSCRC (defined as CRC diagnosis >6 months after colonoscopy). ADR was defined dynamically in relation to the time point of subsequent colonoscopies; high-risk groups of patients were those with an adenoma ≥10 mm, or with high-grade dysplasia, or villous or tubulovillous histology, or a serrated lesion ≥10 mm or with dysplasia, or colonoscopies with ≥3 lesions. Main outcome was PSCRC for each risk group (negative colonoscopy, hyperplastic polyps, low-risk and high-risk group of patients) after colonoscopy by endoscopists with an ADR <20% compared with endoscopists with an ADR ≥20%. RESULTS: 352 685 individuals were included in the study (51.0% women, median age 60 years) of which 10.5% were classified as high-risk group. During a median follow-up of 55.4 months, 241 (0.06%) PSCRC were identified; of 387 participating physicians, 19.6% had at least one PSCRC (8.4% two or more). While higher endoscopist ADR decreased PSCRC incidence (HR per 1% increase 0.97, 95% CI 0.95 to 0.98), affiliation to the high-risk group of patients was also associated with higher PSCRC incidence (HR 3.27, 95% CI 2.36 to 4.00). Similar correlations were seen with regards to high-risk, and advanced adenomas. The risk for PSCRC was significantly higher after colonoscopy by an endoscopist with an ADR <20% as compared with an endoscopist with an ADR ≥20% in patients after negative colonoscopy (HR 2.01, 95% CI 1.35 to 3.0, p<0.001) and for the high-risk group of patients (HR 2.51, 95% CI 1.49 to 4.22, p<0.001). CONCLUSION: A dynamic calculation of the ADR takes into account changes over time but confirms the correlation of ADR and interval cancer. Both lesion characteristics and endoscopists ADR may play a similar role for the risk of PSCRC. This should be considered in deciding about appropriate surveillance intervals in the future.

Association of Adenoma Detection Rate and Adenoma Characteristics With Colorectal Cancer Mortality After Screening Colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The adenoma detection rate (ADR) and characteristics of previously resected adenomas are associated with colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality. However, the combined effect of both factors on CRC mortality is unknown. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Using data of the Austrian quality assurance program for screening colonoscopy, we evaluated the combined effect of ADR and lesion characteristics on subsequent risk for CRC mortality. We analyzed mortality rates for individuals with low-risk adenomas (1-2 adenomas <10 mm), individuals with high-risk adenomas (advanced adenomas or ≥3 adenomas), and after negative colonoscopy (negative colonoscopy or small hyperplastic polyps) performed by endoscopists with an ADR <25% compared with ≥25%. Cox regression was used to determine the association of combined risk groups with CRC mortality, adjusted for age and sex. RESULTS: We evaluated 259,885 colonoscopies performed by 361 endoscopists. A total of 165 CRC-related deaths occurred during the follow-up period, up to 12.2 years. In all risk groups, CRC mortality was higher when colonoscopy was performed by an endoscopist with an ADR <25%. Compared with negative colonoscopy with an ADR ≥25%, CRC mortality was similar for individuals with low-risk adenomas irrespective of ADR (for ADR ≥25%: adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.22; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.59-2.49; for ADR <25%: adjusted HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.64-2.43) and after negative colonoscopy with ADR <25% (adjusted HR, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.81-2.00). Individuals with high-risk adenomas were at significantly higher risk for CRC death if colonoscopy was performed by an endoscopist with an ADR <25% (adjusted HR, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.18-4.31) but not if performed by an endoscopist with an ADR ≥25% (adjusted HR, 1.35; 95% CI, 0.61-3.02). CONCLUSIONS: Our study adds important evidence for mandatory assessment and monitoring of performance quality in screening colonoscopy. High-quality colonoscopy was associated with a lower risk for CRC death, and the impact of ADR was strongest for individuals with high-risk adenomas.

Impact of adenoma detection rate on detection of advanced adenomas and endoscopic adverse events in a study of over 200,000 screening colonoscopies.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is the best established quality parameter for screening colonoscopy. Guidelines recommend a target ADR >25% because previous studies have shown that patients of endoscopists with higher ADRs have a lower risk of postcolonoscopy interval cancers. However, studies have shown that improvement in ADR mainly results in increased detection of clinically irrelevant nonadvanced adenomas (NAAs). The impact of ADR on the detection of advanced adenomas (AAs) as well as adverse event rates has yet to be determined. METHODS: A total of 218,193 screening colonoscopies performed between 2007 and 2010 by 262 endoscopists within the Austrian quality assurance program were analyzed. We divided endoscopists into quintiles based on ADRs and calculated mean advanced ADRs (AADRs), NAA detection rates (NAADRs), and adverse event rates for each quintile. Spearman rank-order was used to calculate overall correlations between ADRs and AADRs as well as adverse event rates. Endoscopists with an ADR <25% were compared with those with an ADR >25%. RESULTS: Fifty-one percent of patients were women. Mean ADR was 23.03% (95% confidence interval [CI], 21.93-24.13), AADRs 7.72% (95% CI, 7.19-8.25), and NAADRs 15.31% (95% CI, 14.36-16.27). Overall, there was a significant correlation between ADR and AADR (rho = .51; P < .001). When ADR was divided into quintiles, mean AADR increased with increasing ADR. Even in the highest ADR group (ADR, 31.36%-52.27%) there was a further increase in AADR with a mean of 10.75% (95% CI, 9.31-12.19). Importantly, NAADRs increased continuously with improvement in ADRs but never dissociated from a simultaneous improvement in AADRs. However, there was also a significant correlation of ADRs and endoscopic adverse events (rho = .26, P < .001), even if the perforation rate of .028% (95% CI, .004-.052) in the highest ADR group still remained within the accepted limits based on guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: Increasing ADR is associated with improved detection of AAs and therefore is likely to prevent more cases of colorectal cancer. However, higher ADR was also associated with a higher rate of adverse events, although the adverse event rate was low.

Evaluation of adenomas per colonoscopy and adenomas per positive participant as new quality parameters in screening colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The primary aim of this study was to evaluate adenomas per positive participant (APP) and adenomas per colonoscopy (APC) as new quality parameters in screening colonoscopy. Furthermore, we wanted to assess whether these parameters differ depending on the setting or profession. METHODS: Colonoscopy records were obtained from the database of the Austrian certificate of quality for screening colonoscopy. The Spearman correlation was calculated to compare the adenoma detection rate (ADR), APC, APP, and advanced ADR. The parameters were compared between surgeons and internists and between private practices and hospitals by using the t test. RESULTS: A total of 44,142 colonoscopies performed by 202 endoscopists were included. APC showed a strong correlation with ADR (r = 0.94; P < .01), and both showed a similar correlation with the advanced ADR (ADR: r = 0.47; P < 0.01, APC: r = 0.46; P < .01). APP showed weaker correlations compared with all other parameters (ADR: r = 0.36; P < .01; advanced ADR: r = 0.19; P < .01). Private practices did not differ in ADR, APP or APC from hospitals. Among endoscopists with ADRs of ≥25%, 7 (10.3%) had an APP in the lowest quartile, whereas no endoscopists had an APC in the lowest quartile. CONCLUSIONS: APC did not reveal additional information to ADR, and thus there is no need to use it instead of or additionally to ADR. Although the APP identifies endoscopists who find few adenomas per procedure despite acceptable ADRs, this additional information might not be important in regard to sufficient colorectal cancer prevention, because these endoscopists still had high advanced ADRs.

Modeling the spatial variability in the spread and correlation of childhood malnutrition in Nigeria.

The average nutritional status of children in Nigeria is, just as in most developing countries, still in an alarmingly bad condition. Prior studies have shown that this status relies on a series of different influences and can be measured by three anthropometric variables for stunting, wasting, and underweight. Different regression modeling techniques have been adopted over the years to explain the determinants and spatial clustering. Those indicators, however, show patterns that are not necessarily full filling requirements for ordinary regression models for the mean and are correlated among each other, a fact that has until now been ignored by most studies. Methods to model outcomes in the light of both, the whole distribution of and the correlation between two or more outcomes based on a set of covariates, have lately been developed. The aim of this paper is to make use of those methods to explain the underlying spatial structure in malnutrition in Nigeria. The study brings to limelight the pattern of spread as well as the interwoven relationships among childhood malnutrition indicators that would have otherwise remained unknown in Nigeria.

Effects of whole-body electromyostimulation combined with individualized nutritional support on body composition in patients with advanced cancer: a controlled pilot trial.

BACKGROUND: Physical exercise and nutritional treatment are promising measures to prevent muscle wasting that is frequently observed in advanced-stage cancer patients. However, conventional exercise is not always suitable for these patients due to physical weakness and therapeutic side effects. In this pilot study, we examined the effect of a combined approach of the novel training method whole-body electromyostimulation (WB-EMS) and individualized nutritional support on body composition with primary focus on skeletal muscle mass in advanced cancer patients under oncological treatment. METHODS: In a non-randomized controlled trial design patients (56.5% male; 59.9 ± 12.7 years) with advanced solid tumors (UICC III/IV, N = 131) undergoing anti-cancer therapy were allocated to a usual care control group (n = 35) receiving individualized nutritional support or to an intervention group (n = 96) that additionally performed a supervised physical exercise program in form of 20 min WB-EMS sessions (bipolar, 85 Hz) 2×/week for 12 weeks. The primary outcome of skeletal muscle mass and secondary outcomes of body composition, body weight and hand grip strength were measured at baseline, in weeks 4, 8 and 12 by bioelectrical impedance analysis and hand dynamometer. Effects of WB-EMS were estimated by linear mixed models. Secondary outcomes of physical function, hematological and blood chemistry parameters, quality of life and fatigue were assessed at baseline and week 12. Changes were analyzed by t-tests, Wilcoxon signed-rank or Mann-Whitney-U-tests. RESULTS: Twenty-four patients of the control and 58 of the WB-EMS group completed the 12-week trial. Patients of the WB-EMS group had a significantly higher skeletal muscle mass (0.53 kg [0.08, 0.98]; p = 0.022) and body weight (1.02 kg [0.05, 1.98]; p = 0.039) compared to controls at the end of intervention. WB-EMS also significantly improved physical function and performance status (p < 0.05). No significant differences of changes in quality of life, fatigue and blood parameters were detected between the study groups after 12 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: Supervised WB-EMS training is a safe strength training method and combined with nutritional support it shows promising effects against muscle wasting and on physical function in advanced-stage cancer patients undergoing treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02293239 (Date: November 18, 2014).

Surveillance colonoscopy in Austria: Are we following the guidelines?

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIM: The European guidelines for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis contain postpolypectomy surveillance recommendations. They recommend follow-up intervals depending on the findings at index colonoscopy, and divide patients into a low-, intermediate- or high-risk group. The aim of this study was to assess the adherence of Austrian endoscopists to the European guidelines and to determine whether sending a reminder letter resulted in better adherence. METHODS: A single reminder letter containing the guidelines was sent to all endoscopists who participated in the Certificate of Quality for Screening Colonoscopy program in Austria. Adherence was assessed before and after the letter had been sent. Factors associated with adherence were investigated. RESULTS: We found poor baseline adherence to the guidelines. After the reminder letter, the adherence slightly improved in the low-risk group, but did not change in the intermediate-risk or high-risk groups. An adenoma detection rate of at least 20 % was associated with higher adherence rates. Generally, internists and hospitals showed better adherence compared with surgeons and private practices, respectively, both before and after the reminder letter. CONCLUSION: A single reminder letter was not enough to improve the poor adherence to the European postpolypectomy surveillance guidelines. Thus, future studies are required to identify and eliminate all factors responsible for nonadherence to postpolypectomy guidelines in order to reach the goal of a safe, effective, and cost-effective colorectal cancer prevention tool in the near future.

Colorectal polypectomy and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR): European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Clinical Guideline.

1 ESGE recommends cold snare polypectomy (CSP) as the preferred technique for removal of diminutive polyps (size ≤ 5 mm). This technique has high rates of complete resection, adequate tissue sampling for histology, and low complication rates. (High quality evidence, strong recommendation.) 2 ESGE suggests CSP for sessile polyps 6 - 9 mm in size because of its superior safety profile, although evidence comparing efficacy with hot snare polypectomy (HSP) is lacking. (Moderate quality evidence, weak recommendation.) 3 ESGE suggests HSP (with or without submucosal injection) for removal of sessile polyps 10 - 19 mm in size. In most cases deep thermal injury is a potential risk and thus submucosal injection prior to HSP should be considered. (Low quality evidence, strong recommendation.) 4 ESGE recommends HSP for pedunculated polyps. To prevent bleeding in pedunculated colorectal polyps with head ≥ 20 mm or a stalk ≥ 10 mm in diameter, ESGE recommends pretreatment of the stalk with injection of dilute adrenaline and/or mechanical hemostasis. (Moderate quality evidence, strong recommendation.) 5 ESGE recommends that the goals of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) are to achieve a completely snare-resected lesion in the safest minimum number of pieces, with adequate margins and without need for adjunctive ablative techniques. (Low quality evidence; strong recommendation.) 6 ESGE recommends careful lesion assessment prior to EMR to identify features suggestive of poor outcome. Features associated with incomplete resection or recurrence include lesion size > 40 mm, ileocecal valve location, prior failed attempts at resection, and size, morphology, site, and access (SMSA) level 4. (Moderate quality evidence; strong recommendation.) 7 For intraprocedural bleeding, ESGE recommends endoscopic coagulation (snare-tip soft coagulation or coagulating forceps) or mechanical therapy, with or without the combined use of dilute adrenaline injection. (Low quality evidence, strong recommendation.)An algorithm of polypectomy recommendations according to shape and size of polyps is given (Fig. 1).

Patient-reported non-adherence and immunosuppressant trough levels are associated with rejection after renal transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Different measures of non-adherence to immunosuppressant (IS) medication have been found to be associated with rejection episodes after successful transplantation. The aim of the current study was to investigate whether graft rejection after renal transplantation is associated with patient-reported IS medication non-adherence and IS trough level variables (IS trough level variability and percentage of sub-therapeutic IS trough levels). METHODS: Patient-reported non-adherence, IS trough level variability, percentage of sub-therapeutic IS trough levels, and acute biopsy-proven late allograft rejections were assessed in 267 adult renal transplant recipients who were ≥12 months post-transplantation. RESULTS: The rate of rejection was 13.5%. IS trough level variability, percentage of sub-therapeutic IS trough levels as well as patient-reported non-adherence were all significantly and positively associated with rejection, but not with each other. Logistic regression analyses revealed that only the percentage of sub-therapeutic IS trough levels and age at transplantation remained significantly associated with rejection. CONCLUSIONS: Particularly, the percentage of sub-therapeutic IS trough levels is associated with acute rejections after kidney transplantation whereas IS trough level variability and patient-reported non-adherence seem to be of subordinate importance. Patient-reported non-adherence and IS trough level variables were not correlated; thus, non-adherence should always be measured in a multi-methodological approach. Further research concerning the best combination of non-adherence measures is needed.

Boosting joint models for longitudinal and time-to-event data.

Joint models for longitudinal and time-to-event data have gained a lot of attention in the last few years as they are a helpful technique clinical studies where longitudinal outcomes are recorded alongside event times. Those two processes are often linked and the two outcomes should thus be modeled jointly in order to prevent the potential bias introduced by independent modeling. Commonly, joint models are estimated in likelihood-based expectation maximization or Bayesian approaches using frameworks where variable selection is problematic and that do not immediately work for high-dimensional data. In this paper, we propose a boosting algorithm tackling these challenges by being able to simultaneously estimate predictors for joint models and automatically select the most influential variables even in high-dimensional data situations. We analyze the performance of the new algorithm in a simulation study and apply it to the Danish cystic fibrosis registry that collects longitudinal lung function data on patients with cystic fibrosis together with data regarding the onset of pulmonary infections. This is the first approach to combine state-of-the art algorithms from the field of machine-learning with the model class of joint models, providing a fully data-driven mechanism to select variables and predictor effects in a unified framework of boosting joint models.

Risk factors cannot explain the higher prevalence rates of precancerous colorectal lesions in men.

BACKGROUND: Prevalence of (pre)cancerous colorectal lesions are higher in men than in women, although transition rates from advanced lesions to cancer is similar in both sexes. Our aim was to investigate whether the sex-specific difference in incidence of premalignant colorectal lesions might be explained by the impact of risk factors. METHODS: A cross-sectional study analysing health check-up examinations and screening colonoscopies performed within a national quality assurance program. RESULTS: A total of 25 409 patients were included in this study, 50.8% were women. Median age for both sexes was 60 years (interquartile range (IQR) 54-67). A multivariable model showed that risk factors mediated only 0.6 of the 10.4% gender gap in adenoma and 0.47 of the 3.2% gender gap in advanced adenoma detection rate. Smoking was the only independent risk factor with a varying sex-specific effect (men OR 1.46, CI 1.29, 1.64, women OR 1.76, CI 1.53, 2.06) and advanced adenomas (men OR 1.06, CI 0.80-1.42; women OR 2.08, CI 1.52-2.83). Independent risk factors for adenomas were BMI (OR 1.35 per IQR, CI 1.25-1.47) and triglyceride level (OR 1.03 per IQR, CI 1.00-1.06); for advanced adenomas physical activity (none vs regular: OR 1.54, CI 1.18-2.00, occasional vs regular: OR 1.17, CI 1.00-1.38), cholesterol level (OR 1.13 per IQR, CI 1.02-1.25), blood glucose level (OR 1.05 per IQR, CI 1.01-1.09) and alcohol score (OR 1.09 per IQR, CI 1.01-1.18). CONCLUSIONS: Risk factors cannot explain higher prevalence rates in men. Results of this study strongly underline the need for sex-specific screening recommendations.

Trends in quality of screening colonoscopy in Austria.

Background and study aim: Screening colonoscopy only effectively prevents colorectal cancer if performed with high quality. The aim of this study was to analyze the detection rates of premalignant colorectal lesions in screening colonoscopies performed within a nationwide quality control program for screening colonoscopy in Austria. Methods: Data from electronic records of the screening program from its implementation in 2007 until December 2014 were analyzed in order to calculate detection rates for adenomas, advanced adenomas, polyps, and proximal lesions, and rates of cecal intubation, sedation, complications, and adequate bowel preparation. Results were evaluated to identify trends and changes in quality parameters over the 8-year study period. Results: During the study period, 301 endoscopists provided data from 159 246 screening colonoscopies. Mean age of screened individuals was 61.1 years, and 49.1 % were women. Significant increases over time were found for age- and sex-adjusted adenoma detection rates (ADRs), which increased from a mean of 22.2 % (SD 10.7 %) in 2007/2008 to 24.2 % (SD 11.6 %) in 2013/2014. On average, each endoscopist increased their individual ADR by + 1.5 percentage points per 2-year period (95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.9 - 2.2 percentage points; P < 0.01). Similarly, detection rates for proximal lesions rose from 15.8 % (SD 9.8 %) to 21.7 % (SD 13.3 %  + 2.5 percentage points per 2-year period, 95 %CI 1.9 - 3.1 percentage points; P < 0.01). ADR in men increased from 27.6 % in 2007/2008 (SD 11.1 %) to 29.2 % in 2013/2014 (SD 12.7 %; P < 0.01); ADR in women increased from 14.2 % (SD 7.1 %) in 2007/2008 to 19.0 % (SD 10.5 %) in 2013/2014 (P < 0.01). Advanced adenoma detection rates decreased during the study period, from 11.4 % (SD 9.0 %) in 2007/2008 to 7.6 % (SD 5.4 %) in 2013/2014 (P = 0.06) in men, and from 5.5 % (SD 5.3 %) in 2007/2008 to 4.0 % (SD 4.1 %) in 2013/2014 in women (P = 0.21). Conclusions: This study showed an improvement in the quality of screening colonoscopies performed within a quality assurance program in Austria between 2007 and 2014. Although, overall ADR increased significantly during the study period, there was a decrease in the rate of advanced adenoma detection.

A greater proportion of liver transplant candidates have colorectal neoplasia than in the healthy screening population.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Various types of liver disease are associated with an increased prevalence of colorectal adenomas. We investigated whether cirrhosis is a risk factor for colorectal neoplasia by analyzing colonoscopy findings from 2 cohorts of patients awaiting liver transplantation. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis to compare findings from colorectal cancer screenings of 567 adult patients with cirrhosis placed on the waitlist for liver transplantation with those from controls (matched for age, sex, body mass index, smoking, and diabetes). Rates of adenoma and advanced adenoma detection were adjusted owing to differences in rates of polypectomies performed in the 2 cohorts. RESULTS: Adenomas were detected in a significantly higher percentage of patients with cirrhosis (29.3%) than in controls (21.5%) (P = .0057; relative risk [RR], 1.36; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09-1.69); and patients with cirrhosis had a higher rate of advanced adenoma detection than controls (13.9% vs 7.7%; P = .0015; relative risk, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.25-2.64). A greater percentage of patients with alcoholic cirrhosis had neoplasias (34.3%) than controls (25.3%; P = .0350; RR, 1.36), and rates of advanced adenoma detection were 16.7% vs 10.2% (P = .0409; RR, 1.63). Adenomas were detected in 27.8% of patients with viral cirrhosis vs 15.9% of controls (P = .0061; RR, 1.74), with rates of advanced adenoma detection of 13.6% vs 5.0% (P = .0041; RR, 2.73). Similar proportions of patients with cirrhosis of other etiologies and controls were found to have colorectal neoplasias. CONCLUSIONS: Based on a retrospective analysis of colonoscopy findings from patients awaiting liver transplantation, those with alcoholic or viral cirrhosis are at higher risk of developing colorectal neoplasia and should be considered for earlier colonoscopy examination.