Risk-stratified faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) for urgent colonoscopy in Lynch syndrome during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Lynch syndrome is a hereditary cancer disease resulting in an increased risk of colorectal cancer. Herein, findings are reported from an emergency clinical service implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic utilizing faecal immunochemical testing ('FIT') in Lynch syndrome patients to prioritize colonoscopy while endoscopy services were limited. METHODS: An emergency service protocol was designed to improve colonoscopic surveillance access throughout the COVID-19 pandemic in England for people with Lynch syndrome when services were extremely restricted (1 March 2020 to 31 March 2021) and promoted by the English National Health Service. Requests for faecal immunochemical testing from participating centres were sent to the National Health Service Bowel Cancer Screening South of England Hub and a faecal immunochemical testing kit, faecal immunochemical testing instructions, paper-based survey, and pre-paid return envelope were sent to patients. Reports with faecal haemoglobin results were returned electronically for clinical action. Risk stratification for colonoscopy was as follows: faecal haemoglobin less than 10 µg of haemoglobin/g of faeces (µg/g)-scheduled within 6-12 weeks; and faecal haemoglobin greater than or equal to 10 µg/g-triaged via an urgent suspected cancer clinical pathway. Primary outcomes of interest included the identification of highest-risk Lynch syndrome patients and determining the impact of faecal immunochemical testing in risk-stratified colonoscopic surveillance. RESULTS: Fifteen centres participated from June 2020 to March 2021. Uptake was 68.8 per cent amongst 558 patients invited. For 339 eligible participants analysed, 279 (82.3 per cent) had faecal haemoglobin less than 10 µg/g and 60 (17.7 per cent) had faecal haemoglobin greater than or equal to 10 µg/g. In the latter group, the diagnostic accuracy of faecal immunochemical testing was 65.9 per cent and escalation to colonoscopy was facilitated (median 49 versus 122 days, χ2 = 0.0003, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Faecal immunochemical testing demonstrated clinical value for Lynch syndrome patients requiring colorectal cancer surveillance during the pandemic in this descriptive report of an emergency COVID-19 response service. Further longitudinal investigation on faecal immunochemical testing efficacy in Lynch syndrome is warranted and will be examined under the 'FIT for Lynch' study (ISRCTN15740250).

Assessment of the role of the Edinburgh dysphagia score in referral triage in a national service evaluation of the urgent suspected upper gastrointestinal cancer pathway.

BACKGROUND: The British Society of Gastroenterology has recommended the Edinburgh Dysphagia Score (EDS) to risk-stratify dysphagia referrals during the endoscopy COVID recovery phase. AIMS: External validation of the diagnostic accuracy of EDS and exploration of potential changes to improve its diagnostic performance. METHODS: A prospective multicentre study of consecutive patients referred with dysphagia on an urgent suspected upper gastrointestinal (UGI) cancer pathway between May 2020 and February 2021. The sensitivity and negative predictive value (NPV) of EDS were calculated. Variables associated with UGI cancer were identified by forward stepwise logistic regression and a modified Cancer Dysphagia Score (CDS) developed. RESULTS: 1301 patients were included from 19 endoscopy providers; 43% male; median age 62 (IQR 51-73) years. 91 (7%) UGI cancers were diagnosed, including 80 oesophageal, 10 gastric and one duodenal cancer. An EDS ≥3.5 had a sensitivity of 96.7 (95% CI 90.7-99.3)% and an NPV of 99.3 (97.8-99.8)%. Age, male sex, progressive dysphagia and unintentional weight loss >3 kg were positively associated and acid reflux and localisation to the neck were negatively associated with UGI cancer. Dysphagia duration <6 months utilised in EDS was replaced with progressive dysphagia in CDS. CDS ≥5.5 had a sensitivity of 97.8 (92.3-99.7)% and NPV of 99.5 (98.1-99.9)%. Area under receiver operating curve was 0.83 for CDS, compared to 0.81 for EDS. CONCLUSIONS: In a national cohort, the EDS has high sensitivity and NPV as a triage tool for UGI cancer. The CDS offers even higher diagnostic accuracy. The EDS or CDS should be incorporated into the urgent suspected UGI cancer pathway.

Endoscopy in patients on antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy: British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline update.

This is a collaboration between the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), and is a scheduled update of their 2016 guideline on endoscopy in patients on antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy. The guideline development committee included representatives from the British Society of Haematology, the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society, and two patient representatives from the charities Anticoagulation UK and Thrombosis UK, as well as gastroenterologists. The process conformed to AGREE II principles and the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations were derived using GRADE methodology. Prior to submission for publication, consultation was made with all member societies of ESGE, including BSG. Evidence-based revisions have been made to the risk categories for endoscopic procedures, and to the categories for risks of thrombosis. In particular a more detailed risk analysis for atrial fibrillation has been employed, and the recommendations for direct oral anticoagulants have been strengthened in light of trial data published since the previous version. A section has been added on the management of patients presenting with acute GI haemorrhage. Important patient considerations are highlighted. Recommendations are based on the risk balance between thrombosis and haemorrhage in given situations.

Endoscopy in patients on antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy: British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline update.

This is a collaboration between the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), and is a scheduled update of their 2016 guideline on endoscopy in patients on antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy. The guideline development committee included representatives from the British Society of Haematology, the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society, and two patient representatives from the charities Anticoagulation UK and Thrombosis UK, as well as gastroenterologists. The process conformed to AGREE II principles, and the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations were derived using GRADE methodology. Prior to submission for publication, consultation was made with all member societies of ESGE, including BSG. Evidence-based revisions have been made to the risk categories for endoscopic procedures, and to the categories for risks of thrombosis. In particular a more detailed risk analysis for atrial fibrillation has been employed, and the recommendations for direct oral anticoagulants have been strengthened in light of trial data published since the previous version. A section has been added on the management of patients presenting with acute GI haemorrhage. Important patient considerations are highlighted. Recommendations are based on the risk balance between thrombosis and haemorrhage in given situations.

Effect of the SARS-CoV2 Pandemic on Endoscopy Provision - The Impact of Compliance with National Guidance.

Objective: There are limited data on the impact of the pandemic upon endoscopy service provision and quality indicators.Methods: Analysis of number and type of procedure, in-room time (minutes), key performance indicators, and list utilization was performed over three periods; pre-lockdown, lockdown, and early recovery and compared with the previous year.Results: Endoscopy activity reduced to 13.3% of the same period in 2019 with the largest drops in colonoscopy and flexible sigmoidoscopy numbers. In-room time increased significantly for gastroscopy (35 vs. 24, p < 0.0001), flexible sigmoidoscopy (20 vs. 15, p < 0.0001), endoscopic ultrasound (40 vs. 32, p = 0.0009), and ERCP (59 vs. 45, p = 0.0041). There was no increase for colonoscopy (35 vs 35, p = 0.129). There was a significant reduction in in-room time for gastroscopy alone (44.5 vs. 30.0, p = 0.0002) over the study period. There was no significant difference in cecal intubation rate, polyp detection rate, or biliary cannulation rate compared to the previous year.Conclusions: The pandemic has profoundly reduced the number of endoscopies performed with some recovery. In-room time has significantly increased but with the preservation of key performance indicators. List utilization remains a significant problem and resources need to be adequately aligned to improve this.

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.

High yield of colorectal neoplasia detected by colonoscopy following a positive faecal occult blood test in the NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme.

OBJECTIVES: The UK National Health Service Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) is based on a strategy of biennial faecal occult blood (FOB) testing. Positive results are classified as 'abnormal' or 'weak positive' based on the number of positive windows per kit or need for repeat testing. Colonoscopy is offered to both groups. We evaluate the relationship between FOB test positivity and clinical outcome in the BCSP. SETTING: The South of Tyne and Tees (UK) Bowel Cancer Screening Centres. METHODS: Data were collected prospectively on all individuals who were offered FOB testing and colonoscopy between February 2007 and February 2009. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed to investigate the relationship between FOB test positivity and clinical outcome. RESULTS: Following FOB testing, 1524 individuals underwent colonoscopy, 1259 (83%) after a 'weak positive' and 265 (17%) an 'abnormal' result. Cancer was detected in 180 (11.8%) and adenomas in 758 (49.7%). Individuals with an 'abnormal' result were more likely to have cancer or be 'high risk' for the development of future adenomas (110/265, 41.5%) than those with 'weak positive' results, (236/1259, 18.7%, P < 0.0001). Those with Dukes stage B, C or D cancers or cancers proximal to the splenic flexure were more likely to have an 'abnormal' result. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of colonoscopies were performed following 'weak positive' FOB results. Those with an 'abnormal' result were more likely to be diagnosed with cancer. The high yield of pathology in both the 'abnormal' and 'weak positive' groups justifies the need for colonoscopy in both.

Endoscopists attitudes on the publication of "quality" data for endoscopic procedures: a cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: Whilst the public now have access to mortality & morbidity data for cardiothoracic surgeons, such "quality" data for endoscopy are not generally available. We studied endoscopists' attitudes to and the practicality of this data being published. METHODS: We sent a questionnaire to all consultant gastrointestinal (GI) surgeons, physicians and medical GI specialist registrars in the Northern region who currently perform GI endoscopic procedures (n = 132). We recorded endoscopist demographics, experience and current data collection practice. We also assessed the acceptability and utility of nine items describing endoscopic "quality" (e.g. mortality, complication & completion rates). RESULTS: 103 (78%) doctors responded of whom 79 were consultants (77%). 61 (59%) respondents were physicians. 77 (75%) collect any "quality" data. The most frequently collected item was colonoscopic completion rate. Data were most commonly collected for appraisal, audit or clinical governance. The majority of doctors (54%) kept these data only available to themselves, and just one allowed the public to access this. The most acceptable data item was annual number of endoscopies and the least was crude upper GI bleeding mortality. Surgeons rated information less acceptable and less useful than physicians. Acceptability and utility scores were not related to gender, length of experience or current activity levels. Only two respondents thought all items totally unacceptable and useless. CONCLUSION: The majority of endoscopists currently collect "quality" data for their practice although these are not widely available. The endoscopists in this study consider the publication of their outcome data to be "fairly unacceptable/not very useful" to "neutral" (score 2-3). If these data were made available to patients, consideration must be given to both its value and its acceptability.