The impact of endoscopist performance and patient factors on distal adenoma detection and colorectal cancer incidence.

BACKGROUND: High quality endoscopy is key for detecting and removing precursor lesions to colorectal cancer (CRC). Adenoma detection rates (ADRs) measure endoscopist performance. Improving other components of examinations could increase adenoma detection. AIMS: To investigate how endoscopist performance at flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) affects adenoma detection and CRC incidence. METHODS: Among 34,139 participants receiving FS screening by the main endoscopist at one of 13 centres in the UK FS Screening Trial, median follow-up was 17 years. Factors examined included family history of CRC, bowel preparation quality, insertion and withdrawal time, bowel segment reached, patient pain and ADR. Odds ratios (OR) for distal adenoma detection were estimated by logistic regression. Hazard ratios (HR) for distal CRC incidence were estimated by Cox regression. RESULTS: At screening, 4,104 participants had distal adenomas detected and 168 participants developed distal CRC during follow-up. In multivariable models, a family history of CRC (yes vs. no: OR 1.40, 95%CI 1.21-1.62), good or adequate bowel preparation quality (vs. excellent: OR 0.84, 95%CI 0.74-0.95; OR 0.56, 95%CI 0.49-0.65, respectively) and longer insertion and withdrawal times (≥ 4.00 vs. < 2.00 min: OR 1.96, 95%CI 1.68-2.29; OR 32.79, 95%CI 28.22-38.11, respectively) were associated with adenoma detection. Being screened by endoscopists with low or intermediate ADRs, compared to high ADRs, was positively associated with CRC incidence (multivariable: HR 4.71, 95%CI 2.65-8.38; HR 2.16, 95%CI 1.22-3.81, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Bowel preparation quality and longer insertion and withdrawal time are key for improving distal adenoma detection. Higher ADRs were associated with a lower risk of distal CRC.

Evaluation of bowel preparation regimens for colonoscopy including a novel low volume regimen (Plenvu): CLEANSE study.

BACKGROUND: Poor bowel preparation is the leading cause of failed colonoscopies and increases costs significantly. Several, split preparation, 2 day regimens are available and recently, Plenvu, a low-volume preparation which can be given on 1 day has been introduced. AIMS: Assess efficacy and tolerability of commonly used purgative regimens including Plenvu. METHOD: In this service evaluation, patients undergoing screening colonoscopy at St Mark's Hospital, London (February 2020-December 2021) were provided Plenvu (1 or 2 days), Moviprep (2 days) or Senna & Citramag (2 days).Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score, fluid volumes and procedure times were recorded. A patient experience questionnaire evaluated taste, volume acceptability, completion and side effects. RESULTS: 563 patients were invited to participate and 553 included: 218 Moviprep 2 days, 108 Senna & Citramag 2 days, 152 Plenvu 2 days and 75 Plenvu 1 day.BBPS scores were higher with Plenvu 1 and 2 days vs Senna & Citramag (p=0.003 and 0.002, respectively) and vs Moviprep (p=0.003 and 0.001, respectively). No other significant pairwise BBPS differences and no difference in preparation adequacy was seen between the groups.Patients rated taste as most pleasant with Senna & Citramag and this achieved significance versus Plenvu 1 day and 2 days (p=0.002 and p<0.001, respectively) and versus Moviprep (p=0.04). CONCLUSION: BBPS score was higher for 1 day and 2 days Plenvu versus both Senna & Citramag and Moviprep. Taste was not highly rated for Plenvu but it appears to offer effective cleansing even when given as a same day preparation.

Economic impact of implementing optical diagnosis with a "resect and discard" strategy within the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme: findings from the DISCARD3 study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Advances in endoscopic technology, such as narrow-band imaging and high-definition colonoscopes, offer the potential for optical diagnosis (OD) with a "resect and discard" (RD) strategy for diminutive (≤5 mm) and small (6-9 mm) colorectal polyps. This could help alleviate the huge cost and time burden required for histopathology. The aim of this study was to conduct an economic analysis of an RD strategy within the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP). METHODS: A decision tree was designed to compare an RD strategy with standard histopathology for patients included in the DISCARD3 study (Detect InSpect ChAracterise Resect and Discard 3) and was extrapolated to a national BCSP patient cohort. RESULTS: Of the 525 patients in the DISCARD3 study, 354 were assessed for surveillance intervals (after excluding cases with colorectal cancer and at least 1 polyp >10 mm). Of 354 patients, 269 had polyps, of which 182 had only diminutive polyps, 77 had both small and diminutive polyps, and 10 had only small polyps. Surveillance interval concordance was 97.9% in patients with at least 1 diminutive polyp and 98.7% in patients with at least 1 diminutive or small polyp. In DISCARD3, an RD approach was found to reduce overall direct healthcare costs by $44,285.63 (-72.3%) for patients with diminutive polyps or by $66,129.13 (-75.0%) for patients with diminutive or small polyps. When extrapolated to the entire English BCSP, the annual savings were almost $3 million for patients with diminutive polyps or $4.3 million for patients with diminutive or small polyps, after adjusting for the costs of an OD quality assurance process. CONCLUSIONS: OD with an RD strategy for diminutive and small polyps during BCSP colonoscopy would offer substantial cost savings without adversely affecting surveillance interval concordance.

Colonoscopy Colorectal Cancer Screening Programme in Southern Iraq: Challenges, Knowledge Gaps and Future Potential.

Data on current colorectal cancer screening practices in Iraq are limited. This study aimed to better understand the current colorectal cancer screening practice and perceived barriers. The project also aimed to use UK expertise to introduce Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) in Basra, Iraq. The study consisted of two parts: A pre-visit online survey of clinicians to test the project's feasibility. A public survey was conducted to understand and gauge the general knowledge and perceived barriers to having colorectal cancer screening. The second phase included a short visit to Basra and the delivery of a multidisciplinary meeting for bowel screening colonoscopists. Fifty healthcare providers completed the survey. Basra has no established bowel cancer screening programme, let alone the country. Opportunistic colonoscopy surveillance is done on an ad hoc base. A total of 350 individuals completed the public survey. The survey showed that more than 50% of participants were not familiar with the concept of a BCSP and less than 25% were aware of "red flag" symptoms of bowel cancer. The short visit to Basra included a roundtable discussion and delivered a training workshop for screening colonoscopists using UK training materials in conjunction with the Iraqi Medical Association. Feedback from the course was extremely positive. Several potential barriers were identified to participate in BCSP. The study highlighted potential barriers, including a lack of public awareness and insufficient training resources to be addressed in future screening programmes. The study has identified several potential areas for future collaboration to support the development of a BCSP centre in Basra.

Evaluation of a real-time computer-aided polyp detection system during screening colonoscopy: AI-DETECT study.

BACKGROUND: Polyp detection and resection during colonoscopy significantly reduce long-term colorectal cancer risk. Computer-aided detection (CADe) may increase polyp identification but has undergone limited clinical evaluation. Our aim was to assess the effectiveness of CADe at colonoscopy within a bowel cancer screening program (BCSP). METHODS: This prospective, randomized controlled trial involved all eight screening-accredited colonoscopists at an English National Health Service (NHS) BCSP center (February 2020 to December 2021). Patients were randomized to CADe or standard colonoscopy. Patients meeting NHS criteria for bowel cancer screening were included. The primary outcome of interest was polyp detection rate (PDR). RESULTS: 658 patients were invited and 44 were excluded. A total of 614 patients were randomized to CADe (n = 308) or standard colonoscopy (n = 306); 35 cases were excluded from the per-protocol analysis due to poor bowel preparation (n = 10), an incomplete procedure (n = 24), or a data issue (n = 1). Endocuff Vision was frequently used and evenly distributed (71.7 % CADe and 69.2 % standard). On intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, there was a borderline significant difference in PDR (85.7 % vs. 79.7 %; P = 0.05) but no significant difference in adenoma detection rate (ADR; 71.4 % vs. 65.0 %; P = 0.09) for CADe vs. standard groups, respectively. On per-protocol analysis, no significant difference was observed in these rates. There was no significant difference in procedure times. CONCLUSIONS: In high-performing colonoscopists in a BCSP who routinely used Endocuff Vision, CADe improved PDR but not ADR. CADe appeared to have limited benefit in a BCSP setting where procedures are performed by experienced colonoscopists.

NBI International Colorectal Endoscopic-derived high-confidence optical diagnosis of small polyps compared with histology: understanding errors to improve diagnostic accuracy.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Developments in image-enhancing endoscopy and polyp classification systems have led to a number of gastroenterology societies endorsing an optical diagnosis (OD) approach for small polyps at colonoscopy. In this study we performed a root-cause analysis of ODs to determine the most likely causes of OD error. METHODS: As part of a prospective feasibility study, DISCARD3 (Detect InSpect ChAracterise Resect and Discard 3), evaluating implementation and quality assurance of a "resect and discard" strategy for consecutive small polyps <10 mm, a root-cause analysis of 184 cases of high-confidence OD error was performed. In all cases, histopathology underwent a second blinded review and, where discrepancy persisted, further review with deeper levels. RESULTS: After a root-cause analysis, 133 of 184 true OD errors were identified and classified into 4 types: A (OD, adenoma; histology, serrated), 45/133 (33.8%); B (OD, serrated; histology, adenoma), 55/133 (41.4%); C (OD, adenoma; histology, normal), 19/133 (14.3%); and D (OD, serrated; histology, normal), 14/133 (10.5%). The remaining 51 of 184 errors were because of a pathology error requiring deeper levels (43/184), pathology observer or laboratory error (7/184), or other error (1/184). CONCLUSIONS: OD errors can be related to endoscopist-related factors such as poor photodocumentation, failures of current classification systems, and incomplete histology. We identified a subset of serrated polyps frequently misdiagnosed as adenomas ("pseudoadenomas") using the NBI International Colorectal Endoscopic (NICE) classification. An enhanced algorithm for OD is proposed based on the NICE classification including morphologic and adjunct polyp features.

Validation of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC) cases reported at national level following local root cause analysis: REFLECT study.

Objective: Our aim was to determine aetiology of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancers (PCCRCs) identified from population-based data through local root cause analysis at a high-volume mixed secondary and tertiary referral centre. Design/method: A subset of national cancer registration data, collected by the National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service, was used to determine PCCRCs diagnosed between 2005 and 2013 at our centre.Root cause analysis was performed for each identified PCCRC, using World Endoscopy Organisation recommendations, to validate it and assess most plausible explanation. We also assessed whether patient, clinician and/or service factors were primarily responsible. Results: Of 107 'PCCRC' cases provided from the national dataset, 20 were excluded (16 missing data, 4 duplicates). 87 'PCCRC' cases were included of which 58 were true PCCRCs and 29 false PCCRCs.False PCCRCs comprised 17 detected cancers (cancer diagnosed within 6 months of negative colonoscopy) and 12 cases did not meet PCCRC criteria. Inflammatory bowel disease was the most common risk factor (18/58) and the most common site was rectum (19/58). The most common explanation was 'possible missed lesion, prior examination negative but inadequate' (23/58) and clinician factors were primarily responsible for PCCRC occurrence in most cases (37/58). Conclusion: Our single-centre study shows, after local analysis, there was misclassification of PCCRCs identified from a population-based registry. The degree of such error will vary between registries. Most PCCRCs occurred in cases of sub-optimal examination as indicated by poor photodocumentation. Effective mechanisms to feedback root cause analyses are critical for quality improvement.

Implementation of optical diagnosis with a "resect and discard" strategy in clinical practice: DISCARD3 study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Optical diagnosis (OD) of polyps can be performed with advanced endoscopic imaging. For high-confidence diagnoses, a "resect and discard" strategy could offer significant histopathology time and cost savings. The implementation threshold is a ≥90% OD-histology surveillance interval concordance. Here we assessed the OD learning curve and feasibility of a resect and discard strategy for ≤5-mm and <10-mm polyps in a bowel cancer screening setting. METHODS: In this prospective feasibility study, 8 bowel cancer screening endoscopists completed a validated OD training module and performed procedures. All <10-mm consecutive polyps had white-light and narrow-band images taken and were given high- or low-confidence diagnoses until 120 high-confidence ≤5-mm polyp diagnoses had been performed. All polyps had standard histology. High-confidence OD errors underwent root-cause analysis. Histology and OD-derived surveillance intervals were calculated. RESULTS: Of 565 invited patients, 525 patients were included. A total of 1560 <10-mm polyps underwent OD and were resected and retrieved (1329 ≤5 mm and 231 6-9 mm). There were no <10-mm polyp cancers. High-confidence OD was accurate in 81.5% of ≤5-mm and 92.8% of 6-9-mm polyps. Sensitivity for OD of a ≤5-mm adenoma was 93.0% with a positive predictive value of 90.8%. OD-histology surveillance interval concordance for ≤5-mm OD was 91.3% (209/229) for U.S. Multi-Society Task Force, 98.3% (225/229) for European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, and 98.7% (226/229) for British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A resect and discard strategy for high-confidence ≤5-mm polyp OD in a group of bowel cancer screening colonoscopists is feasible and safe, with performance exceeding the 90% surveillance interval concordance required for implementation in clinical practice. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT04710693.).

Colonoscopy surveillance following adenoma removal to reduce the risk of colorectal cancer: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy surveillance is recommended for some patients post polypectomy. The 2002 UK surveillance guidelines classify post-polypectomy patients into low, intermediate and high risk, and recommend different strategies for each classification. Limited evidence supports these guidelines. OBJECTIVES: To examine, for each risk group, long-term colorectal cancer incidence by baseline characteristics and the number of surveillance visits; the effects of interval length on detection rates of advanced adenomas and colorectal cancer at first surveillance; and the cost-effectiveness of surveillance compared with no surveillance. DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study and economic evaluation. SETTING: Seventeen NHS hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with a colonoscopy and at least one adenoma at baseline. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Long-term colorectal cancer incidence after baseline and detection rates of advanced adenomas and colorectal cancer at first surveillance. DATA SOURCES: Hospital databases, NHS Digital, the Office for National Statistics, National Services Scotland and Public Health England. METHODS: Cox regression was used to compare colorectal cancer incidence in the presence and absence of surveillance and to identify colorectal cancer risk factors. Risk factors were used to stratify risk groups into higher- and lower-risk subgroups. We examined detection rates of advanced adenomas and colorectal cancer at first surveillance by interval length. Cost-effectiveness of surveillance compared with no surveillance was evaluated in terms of incremental costs per colorectal cancer prevented and per quality-adjusted life-year gained. RESULTS: Our study included 28,972 patients, of whom 14,401 (50%), 11,852 (41%) and 2719 (9%) were classed as low, intermediate and high risk, respectively. The median follow-up time was 9.3 years. Colorectal cancer incidence was 140, 221 and 366 per 100,000 person-years among low-, intermediate- and high-risk patients, respectively. Attendance at one surveillance visit was associated with reduced colorectal cancer incidence among low-, intermediate- and high-risk patients [hazard ratios were 0.56 (95% confidence interval 0.39 to 0.80), 0.59 (95% confidence interval 0.43 to 0.81) and 0.49 (95% confidence interval 0.29 to 0.82), respectively]. Compared with the general population, colorectal cancer incidence without surveillance was similar among low-risk patients and higher among high-risk patients [standardised incidence ratios were 0.86 (95% confidence interval 0.73 to 1.02) and 1.91 (95% confidence interval 1.39 to 2.56), respectively]. For intermediate-risk patients, standardised incidence ratios differed for the lower- (0.70, 95% confidence interval 0.48 to 0.99) and higher-risk (1.46, 95% confidence interval 1.19 to 1.78) subgroups. In each risk group, incremental costs per colorectal cancer prevented and per quality-adjusted life-year gained with surveillance were lower for the higher-risk subgroup than for the lower-risk subgroup. Incremental costs per quality-adjusted life-year gained were lowest for the higher-risk subgroup of high-risk patients at £7821. LIMITATIONS: The observational design means that we cannot assume that surveillance caused the reductions in cancer incidence. The fact that some cancer staging data were missing places uncertainty on our cost-effectiveness estimates. CONCLUSIONS: Surveillance was associated with reduced colorectal cancer incidence in all risk groups. However, in low-risk patients and the lower-risk subgroup of intermediate-risk patients, colorectal cancer incidence was no higher than in the general population without surveillance, indicating that surveillance might not be necessary. Surveillance was most cost-effective for the higher-risk subgroup of high-risk patients. FUTURE WORK: Studies should examine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of post-polypectomy surveillance without prior classification of patients into risk groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN15213649. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 26. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Bowel cancers develop from polyps, also called adenomas, which are growths on the lining of the bowel. Removal of adenomas, therefore, helps prevent bowel cancer. Adenomas can be detected and removed during colonoscopy, when a thin tube with a camera on one end is used to examine the bowel lining. In the UK, patients with adenomas are divided into three risk groups. Low-risk patients (i.e. those with one or two adenomas that are < 10 mm in size) are thought to be unlikely to develop bowel cancer after adenoma removal and follow-up colonoscopy is not recommended in this group. Intermediate-risk patients (i.e. those with three or four adenomas that are < 10 mm in size, or one or two adenomas with at least one ≥ 10 mm in size) are recommended to have another colonoscopy 3 years after adenoma removal. High-risk patients (i.e. those with five or more adenomas that are < 10 mm in size, or three or more adenomas with at least one ≥ 10 mm in size) are recommended to have another colonoscopy after 1 year and then usually again after 3 years. The number of follow-up colonoscopies carried out is stretching health-care resources and each procedure carries a small risk of complications for patients. It is possible that too many follow-up colonoscopies are being carried out. This study aimed to determine which patients require follow-up colonoscopies and how many are required to detect adenomas and prevent bowel cancer, while also being resource-efficient, cost-effective and not exposing patients to unnecessary risks. The study used data from 17 hospitals and cancer registries in the UK. In each risk group, one follow-up colonoscopy after adenoma removal was associated with a 40­50% reduction in bowel cancer risk. However, even without any follow-up, bowel cancer risk was no higher in some low- and intermediate-risk patients than in the general population. These patients may not need as many follow-up colonoscopies as recommended. In the case of higher-risk patients, who even after adenoma removal have a higher bowel cancer risk than the general population, follow-up colonoscopies are necessary and cost-effective.

Post-polypectomy surveillance interval and advanced neoplasia detection rates: a multicenter, retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Longer post-polypectomy surveillance intervals are associated with increased colorectal neoplasia detection at surveillance in some studies. We investigated this association to inform optimal surveillance intervals. METHODS: Patients who underwent colonoscopy and post-polypectomy surveillance at 17 UK hospitals were classified as low/high risk by baseline findings. We compared detection rates of advanced adenomas (≥ 10 mm, tubulovillous/villous, high grade dysplasia), high risk findings (HRFs: ≥ 2 serrated polyps/[adenomas] of which ≥ 1 is ≥ 10 mm or has [high grade] dysplasia; ≥ 5 serrated polyps/adenomas; or ≥ 1 nonpedunculated polyp ≥ 20 mm), or colorectal cancer (CRC) at surveillance colonoscopy by surveillance interval (< 18 months, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 years). Risk ratios (RRs) were estimated using multivariable regression. RESULTS: Of 11 214 patients, 7216 (64 %) were low risk and 3998 (36 %) were high risk. Among low risk patients, advanced adenoma, HRF, and CRC detection rates at first surveillance were 7.8 %, 3.7 %, and 1.1 %, respectively. Advanced adenoma detection increased with increasing surveillance interval, reaching 9.8 % with a 6-year interval (P trend < 0.001). Among high risk patients, advanced adenoma, HRF, and CRC detection rates at first surveillance were 15.3 %, 10.0 %, and 1.5 %, respectively. Advanced adenoma and CRC detection rates (P trends < 0.001) increased with increasing surveillance interval; RRs (95 % confidence intervals) for CRC were 1.54 (0.68-3.48), 4.44 (1.95-10.08), and 5.80 (2.51-13.40) with 3-, 4-, and 5-year intervals, respectively, versus an interval of < 18 months. CONCLUSIONS: Metachronous neoplasia was uncommon among low risk patients, even with long surveillance intervals, supporting recommendations for no surveillance in these patients. For high risk patients, a 3-year surveillance interval would ensure timely CRC detection.

Higher Adenoma Detection Rates at Screening Associated With Lower Long-Term Colorectal Cancer Incidence and Mortality.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Detection and removal of adenomas reduces colorectal cancer (CRC) risk. The impact of adenoma detection rates (ADRs) on long-term CRC incidence and mortality is unknown. We investigated this using data from the UK Flexible Sigmoidoscopy Screening Trial. METHODS: Of 167,882 UK Flexible Sigmoidoscopy Screening Trial participants, 40,085 were in the intervention arm and underwent flexible sigmoidoscopy screening at 13 trial centers. The median follow-up time was 17 years. At each center, 1 endoscopist performed most flexible sigmoidoscopies. Multivariable logistic regression was used to classify centers into high-, intermediate-, and low-detector groups based on their main endoscopist's ADR. We calculated the incidence and mortality of distal and all-site CRC, and estimated hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs using Cox regression. RESULTS: Five, 4, and 4 centers, respectively, were classified into the high-detector, intermediate-detector, and low-detector groups. The average ADRs in each respective group were 15%, 12%, and 9%. Distal CRC incidence and mortality were reduced among those screened compared with controls in all groups, and effects of screening varied significantly by detector ranking, with larger reductions in incidence and mortality seen in the high-detector group (incidence: HR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.27-0.42; mortality: HR, 0.22, 95% CI, 0.13-0.37) than in the low-detector group (incidence: HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.44-0.68; mortality: HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.34-0.86). Similar results were observed for all-site CRC, with larger effects seen in the high-detector (incidence: HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.50-0.67; mortality: HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.39-0.69) than in the low-detector group (incidence: HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.61-0.85; mortality: HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.51-0.92), although the heterogeneity was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Higher ADRs at screening provide greater long-term protection against CRC incidence and mortality. Isrctn.org, number: ISRCTN28352761.

Colorectal cancer risk following polypectomy in a multicentre, retrospective, cohort study: an evaluation of the 2020 UK post-polypectomy surveillance guidelines.

OBJECTIVE: Colonoscopy surveillance aims to reduce colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence after polypectomy. The 2020 UK guidelines recommend surveillance at 3 years for 'high-risk' patients with ≥2 premalignant polyps (PMPs), of which ≥1 is 'advanced' (serrated polyp (or adenoma) ≥10 mm or with (high-grade) dysplasia); ≥5 PMPs; or ≥1 non-pedunculated polyp ≥20 mm; 'low-risk' patients without these findings are instead encouraged to participate in population-based CRC screening. We examined the appropriateness of these risk classification criteria and recommendations. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of patients who underwent colonoscopy and polypectomy mostly between 2000 and 2010 at 17 UK hospitals, followed-up through 2017. We examined CRC incidence by baseline characteristics, risk group and number of surveillance visits using Cox regression, and compared incidence with that in the general population using standardised incidence ratios (SIRs). RESULTS: Among 21 318 patients, 368 CRCs occurred during follow-up (median: 10.1 years). Baseline CRC risk factors included age ≥55 years, ≥2 PMPs, adenomas with tubulovillous/villous/unknown histology or high-grade dysplasia, proximal polyps and a baseline visit spanning 2-90 days. Compared with the general population, CRC incidence without surveillance was higher among those with adenomas with high-grade dysplasia (SIR 1.74, 95% CI 1.21 to 2.42) or ≥2 PMPs, of which ≥1 was advanced (1.39, 1.09 to 1.75). For low-risk (71%) and high-risk (29%) patients, SIRs without surveillance were 0.75 (95% CI 0.63 to 0.88) and 1.30 (1.03 to 1.62), respectively; for high-risk patients after first surveillance, the SIR was 1.22 (0.91 to 1.60). CONCLUSION: These guidelines accurately classify post-polypectomy patients into those at high risk, for whom one surveillance colonoscopy appears appropriate, and those at low risk who can be managed by non-invasive screening.

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.

Long-term colorectal cancer incidence after adenoma removal and the effects of surveillance on incidence: a multicentre, retrospective, cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: Postpolypectomy colonoscopy surveillance aims to prevent colorectal cancer (CRC). The 2002 UK surveillance guidelines define low-risk, intermediate-risk and high-risk groups, recommending different strategies for each. Evidence supporting the guidelines is limited. We examined CRC incidence and effects of surveillance on incidence among each risk group. DESIGN: Retrospective study of 33 011 patients who underwent colonoscopy with adenoma removal at 17 UK hospitals, mostly (87%) from 2000 to 2010. Patients were followed up through 2016. Cox regression with time-varying covariates was used to estimate effects of surveillance on CRC incidence adjusted for patient, procedural and polyp characteristics. Standardised incidence ratios (SIRs) compared incidence with that in the general population. RESULTS: After exclusions, 28 972 patients were available for analysis; 14 401 (50%) were classed as low-risk, 11 852 (41%) as intermediate-risk and 2719 (9%) as high-risk. Median follow-up was 9.3 years. In the low-risk, intermediate-risk and high-risk groups, CRC incidence per 100 000 person-years was 140 (95% CI 122 to 162), 221 (195 to 251) and 366 (295 to 453), respectively. CRC incidence was 40%-50% lower with a single surveillance visit than with none: hazard ratios (HRs) were 0.56 (95% CI 0.39 to 0.80), 0.59 (0.43 to 0.81) and 0.49 (0.29 to 0.82) in the low-risk, intermediate-risk and high-risk groups, respectively. Compared with the general population, CRC incidence without surveillance was similar among low-risk (SIR 0.86, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.02) and intermediate-risk (1.16, 0.97 to 1.37) patients, but higher among high-risk patients (1.91, 1.39 to 2.56). CONCLUSION: Postpolypectomy surveillance reduces CRC risk. However, even without surveillance, CRC risk in some low-risk and intermediate-risk patients is no higher than in the general population. These patients could be managed by screening rather than surveillance.

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.