Risk factors for metachronous colorectal cancer or advanced lesions after endoscopic resection of serrated polyps: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Serrated polyps (SPs) are precursors to 15% to 20% of colorectal cancers (CRCs). However, there are uncertainties regarding which SPs require surveillance and at what intervals, with recommendations adapted from those for adenomas in the absence of solid evidence. Our aim was to assess which SP risk characteristics relate to a higher risk of metachronous CRC or advanced polyps. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane for cohort studies, case-control studies, and clinical trials from inception to December 31, 2023, of CRC or advanced polyps (advanced adenoma [AA] or advanced SP) incidence at surveillance stratified by baseline SP size, dysplasia, location, and multiplicity. We defined advanced SPs as those ≥10 mm or with dysplasia. CRC and advanced polyp incidence per 1000 person-years were estimated. We performed a meta-analysis by calculating pooled relative risks (RRs) using a random-effects model. RESULTS: A total of 5903 studies were reviewed, and 14 were included with 493,949 patients (mean age, 59.5 years; 55% men). The mean follow-up was 4.9 years. CRC incidence per 1000 person-years was 2.09 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.29-2.90) for advanced SPs, 1.52 (95% CI, 0.78-2.25) for SPs of ≥10 mm, 5.86 (95% CI, 2.16-9.56) for SPs with dysplasia, 1.18 (95% CI, 0.77-1.60) for proximal SPs, 0.52 (95% CI, 0.08-1.12) for ≥3 SPs, 0.50 (95% CI, 0.35-0.66) for nonadvanced SPs, and 0.44 (95% CI, 0.41-0.46) for normal colonoscopy findings. Metachronous CRC risk was higher in advanced SPs versus nonadvanced SPs (RR, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.11-3.04) and versus normal colonoscopy findings (RR, 2.92; 95% CI, 2.26-3.77), in SPs of ≥10 mm versus <10 mm (RR, 2.61; 95% CI, 1.43-4.77) and versus normal colonoscopy findings (RR: 3.52; 95% CI, 2.17-5.69); and in SPs with dysplasia versus normal colonoscopy findings (RR: 2.71; 95% CI, 2.00-3.67). No increase in CRC or advanced polyp risk was found in patients with proximal versus distal SPs, nor in ≥3 SPs versus 1 or 2 SPs. CONCLUSIONS: CRC risk is significantly higher in patients with baseline advanced SPs after 4.9 years of follow-up, with risk magnitudes similar to those described for AA, supporting the current recommendation for 3-year surveillance in patients with advanced SPs.

Incidence, characteristics, and predictive factors of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC) is colorectal cancer (CRC) diagnosed after a colonoscopy in which no cancer is found. OBJECTIVE: As PCCRC has become an important quality indicator, we determined its rates, characteristics, and index colonoscopy-related predictive factors. METHODS: We carried out a multicenter, observational, retrospective study between 2015 and 2018. Rates were calculated for PCCRC developing up to 10 years after colonoscopy. PCCRC was categorized according to the most plausible explanation using World Endoscopy Organization methodology. Our PCCRC population was compared to a control cohort without CRC matched 1:4 by sex, age, index colonoscopy date, indication, endoscopist, and hospital. RESULTS: One hundred seven PCCRC and 2508 detected CRC were diagnosed among 101,524 colonoscopy (0.1%), leading to rates of 0.4%, 2.2%, 3.1%, and 4.1% at 1, 3, 5, and 10 years, respectively. PCCRC was in right (42.4%), left (41.4%), and transverse (16.4%) colon with 31.5% at stage I, 24.7% stage II, 32.6% stage III, and 11.2% stage IV. Twenty point three percent were classified as incomplete resection, 5.4% as unresected lesions, 48.6% as missed lesions with adequate colonoscopy, and 25.7% as missed lesions with inadequate colonoscopy. The median time from colonoscopy to PCCRC was 42 months. Previous inadequate preparation (OR 3.05, 95%CI 1.73-5.36) and piecemeal polypectomy (OR 19.89, 95%CI 8.67-45.61) were independently associated with PCCRC. CONCLUSIONS: In our population, 4.1% of CRC cases were PCCRC. Most of these lesions were in right colon and attributable to lesions not visualized despite adequate bowel cleansing. Previous inadequate cleansing and piecemeal polypectomy were associated with PCCRC.

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.

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.

Risk Factors for Metachronous Colorectal Cancer or Advanced Adenomas After Endoscopic Resection of High-risk Adenomas.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Among the characteristics of high-risk adenomas (HRAs), some may predict a higher risk of metachronous advanced lesions. Our aim was to assess which HRA characteristics are associated with high risk of metachronous colorectal cancer (CRC) or advanced adenomas (AAs). METHODS: We systematically searched Pubmed, EMBASE, and Cochrane for cohort studies and clinical trials of CRC or AA incidence at surveillance stratified by baseline lesion size, histology, and multiplicity. We calculated pooled relative risks (RRs) using a random-effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed with the I2 statistic. RESULTS: Fifty-five studies were included, with 936,540 patients with mean follow-up 5.4 ± 2.9 years. CRC incidence per 1000 person-years was 2.6 (2.1-3.0) for adenomas ≥20 mm, 2.7 (2.2-3.2) for high-grade dysplasia (HGD), 2.0 (1.8-2.3) for villous component, 0.8 (0.1-1.4) for ≥5 adenomas, 1.0 (0.7-1.2) for ≥3 adenomas. Metachronous CRC risk was higher in adenomas ≥20 mm vs 10 to 19 mm (RR, 2.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.20-3.61), HGD vs low-grade dysplasia (RR, 2.89; 95% CI, 1.88-4.44), villous vs tubular (RR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.33-2.31). No significant differences in CRC risk were found in ≥3 adenomas vs 1 to 2 (RR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.84-1.83), nor in ≥5 adenomas vs 3 to 4 (RR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.30-2.11). Compared with normal colonoscopy, RR for CRC risk was 2.61 (95% CI, 2.06-3.32) for ≥10mm, 6.62 (95% CI, 4.60-9.52) for HGD, 3.58 (95% CI, 2.24-5.73) for villous component, and 2.03 (95% CI, 1.40-2.94) for ≥3 adenomas. Similar trends were seen for metachronous AAs. CONCLUSION: Metachronous CRC risk is highest in patients with baseline adenomas with ≥20 mm or HGD. Multiplicity does not seem to be associated with substantially higher CRC risk in the near term.

Factors associated with lesion detection in colonoscopy among different indications.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Different factors may influence colonoscopy performance measures. We aimed to analyze procedure- and endoscopist-related factors associated with detection of colorectal lesions and whether these factors have a similar influence in the context of different colonoscopy indications: positive fecal immunochemical test (+FIT) and post-polypectomy surveillance colonoscopies. METHODS: This multicenter cross-sectional study included adults aged 40-80 years. Endoscopists (N = 96) who had performed ≥50 examinations were assessed for physician-related factors. Adenoma detection rate (ADR), adenomas per colonoscopy rate (APCR), advanced ADR, serrated polyp detection (SDR), and serrated polyps per colonoscopy rate (SPPCR) were calculated. RESULTS: We included 12,932 procedures, with 4810 carried out after a positive FIT and 1967 for surveillance. Of the 96 endoscopists evaluated, 43.8% were women, and the mean age was 41.9 years. The ADR, advanced ADR, and SDR were 39.7%, 17.7%, and 12.8%, respectively. Adenoma detection rate was higher in colonoscopies after a +FIT (50.3%) with a more than doubled advanced ADR compared to non-FIT procedures (27.6% vs. 13.0%) and similar results in serrated lesions (14.7% vs. 13.5%). Among all the detection indicators analyzed, withdrawal time was the only factor independently related to improvement (p < 0.001). Regarding FIT-positive and surveillance procedures, for both indications, withdrawal time was also the only factor associated with a higher detection of adenomas and serrated polyps (p < 0.001). Endoscopist-related factors (i.e., weekly hours dedicated to endoscopy, annual colonoscopy volume and lifetime number of colonoscopies performed) had also impact on lesion detection (APCR, advanced ADR and SPPCR). CONCLUSIONS: Withdrawal time was the factor most commonly associated with improved detection of colonic lesions globally and in endoscopies for + FIT and post-polypectomy surveillance. Physician-related factors may help to address strategies to support training and service provision. Our results can be used for establishing future benchmarking and quality improvement in different colonoscopy indications.

Familial colorectal cancer.

The introduction of average-risk colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs means that many subjects with family history of CRC and without well-described inherited syndromes can benefit from these public health policies. Therefore, the definition of which individuals should be named under the umbrella of the term "familial CRC" should be reconsidered to include only those who are outside of the protection of population-based screening and need to be moved towards a more intensive surveillance strategy. Two subgroups have been reported as having a high enough CRC risk to be included within the term "familial risk of CRC": individuals who have ≥1 first degree relative (FDR) with CRC diagnosed at age <50 years, and those who have ≥2 FDRs with CRC. Colonoscopy-based screening starting at age 40 years is proposed as the most accepted recommendation for these individuals. Finally, the evolution of Lynch syndrome screening from clinical criteria to tumor tissue analysis and new tools for screening pathogenic gene mutations associated with cancer susceptibility in individuals with early-onset CRC might help to reduce misclassification of familial CRC.

Safety of endoscopist-administered deep sedation with propofol in ASA III patients.

INTRODUCTION: deep sedation controlled by the endoscopist is safe in patients with low anesthetic risk (ASA I-II). However, scarce evidence is available in patients with intermediate risk (ASA III). OBJECTIVE: to evaluate the safety of deep sedation with propofol controlled by the usual endoscopy staff (endoscopist, nurse, assistant) in outpatients classified as ASA III and the risk factors for the occurrence of complications during deep sedation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: this observational and single-center cross-sectional study included consecutive patients undergoing non-complex procedures in which deep sedation was administered by the endoscopy staff. Patients were divided into group I (ASA = III) and group II (ASA < III). RESULTS: a total of 562 patients were included and 80 (14.2 %) were in group I. Complications related to deep sedation were more frequent in group I (23.8 % vs 14.5 %; p = 0.036), mainly mild desaturations (13.8 % vs 7.5 %; p = 0.058). Emergency intervention or death were not registered. The adjusted analysis identified age as the only independent baseline risk factor for developing global adverse events. CONCLUSION: ASA III patients developed more sedation-related complications than ASA I-II patients. However, these complications were mild and did not prevent the correct performance of the procedure.

Risk of Colorectal Cancer and Advanced Polyps One Year After Excision of High-Risk Adenomas.

BACKGROUND: Patients with multiple or large adenomas are considered to be high-risk for metachronous colorectal cancer. OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the risks of detecting colorectal cancer, advanced adenoma, and advanced serrated polyps at 1-year surveillance colonoscopy in patients with >5 adenomas or adenomas >20 mm. DESIGN: Descriptive, retrospective, multicentric, cohort study. We calculated the absolute risk of developing colorectal cancer, advanced adenomas, and advanced serrated polyps at the 1-year surveillance colonoscopy. Potential risk factors for advanced neoplasia at follow-up were evaluated with univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses. SETTINGS: This study included data from a multicenter cohort colorectal cancer screening program, conducted from January 2014 to December 2015, based on fecal immunochemical tests in Spain. PATIENTS: We included 2119 participants with at least 1 adenoma ≥20 mm or ≥5 adenomas of any size. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We calculated the absolute risk of developing colorectal cancer, advanced adenomas, and advanced serrated polyps at the 1-year surveillance colonoscopy. Potential risk factors for advanced neoplasia at follow-up were evaluated with univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: At 1 year, participants displayed 6 colorectal cancers (0.3%), 228 advanced adenomas (10.5%), and 58 advanced serrated polyps (2.7%). The adjusted analysis identified 2 factors associated with advanced neoplasia: >5 adenomas (odds ratio 1.53; 95% CI: 1.15-2.03; p = 0.004) and polyps in a proximal location (OR 1.52; 95% CI: 1.15-2.02; p = 0.004). LIMITATIONS: First, the sample size was relatively small compared to other studies with similar aims. Another limitation was the lack of a comparison group, which could have provided more practical results in terms of surveillance recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: The colorectal cancer detection rate at a 1-year colonoscopy surveillance was low among patients classified at high risk of advanced neoplasia. The risk factors for advanced neoplasia were ≥5 adenomas and proximal polyps at baseline. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B820 . RIESGO DE CNCER COLORRECTAL Y DE PLIPOS AVANZADOS UN AO DESPUS DE LA RESECCIN DE ADENOMAS DE ALTO RIESGO: ANTECEDENTES:Los pacientes con adenomas múltiples o grandes se consideran de alto riesgo para desarrollar cáncer colorrectal metacrónico.OBJETIVO:Evaluar los riesgos de detectar cáncer colorrectal, adenoma avanzado y pólipos serrados avanzados en la colonoscopia de seguimiento al año, en pacientes con un número mayor o igual a 5 adenomas o adenomas de 20 mm o más.DISEÑO:Estudio descriptivo, retrospectivo, multicéntrico, de cohortes. Calculamos el riesgo absoluto de desarrollar cáncer colorrectal, adenomas avanzados y pólipos serrados avanzados en la colonoscopia de vigilancia al año. Los factores de riesgo potenciales para el desarrollo de una neoplasia avanzada en el seguimiento, fueron evaluados mediante un análisis de regresión logística univariable y multivariable.AJUSTES:Este estudio incluyó datos de un programa de cribado de cáncer colorrectal de cohorte multicéntrico, realizado entre enero de 2014 y diciembre de 2015, con base en pruebas inmunoquímicas de materia fecal, en España.PACIENTES:Incluimos 2119 participantes con al menos un adenoma ≥20 mm o con cinco o más adenomas de cualquier tamaño.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Calculamos el riesgo absoluto de desarrollar cáncer colorrectal, adenomas avanzados y pólipos serrados avanzados en la colonoscopia de vigilancia al año. Los potenciales factores de riesgo para desarrollar una neoplasia avanzada en el seguimiento, se evaluaron mediante un análisis de regresión logística univariable y multivariable.RESULTADOS:Al año se encontraron en los pacientes participantes, 6 cánceres colorrectales (0,3%), 228 adenomas avanzados (10,5%) y 58 pólipos serrados avanzados (2,7%). Mediante el análisis ajustado se identificaron dos factores asociados con el desarrollo de neoplasia avanzada: un número igual o mayor a 5 adenomas (razón de probabilidades 1,53; IC del 95%: 1,15-2,03; p = 0,004) y la presencia de pólipos en una ubicación proximal (razón de probabilidades 1,52; IC del 95%: 1,15-2,02; p = 0,004).LIMITACIONES:Primero, el tamaño de la muestra fue relativamente pequeño en comparación con otros estudios con objetivos similares. Otra limitación fue la falta de un grupo comparativo, que podría haber proporcionado resultados más prácticos, en términos de recomendaciones de vigilancia.CONCLUSIÓNES:La tasa de detección de cáncer colorrectal mediante una colonoscopia de vigilancia al año, fue baja entre los pacientes clasificados como de alto riesgo de neoplasia avanzada. Los factores de riesgo para desarrollar una neoplasia avanzada fueron; un número igual o mayor a 5 adenomas y la presencia de pólipos proximales en la colonoscopia inicial de base. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B820 . ( Traducción-Eduardo Londoño-Schimmer ).

Effects of Somatic Methylation in Colonic Polyps on Risk of Developing Metachronous Advanced Colorectal Lesions.

The utility of molecular markers for predicting the risk of metachronous advanced colorectal lesions (MACLs) remains poorly investigated. We examined the relationship between somatic hypermethylation in polyps at baseline and the risk of developing MACL. This retrospective cohort study included 281 consecutive patients with colonic polyps who were enrolled between 2007 and 2009 and followed-up until 2014. MACLs were defined as adenomas of ≥10 mm, high-grade dysplasia, or with a villous component; and serrated lesions of ≥10 mm or with dysplasia. In total, 595 polyps were removed at baseline colonoscopy and analyzed for pathological characteristics and CpG island methylator phenotype (CIMP) using the MS-MLPA (Methylation-Specific -- Multiplex Ligation-dependent Probe Amplification) technique. Forty-five patients (16.0%) showed at least one CIMP+ polyp. MACL risk was higher in patients with CIMP+ polyps (odds ratio (OR), 4.50; 95% CI, 1.78-11.4; p = 0.002). Patients with CIMP+ polyps also exhibited shorter time to MACL development (33.8 months vs. 50.1 months; p < 0.001), even with adjustment for polyp size and number (OR, 2.40; 95% CI, 1.33-4.34). Adding CIMP analysis improved the sensitivity (57.0% to 70.9%), negative predictive value (71.1% to 77.3%), and overall accuracy (49.8% to 52.0%) for MACL risk estimation. These results highlight that CIMP may be a useful marker for endoscopic surveillance.

Diagnostic yield of early repeat colonoscopy after suboptimal bowel preparation in a fecal immunochemical test-based screening program.

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines regarding surveillance after screening colonoscopy assume adequate bowel preparation. However, follow-up intervals after suboptimal cleansing are highly heterogeneous. We aimed to determine the diagnostic yield of early repeat colonoscopy in patients with suboptimal bowel preparation in fecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based screening colonoscopy. METHODS: An observational study including patients who underwent colonoscopy with suboptimal bowel preparation after positive FIT screening and then repeat colonoscopy within 1 year. Suboptimal preparation was defined as a Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score of 1 in any segment. Patients with a BBPS score of 0 in any segment or incomplete examination were excluded. The adenoma detection rate (ADR), advanced ADR (AADR), and colorectal cancer rate were calculated for the index and repeat colonoscopies. RESULTS: Of the 2474 patients with FIT-positive colonoscopy at our center during this period, 314 (12.7 %) had suboptimal preparation. Of the 259 (82.5 %) patients who underwent repeat colonoscopy, suboptimal cleansing persisted in 22 (9 %). On repeat colonoscopy, the ADR was 38.7 % (95 %CI 32.6 % to 44.8 %) and the AADR was 14.9 % (95 %CI 10.5 % to 19.4 %). The per-adenoma miss rate was 27.7 % (95 %CI 24.0 % to 31.6 %), and the per-advanced adenoma miss rate was 17.6 % (95 %CI 13.3 % to 22.7 %). After repeat colonoscopy, the post-polypectomy surveillance recommendation changed from 10 to 3 years in 14.7 % of the patients with previous 10-year surveillance recommendation. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with suboptimal bowel preparation on FIT-positive colonoscopy present a high rate of advanced adenomas in repeat colonoscopy, with major changes in post-polypectomy surveillance recommendations.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy.

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is the method of choice for feeding and nutritional support in patients with a normal gastrointestinal function who require long-term enteral nutrition. We report our experience regarding an alternative endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided PEG technique. A retrospective clinical experience case series study was conducted from January 2019 to November 2019 at a tertiary center. Adult patients deemed unfit for conventional PEG due to absence of transillumination or previous gastric surgery were enrolled. An EUS target was created by filling a glove with saline and placing it in the abdomen. EUS was performed and the target identified from the stomach. The abdominal wall was punctured from the stomach and a guidewire was advanced. The guidewire was knotted to a string, which was passed into the stomach and drawn back through the mouth. The procedure was continued following the traditional technique. Four patients underwent EUS-PEG in our center during the study period. Mean age was 65 years and 50% were male. Two patients (50%) had a body mass index over 30. PEG indications were tongue malignancies (50%), cerebrovascular disease (25%) and dementia (25%). One patient had a Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy was performed. Technical success rate was 100% and no complications occurred. This case series shows that the EUS-guided PEG technique is a safe alternative in patients deemed unfit for conventional PEG.

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.

Effects of Family History on Relative and Absolute Risks for Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Guidelines recommend that individuals with familial colorectal cancer undergo colonoscopy surveillance instead of average-risk screening. However, these recommendations vary widely. To substantiate appropriate surveillance strategies, precise and valid evidence-based risk estimates are needed for individuals with a family history of colorectal cancer (CRC). METHODS: We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane from inception to July 2018 for case-control and cohort studies investigating the effect of family history on CRC risk. We calculated summary estimates of pooled relative risks (RRs) using a random-effects model. Life tables were created to convert RR estimates into absolute risk estimates. RESULTS: We screened 4417 articles and identified 42 eligible case-control and 20 cohort studies. In case-control studies, the RR for CRC in patients with 1 first-degree relative (FDR with CRC) was 1.92 (95% CI, 1.53-2.41) and 1.37 (95% CI, 0.76-2.46) for cohort studies. For individuals with 2 or more FDRs with CRC, the RR was 2.81 in case-control studies (95% CI, 1.73-4.55) and 2.40 in cohort studies (95% CI, 1.76-3.28). For individuals having a FDR diagnosed with CRC at an age younger than 50 years, the RR for CRC in their FDRs was 3.57 in case-control studies (95% CI, 1.07-11.85) and 3.26 in cohort studies (95% CI, 2.82-3.77). The cumulative absolute risks for CRC at 85 years in Western Europe were 4.8% for persons with 1 FDR with CRC (95% CI, 2.7%-8.3%), 8.2% for individuals with 2 or more FDRs (95% CI, 6.1%-10.9%), and 11% for persons with a FDR diagnosed with CRC at an age younger than 50 years (95% CI, 9.5%-12.4%). CONCLUSIONS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we found that the RR of CRC among FDRs is lower than previously expected, especially based on cohort studies. Risk estimates are affected by the number of relatives with CRC and their age at diagnosis. Intensified colonoscopy surveillance strategies could be considered for high-risk groups. PROSPERO trial identification no: CRD42018103058.

Bowel preparation for colonoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline - Update 2019.

ESGE recommends a low fiber diet on the day preceding colonoscopy.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE recommends the use of enhanced instructions for bowel preparation.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE suggests adding oral simethicone to bowel preparation.Weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE recommends split-dose bowel preparation for elective colonoscopy.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.ESGE recommends, for patients undergoing afternoon colonoscopy, a same-day bowel preparation as an acceptable alternative to split dosing.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.ESGE recommends to start the last dose of bowel preparation within 5 hours of colonoscopy, and to complete it at least 2 hours before the beginning of the procedure.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE recommends the use of high volume or low volume PEG-based regimens as well as that of non-PEG-based agents that have been clinically validated for routine bowel preparation. In patients at risk for hydroelectrolyte disturbances, the choice of laxative should be individualized.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.

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.

Clinical practice guideline. Diagnosis and prevention of colorectal cancer. 2018 Update. / Guía de práctica clínica. Diagnóstico y prevención del cáncer colorrectal. Actualización 2018.

This document updates the recommendations made by the Spanish Society of Family and Community Medicine and the Spanish Association of Gastroenterology for the diagnosis and prevention of colorectal cancer (CRC). In order to evaluate the quality of the evidence and determine the recommendation levels of the interventions, we used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. This document establishes optimal delay intervals based on symptoms and the faecal immunochemical test (FIT) and recommends reducing the barriers for diagnostic confirmation in symptomatic subjects. With regard to CRC screening in the average-risk population, we propose strategies to achieve the universal implementation of organised CRC screening programmes based on biennial FIT and to increase the participation of the target population, including the involvement of Primary Healthcare. This Clinical Practice Guideline recommends universal screening for Lynch syndrome with mismatch repair proteins immunohistochemistry or microsatellite instability in incident CRCs and the use of gene panels in patients with adenomatous polyposis. It also updates the strategies to reduce the incidence and mortality of both CRC and other tumours associated with hereditary syndromes. Regarding non-hereditary familial CRC and surveillance after resection of adenomas, serrated lesions or CRC, we established the recommendations based on the attributable risk and the risk reduction of the proposed intervention. Finally, the document includes recommendations regarding surveillance intervals in inflammatory bowel disease and the attitude towards dysplasia.

Colorectal cancer molecular classification using BRAF, KRAS, microsatellite instability and CIMP status: Prognostic implications and response to chemotherapy.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to validate a molecular classification of colorectal cancer (CRC) based on microsatellite instability (MSI), CpG island methylator phenotype (CIMP) status, BRAF, and KRAS and investigate each subtype's response to chemotherapy. DESIGN: This retrospective observational study included a population-based cohort of 878 CRC patients. We classified tumours into five different subtypes based on BRAF and KRAS mutation, CIMP status, and MSI. Patients with advanced stage II (T4N0M0) and stage III tumours received 5-fluoruracil (5-FU)-based chemotherapy or no adjuvant treatment based on clinical criteria. The main outcome was disease-free survival (DFS). RESULTS: Patients with the combination of microsatellite stable (MSS) tumours, BRAF mutation and CIMP positive exhibited the worst prognosis in univariate (log rank P<0.0001) and multivariate analyses (hazard ratio 1.75, 95% CI 1.05-2.93, P = 0.03) after adjusting for age, sex, chemotherapy, and TNM stage. Treatment with 5-FU-based regimens improved prognosis in patients with the combination of MSS tumours, KRAS mutation and CIMP negative (log rank P = 0.003) as well as in patients with MSS tumours plus BRAF and KRAS wild-type and CIMP negative (log-rank P<0.001). After adjusting for age, sex, and TNM stage in the multivariate analysis, only patients with the latter molecular combination had independently improved prognosis after adjuvant chemotherapy (hazard ratio 2.06, 95% CI 1.24-3.44, P = 0.005). CONCLUSION: We confirmed the prognostic value of stratifying CRC according to molecular subtypes using MSI, CIMP status, and somatic KRAS and BRAF mutation. Patients with traditional chromosomally unstable tumours obtained the best benefit from adjuvant 5-FU-based chemotherapy.

Importance of endoscopist quality metrics for findings at surveillance colonoscopy: The detection-surveillance paradox.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend surveillance colonoscopies based exclusively on findings at baseline colonoscopy. This recommendation leads to the paradox that the higher the baseline colonoscopy quality, the more surveillance colonoscopies will be indicated according to current guidelines. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect on follow-up findings of different quality metrics of the endoscopist performing the baseline colonoscopy. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included individuals with advanced adenomas at baseline colonoscopy. Adenoma detection rate (ADR) and adenomas per colonoscopy rate (APCR) were determined for 44 endoscopists. Surveillance colonoscopies were checked after systematic tracking. RESULTS: A total of 574 individuals were diagnosed with advanced adenomas, of whom 270 received a surveillance colonoscopy. Patients whose baseline colonoscopy endoscopist had an ADR lower than the median of 33.8% had significantly higher rates of advanced neoplasia at follow-up (13.1% vs 4.0%; p = 0.001). On univariate analysis, high-risk advanced adenomas at baseline (HR 0.43; 95% CI 0.19-0.97) and ADR (HR 0.94; 95% CI 0.89-0.99) showed a significant relationship with advanced neoplasia at surveillance. In a multivariate Cox model, the ADR of the endoscopist who performed the baseline colonoscopy was the only independent predictor of risk for developing advanced neoplasia at follow-up (HR 0.94; 95% CI 0.89-0.99). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that the risk of identifying advanced adenomas at follow-up is closely related to the quality metrics of the endoscopist who performs the baseline colonoscopy.