Development of a colorectal cancer diagnostic model and dietary risk assessment through gut microbiome analysis.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common form of cancer and poses a critical public health threat due to the global spread of westernized diets high in meat, cholesterol, and fat. Although the link between diet and colorectal cancer has been well established, the mediating role of the gut microbiota remains elusive. In this study, we sought to elucidate the connection between the gut microbiota, diet, and CRC through metagenomic analysis of bacteria isolated from the stool of CRC (n = 89) and healthy (n = 161) subjects. This analysis yielded a dozen genera that were significantly altered in CRC patients, including increased Bacteroides, Fusobacterium, Dorea, and Porphyromonas prevalence and diminished Pseudomonas, Prevotella, Acinetobacter, and Catenibacterium carriage. Based on these altered genera, we developed two novel CRC diagnostic models through stepwise selection and a simplified model using two increased and two decreased genera. As both models yielded strong AUC values above 0.8, the simplified model was applied to assess diet-based CRC risk in mice. Mice fed a westernized high-fat diet (HFD) showed greater CRC risk than mice fed a regular chow diet. Furthermore, we found that nonglutinous rice, glutinous rice, and sorghum consumption reduced CRC risk in HFD-fed mice. Collectively, these findings support the critical mediating role of the gut microbiota in diet-induced CRC risk as well as the potential of dietary grain intake to reduce microbiota-associated CRC risk. Further study is required to validate the diagnostic prediction models developed in this study as well as the preventive potential of grain consumption to reduce CRC risk.

Feedback Survey of the Effect, Burden, and Cost of the National Endoscopic Quality Assessment Program during the Past 5 Years in Korea.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: In Korea, the nationwide gastric cancer screening program recommends biennial screening for individuals aged 40 years or older by way of either an upper gastrointestinal series or endoscopy. The national endoscopic quality assessment (QA) program began recommending endoscopy in medical institutions in 2009. We aimed to assess the effect, burden, and cost of the QA program from the viewpoint of medical institutions. METHODS: We surveyed the staff of institutional endoscopic units via e-mail. RESULTS: Staff members from 67 institutions replied. Most doctors were endoscopic specialists. They responded as to whether the QA program raised awareness for endoscopic quality (93%) or improved endoscopic practice (40%). The percentages of responders who reported improvements in the diagnosis of gastric cancer, the qualifications of endoscopists, the quality of facilities and equipment, endoscopic procedure, and endoscopic reprocessing were 69%, 60%, 66%, 82%, and 75%, respectively. Regarding reprocessing, many staff members reported that they had bought new automated endoscopic preprocessors (3%), used more disinfectants (34%), washed endoscopes longer (28%), reduced the number of endoscopies performed to adhere to reprocessing guidelines (9%), and created their own quality education programs (59%). Many responders said they felt that QA was associated with some degree of burden (48%), especially financial burden caused by purchasing new equipment. Reasonable quality standards (45%) and incentives (38%) were considered important to the success of the QA program. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic quality has improved after 5 years of the mandatory endoscopic QA program.