Effects of Attendance to an Organized Fecal Immunochemical Test Screening Program on the Risk of Colorectal Cancer: An Observational Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: This cohort study compared colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality between people who participated in an Italian regional biennial fecal immunochemical test (FIT) screening program and people who did not. METHODS: The program started in 2005. The target population included over 1,000,000 people aged 50 to 69 years. The FIT was a one-sample OC-Sensor (Eiken Chemical Co, Tokyo, Japan) (cutoff, ≥20 µg hemoglobin/g feces). The average annual response rate to invitation was 51.4%. The records of people invited up to June 2016 were extracted from the screening data warehouse. Attenders were subjects who responded to the first 2 invitations or to the single invitation sent them before they became ineligible. Non-attenders were subjects who did not respond to any of these invitations. The records were linked with the regional CRC registry. People registered up to December 2016 were identified. Self-selection-adjusted incidence rate ratios (IRRs) and incidence-based CRC mortality rate ratios (MRRs) for attenders to non-attenders, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), were calculated. RESULTS: The cohort generated 2,622,131 man-years and 2,887,845 woman-years at risk with 4490 and 3309 CRC cases, respectively. The cohort of attenders was associated with an IRR of 0.65 (95% CI, 0.61-0.69) for men, 0.75 (95% CI, 0.70-0.80) for women and 0.69 (95% CI, 0.66-0.72) for both sexes combined. The self-selection-adjusted IRR was 0.67 (95% CI, 0.62-0.72) for men and 0.79 (95% CI, 0.72-0.88) for women. The IRR for stage I, II, III, and IV CRC was 1.35 (95% CI, 1.20-1.50), 0.61 (95% CI, 0.53-0.69), 0.60 (95% CI, 0.53-0.68) and 0.28 (95% CI, 0.24-0.32) for men and 1.64 (95% CI, 1.43-1.89), 0.60 (95% CI, 0.52-0.69), 0.73 (95% CI, 0.63-0.85) and 0.35 (95% CI, 0.30-0.42) for women. The overall incidence-based CRC MRR was 0.32 (95% CI, 0.28-0.37) for men, 0.40 (95% CI, 0.34-0.47) for women and 0.35 (95% CI, 0.31-0.39) for both sexes combined. The adjusted MRR was 0.35 (95% CI, 0.29-0.41) for men and 0.46 (95% CI, 0.37-0.58) for women. CONCLUSIONS: Attendance to a FIT screening program is associated with a CRC incidence reduction of 33% among men and 21% among women, and a CRC mortality reduction of 65% and 54%, respectively.

High-dose senna compared with conventional PEG-ES lavage as bowel preparation for elective colonoscopy: a prospective, randomized, investigator-blinded trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and patient acceptance of an oral high dose of senna to conventional polyethylene glycol-electrolyte lavage solution (PEG-ES) in adults undergoing elective colonoscopy. METHODS: Consecutive outpatients referred for elective colonoscopy were prospectively randomly assigned to receive, the day before the procedure, either 24 tablets of 12 mg senna, divided into two doses at 1 p.m. and 9 p.m. (senna group, n=191), or standard 4-L PEG-ES (PEG-ES group, n=92). The overall quality of colon cleansing (primary outcome measure) and cleansing in the right colon were evaluated using the Aronchick scoring scale (1=excellent to 4=inadequate) by the investigator/endoscopist who was blinded to the treatment assignment. Patient acceptance and the safety of the preparation were assessed by a nurse, using a structured questionnaire covering compliance with the dosing, overall tolerance of the preparation (1=none or mild discomfort to 4=severely distressing), and adverse events. RESULTS: The quality of colon cleansing, overall tolerance of the preparation, and compliance were significantly better with senna; overall cleansing was excellent or good in 90.6% of patients in the senna group and in 79.7% in the PEG-ES group (p= 0.003). The percentage of procedures rescheduled because of insufficient colon cleansing was 7.3% in the PEG-ES group and 2.6% in the senna group (p=0.035). Multivariate logistic regression modeling showed the PEG-ES preparation as negative independent predictor of unsuccessful bowel cleansing. The incidence of adverse reactions was similar in the two groups; patients who received senna experienced significantly less nausea and vomiting, but more abdominal pain. CONCLUSIONS: An oral high dose of senna is a valid alternative to standard PEG-ES for outpatient colonoscopy preparation.

Single bolus of midazolam versus bolus midazolam plus meperidine for colonoscopy: a prospective, randomized, double-blind trial.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to determine whether a single bolus of meperidine in addition to midazolam improves patient tolerance during colonoscopy. METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing outpatient colonoscopy were randomly assigned in double-blind fashion to receive a single rapid intravenous bolus of 5 mg of midazolam and placebo (Group A, n = 125) or 5 mg midazolam plus 50 mg meperidine (Group B, n = 128). Tolerance (4-point scale: 1 excellent, 4 unbearable), pain (4-point scale: 1 none, 4 severe) and willingness to undergo another colonoscopy were assessed 24 to 48 hours later in a telephone interview conducted by an independent observer blinded to the regimen of sedative medication. RESULTS: Significantly more patients in Group A reported moderate or severe pain (28% vs. 9%; p < 0.001), poor or unbearable tolerance (18% vs. 6%; p < 0.01) and unwillingness to undergo colonoscopy again in the future (14% vs. 5%; p < 0.05). By multivariate analysis, randomization to the midazolam group and younger age were the only variables independently associated with the risk of reporting at least one of these outcomes. Recovery time, frequency of oxygen desaturation, and need for supplemental oxygen were not significantly different between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of a single bolus of meperidine to midazolam improves patient tolerance and lessens pain during colonoscopy without significantly increasing the frequency of side effects or prolonging recovery time.