CTNND1 is involved in germline predisposition to early-onset gastric cancer by affecting cell-to-cell interactions.

BACKGROUND: CDH1 and CTNNA1 remain as the main genes for hereditary gastric cancer. However, they only explain a small fraction of gastric cancer cases with suspected inherited basis. In this study, we aimed to identify new hereditary genes for early-onset gastric cancer patients (EOGC; < 50 years old). METHODS: After germline exome sequencing in 20 EOGC patients and replication of relevant findings by gene-panel sequencing in an independent cohort of 152 patients, CTNND1 stood out as an interesting candidate gene, since its protein product (p120ctn) directly interacts with E-cadherin. We proceeded with functional characterization by generating two knockout CTNND1 cellular models by gene editing and introducing the detected genetic variants using a lentiviral delivery system. We assessed ß-catenin and E-cadherin levels, cell detachment, as well as E-cadherin localization and cell-to-cell interaction by spheroid modeling. RESULTS: Three CTNND1 germline variants [c.28_29delinsCT, p.(Ala10Leu); c.1105C > T, p.(Pro369Ser); c.1537A > G, p.(Asn513Asp)] were identified in our EOGC cohorts. Cells encoding CTNND1 variants displayed altered E-cadherin levels and intercellular interactions. In addition, the p.(Pro369Ser) variant, located in a key region in the E-cadherin/p120ctn binding domain, showed E-cadherin mislocalization. CONCLUSIONS: Defects in CTNND1 could be involved in germline predisposition to gastric cancer by altering E-cadherin and, consequently, cell-to-cell interactions. In the present study, CTNND1 germline variants explained 2% (3/172) of the cases, although further studies in larger external cohorts are needed.

Role of Artificial Intelligence in Colonoscopy Detection of Advanced Neoplasias : A Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: The role of computer-aided detection in identifying advanced colorectal neoplasia is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the contribution of computer-aided detection to colonoscopic detection of advanced colorectal neoplasias as well as adenomas, serrated polyps, and nonpolypoid and right-sided lesions. DESIGN: Multicenter, parallel, randomized controlled trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04673136). SETTING: Spanish colorectal cancer screening program. PARTICIPANTS: 3213 persons with a positive fecal immunochemical test. INTERVENTION: Enrollees were randomly assigned to colonoscopy with or without computer-aided detection. MEASUREMENTS: Advanced colorectal neoplasia was defined as advanced adenoma and/or advanced serrated polyp. RESULTS: The 2 comparison groups showed no significant difference in advanced colorectal neoplasia detection rate (34.8% with intervention vs. 34.6% for controls; adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 1.01 [95% CI, 0.92 to 1.10]) or the mean number of advanced colorectal neoplasias detected per colonoscopy (0.54 [SD, 0.95] with intervention vs. 0.52 [SD, 0.95] for controls; adjusted rate ratio, 1.04 [99.9% CI, 0.88 to 1.22]). Adenoma detection rate also did not differ (64.2% with intervention vs. 62.0% for controls; aRR, 1.06 [99.9% CI, 0.91 to 1.23]). Computer-aided detection increased the mean number of nonpolypoid lesions (0.56 [SD, 1.25] vs. 0.47 [SD, 1.18] for controls; adjusted rate ratio, 1.19 [99.9% CI, 1.01 to 1.41]), proximal adenomas (0.94 [SD, 1.62] vs. 0.81 [SD, 1.52] for controls; adjusted rate ratio, 1.17 [99.9% CI, 1.03 to 1.33]), and lesions of 5 mm or smaller (polyps in general and adenomas and serrated lesions in particular) detected per colonoscopy. LIMITATIONS: The high adenoma detection rate in the control group may limit the generalizability of the findings to endoscopists with low detection rates. CONCLUSION: Computer-aided detection did not improve colonoscopic identification of advanced colorectal neoplasias. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Medtronic.

Colonoscopy Satisfaction and Safety Questionnaire based on patient experience (CSSQP): A valuable quality tool for all colonoscopies.

INTRODUCTION: The Colonoscopy Satisfaction and Safety Questionnaire based on Patient experience (CSSQP) was recently developed and validated within a Bowel Cancer Screening Program. We aimed to identify factor related to patient experience through the CSSQP, including all indications for colonoscopy. Indicators of satisfaction and perceived safety with colonoscopy were also assessed to compare the different centers. METHODS: Multicenter study in nine Spanish hospitals. Consecutive patients who had undergone a colonoscopy completed the CSSQP adding a novel item on bowel preparation. Factors related to patient experiences and data from non-respondents were analyzed. RESULTS: Of 2200 patients, 1753 filled out the questionnaire (response rate 79.7%, sample error 2%). Patients whose colonoscopy indication was a primary colorectal cancer screening (OR: 1.68, 95% CI: 1.15-2.44, p=0.007) or due to a +FIT (OR: 1.73, 95% CI: 1.18-2.53) reported higher satisfaction than patients with gastrointestinal symptoms. In addition, college-educated patients (OR: 2.11, 95% CI: 1.25-3.56) were more likely to report better overall satisfaction than patients with lower education level. Significant differences were observed in the majority of the CSSQP items between centers. Safety incidents were reported by 35 (2%) patients, and 176 (10%) patients reported that they received insufficient information. CONCLUSION: The CSSQP identifies several significant factors on satisfaction and perceived safety in patients referred for colonoscopy for any reason. The CSSQP also allows comparison of patient-identified colonoscopy quality indicators between centers.

Applicability of the Barcelona scale to assess the quality of cleanliness of mucosa at esophagogastroduodenoscopy.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: There are few scales with prospective validation for the assessment of the upper gastrointestinal mucosal cleanliness during an esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). The aim of this study was to develop a valid and reproducible cleanliness scale for use during an EGD. METHODS: We developed a cleanliness scale (Barcelona scale) with a score (0-2 points) of five segments of the upper gastrointestinal tract with thorough cleaning techniques (esophagus, fundus, body, antrum, and duodenum). First, 125 photos (25 of each area) were assessed, and a score was assigned to each image by consensus among 7 experts endoscopists. Subsequently, 100 of the 125 images were selected and the inter- and intra-observer variability of 15 previously trained endoscopists was evaluated using the same images at two different times. RESULTS: In total, 1500 assessments were performed. In 1336/1500 observations (89%) there was agreement with the consensus score, with a mean kappa value of 0.83 (0.45-0.96). In the second evaluation, in 1330/1500 observations (89%) there was agreement with the consensus score, with a mean kappa value of 0.82 (0.45-0.93). The intra-observer variability was 0.89 (0.76-0.99). CONCLUSIONS: The Barcelona cleanliness scale is a valid measure and reproducible with minimal training. Its application in clinical practice is a significant step to standardize the quality of the EGD.

Efficacy and safety of cold versus hot snare polypectomy for small (5-9 mm) colorectal polyps: a multicenter randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Resection techniques for small polyps include cold snare polypectomy (CSP) and hot snare polypectomy (HSP). This study compared CSP and HSP in 5-9 mm polyps in terms of complete resection and adverse events. METHODS: This was a multicenter, randomized trial conducted in seven Spanish centers between February and November 2019. Patients with ≥ 1 5-9 mm polyp were randomized to CSP or HSP, regardless of morphology or pit pattern. After polypectomy, two marginal biopsies were submitted to a pathologist who was blinded to polyp histology. Complete resection was defined as normal mucosa or burn artifacts in the biopsies. Abdominal pain was only assessed in patients without < 5 mm or > 9 mm polyps. RESULTS: 496 patients were randomized: 237 (394 polyps) to CSP and 259 (397 polyps) to HSP. Complete polypectomy rates were 92.5 % with CSP and 94.0 % with HSP (difference 1.5 %, 95 % confidence interval -1.9 % to 4.9 %). Intraprocedural bleeding occurred during three CSPs (0.8 %) and seven HSPs (1.8 %) (P = 0.34). One lesion per group (0.4 %) presented delayed hemorrhage. Post-colonoscopy abdominal pain presented similarly in both groups 1 hour after the procedure (CSP 18.8 % vs. HSP 18.4 %) but was higher in the HSP group after 5 hours (5.9 % vs. 16.5 %; P = 0.02). A higher proportion of patients were asymptomatic 24 hours after CSP than after HSP (97 % vs. 86.4 %; P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: We observed no differences in complete resection and bleeding rates between CSP and HSP. CSP reduced the intensity and duration of post-colonoscopy abdominal pain.

Prevalence of missed lesions in patients with inadequate bowel preparation through a very early repeat colonoscopy.

OBJECTIVES: When bowel preparation (BP) is inadequate, international guidelines recommend repeating the colonoscopy within 1 year to avoid missing clinically relevant lesions. We aimed to determine the rate of missed lesions in patients with inadequate BP through a very early repeat colonoscopy with adequate BP. METHODS: Post hoc analysis was conducted using data collected from a prospective multicenter randomized clinical trial including patients with inadequate BP and then repeat colonoscopy. Inadequate BP was defined as the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score <2 points in any segment. We included patients with any indication for colonoscopy. The adenoma detection rate (ADR), advanced ADR (AADR), and serrated polyp detection rate (SPDR) were calculated for index and repeat colonoscopies. RESULTS: Of the 651 patients with inadequate BP from the original trial, 413 (63.4%) achieved adequate BP on repeat colonoscopy. The median interval between index and repeat colonoscopies was 28 days. On repeat colonoscopy, the ADR was 45.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] 40.5-50.1%), the AADR was 10.9% (95% CI 8.1-14.3%), and the SPDR was 14.3% (95% CI 10.9-17.7%). Cancer was discovered in four patients (1%; 95% CI 0.2-2.5%). A total of 60.2% of all advanced adenoma (AA) were discovered on repeat colonoscopy. A colon segment scored BBPS = 0 had most AA (66.1%) and all four cancers. CONCLUSION: Patients with inadequate BP present a high rate of AAs on repeat colonoscopy. When a colonoscopy has a colon segment score BBPS = 0, we recommend repeating the colonoscopy as soon as possible.

Findings in the distal and proximal colon in colonoscopy screening after positive FIT and related pre-procedure factors.

BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy is the gold standard method for the early diagnosis and prevention of colorectal cancer (CRC). Screening programs include immune determination of blood in feces. Regardless of the method used, proximal colon lesions appear to be detected less frequently. OBJECTIVE: Analyze the characteristics of proximal and distal lesions and possible predisposing factors. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was performed of 692 patients from the CRC screening program with FIT ≥ 100ngHb/ml (October 2017 - October 2018). The right colon was examined twice as patients were participating in a randomized clinical trial to re-evaluate the right colon by forward-viewing endoscope or proximal retroflexion. The adenoma detection rate (ADR), advanced neoplasia (AN) and CRC in the proximal and distal colon, the histological and morphological characteristics in each section were analyzed. RESULTS: 52.9% of the patients were male, with a mean age of 59.5 years (SD: 7.6). 1490 polyps were found and the ADR was 57.7% (distal 42% and proximal 37%). Detection rates were 45.8% for AN, 40.9% for advanced adenomas, 5.2% for advanced SSL and CRC was diagnosed in 4.8% of patients. Males had more AN than females. The mean age of patients with AN was significantly higher. AN were associated with smoking and alcohol consumption (p=0.0001). Globally, FIT levels were higher in patients with AN (p=0.003). Sixty-six per cent of cancers were distally located and 61.3% of CRC were diagnosed in the early stages. CONCLUSIONS: In an average-risk asymptomatic population undergoing colonoscopy after positive FIT, AN were more common in the distal colon in males, older patients, smokers and those with alcohol intake.

Quality in diagnostic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy for the detection and surveillance of gastric cancer precursor lesions: Position paper of AEG, SEED and SEAP. / Documento de posicionamiento de la AEG, la SEED y la SEAP sobre calidad de la endoscopia digestiva alta para la detección y vigilancia de las lesiones precursoras de cáncer gástrico.

This position paper, sponsored by the Asociación Española de Gastroenterología [Spanish Association of Gastroenterology], the Sociedad Española de Endoscopia Digestiva [Spanish Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Society] and the Sociedad Española de Anatomía Patológica [Spanish Anatomical Pathology Society], aims to establish recommendations for performing an high quality upper gastrointestinal endoscopy for the screening of gastric cancer precursor lesions (GCPL) in low-incidence populations, such as the Spanish population. To establish the quality of the evidence and the levels of recommendation, we used the methodology based on the GRADE system (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). We obtained a consensus among experts using a Delphi method. The document evaluates different measures to improve the quality of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in this setting and makes recommendations on how to evaluate and treat the identified lesions. We recommend that upper gastrointestinal endoscopy for surveillance of GCPL should be performed by endoscopists with adequate training, administering oral premedication and use of sedation. To improve the identification of GCPL, we recommend the use of high definition endoscopes and conventional or digital chromoendoscopy and, for biopsies, NBI should be used to target the most suspicious areas of intestinal metaplasia. Regarding the evaluation of visible lesions, the risk of submucosal invasion should be evaluated with magnifying endoscopes and endoscopic ultrasound should be reserved for those with suspected deep invasion. In lesions amenable to endoscopic resection, submucosal endoscopic dissection is considered the technique of choice.

Gastric cancer screening in low incidence populations: Position statement of AEG, SEED and SEAP. / Documento de posicionamiento de la AEG, la SEED y la SEAP sobre cribado de cáncer gástrico en poblaciones con baja incidencia.

This positioning document, sponsored by the Asociación Española de Gastroenterología, the Sociedad Española de Endoscopia Digestiva and the Sociedad Española de Anatomía Patológica, aims to establish recommendations for the screening of gastric cancer (GC) in low incidence populations, such as the Spanish. To establish the quality of the evidence and the levels of recommendation, we used the methodology based on the GRADE system (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). We obtained a consensus among experts using a Delphi method. The document evaluates screening in the general population, individuals with relatives with GC and subjects with GC precursor lesions (GCPL). The goal of the interventions should be to reduce GC related mortality. We recommend the use of the OLGIM classification and determine the intestinal metaplasia (IM) subtype in the evaluation of GCPL. We do not recommend to establish endoscopic mass screening for GC or Helicobacter pylori. However, the document strongly recommends to treat H.pylori if the infection is detected, and the investigation and treatment in individuals with a family history of GC or with GCPL. Instead, we recommend against the use of serological tests to detect GCPL. Endoscopic screening is suggested only in individuals that meet familial GC criteria. As for individuals with GCPL, endoscopic surveillance is only suggested in extensive IM associated with additional risk factors (incomplete IM and/or a family history of GC), after resection of dysplastic lesions or in patients with dysplasia without visible lesion after a high quality gastroscopy with chromoendoscopy.

Variation in Colonoscopy Performance Measures According to Procedure Indication.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Most fulfillment and benchmarking information for colonoscopy quality indicators has been obtained from studies of primary screening colonoscopies. We analyzed differences in the fulfillment of colonoscopy quality indicators based on the indication for endoscopy. METHODS: We performed an observational, multicenter, cross-sectional study of 14,867 patients who underwent endoscopy procedures for gastrointestinal symptoms (40.3%), a positive result from a fecal immunochemical test (36.0%), postpolypectomy surveillance (15.3%), or primary screening (8.4%), from February 2016 through December 2017 at 14 centers in Spain. We evaluated rates of adequate colon cleansing, cecal intubation, adenoma detection, and colorectal cancer detection, among others. We used findings from primary screening colonoscopies as the reference standard. RESULTS: Fewer than 90% of patients had adequate bowel preparation; 83.1% of patients with gastrointestinal symptoms had adequate bowel preparation (odds ratio [OR] compared with patients with primary screening colonoscopies, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.49-0.78) and 85.3% of patients receiving postpolypectomy surveillance had adequate bowel preparation (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.55-0.91). The cecal intubation rate was also lower in patients with gastrointestinal symptoms (93.1%) (OR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.22-0.52). The adenoma detection rate was higher in patients with a positive result from a fecal immunochemical test (46.4%) (OR, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.71-2.35) and in patients undergoing postpolypectomy surveillance (48.2%) (OR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.20-1.67). The highest proportion of patients with colorectal cancer was in the gastrointestinal symptom group (5.1%) (OR, 5.24; 95% CI, 2.30-11.93) and the lowest was in patients undergoing surveillance (0.8%) (OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.32-2.14). CONCLUSIONS: Fulfillment of colonoscopy performance measures varies substantially by indication. Policies addressing performance measures beyond colonoscopy screening procedures should be developed. Benchmarking recommendations could be adjusted according to colonoscopy indication.

Accuracy of the Narrow-Band Imaging International Colorectal Endoscopic Classification System in Identification of Deep Invasion in Colorectal Polyps.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: T1 colorectal polyps with at least 1 risk factor for metastasis to lymph node should be treated surgically and are considered endoscopically unresectable. Optical analysis, based on the Narrow-Band Imaging International Colorectal Endoscopic (NICE) classification system, is used to identify neoplasias with invasion of the submucosa that require endoscopic treatment. We assessed the accuracy of the NICE classification, along with other morphologic characteristics, in identifying invasive polyps that are endoscopically unresectable (have at least 1 risk factor for metastasis to lymph node). METHODS: We performed a multicenter, prospective study of data collected by 58 endoscopists, from 1634 consecutive patients (examining 2123 lesions) at 17 university and community hospitals in Spain from July 2014 through June 2016. All consecutive lesions >10 mm assessed with narrow-band imaging were included. The primary end point was the accuracy of the NICE classification for identifying lesions with deep invasion, using findings from histology analysis as the reference standard. Conditional inference trees were fitted for the analysis of diagnostic accuracy. RESULTS: Of the 2123 lesions analyzed, 89 (4.2%) had features of deep invasion and 91 (4.3%) were endoscopically unresectable. The NICE classification system identified lesions with deep invasion with 58.4% sensitivity (95% CI, 47.5-68.8), 96.4% specificity (95% CI, 95.5-97.2), a positive-predictive value of 41.6% (95% CI, 32.9-50.8), and a negative-predictive value of 98.1% (95% CI, 97.5-98.7). A conditional inference tree that included all variables found the NICE classification to most accurately identify lesions with deep invasion (P < .001). However, pedunculated morphology (P < .007), ulceration (P = .026), depressed areas (P < .001), or nodular mixed type (P < .001) affected accuracy of identification. Results were comparable for identifying lesions that were endoscopically unresectable. CONCLUSIONS: In an analysis of 2123 colon lesions >10 mm, we found the NICE classification and morphologic features identify those with deep lesions with >96% specificity-even in non-expert hands and without magnification. ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT02328066.

Educational nurse-led telephone intervention shortly before colonoscopy as a salvage strategy after previous bowel preparation failure: a multicenter randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: The most important predictor of unsuccessful bowel preparation is previous failure. For those patients with previous failure, we hypothesized that a nurse-led educational intervention by telephone shortly before the colonoscopy appointment could improve cleansing efficacy. METHODS: We performed a multicenter, endoscopist-blinded, randomized controlled trial. Consecutive outpatients with previous inadequate bowel preparation were enrolled. Both groups received the same standard bowel preparation protocol. The intervention group also received reinforced education by telephone within 48 hours before the colonoscopy. The primary outcome was effective bowel preparation according to the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale. Intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis included all randomized patients. Per-protocol analysis included patients who could be contacted by telephone and the control cases. RESULTS: 657 participants were recruited by 11 Spanish hospitals. In the ITT analysis, there was no significant difference between the intervention and control groups in the rate of successful bowel preparation (77.3 % vs. 72 %; P = 0.12). In the intervention group, 267 patients (82.9 %) were contacted by telephone. Per-protocol analysis revealed significantly improved bowel preparation in the intervention group (83.5 % vs. 72.0 %; P = 0.001). CONCLUSION: Among all patients with previous inadequate bowel preparation, nurse-led telephone education did not result in a significant improvement in bowel cleansing. However, in the 83 % of patients who could be contacted, bowel preparation was substantially improved. Phone education may therefore be a useful tool for improving the quality of bowel preparation in those cases.

Evaluation of endoscopy requests in the resumption of activity during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: denial of nonindicated requests and prioritization of accepted requests.

INTRODUCTION: the global SARS-CoV-2 pandemic forced the closure of endoscopy units. Before resuming endoscopic activity, we designed a protocol to evaluate gastroscopies and colonoscopies cancelled during the pandemic, denying inappropriate requests and prioritizing appropriate ones. METHODS: two types of inappropriate request were established: a) COVID-19 context, people aged ≤ 50 years without alarm symptoms and a low probability of relevant endoscopic findings; and b) inappropriate context, requests not in line with clinical guidelines or protocols. Denials were filed in the medical record. Appropriate requests were classified into priority, conventional and follow-up. Requests denied by specialty were compared and the findings of priority requests were evaluated. RESULTS: between March 16th and June 30th 2020, 1,658 requests (44 % gastroscopies and 56 % colonoscopies) were evaluated, of which 1,164 (70 %) were considered as appropriate (priority 8.5 %, conventional 48 %, follow-up 43 % and non-evaluable 0.5 %) and 494 (30 %) as inappropriate (20 % COVID-19 context, 80 % inappropriate context). The reasons for denial of gastroscopy were follow-up of lesions (33 %), insufficiently studied symptoms (20 %) and relapsing symptoms after a previous gastroscopy (18 %). The reasons for denial of colonoscopies were post-polypectomy surveillance (25 %), colorectal cancer after surgery (21 %) and a family history of cancer (13 %). There were significant differences in denied requests according to specialty: General Surgery (52 %), Hematology (37 %) and Primary Care (29 %); 31 % of priority cases showed relevant findings. CONCLUSIONS: according to our study, 24 % of endoscopies were discordant with scientific recommendations. Therefore, their denial and the prioritization of appropriate ones optimize the use of resources.

Role of Full-spectrum Endoscopy in Colorectal Cancer Screening: Randomized Trial.

GOALS: The aim of this study was to compare a new, full-spectrum endoscope (Fuse; EndoChoice, Alpharetta, GA) to standard forward-viewing colonoscopy in the detection of colorectal neoplasms. BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy, the gold standard for the detection of colorectal cancer, fails to detect 22% to 28% of polyps, increasing the risk of interval cancer. Endoscopic improvement of the adenoma detection rate decrease interval carcinomas. Full-spectrum endoscopy (FUSE) (330-degree field of view), in a tandem study, has been shown to reduce the adenoma miss rate. STUDY: Prospective, randomized study of 249 patients in patients referred from the colorectal screening program with a positive fecal occult blood test (FOBT). Patients were randomized to standard forward-viewing colonoscopy (170 degrees) or to full-spectrum colonoscopy with the Fuse system (330 degrees). Study variables were the adenoma detection rate, the polyp detection rate, the mean number of adenomas per procedure, the lesions detected according to the location, morphology and size, cecal intubation rate, total procedure time, insertion time to the cecum, therapeutic success, and adverse events. RESULTS: The Fuse system did not produce a significantly higher adenoma detection rate than standard forward-viewing colonoscopy (FUSE 73.1% vs. standard colonoscopy 68.1%; P=0.47) but did have a significantly longer insertion time (FUSE 6.2 min vs. standard colonoscopy 4.2 min; P< 0.001). Further analysis failed to reveal any significant difference in polyp/adenoma detection rates by lesion size or colonic section. CONCLUSIONS: FUSE did not detect significantly more colorectal neoplasia than forward viewing colonoscopy in a medium-risk CRC screening population with positive FOBT.

Satisfaction with care in colorectal cancer patients: inpatient versus outpatient study.

BACKGROUND: satisfaction with healthcare is focused on the patient and is known as "patient-centered care". However, user satisfaction is not always synonymous with good care. Healthcare practitioners should determine and understand what patients need and expect in order to improve the quality of care. AIMS: the main objective of this study was to determine the perceived quality of care of patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer in our unit. METHODS: a cross-sectional study was performed in all patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer (CRC) that underwent staging studies and were hospitalized in the Gastroenterology Department from May 2013 to October 2013. Furthermore, outpatients with rapid consultations for CRC staging from November 2013 to November 2014 were also included. Two questionnaires were administered: a) a survey of 20 questions with closed responses regarding the competence of treating physicians and nurses, the information received and the waiting time; b) the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-INFO25: information on the disease, medical tests, treatment and other services, with eight single items. RESULTS: there were no differences in the perceived healthcare quality, delays in starting treatment, the tumor stage, symptoms (performance status) or the time spent studying the disease. In-patients and those with advanced disease started treatment earlier than outpatients and those with disease stage I or II. Likewise, outpatients perceived a better psychological support. CONCLUSIONS: outpatient study did not reduce the quality of care and did not delay treatment.

Endoscopic surveillance after colonic polyps and colorrectal cancer resection. 2018 update. / Vigilancia tras resección de pólipos de colon y de cáncer colorrectal. Actualización 2018.

There is limited scientific evidence available to stratify the risk of developing metachronous colorectal cancer after resection of colonic polyps and to determine surveillance intervals and is mostly based on observational studies. However, while awaiting further evidence, the criteria of endoscopic follow-up needs to be unified in our setting. Therefore, the Spanish Association of Gastroenterology, the Spanish Society of Family and Community Medicine, the Spanish Society of Digestive Endoscopy, and the Colorectal Cancer Screening Group of the Spanish Society of Epidemiology, have written this consensus document, which is included in chapter 10 of the "Clinical Practice Guideline for Diagnosis and Prevention of Colorectal Cancer. 2018 Update". Important developments will also be presented as regards the previous edition published in 2009. First of all, situations that require and do not require endoscopic surveillance are established, and the need of endoscopic surveillance of individuals who do not present a special risk of metachronous colon cancer is eliminated. Secondly, endoscopic surveillance recommendations are established in individuals with serrated polyps. Finally, unlike the previous edition, endoscopic surveillance recommendations are given in patients operated on for colorectal cancer. At the same time, it represents an advance on the European guideline for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening, since it eliminates the division between intermediate risk group and high risk group, which means the elimination of a considerable proportion of colonoscopies of early surveillance. Finally, clear recommendations are given on the absence of need for follow-up in the low risk group, for which the European guidelines maintained some ambiguity.

Nodular colitis: endoscopic image an unusual finding.

An 82-year-old male with a history of high blood pressure, COPD, chronic myeloid leukemia, and stage-4 chronic renal failure. Admitted to hospital for lower-limb cellulitis and severe COPD exacerbation, he received antibiotic therapy and bronchodilators. During his hospital stay he developed severe anemia and had an hematochezia event with no diarrhea. A complete colonoscopy found small (4-7 mm) nacreous elevated lesions, circumferential in shape, in the cecum and ascending colon with some bleeding stigmata and submucosal bleeding suggestive of infectious colitis; stool culture was negative and Clostridium difficile toxins were positive. The condition was histologically confirmed.

Effect of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic on colorectal cancer diagnosis and prognosis.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Our aim was to determine the impact of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic on the diagnosis and prognosis of colorectal cancer (CRC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This prospective cohort study included individuals diagnosed with CRC between March 13, 2019 and June 20, 2021 across 21 Spanish hospitals. Two time periods were compared: prepandemic (from March 13, 2019 to March 13, 2020) and pandemic (from March 14, 2020 to June 20, 2021, lockdown period and 1 year after lockdown). RESULTS: We observed a 46.9% decrease in the number of CRC diagnoses (95% confidence interval (CI): 45.1%-48.7%) during the lockdown and 29.7% decrease (95% CI: 28.1%-31.4%) in the year after the lockdown. The proportion of patients diagnosed at stage I significantly decreased during the pandemic (21.7% vs. 19.0%; p = 0.025). Centers that applied universal preprocedure SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing experienced a higher reduction in the number of colonoscopies performed during the pandemic post-lockdown (34.0% reduction; 95% CI: 33.6%-34.4% vs. 13.7; 95% CI: 13.4%-13.9%) and in the number of CRCs diagnosed (34.1% reduction; 95% CI: 31.4%-36.8% vs. 26.7%; 95% CI: 24.6%-28.8%). Curative treatment was received by 87.5% of patients diagnosed with rectal cancer prepandemic and 80.7% of patients during the pandemic post-lockdown period (p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a decrease in the number of diagnosed CRC cases and in the proportion of stage I CRC. The reduction in the number of colonoscopies and CRC diagnoses was higher in centers that applied universal SARS-CoV-2 PCR screening before colonoscopy. In addition, the COVID-19 pandemic has affected curative treatment of rectal cancers.