The effect of aspirin and eicosapentaenoic acid on urinary biomarkers of prostaglandin E2 synthesis and platelet activation in participants of the seAFOod polyp prevention trial.

Urinary prostaglandin (PG) E metabolite (PGE-M) and 11-dehydro (d)-thromboxane (TX) B2 are biomarkers of cyclooxygenase-dependent prostanoid synthesis. We investigated (1) the effect of aspirin 300 mg daily and eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) 2000 mg daily, alone and in combination, on urinary biomarker levels and, (2) whether urinary biomarker levels predicted colorectal polyp risk, during participation in the seAFOod polyp prevention trial. Urinary PGE-M and 11-d-TXB2 were measured by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. The relationship between urinary biomarker levels and colorectal polyp outcomes was investigated using negative binomial (polyp number) and logistic (% with one or more polyps) regression models. Despite wide temporal variability in PGE-M and 11-d-TXB2 levels within individuals, both aspirin and, to a lesser extent, EPA decreased levels of both biomarkers (74% [P ≤ .001] and 8% [P ≤ .05] reduction in median 11-d-TXB2 values, respectively). In the placebo group, a high (quartile [Q] 2-4) baseline 11-d-TXB2 level predicted increased polyp number (incidence rate ratio [IRR] [95% CI] 2.26 [1.11,4.58]) and risk (odds ratio [95% CI] 3.56 [1.09,11.63]). A low (Q1) on-treatment 11-d-TXB2 level predicted reduced colorectal polyp number compared to placebo (IRR 0.34 [0.12,0.93] for combination aspirin and EPA treatment) compared to high on-treatment 11-d-TXB2 values (0.61 [0.34,1.11]). Aspirin and EPA both inhibit PGE-M and 11-d-TXB2 synthesis in keeping with shared in vivo cyclooxygenase inhibition. Colorectal polyp risk and treatment response prediction by 11-d-TXB2 is consistent with a role for platelet activation during early colorectal carcinogenesis. The use of urinary 11-d-TXB2 measurement for a precision approach to colorectal cancer risk prediction and chemoprevention requires prospective evaluation.

'I Do It All Alone': The Burdens and Benefits of Being Diagnosed With, and Treated for, Colorectal Cancer During the Covid-19 Pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: The Covid-19 pandemic dramatically altered the way cancer care services were accessed and delivered, including for colorectal cancer (CRC). In the United Kingdom, patients were discouraged from presenting in primary care, many consultations took place remotely, investigative procedures and screening programmes were temporarily suspended, and fewer operations and treatments were delivered. People had to face the practical consequences of having cancer during a pandemic and navigate never before seen pathways, often alone. We examined the experience of being diagnosed and treated for CRC during the pandemic, and the implications of this on people's cancer journeys. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with people diagnosed with CRC during the Covid-19 pandemic (January 2020-May 2021), in the North East of England. An iterative topic guide was used during interviews, which took place remotely (telephone or Zoom), were audio recorded, pseudo-anonymised and transcribed. Initial transcripts were independently coded by two researchers, and a code 'bank' developed for application across transcripts. Development of themes and overarching analytical constructs was undertaken collaboratively by the research team. RESULTS: Interviews were conducted with 19 participants, analysed and four key themes identified: (1) The relative threats of Covid-19 and Cancer were not comparable, with cancer seen as posing a far greater risk than Covid-19; (2) Remote consultations were problematic, affecting patients' abilities to build rapport and trust with clinicians, assess nonverbal communication, and feel able to disclose, comprehend and retain information; (3) Stoma follow-up care was seen to be lacking, with long wait times for stoma reversal experienced by some; Finally, (4) Being alone during consultations negatively impacted some peoples' abilities to absorb information, and left them without the support of loved ones at an emotionally vulnerable time. However, some participants preferred being alone at certain points in their pathways, including receiving a diagnosis, and most frequently when receiving in-patient treatment. CONCLUSION: Being alone brought unexpected benefits, absolving people from undertaking emotions work for others, and instead focus on their recovery, however, remote consultations negatively impacted patients' experiences. This study highlights the complex benefits and burdens of pandemic-located cancer journeys, including how these shifted at different points across cancer pathways. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Lorraine Angell, a cancer survivor, has been central to this study from idea conception, contributing to: development of study focus and design; securing funding; production of patient-facing materials; development of interview topic guides; analysis and interpretation of data; and drafting of key findings and manuscripts.

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.

Barriers to colonoscopy in UK colorectal cancer screening programmes: Qualitative interviews with ethnic minority groups.

OBJECTIVE: People from ethnic minority backgrounds are less likely to attend colonoscopy, following faecal immunochemical test screening, and are more likely to be diagnosed with colorectal cancer at an advanced stage as a result. The aim of this research was to explore the barriers and facilitators to attending colonoscopy, perceived by ethnic minority groups living in the United Kingdom. METHODS: Semi-structured online and telephone interviews were conducted with thirty men and women of Black-African (n = 5), Black-Caribbean (n = 5), South Asian (n = 10) and White British (n = 10) descent. Participants were eligible for screening, but had not necessarily been invited for colonoscopy. All interviews were conducted in the participant's first language and were assessed using Framework-analysis, in line with a conceptual framework developed from previous interviews with healthcare professionals. RESULTS: Five thematic groups of barriers and facilitators were developed: 'Locus of control', 'Cultural attitudes and beliefs', 'Individual beliefs, knowledge and personal experiences with colonoscopy and cancer', 'Reliance on family and friends' and 'Health concerns'. Differences were observed, between ethnic groups, for: 'Locus of control', 'Cultural attitudes and beliefs' and 'Reliance on family and friends'. Black and South Asian participants frequently described the decision to attend colonoscopy as lying with 'God' (Muslims, specifically), 'the doctor', or 'family' (Locus of control). Black and South Asian participants also reported relying on friends and family for 'language, transport and emotional support' (Reliance on family and friends). Black-African participants, specifically, described cancer as 'socially taboo' (Cultural attitudes and beliefs). CONCLUSIONS: The results highlight several targets for culturally-tailored interventions to make colonoscopy more equitable.

The effect of the endoscopic device Endocuff™/Endocuff vision™ on quality standards in colonoscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.

AIM: The adenoma detection rate (ADR) is an important quality measure, with a high ADR reflecting high-quality colonoscopy. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the effects of Endocuff™/Endocuff Vision™-assisted colonoscopy (EAC) versus standard colonoscopy (SC) on ADR and other clinical, patient and resource-use outcomes. METHOD: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for full papers reporting randomized studies comparing EAC with SC. The primary outcome was ADR. Secondary outcomes comprised key polyp/adenoma detection, procedure-related, patient-related and health economic measures. Random effects meta-analyses provided pooled estimates of outcomes [risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD), with 95% confidence intervals (CI)]. RESULTS: Twelve parallel-group randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and three crossover RCTs with data on 9140 patients were included. EAC significantly increased the ADR (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.09-1.29), mean adenomas per procedure (MAP) (MD 0.19, 95% CI 0.06-0.33), polyp detection rate (PDR) (RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.10-1.30) and mean polyps per procedure (MPP) (MD 0.39, 95% CI 0.14-0.63) versus SC. EAC significantly increased segmental PDR versus SC in the sigmoid (RR 2.02, 95% CI 1.64-2.49), transverse (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.09-2.42), ascending (RR 1.74, 95% CI 1.26-2.41) and caecal segments (RR 1.91, 95% CI 1.29-2.82). Procedure-related variables did not differ between arms. There were insufficient data for meta-analysis of health economic or patient-centred outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: EAC increased ADR, MAP, PDR and MPP versus SC without detrimental effects on procedure measures. Cost-effectiveness and patient experience data are lacking and would be valuable to inform practice recommendations.

Systematic review and meta-analysis: Associations between metabolic syndrome and colorectal neoplasia outcomes.

AIM: Metabolic syndrome (MetS) is a cluster of factors including obesity, hypertension, diabetes, hypercholesterolemia and hyperlipidaemia. It has been associated with an increased risk of colorectal neoplasia. This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the association between MetS and (i) recurrence of adenomas or occurrence of CRC in patients with prior adenomas, and (ii) survival in patients with CRC. METHOD: MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus and Web of Science were searched up to 22 November 2019. Two authors independently conducted title and abstract screening; full text of eligible studies was evaluated. Where ≥3 studies reported effect measures for a specific outcome, meta-analysis using random effects model was conducted. I2 was used to assess between-study heterogeneity. Quality appraisal was undertaken with the Newcastle-Ottawa Score. RESULTS: The search identified 1,764 articles, 55 underwent full text screening, resulting in a total of 15 eligible studies. Five studies reported on metachronous neoplasia, with differing outcomes precluded a meta-analysis. No consistent relationship between MetS and metachronous neoplasia was found. Ten studies reported on survival outcomes. MetS was associated with poorer CRC-specific survival (HR = 1.8, 95% CI: 1.04-3.12, I2  = 92.7%, n = 3). Progression-free survival was also worse but this did not reach statistical significance (HR = 1.12, 95% CI: 0.89-1.42, I2  = 85.6%, n = 3). There was no association with overall survival (HR = 1.04, 95% CI: 0.94-1.15, I2  = 43.7%, n = 7). Significant heterogeneity was present but subgroup analysis did not account for this. CONCLUSION: MetS is associated with poorer CRC-specific survival, but evidence is inconsistent on metachronous neoplasia. Further research is warranted to better understand the impact of MetS on the adenoma-carcinoma pathway.

Trial protocol for COLO-DETECT: A randomized controlled trial of lesion detection comparing colonoscopy assisted by the GI Genius™ artificial intelligence endoscopy module with standard colonoscopy.

AIM: Colorectal cancer is the second commonest cause of cancer death worldwide. Colonoscopy plays a key role in the control of colorectal cancer and, in that regard, maximizing detection (and removal) of pre-cancerous adenomas at colonoscopy is imperative. GI Genius™ (Medtronic Ltd) is a computer-aided detection system that integrates with existing endoscopy systems and improves adenoma detection during colonoscopy. COLO-DETECT aims to assess the clinical and cost effectiveness of GI Genius™ in UK routine colonoscopy practice. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Participants will be recruited from patients attending for colonoscopy at National Health Service sites in England, for clinical symptoms, surveillance or within the national Bowel Cancer Screening Programme. Randomization will involve a 1:1 allocation ratio (GI Genius™-assisted colonoscopy:standard colonoscopy) and will be stratified by age category (<60 years, 60-<74 years, ≥74 years), sex, hospital site and indication for colonoscopy. Demographic data, procedural data, histology and post-procedure patient experience and quality of life will be recorded. COLO-DETECT is designed and powered to detect clinically meaningful differences in mean adenomas per procedure and adenoma detection rate between GI Genius™-assisted colonoscopy and standard colonoscopy groups. The study will close when 1828 participants have had a complete colonoscopy. An economic evaluation will be conducted from the perspective of the National Health Service. A patient and public representative is contributing to all stages of the trial. Registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04723758) and ISRCTN (10451355). WHAT WILL THIS TRIAL ADD TO THE LITERATURE?: COLO-DETECT will be the first multi-centre randomized controlled trial evaluating GI Genius™ in real world colonoscopy practice and will, uniquely, evaluate both clinical and cost effectiveness.

The COLO-COHORT (Colorectal Cancer Cohort) study: Protocol for a multi-centre, observational research study and development of a consent-for-contact research platform.

AIM: The COLO-COHORT study aims to produce a multi-factorial risk prediction model for colorectal neoplasia that can be used to target colonoscopy to those at greatest risk of colorectal neoplasia, ensuring that people are not investigated unnecessarily and maximizing the use of limited endoscopy resources. The study will also explore the link between neoplasia and the human gut microbiome. Additionally, the study aims to generate a cohort of colonoscopy patients who are 'research ready' through the development of a consent-for-contact (C4C) platform, to facilitate a range of colorectal cancer prevention studies to be conducted at scale and speed. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a multi-centre observational study involving sites across the UK. Recruitment is over a 6-year period (2019-2025). Patients recruited to the study are those attending for colonoscopy. Patients are recruited into two groups, namely observational group A (10 000 patients) and C4C group B (10 000 patients), known as COLO-SPEED (Colorectal Cancer Screening Prevention Endoscopy and Early Diagnosis; https://colospeed.uk). Patients complete a health questionnaire, provide anthropometric measurements and submit biosamples (blood and stool-depending on the part of the study they are recruited into). Patients' colonoscopy and histology findings are also recorded. Models of factors associated with the presence of neoplasia at colonoscopy will be developed using logistic or multinomial regression. For internal validation, model discrimination and calibration will be assessed and bootstrapping and cross-validation approaches used. To enable long-term follow-up for outcomes related to colorectal cancer and polyps, patients are asked to consent to follow-up through data linkage with national databases. DISSEMINATION: In keeping with good research practice, following analysis by the study team the study investigators will make the anonymized dataset available to other researchers. The C4C platform will also be accessible to other researchers. The study findings will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals and lay summaries will be disseminated to participants and the wider public.

WASh multicentre randomised controlled trial: water-assisted sigmoidoscopy in English NHS bowel scope screening.

OBJECTIVES: The English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme invites 55 year olds for a sigmoidoscopy (Bowel Scope Screening (BSS)), aiming to resect premalignant polyps, thus reducing cancer incidence. A national patient survey indicated higher procedural pain than anticipated, potentially impacting on screening compliance and effectiveness. We aimed to assess whether water-assisted sigmoidoscopy (WAS), as opposed to standard CO2 technique, improved procedural pain and detection of adenomatous polyps. DESIGN: The WASh (Water-Assisted Sigmoidoscopy) trial was a multicentre, single-blind, randomised control trial for people undergoing BSS. Participants were randomised to either receive WAS or CO2 from five sites across England. The primary outcome measure was patient-reported moderate/severe pain, as assessed by patients on a standard Likert scale post procedure prior to discharge. The key secondary outcome was adenoma detection rate (ADR). The costs of each technique were also measured. RESULTS: 1123 participants (50% women, mean age 55) were randomised (561 WAS, 562 CO2). We found no difference in patient-reported moderate/severe pain between WAS and CO2 (14% in WAS, 15% in CO2; p=0.47). ADR was 15% in the CO2 arm and 11% in the WAS arm (p=0.03); however, it remained above the minimum national performance standard in both arms. There was no statistical difference in mean number of adenomas nor overall polyp detection rate. There was negligible cost difference between the two techniques. CONCLUSION: In the context of enema-prepared unsedated screening sigmoidoscopies performed by screening-accredited endoscopists, no difference in patient-reported pain was seen when using either a CO2 or WAS intubation technique. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN81466870.

When and How To Use Endoscopic Tattooing in the Colon: An International Delphi Agreement.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: There is a lack of clinical studies to establish indications and methodology for tattooing, therefore technique and practice of tattooing is very variable. We aimed to establish a consensus on the indications and appropriate techniques for colonic tattoo through a modified Delphi process. METHODS: The baseline questionnaire was classified into 3 areas: where tattooing should not be used (1 domain, 6 questions), where tattooing should be used (4 domains, 20 questions), and how to perform tattooing (1 domain 20 questions). A total of 29 experts participated in the 3 rounds of the Delphi process. RESULTS: A total of 15 statements were approved. The statements that achieved the highest agreement were as follows: tattooing should always be used after endoscopic resection of a lesion with suspicion of submucosal invasion (agreement score, 4.59; degree of consensus, 97%). For a colorectal lesion that is left in situ but considered suitable for endoscopic resection, tattooing may be used if the lesion is considered difficult to detect at a subsequent endoscopy (agreement score, 4.62; degree of consensus, 100%). A tattoo should never be injected directly into or underneath a lesion that might be removed endoscopically at a later point in time (agreement score, 4.79; degree of consensus, 97%). Details of the tattoo injection should be stated clearly in the endoscopy report (agreement score, 4.76; degree of consensus, 100%). CONCLUSIONS: This expert consensus has developed different statements about where tattooing should not be used, when it should be used, and how that should be done.

Patient barriers and facilitators of colonoscopy use: A rapid systematic review and thematic synthesis of the qualitative literature.

Colonoscopy is the gold standard test in the diagnosis of colorectal cancer. Despite this, many people across the world decline the procedure when invited for screening, surveillance or diagnostic evaluation. The aim of this review was to characterise the barriers and facilitators of colonoscopy use described in the qualitative literature. We searched PubMed and PsychInfo for studies that explored barriers and facilitators of colonoscopy use. To determine the eligibility of studies, we first reviewed titles, then abstracts, and finally the full paper. We started with a narrow search, which we expanded successively, until the number of new publications eligible after abstract review was <1% of the total number of publications identified. Papers were eligible if they: 1) focussed on an adult population, 2) used a qualitative research design and, 3) described at least one patient-related theme regarding colonoscopy use. We then extracted qualitative data from eligible papers and analysed using thematic synthesis. Fifty-seven studies met the inclusion criteria. Most explored barriers and facilitators of screening colonoscopy (n=53, 93.0%) and were conducted in the USA (n=48, 84.2%). Key psychological and social factors included: 'fear of pain and discomfort', 'concerns about doing the bowel preparation', and whether the test was recommended by the patient's physician. Key practical factors included cost, and whether colonoscopy was covered by the patient's healthcare insurance. Studies mostly focussed on screening colonoscopy in the USA, where there is no universal healthcare coverage. To better understand the barriers and facilitators in other contexts, further research is needed.

BowelScope: Accuracy of Detection Using Endocuff Optimisation of Mucosal Abnormalities (the B-ADENOMA Study): a multicentre, randomised controlled flexible sigmoidoscopy trial.

OBJECTIVES: Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is an important quality marker at lower GI endoscopy. Higher ADRs are associated with lower postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer rates. The English flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) screening programme (BowelScope), offers a one-off FS to individuals aged 55 years. However, variation in ADR exists. Large studies have demonstrated improved ADR using Endocuff Vision (EV) within colonoscopy screening, but there are no studies within FS. We sought to test the effect of EV on ADR in a national FS screening population. DESIGN: BowelScope: Accuracy of Detection Using ENdocuff Optimisation of Mucosal Abnormalities was a multicentre, randomised controlled trial involving 16 English BowelScope screening centres. Individuals were randomised to Endocuff Vision-assisted BowelScope (EAB) or Standard BowelScope (SB). ADR, polyp detection rate (PDR), mean adenomas per procedure (MAP), polyp characteristics and location, participant experience, procedural time and adverse events were measured. Comparison of ADR within the trial with national BowelScope ADR was also undertaken. RESULTS: 3222 participants were randomised (53% male) to receive EAB (n=1610) or SB (n=1612). Baseline demographics were comparable between arms. ADR in the EAB arm was 13.3% and that in the SB arm was 12.2% (p=0.353). No statistically significant differences were found in PDR, MAP, polyp characteristics or location, participant experience, complications or procedural characteristics. ADR in the SB control arm was 3.1% higher than the national ADR. CONCLUSION: EV did not improve BowelScope ADR when compared with SB. ADR in both arms was higher than the national ADR. Where detection rates are already high, EV is unable to improve detection further. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT03072472, ISRCTN30005319 and CPMS ID 33224.

British Society of Gastroenterology/Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland/Public Health England post-polypectomy and post-colorectal cancer resection surveillance guidelines.

These consensus guidelines were jointly commissioned by the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG), the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (ACPGBI) and Public Health England (PHE). They provide an evidence-based framework for the use of surveillance colonoscopy and non-colonoscopic colorectal imaging in people aged 18 years and over. They are the first guidelines that take into account the introduction of national bowel cancer screening. For the first time, they also incorporate surveillance of patients following resection of either adenomatous or serrated polyps and also post-colorectal cancer resection. They are primarily aimed at healthcare professionals, and aim to address:Which patients should commence surveillance post-polypectomy and post-cancer resection?What is the appropriate surveillance interval?When can surveillance be stopped? two or more premalignant polyps including at least one advanced colorectal polyp (defined as a serrated polyp of at least 10 mm in size or containing any grade of dysplasia, or an adenoma of at least 10 mm in size or containing high-grade dysplasia); or five or more premalignant polyps The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument provided a methodological framework for the guidelines. The BSG's guideline development process was used, which is National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) compliant.two or more premalignant polyps including at least one advanced colorectal polyp (defined as a serrated polyp of at least 10 mm in size or containing any grade of dysplasia, or an adenoma of at least 10 mm in size or containing high-grade dysplasia); or five or more premalignant polyps The key recommendations are that the high-risk criteria for future colorectal cancer (CRC) following polypectomy comprise either:two or more premalignant polyps including at least one advanced colorectal polyp (defined as a serrated polyp of at least 10 mm in size or containing any grade of dysplasia, or an adenoma of at least 10 mm in size or containing high-grade dysplasia); or five or more premalignant polyps This cohort should undergo a one-off surveillance colonoscopy at 3 years. Post-CRC resection patients should undergo a 1 year clearance colonoscopy, then a surveillance colonoscopy after 3 more years.

Sustained colonoscopy quality improvement using a simple intervention bundle.

BACKGROUND: Unacceptable variation in colonoscopy quality exists. The Quality Improvement in Colonoscopy (QIC) study in 2011 improved quality by introducing an evidence-based "bundle" of measures into routine colonoscopy practice. The QIC bundle included: minimal cecal withdrawal time of ≥ 6 minutes; hyoscine butylbromide use; supine patient position for transverse colon examination; rectal retroflexion. Colonoscopy quality was measured by adenoma detection rate (ADR). The current study measured whether these effects led to a sustained change in practice 3 years following implementation. METHODS: This observational study collected data from eight hospital trusts (sites) in the United Kingdom for a 6-month period, 3 years following QIC bundle implementation. Use of the antispasmodic, hyoscine butylbromide, was measured as a marker of bundle uptake. Bundle effectiveness was measured by ADR change. Comparisons were made between data before and immediately after implementation of the bundle. RESULTS: 28 615 colonoscopies by 188 colonoscopists were studied. Hyoscine butylbromide use increased from 15.8 % pre-implementation to 47.4 % in the sustainability phase (P < 0.01) indicating sustained engagement with QIC measures. ADR was higher in the sustainability period compared with pre-intervention, but only reached statistical significance among the poorest-performing colonoscopists. CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of a simple, inexpensive, pragmatic intervention significantly changed practice over a sustained period, improving colonoscopy quality as measured by ADR, particularly in poorer performers. QIC demonstrates that an easy-to-implement quality improvement approach can deliver a sustained change in practice for many years post intervention.

Improved adenoma detection with Endocuff Vision: the ADENOMA randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Low adenoma detection rates (ADR) are linked to increased postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer rates and reduced cancer survival. Devices to enhance mucosal visualisation such as Endocuff Vision (EV) may improve ADR. This multicentre randomised controlled trial compared ADR between EV-assisted colonoscopy (EAC) and standard colonoscopy (SC). DESIGN: Patients referred because of symptoms, surveillance or following a positive faecal occult blood test (FOBt) as part of the Bowel Cancer Screening Programme were recruited from seven hospitals. ADR, mean adenomas per procedure, size and location of adenomas, sessile serrated polyps, EV removal rate, caecal intubation rate, procedural time, patient experience, effect of EV on workload and adverse events were measured. RESULTS: 1772 patients (57% male, mean age 62 years) were recruited over 16 months with 45% recruited through screening. EAC increased ADR globally from 36.2% to 40.9% (P=0.02). The increase was driven by a 10.8% increase in FOBt-positive screening patients (50.9% SC vs 61.7% EAC, P<0.001). EV patients had higher detection of mean adenomas per procedure, sessile serrated polyps, left-sided, diminutive, small adenomas and cancers (cancer 4.1% vs 2.3%, P=0.02). EV removal rate was 4.1%. Median intubation was a minute quicker with EAC (P=0.001), with no difference in caecal intubation rate or withdrawal time. EAC was well tolerated but caused a minor increase in discomfort on anal intubation in patients undergoing colonoscopy with no or minimal sedation. There were no significant EV adverse events. CONCLUSION: EV significantly improved ADR in bowel cancer screening patients and should be used to improve colonoscopic detection. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02552017, Results; ISRCTN11821044, Results.

Eicosapentaenoic acid and aspirin, alone and in combination, for the prevention of colorectal adenomas (seAFOod Polyp Prevention trial): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 2 × 2 factorial trial.

BACKGROUND: The omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and aspirin both have proof of concept for colorectal cancer chemoprevention, aligned with an excellent safety profile. Therefore, we aimed to test the efficacy of EPA and aspirin, alone and in combination and compared with a placebo, in individuals with sporadic colorectal neoplasia detected at colonoscopy. METHODS: In a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 2 × 2 factorial trial, patients aged 55-73 years who were identified during colonoscopy as being at high risk in the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP; ≥3 adenomas if at least one was ≥10 mm in diameter or ≥5 adenomas if these were <10 mm in diameter) were recruited from 53 BCSP endoscopy units in England, UK. Patients were randomly allocated (1:1:1:1) using a secure web-based server to receive 2 g EPA-free fatty acid (FFA) per day (either as the FFA or triglyceride), 300 mg aspirin per day, both treatments in combination, or placebo for 12 months using random permuted blocks of randomly varying size, and stratified by BCSP site. Research staff and participants were masked to group assignment. The primary endpoint was the adenoma detection rate (ADR; the proportion of participants with any adenoma) at 1 year surveillance colonoscopy analysed in all participants with observable follow-up data using a so-called at-the-margins approach, adjusted for BCSP site and repeat endoscopy at baseline. The safety population included all participants who received at least one dose of study drug. The trial is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number registry, number ISRCTN05926847. FINDINGS: Between Nov 11, 2011, and June 10, 2016, 709 participants were randomly assigned to four treatment groups (176 to placebo, 179 to EPA, 177 to aspirin, and 177 to EPA plus aspirin). Adenoma outcome data were available for 163 (93%) patients in the placebo group, 153 (85%) in the EPA group, 163 (92%) in the aspirin group, and 161 (91%) in the EPA plus aspirin group. The ADR was 61% (100 of 163) in the placebo group, 63% (97 of 153) in the EPA group, 61% (100 of 163) in the aspirin group, and 61% (98 of 161) in the EPA plus aspirin group, with no evidence of any effect for EPA (risk ratio [RR] 0·98, 95% CI 0·87 to 1·12; risk difference -0·9%, -8·8 to 6·9; p=0·81) or aspirin (RR 0·99 (0·87 to 1·12; risk difference -0·6%, -8·5 to 7·2; p=0·88). EPA and aspirin were well tolerated (78 [44%] of 176 had ≥1 adverse event in the placebo group compared with 82 [46%] in the EPA group, 68 [39%] in the aspirin group, and 76 [45%] in the EPA plus aspirin group), although the number of gastrointestinal adverse events was increased in the EPA alone group at 146 events (compared with 85 in the placebo group, 86 in the aspirin group, and 68 in the aspirin plus placebo group). Six upper-gastrointestinal bleeding events were reported across the treatment groups (two in the EPA group, three in the aspirin group, and one in the placebo group). INTERPRETATION: Neither EPA nor aspirin treatment were associated with a reduction in the proportion of patients with at least one colorectal adenoma. Further research is needed regarding the effect on colorectal adenoma number according to adenoma type and location. Optimal use of EPA and aspirin might need a precision medicine approach to adenoma recurrence. FUNDING: Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation Programme, a UK Medical Research Council and National Institute for Health Research partnership.

Performance measures for small-bowel endoscopy: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Quality Improvement Initiative.

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) together with the United European Gastroenterology (UEG) recently developed a short list of performance measures for small-bowel endoscopy (i. e. small-bowel capsule endoscopy and device-assisted enteroscopy) with the final goal of providing endoscopy services across Europe with a tool for quality improvement. Six key performance measures for both small-bowel capsule endoscopy and for device-assisted enteroscopy were selected for inclusion, with the intention being that practice at both a service and endoscopist level should be evaluated against them. Other performance measures were considered to be less relevant, based on an assessment of their overall importance, scientific acceptability, and feasibility. Unlike lower and upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, where performance measures had already been identified, this is the first time that small-bowel endoscopy quality measures have been proposed.