How to identify patients who are less likely to have metachronous neoplasms after a colon cancer: a predictive model.

BACKGROUND: Patients with prior colon cancer have increased risk of metachronous colorectal neoplasms; therefore, endoscopic surveillance is indicated. Current recommendations are not risk-stratified. We investigated predictive factors for colorectal neoplasms to build a model to spare colonoscopies for low-risk patients. METHODS: This was a multicenter, retrospective study including patients who underwent surgery for colon cancer in 2001 - 2008 (derivation cohort) and 2009 - 2013 (validation cohort). A predictive model for neoplasm occurrence at second surveillance colonoscopy was developed and validated. RESULTS: 421 and 203 patients were included in derivation and validation cohort, respectively. At second surveillance colonoscopy, 112 (26.6 %) and 55 (27.1 %) patients had metachronous neoplasms in derivation and validation groups; three cancers were detected in the latter. History of left-sided colon cancer (OR 1.64, 95 %CI 1.02 - 2.64), ≥ 1 advanced adenoma at index colonoscopy (OR 1.90, 95 %CI 1.05 - 3.43), and ≥ 1 adenoma at first surveillance colonoscopy (OR 2.06, 95 %CI 1.29 - 3.27) were independently predictive of metachronous colorectal neoplasms at second surveillance colonoscopy. For patients without such risk factors, diagnostic accuracy parameters were: 89.3 % (95 %CI 82.0 %-94.3 %) and 78.2 % (95 %CI 65.0 %-88.2 %) sensitivity, and 28.5 % (95 %CI 23.5 %-33.9 %) and 33.8 % (95 %CI 26.2 %-42.0 %) specificity in derivation and validation group, respectively. No cancer would be missed. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with prior left-sided colon cancer or ≥ 1 advanced adenoma at index colonoscopy or ≥ 1 adenoma at first surveillance colonoscopy had a significantly higher risk of neoplasms at second surveillance colonoscopy; patients without such factors had much lower risk and could safely skip the second surveillance colonoscopy. A prospective, multicenter validation study is needed.

Water exchange colonoscopy increases adenoma detection rate: a systematic review with network meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Water-aided colonoscopy techniques, such as water immersion (WI) and water exchange (WE), have shown different results regarding adenoma detection rate (ADR). We determined the impact of WI and WE on ADR and other procedural outcomes versus gas (air, AI; CO2) insufflation colonoscopy. METHODS: A systematic search of multiple databases for randomized controlled trials comparing WI and/or WE with AI and/or CO2 and reporting ADR was conducted. A network meta-analysis with mixed comparisons was performed. Primary outcome was ADR (overall, in the right side of the colon and by colonoscopy indication). RESULTS: Seventeen randomized controlled trials (10,350 patients) were included. WE showed a significantly higher overall ADR versus WI (odds ratio [OR], 1.31; 95% credible interval [CrI], 1.12-1.55) versus AI (OR, 1.40; CrI, 1.22-1.62) versus CO2 (OR, 1.48; 95% CrI, 1.15-1.86). WE achieved the highest ADR also in the right side of the colon and in colorectal cancer screening cases (both significant vs AI and WI) as well as in patients taking a split-dose preparation (significant vs all the other techniques). The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale cleanliness score (vs AI and WI) was significantly higher for WE. Both WI and WE showed increased proportion of unsedated examinations and decreased real-time insertion pain, with WE being the least-painful insertion technique. Withdrawal time was comparable across techniques, but WE showed the longest insertion time (3-5 additional minutes). CONCLUSIONS: WE significantly increases overall ADR, ADR in screening cases, and in the right side of the colon; it also improves colon cleanliness but requires a longer insertion time.

Incomplete small bowel capsule endoscopy: Risk factors and cost-effectiveness of real-time viewing.

Background and study aims International guidelines recommend real-time viewing (RTV) in capsule endoscopy for gastric emptying monitoring, yet it is often overlooked in clinical practice. We aimed to assess risk factors for incomplete small bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE) and evaluate the clinical relevance and cost-effectiveness of RTV implementation. Methods We included consecutive SBCEs from 2013 to 2020. RTV was not applied per local protocol. We used multivariate logistic regression to identify risk factors for incomplete SBCE, including prolonged gastric transit time (GTT) and prolonged small bowel transit time (SBTT). Results Analyzing 858 SBCEs, we observed a completion rate of 94.6%. Prolonged GTT and SBTT were present in 4.9% and 18.2% of complete SBCEs, and in 13% ( P =0.03) and 10.8% ( P =0.24) of incomplete SBCEs, respectively. Only 0.7% (6 of 858) had incomplete SBCE with prolonged GTT. In both univariate and multivariate analysis, a modifiable (prolonged GTT odds ratio [OR] 2.9; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1-7.5) and two unmodifiable risk factors (inpatient status OR 2.3; 95% CI 1.1-4.5) and history of incomplete SBCE (OR 4.2; 95% CI 1.3-13.7) were independently linked to higher incomplete SBCE rates. The pretest completion probability was 90.5% and 95.8% in patients with and without unmodifiable risk factors, respectively ( P <0.01). The direct cost of systematic RTV adoption and prokinetics administration would be €5059, aiming to identify and treat each case of prolonged GTT associated with incomplete SBCE. Conclusions Modern devices make incomplete SBCE rare, usually not tied to prolonged GTT. In a low-incidence scenario, widespread RTV use brings high costs and uncertain effectiveness.

Diagnostic management of patients reporting symptoms after wheat ingestion.

Many patients report symptoms after wheat ingestion experiencing a wide spectrum of clinical manifestations. Three possible diagnoses have been recognized: celiac disease (CD), wheat allergy (WA), and non-celiac (gluten) wheat sensitivity (NCGS/NCWS). CD is a chronic immune-mediated disease of the small bowel caused by exposure to dietary gluten in genetically predisposed individuals, with a prevalence of approximately 1%. It is characterized by mucosal inflammation and atrophy following exposure to gluten and improvement after gluten withdrawal. Food allergies are immunological responses to a food antigen. WA is the expression of an immunologically mediated process that can be immunoglobulin E (IgE) or non-IgE mediated; its many symptoms include urticaria/angioedema, asthma, rhinitis, and anaphylaxis. NCGS/NCWS is characterized by gastrointestinal and/or extra-intestinal symptoms after ingestion of gluten-containing food in subjects not affected by CD or WA. The aim of this review is to help physicians and nutritionists diagnose the cause of symptoms reported after wheat ingestion, thus avoiding patient frustration, inappropriate testing, and incorrect or missed diagnoses. An algorithm for the diagnostic approach in these patients is provided, to help to diagnose CD, WA, NCGS/NCWS or to identify possible functional disorders as the wheat-sensitive irritable bowel syndrome. A personalized approach, regular follow-up, and the help of a skilled healthcare professional are mandatory for patients with symptoms following wheat ingestion is provided. A gluten-free-diet is often recommended for patients with self-reported gluten/wheat-dependent symptoms; for patients with symptoms similar to those of functional diseases while there is evidence that a low-FODMAP diet could be the first option.

Intestinal ischemic manifestations of SARS-CoV-2: Results from the ABDOCOVID multicentre study.

BACKGROUND: Intestinal ischemia has been described in case reports of patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) disease (coronavirus disease 19, COVID-19). AIM: To define the clinical and histological, characteristics, as well as the outcome of ischemic gastrointestinal manifestations of SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: A structured retrospective collection was promoted among three tertiary referral centres during the first wave of the pandemic in northern Italy. Clinical, radiological, endoscopic and histological data of patients hospitalized for COVID-19 between March 1st and May 30th were reviewed. The diagnosis was established by consecutive analysis of all abdominal computed tomography (CT) scans performed. RESULTS: Among 2929 patients, 21 (0.7%) showed gastrointestinal ischemic manifestations either as presenting symptom or during hospitalization. Abdominal CT showed bowel distention in 6 patients while signs of colitis/enteritis in 12. Three patients presented thrombosis of main abdominal veins. Endoscopy, when feasible, confirmed the diagnosis (6 patients). Surgical resection was necessary in 4/21 patients. Histological tissue examination showed distinctive features of endothelial inflammation in the small bowel and colon. Median hospital stay was 9 d with a mortality rate of 39%. CONCLUSION: Gastrointestinal ischemia represents a rare manifestation of COVID-19. A high index of suspicion should lead to investigate this complication by CT scan, in the attempt to reduce its high mortality rate. Histology shows atypical feature of ischemia with important endotheliitis, probably linked to thrombotic microangiopathies.