PIGA mutations and glycosylphosphatidylinositol anchor dysregulation in polyposis-associated duodenal tumorigenesis.

The pathogenesis of duodenal tumours in the inherited tumour syndromes Familial Adenomatous Polyposis (FAP) and MUTYH-associated Polyposis (MAP) is poorly understood. This study aimed to identify genes that are significantly mutated in these tumours and to explore the effects of these mutations. Whole exome and whole transcriptome sequencing identified recurrent somatic coding variants of PIGA in 19/70 (27%) FAP and MAP duodenal adenomas, and further confirmed the established driver roles for APC and KRAS. PIGA catalyses the first step in glycosylphosphatidylinositol (GPI) anchor biosynthesis. Flow cytometry of PIGA-mutant adenoma-derived and CRISPR-edited duodenal organoids confirmed loss of GPI anchors in duodenal epithelial cells and transcriptional profiling of duodenal adenomas revealed transcriptional signatures associated with loss of PIGA. Implications: PIGA somatic mutation in duodenal tumours from patients with FAP and MAP and loss of membrane GPI-anchors may present new opportunities for understanding and intervention in duodenal tumorigenesis.

Aspirin and cancer treatment: systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evidence: for and against.

Aspirin as a possible treatment of cancer has been of increasing interest for over 50 years, but the balance of the risks and benefits remains a point of contention. We summarise the valid published evidence 'for' and 'against' the use of aspirin as a cancer treatment and we present what we believe are relevant ethical implications. Reasons for aspirin include the benefits of aspirin taken by patients with cancer upon relevant biological cancer mechanisms. These explain the observed reductions in metastatic cancer and vascular complications in cancer patients. Meta-analyses of 118 observational studies of mortality in cancer patients give evidence consistent with reductions of about 20% in mortality associated with aspirin use. Reasons against aspirin use include increased risk of a gastrointestinal bleed though there appears to be no valid evidence that aspirin is responsible for fatal gastrointestinal bleeding. Few trials have been reported and there are inconsistencies in the results. In conclusion, given the relative safety and the favourable effects of aspirin, its use in cancer seems justified, and ethical implications of this imply that cancer patients should be informed of the present evidence and encouraged to raise the topic with their healthcare team.

An efficient strategy for evaluating new non-invasive screening tests for colorectal cancer: the guiding principles.

OBJECTIVE: New screening tests for colorectal cancer (CRC) are rapidly emerging. Conducting trials with mortality reduction as the end point supporting their adoption is challenging. We re-examined the principles underlying evaluation of new non-invasive tests in view of technological developments and identification of new biomarkers. DESIGN: A formal consensus approach involving a multidisciplinary expert panel revised eight previously established principles. RESULTS: Twelve newly stated principles emerged. Effectiveness of a new test can be evaluated by comparison with a proven comparator non-invasive test. The faecal immunochemical test is now considered the appropriate comparator, while colonoscopy remains the diagnostic standard. For a new test to be able to meet differing screening goals and regulatory requirements, flexibility to adjust its positivity threshold is desirable. A rigorous and efficient four-phased approach is proposed, commencing with small studies assessing the test's ability to discriminate between CRC and non-cancer states (phase I), followed by prospective estimation of accuracy across the continuum of neoplastic lesions in neoplasia-enriched populations (phase II). If these show promise, a provisional test positivity threshold is set before evaluation in typical screening populations. Phase III prospective studies determine single round intention-to-screen programme outcomes and confirm the test positivity threshold. Phase IV studies involve evaluation over repeated screening rounds with monitoring for missed lesions. Phases III and IV findings will provide the real-world data required to model test impact on CRC mortality and incidence. CONCLUSION: New non-invasive tests can be efficiently evaluated by a rigorous phased comparative approach, generating data from unbiased populations that inform predictions of their health impact.

Planning management for complex colorectal polyps: a qualitative assessment of factors influencing decision-making among colonoscopists.

OBJECTIVE: Endoscopic therapy is the recommended primary treatment for most complex colorectal polyps, but high colonic resection rates are reported. The aim of this qualitative study was to understand and compare between specialities, the clinical and non-clinical factors influencing decision making when planning management. DESIGN: Semi-structured interviews were performed among colonoscopists across the UK. Interviews were conducted virtually and transcribed verbatim. Complex polyps were defined as lesions requiring further management planning rather than those treatable at the time of endoscopy. A thematic analysis was performed. Findings were coded to identify themes and reported narratively. RESULTS: Twenty colonoscopists were interviewed. Four major themes were identified including gathering information regarding the patient and their polyp, aids to decision making, barriers in achieving optimal management and improving services. Participants advocated endoscopic management where possible. Factors such as younger age, suspicion of malignancy, right colon or difficult polyp location lead towards surgical intervention and were similar between surgical and medical specialties. Availability of expertise, timely endoscopy and challenges in referral pathways were reported barriers to optimal management. Experiences of team decision-making strategies were positive and advocated in improving complex polyp management. Recommendations based on these findings to improve complex polyp management are provided. CONCLUSION: The increasing recognition of complex colorectal polyps requires consistency in decision making and access to a full range of treatment options. Colonoscopists advocated the availability of clinical expertise, timely treatment and education in avoiding surgical intervention and providing good patient outcomes. Team decision-making strategies for complex polyps may provide an opportunity to coordinate and improve these issues.

Comparison of recommendations for surveillance of advanced colorectal polyps: A systematic review of guidelines.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Patients diagnosed with advanced colorectal lesions have a higher risk of developing colorectal cancer. International polyp surveillance guidelines have recently been updated. The aim of this systematic review was to assess surveillance recommendations for advanced colorectal polyps and compare the patient, polyp, and colonoscopy quality factors considered in their recommendations. METHODS: Guidelines with surveillance recommendations for colorectal polyps were identified. Databases searched included PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, TripPro, and guidelines identified by two blinded reviewers. The review protocol was registered on PROSPERO and performed in line with PRISMA guidelines. RESULTS: Six guidelines from the US Multi-Society Task Force, British Society of Gastroenterology, Cancer Council Australia, European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society, and Asia-Pacific Working Group on Colorectal Cancer Screening were included. The recommended surveillance interval of 3 years was consistent, but the criteria used for advanced polyps were variable. Polyp factors were the key determinant for when surveillance should be performed. Although all guidelines recognized their importance, the application of and evidence underlying patient characteristics and the quality of baseline colonoscopy were limited. All included guidelines were rated of average to high quality by the AGREE II instrument. CONCLUSION: Surveillance guidelines for advanced colorectal polyps are of good quality but limited by their underlying evidence. Standardization of definitions would be valuable for both research and clinical application. Better knowledge of colonoscopist quality indicators and patient factors is recommended to further economize surveillance recommendations, minimize patient risk, and achieve optimal outcomes without increasing pressure on services.

Acceptability of alternative technologies compared with faecal immunochemical test and/or colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer and the second largest cause of cancer-related death worldwide. Current CRC screening in various countries involves stool-based faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) and/or colonoscopy, yet public uptake remains sub-optimal. This review assessed the literature regarding acceptability of alternative CRC screening modalities compared to standard care in average-risk adults. METHOD: Systematic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane and Web of Science were conducted up to February 3rd, 2022. The alternative interventions examined were computed tomography colonography, flexible sigmoidoscopy, colon capsule endoscopy and blood-based biomarkers. Outcomes for acceptability were uptake, discomfort associated with bowel preparation, discomfort associated with screening procedure, screening preferences and willingness to repeat screening method. A narrative data synthesis was conducted. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies met the inclusion criteria. Differences between intervention and comparison modalities in uptake did not reach statistical significance in most of the included studies. The findings do suggest FIT as being more acceptable as a screening modality than flexible sigmoidoscopy. There were no consistent significant differences in bowel preparation discomfort, screening procedure discomfort, screening preference and willingness to repeat screening between the standard care and alternative modalities. CONCLUSION: Current evidence comparing standard colonoscopy and stool-based CRC screening with novel modalities does not demonstrate any clear difference in acceptability. Due to the small number of studies available and included in each screening comparison and lack of observed differences, further research is needed to explore factors influencing acceptability of alternative CRC modalities that might result in improvement in population uptake within different contexts.

Survey on the perceptions of UK gastroenterologists and endoscopists to artificial intelligence.

Background and aims: With the potential integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into clinical practice, it is essential to understand end users' perception of this novel technology. The aim of this study, which was endorsed by the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG), was to evaluate the UK gastroenterology and endoscopy communities' views on AI. Methods: An online survey was developed and disseminated to gastroenterologists and endoscopists across the UK. Results: One hundred four participants completed the survey. Quality improvement in endoscopy (97%) and better endoscopic diagnosis (92%) were perceived as the most beneficial applications of AI to clinical practice. The most significant challenges were accountability for incorrect diagnoses (85%) and potential bias of algorithms (82%). A lack of guidelines (92%) was identified as the greatest barrier to adopting AI in routine clinical practice. Participants identified real-time endoscopic image diagnosis (95%) as a research priority for AI, while the most perceived significant barriers to AI research were funding (82%) and the availability of annotated data (76%). Participants consider the priorities for the BSG AI Task Force to be identifying research priorities (96%), guidelines for adopting AI devices in clinical practice (93%) and supporting the delivery of multicentre clinical trials (91%). Conclusion: This survey has identified views from the UK gastroenterology and endoscopy community regarding AI in clinical practice and research, and identified priorities for the newly formed BSG AI Task Force.

Participants' experiences of the management of screen-detected complex polyps within a structured bowel cancer screening programme.

BACKGROUND: The Bowel Screening Wales complex polyp removal service was introduced to address variations in surgery rates for screen-detected complex benign colorectal polyps, to improve the quality of the screening service and to make management of these polyps more equitable across Wales. Little is known about patient experiences and the potential impact on quality of life when undergoing complex polyp removal. This study is part of a wider research programme evaluating the decision-making, pathways and outcomes from complex polyp removal. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to understand experiences of having a complex polyp removed and how this may influence quality of life. DESIGN: Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted, and a thematic approach was used for data analysis. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: All participants had a complex polyp removed after a positive stool test and review by Bowel Screening Wales' Network Multi-Disciplinary Team. RESULTS: Twenty-one participants were interviewed. Most participants had their complex polyps removed endoscopically and reported no or minor problems or negative outcomes following their procedure. For a small minority, worse problems (e.g., pain, bowel dysfunction) and negative outcomes (e.g., cancer) followed their procedures. Most participants felt supported and reassured throughout their procedures. Any physical and emotional changes to quality of life were mainly linked to procedure outcomes. DISCUSSION: Experiences of complex polyp removal were generally positive, with minimal changes in quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: While most people had a positive experience of having a complex polyp removed, support initiatives, such as counselling or signposting to coping strategies, may be helpful to reduce any potential negative effects of procedures on quality of life. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Four patient and public involvement partners provided feedback on participant materials.

Multidisciplinary decision-making strategies may reduce the need for secondary surgery in complex colonic polyps - A systematic review and pooled analysis.

AIM: The recognition of complex colonic polyps is increasing. Management varies considerably and the impact of this on clinical outcomes is unclear. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the impact of group decision-making strategies and defined selection criteria on the treatment outcomes of complex colonic polyps. METHOD: A systematic literature review identified studies reporting complex polyp treatment outcomes and describing their decision-making strategies. Databases searched included PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL and Scopus. Articles were identified by two blinded reviewers using defined inclusion criteria. The review protocol was registered on PROSPERO and performed in line with PRISMA guidelines. RESULTS: There were 303 identified articles describing treatment outcomes of complex colonic polyps. Only nine of these fully described the decision-making strategy and met the inclusion criteria. Adverse events ranged from 1.3% to 10% across the studies. Unsuspected malignancy and secondary surgery rates ranged from 2.4% to 15.4% and 3.3% to 43.9%, respectively. Grouping of articles into a hierarchy of decision-making strategies demonstrated a sequential reduction in secondary surgery rates with improving strategies. There were no differences in comparisons of adverse event or unsuspected malignancy rates. CONCLUSIONS: There is limited description of decision-making strategies and variability in reporting of studies describing complex polyp treatment outcomes. The use of multidisciplinary decision-making and defined selection criteria may reduce the need for secondary surgical intervention in complex colonic polyps, but further evidence is required to draw definite conclusions.

Development and user-testing of a brief decision aid for aspirin as a preventive approach alongside colorectal cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: Several epidemiological and cohort studies suggest that regular low-dose aspirin use independently reduces the long-term incidence and risk of colorectal cancer deaths by approximately 20%. However, there are also risks to aspirin use, mainly gastrointestinal bleeding and haemorrhagic stroke. Making informed decisions depends on the ability to understand and weigh up benefits and risks of available options. A decision aid to support people to consider aspirin therapy alongside participation in the NHS bowel cancer screening programme may have an additional impact on colorectal cancer prevention. This study aims to develop and user-test a brief decision aid about aspirin to enable informed decision-making for colorectal screening-eligible members of the public. METHODS: We undertook a qualitative study to develop an aspirin decision aid leaflet to support bowel screening responders in deciding whether to take aspirin to reduce their risk of colorectal cancer. The iterative development process involved two focus groups with public members aged 60-74 years (n = 14) and interviews with clinicians (n = 10). Interviews (n = 11) were used to evaluate its utility for decision-making. Analysis was conducted using a framework approach. RESULTS: Overall, participants found the decision aid acceptable and useful to facilitate decision-making. They expressed a need for individualised risk information, more detail about the potential risks of aspirin, and preferred risk information presented in pictograms when offered different options. Implementation pathways were discussed, including the possibility of involving different clinicians in the process such as GPs and/or community pharmacists. A range of potentially effective timepoints for sending out the decision aid were identified. CONCLUSION: An acceptable and usable decision aid was developed to support decisions about aspirin use to prevent colorectal cancer.

Water-assisted colonoscopy: an international modified Delphi review on definitions and practice recommendations.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Since 2008, a plethora of research studies has compared the efficacy of water-assisted (aided) colonoscopy (WAC) and underwater resection (UWR) of colorectal lesions with standard colonoscopy. We reviewed and graded the research evidence with potential clinical application. We conducted a modified Delphi consensus among experienced colonoscopists on definitions and practice of water immersion (WI), water exchange (WE), and UWR. METHODS: Major databases were searched to obtain research reports that could potentially shape clinical practice related to WAC and UWR. Pertinent references were graded (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation). Extracted data supporting evidence-based statements were tabulated and provided to respondents. We received responses from 55 (85% surveyed) experienced colonoscopists (37 experts and 18 nonexperts in WAC) from 16 countries in 3 rounds. Voting was conducted anonymously in the second and third round, with ≥80% agreement defined as consensus. We aimed to obtain consensus in all statements. RESULTS: In the first and the second modified Delphi rounds, 20 proposed statements were decreased to 14 and then 11 statements. After the third round, the combined responses from all respondents depicted the consensus in 11 statements (S): definitions of WI (S1) and WE (S2), procedural features (S3-S5), impact on bowel cleanliness (S6), adenoma detection (S7), pain score (S8), and UWR (S9-S11). CONCLUSIONS: The most important consensus statements are that WI and WE are not the same in implementation and outcomes. Because studies that could potentially shape clinical practice of WAC and UWR were chosen for review, this modified Delphi consensus supports recommendations for the use of WAC in clinical practice.

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.

Guidelines for the management of hereditary colorectal cancer from the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG)/Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (ACPGBI)/United Kingdom Cancer Genetics Group (UKCGG).

Heritable factors account for approximately 35% of colorectal cancer (CRC) risk, and almost 30% of the population in the UK have a family history of CRC. The quantification of an individual's lifetime risk of gastrointestinal cancer may incorporate clinical and molecular data, and depends on accurate phenotypic assessment and genetic diagnosis. In turn this may facilitate targeted risk-reducing interventions, including endoscopic surveillance, preventative surgery and chemoprophylaxis, which provide opportunities for cancer prevention. This guideline is an update from the 2010 British Society of Gastroenterology/Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (BSG/ACPGBI) guidelines for colorectal screening and surveillance in moderate and high-risk groups; however, this guideline is concerned specifically with people who have increased lifetime risk of CRC due to hereditary factors, including those with Lynch syndrome, polyposis or a family history of CRC. On this occasion we invited the UK Cancer Genetics Group (UKCGG), a subgroup within the British Society of Genetic Medicine (BSGM), as a partner to BSG and ACPGBI in the multidisciplinary guideline development process. We also invited external review through the Delphi process by members of the public as well as the steering committees of the European Hereditary Tumour Group (EHTG) and the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE). A systematic review of 10 189 publications was undertaken to develop 67 evidence and expert opinion-based recommendations for the management of hereditary CRC risk. Ten research recommendations are also prioritised to inform clinical management of people at hereditary CRC risk.

Multicentre randomised controlled trial comparing standard and high resolution optical technologies in colorectal cancer screening.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The UK bowel cancer screening programme (BCSP) has been established for the early detection of colorectal cancer offering colonoscopy to patients screened positive by faecal occult blood tests. In this multisite, prospective, randomised controlled trial, we aimed to compare the performance of Standard Definition Olympus Lucera (SD-OL) with Scope Guide and the High Definition Pentax HiLine (HD-PHL). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Subjects undergoing a colonoscopy as part of the UK National BCSP at four UK sites were randomised to an endoscopy list run using either SD-OL or HD-PHL. Primary endpoints were polyp and adenoma detection rate (PDR and ADR, respectively) as well as polyp size, morphology and histology characteristics. RESULTS: 262 subjects (168 males, mean age 66.3±4.3 years) were colonoscoped (133 patients with HD-PHL while 129 with SD-OL). PDR and ADR were comparable within the two optical systems. The HD-PHL group resulted in a PDR 55.6% and ADR 43.6%; the SD-OL group had PDR 56.6% and ADR 45.7%. HD-PHL was significantly superior to SD-OL in detection of flat adenomas (18.6% vs 5.2%, p<0.001), but not detection of pedunculated or sessile polyps. Patient comfort, use of sedation and endoscopist perception of procedural difficulty resulted similar despite the use of Scope Guide with SD-OL. CONCLUSION: PDR and ADR were not significantly different between devices. The high-resolution colonoscopy system HD-PHL may improve polyp detection as compared with standard resolution technology in detecting flat adenomas. This advantage may have clinically significant implications for missed lesion rates and post-colonoscopy interval colorectal cancer rates.

Feasibility and economic assessment of chromocolonoscopy for detection of proximal serrated neoplasia within a population-based colorectal cancer screening programme (CONSCOP): an open-label, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Most post-colonoscopy interval colorectal cancers are proximal; serrated polyps are often precursors to these cancers and are considered difficult to detect. We assessed the safety, feasibility, and economic effect of chromocolonoscopy on detection of proximal serrated neoplasia. METHODS: We did an open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled non-inferiority trial including patients from Bowel Screening Wales centres. Participants who tested positive for faecal occult blood and who were eligible for and considered fit to have colonoscopy (patients with known cases of polyposis syndromes, Lynch syndrome, and chronic inflammatory disease were excluded) were randomly assigned (1:1; with the use of minimisation, stratified by centre with an 80:20 random element) to either standard white light colonoscopy (standard group) or chromocolonoscopy (indigo carmine dye [0·2%]; chromocolonoscopy group) using a secure, internet-based, computerised, randomisation system that used centralised, dynamic allocation. Participants were followed up for 1 year and data from index colonoscopies and associated clearance procedures were analysed. All proximal polyps were reviewed by an expert pathologist panel. The main outcome on which power was based was time taken to perform the colonoscopy procedure, defined as from the time when the scope was inserted to withdrawal from the anus, assessed in the per-protocol population. The non-inferiority margin was 15 min. This trial is complete and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01972451. FINDINGS: Between Nov 20, 2014, and June 16, 2016, 741 (72%) of 1031 patients screened were eligible and consented: 360 were randomly assigned to white light colonoscopy and 381 to chromocolonoscopy. In the chromocolonoscopy group, the procedure took a mean of 36·8 min (SD 15·0), compared with a mean of 30·6 min (13·7) in the standard group (mean difference 6·3 min [95% CI 4·2-8·4] longer with chromocolonoscopy than in the standard group). The mean difference was within the prespecified non-inferiority margin. Detection rates for proximal serrated lesions were significantly higher in the chromocolonoscopy group than in the control group (45 [12%] of 381 patients vs 23 [6%] of 360 patients; odds ratio 1·96 [95% CI 1·16-3·32]; p=0·012). Serious adverse events (four cases of postpolypectomy bleeding [two in each group], and one case of anxiety and hyperventilation [in the chromocolonoscopy group]), colonoscopy quality measures, comfort scores, and sedation were similar between groups. INTERPRETATION: Chromocolonoscopy is feasible within a population-based colorectal cancer screening programme, is safe, and has significantly increased detection of proximal serrated neoplasia and other polyp types compared with standard colonoscopy. Larger randomised trials of chromocolonoscopy, powered for improved detection of significant serrated polyps and for longer-term follow-up to investigate the effect on reduction of interval cancers within screening populations, are warranted. FUNDING: Health and Care Research Wales (RfPPB-1021).

Assessment of technical parameters and skills training to inform a simulation-based training program for semi-automated robotic colonoscopy.

Background and study aims Video-colonoscopy, despite being the gold-standard for diagnosis of colorectal lesions, has limitations including patient discomfort and risk of complications. This study assessed training characteristics and acceptability in operators of a new robotic colonoscope (RC). Materials and methods Participants (n = 9) with varying degrees of skill and background knowledge in colonoscopy performed colonoscopies with a RC on a simulation-based training model. Quantitative procedure-related and qualitative operator-related parameters were recorded. Results Polyp detection rate was highest in the novice group (91.67 %) followed by experts (86.11 %), then equally, trainees and video gamers (79.17 %). Four participants repeated the procedure at a follow-up session. Each participant improved cecal intubation time and had the same or higher polyp detection rate. The potential role for RC was identified for an out-of-hospital environment and as a novel diagnostic tool. Conclusions Results from this pilot suggest that operators at all skill levels found the RC acceptable and potentially useful as a diagnostic tool. Acquisition of skills with RC seems to improve rapidly to a clinically relevant level with simulation-based training.

Development of an intervention to expedite cancer diagnosis through primary care: a protocol.

BACKGROUND: GPs can play an important role in achieving earlier cancer diagnosis to improve patient outcomes, for example through prompt use of the urgent suspected cancer referral pathway. Barriers to early diagnosis include individual practitioner variation in knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, professional expectations, and norms. AIM: This programme of work (Wales Interventions and Cancer Knowledge about Early Diagnosis [WICKED]) will develop a behaviour change intervention to expedite diagnosis through primary care and contribute to improved cancer outcomes. DESIGN & SETTING: Non-experimental mixed-method study with GPs and primary care practice teams from Wales. METHOD: Four work packages will inform the development of the behaviour change intervention. Work package 1 will identify relevant evidence-based interventions (systematic review of reviews) and will determine why interventions do or do not work, for whom, and in what circumstances (realist review). Work package 2 will assess cancer knowledge, attitudes, and behaviour of GPs, as well as primary care teams' perspectives on cancer referral and investigation (GP survey, discrete choice experiment [DCE], interviews, and focus groups). Work package 3 will synthesise findings from earlier work packages using the behaviour change wheel as an overarching theoretical framework to guide intervention development. Work package 4 will test the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention, and determine methods for measuring costs and effects of subsequent behaviour change in a randomised feasibility trial. RESULTS: The findings will inform the design of a future effectiveness trial, with concurrent economic evaluation, aimed at earlier diagnosis. CONCLUSION: This comprehensive, evidence-based programme will develop a complex GP behaviour change intervention to expedite the diagnosis of symptomatic cancer, and may be applicable to countries with similar healthcare systems.

Systematic review update of observational studies further supports aspirin role in cancer treatment: Time to share evidence and decision-making with patients?

BACKGROUND: Evidence is growing that low-dose aspirin used as an adjuvant treatment of cancer is associated with an increased survival and a reduction in metastatic spread. We therefore extended up to August 2017 an earlier systematic search and meta-analyses of published studies of low-dose aspirin taken by patients with a diagnosis of cancer. METHODS: Searches were completed in Medline and Embase to August 2017 using a pre-defined search strategy to identify reports of relevant studies. References in all the selected papers were scanned. Two reviewers independently applied pre-determined eligibility criteria and extracted data on cause-specific cancer deaths, overall mortality and the occurrence of metastatic spread. Meta-analyses were then conducted for different cancers and heterogeneity and publication bias assessed. Sensitivity analyses and attempts to reduce heterogeneity were conducted. RESULTS: Analyses of 29 studies reported since an earlier review up to April 2015 are presented in this report, and these are then pooled with the 42 studies in our earlier publication. Overall meta-analyses of the 71 studies are presented, based on a total of over 120 thousand patients taking aspirin. Ten of the studies also give evidence on the incidence of metastatic cancer spread. There are now twenty-nine observational studies describing colorectal cancer (CRC) and post-diagnostic aspirin. Pooling the estimates of reduction by aspirin which are reported as hazard ratios (HR), gives an overall HR for aspirin and CRC mortality 0.72 (95% CI 0.64-0.80). Fourteen observational studies have reported on aspirin and breast cancer mortality and pooling those that report the association with aspirin as a hazard ratio gives HR 0.69 (0.53-0.90). Sixteen studies report on aspirin and prostate cancer mortality and a pooled estimate yields an HR of 0.87 (95% CI 0.73-1.05). Data from 12 reports relating to other cancers are also listed. Ten studies give evidence of a reduction in metastatic spread; four give a pooled HR 0.31 (95% CI 0.18, 0.54) and five studies which reported odds ratio of metastatic spread give OR 0.79 (0.66 to 0.95). CONCLUSION: Being almost entirely from observational studies, the evidence of benefit from aspirin is limited. There is heterogeneity between studies and the results are subject to important biases, only some of which can be identified. Nevertheless, the evidence would seem to merit wide discussion regarding whether or not it is adequate to justify the recommendation of low-dose therapeutic aspirin, and if it is, for which cancers?