The performance of FIT-based and other risk prediction models for colorectal neoplasia in symptomatic patients: a systematic review.

Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality are increasing internationally. Endoscopy services are under significant pressure with many overwhelmed. Faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) has been advocated to identify a high-risk population of symptomatic patients requiring definitive investigation by colonoscopy. Combining FIT with other factors in a risk prediction model could further improve performance in identifying those requiring investigation most urgently. We systematically reviewed performance of models predicting risk of CRC and/or advanced colorectal polyps (ACP) in symptomatic patients, with a particular focus on those models including FIT. Methods: The review protocol was published on PROSPERO (CRD42022314710). Searches were conducted from database inception to April 2023 in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane libraries, SCOPUS and CINAHL. Risk of bias of each study was assessed using The Prediction study Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool. A narrative synthesis based on the guidelines for Synthesis Without Meta-Analysis was performed due to study heterogeneity. Findings: We included 62 studies; 23 included FIT (n = 22) or guaiac Faecal Occult Blood Testing (n = 1) combined with one or more other variables. Twenty-one studies were conducted solely in primary care. Generally, prediction models including FIT consistently had good discriminatory ability for CRC/ACP (i.e. AUC >0.8) and performed better than models without FIT although some models without FIT also performed well. However, many studies did not present calibration and internal and external validation were limited. Two studies were rated as low risk of bias; neither model included FIT. Interpretation: Risk prediction models, including and not including FIT, show promise for identifying those most at risk of colorectal neoplasia. Substantial limitations in evidence remain, including heterogeneity, high risk of bias, and lack of external validation. Further evaluation in studies adhering to gold standard methodology, in appropriate populations, is required before widespread adoption in clinical practice. Funding: National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) [Health Technology Assessment Programme (HTA) Programme (Project number 133852).

Trial protocol for COLO-DETECT: A randomized controlled trial of lesion detection comparing colonoscopy assisted by the GI Genius™ artificial intelligence endoscopy module with standard colonoscopy.

AIM: Colorectal cancer is the second commonest cause of cancer death worldwide. Colonoscopy plays a key role in the control of colorectal cancer and, in that regard, maximizing detection (and removal) of pre-cancerous adenomas at colonoscopy is imperative. GI Genius™ (Medtronic Ltd) is a computer-aided detection system that integrates with existing endoscopy systems and improves adenoma detection during colonoscopy. COLO-DETECT aims to assess the clinical and cost effectiveness of GI Genius™ in UK routine colonoscopy practice. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Participants will be recruited from patients attending for colonoscopy at National Health Service sites in England, for clinical symptoms, surveillance or within the national Bowel Cancer Screening Programme. Randomization will involve a 1:1 allocation ratio (GI Genius™-assisted colonoscopy:standard colonoscopy) and will be stratified by age category (<60 years, 60-<74 years, ≥74 years), sex, hospital site and indication for colonoscopy. Demographic data, procedural data, histology and post-procedure patient experience and quality of life will be recorded. COLO-DETECT is designed and powered to detect clinically meaningful differences in mean adenomas per procedure and adenoma detection rate between GI Genius™-assisted colonoscopy and standard colonoscopy groups. The study will close when 1828 participants have had a complete colonoscopy. An economic evaluation will be conducted from the perspective of the National Health Service. A patient and public representative is contributing to all stages of the trial. Registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04723758) and ISRCTN (10451355). WHAT WILL THIS TRIAL ADD TO THE LITERATURE?: COLO-DETECT will be the first multi-centre randomized controlled trial evaluating GI Genius™ in real world colonoscopy practice and will, uniquely, evaluate both clinical and cost effectiveness.

Patient barriers and facilitators of colonoscopy use: A rapid systematic review and thematic synthesis of the qualitative literature.

Colonoscopy is the gold standard test in the diagnosis of colorectal cancer. Despite this, many people across the world decline the procedure when invited for screening, surveillance or diagnostic evaluation. The aim of this review was to characterise the barriers and facilitators of colonoscopy use described in the qualitative literature. We searched PubMed and PsychInfo for studies that explored barriers and facilitators of colonoscopy use. To determine the eligibility of studies, we first reviewed titles, then abstracts, and finally the full paper. We started with a narrow search, which we expanded successively, until the number of new publications eligible after abstract review was <1% of the total number of publications identified. Papers were eligible if they: 1) focussed on an adult population, 2) used a qualitative research design and, 3) described at least one patient-related theme regarding colonoscopy use. We then extracted qualitative data from eligible papers and analysed using thematic synthesis. Fifty-seven studies met the inclusion criteria. Most explored barriers and facilitators of screening colonoscopy (n=53, 93.0%) and were conducted in the USA (n=48, 84.2%). Key psychological and social factors included: 'fear of pain and discomfort', 'concerns about doing the bowel preparation', and whether the test was recommended by the patient's physician. Key practical factors included cost, and whether colonoscopy was covered by the patient's healthcare insurance. Studies mostly focussed on screening colonoscopy in the USA, where there is no universal healthcare coverage. To better understand the barriers and facilitators in other contexts, further research is needed.

Using specialist screening practitioners (SSPs) to increase uptake of bowel scope (flexible sigmoidoscopy) screening: results of a feasibility single-stage phase II randomised trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the feasibility of specialist screening practitioners (SSPs) offering patient navigation (PN) to facilitate uptake of bowel scope screening (BSS) among patients who do not confirm or attend their appointment. DESIGN: A single-stage phase II trial. SETTING: South Tyneside District Hospital, Tyne and Wear, England, UK. PARTICIPANTS: Individuals invited for BSS at South Tyneside District Hospital during the 6-month recruitment period were invited to participate in the study. INTERVENTION: Consenting individuals were randomly assigned to either the PN intervention or usual care group in a 4:1 ratio. The intervention involved BSS non-attenders receiving a phone call from an SSP to elicit their reasons for non-attendance and offer educational, practical and emotional support as required. If requested by the patient, another BSS appointment was then scheduled. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: The number of non-attenders in the intervention group who were navigated and then rebooked and attended their new BSS appointment. SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Barriers to BSS attendance, patient-reported outcomes including informed choice and satisfaction with BSS and the PN intervention, reasons for study non-participation, SSPs' evaluation of the PN process and a cost analysis. RESULTS: Of those invited to take part (n=1050), 152 (14.5%) were randomised into the study: PN intervention=109; usual care=43. Most participants attended their BSS appointment (PN: 79.8%; control: 79.1%) leaving 22 eligible for PN: only two were successfully contacted. SSPs were confident in delivering PN, but were concerned that low BSS awareness and information overload may have deterred patients from taking part in the study. Difficulty contacting patients was reported as a burden to their workload. CONCLUSIONS: PN, as implemented, was not a feasible intervention to increase BSS uptake in South Tyneside. Interventions to increase BSS awareness may be better suited to this population. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN13314752; Results.

Evaluation of a minimally invasive cell sampling device coupled with assessment of trefoil factor 3 expression for diagnosing Barrett's esophagus: a multi-center case-control study.

BACKGROUND: Barrett's esophagus (BE) is a commonly undiagnosed condition that predisposes to esophageal adenocarcinoma. Routine endoscopic screening for BE is not recommended because of the burden this would impose on the health care system. The objective of this study was to determine whether a novel approach using a minimally invasive cell sampling device, the Cytosponge, coupled with immunohistochemical staining for the biomarker Trefoil Factor 3 (TFF3), could be used to identify patients who warrant endoscopy to diagnose BE. METHODS AND FINDINGS: A case-control study was performed across 11 UK hospitals between July 2011 and December 2013. In total, 1,110 individuals comprising 463 controls with dyspepsia and reflux symptoms and 647 BE cases swallowed a Cytosponge prior to endoscopy. The primary outcome measures were to evaluate the safety, acceptability, and accuracy of the Cytosponge-TFF3 test compared with endoscopy and biopsy. In all, 1,042 (93.9%) patients successfully swallowed the Cytosponge, and no serious adverse events were attributed to the device. The Cytosponge was rated favorably, using a visual analogue scale, compared with endoscopy (p < 0.001), and patients who were not sedated for endoscopy were more likely to rate the Cytosponge higher than endoscopy (Mann-Whitney test, p < 0.001). The overall sensitivity of the test was 79.9% (95% CI 76.4%-83.0%), increasing to 87.2% (95% CI 83.0%-90.6%) for patients with ≥3 cm of circumferential BE, known to confer a higher cancer risk. The sensitivity increased to 89.7% (95% CI 82.3%-94.8%) in 107 patients who swallowed the device twice during the study course. There was no loss of sensitivity in patients with dysplasia. The specificity for diagnosing BE was 92.4% (95% CI 89.5%-94.7%). The case-control design of the study means that the results are not generalizable to a primary care population. Another limitation is that the acceptability data were limited to a single measure. CONCLUSIONS: The Cytosponge-TFF3 test is safe and acceptable, and has accuracy comparable to other screening tests. This test may be a simple and inexpensive approach to identify patients with reflux symptoms who warrant endoscopy to diagnose BE.

Assessment and management of the malignant colorectal polyp.

Colorectal cancer is the second most common cancer affecting men and women in England. The introduction of National Bowel Cancer Screening in 2006 has led to a rise in the proportion of colorectal cancers detected at an early stage. Many screen-detected cancers are malignant colorectal polyps and may potentially be cured with endoscopic resection, without recourse to the risk of major surgery or prolonged adjuvant therapies. Endoscopic decision making is crucial to select those early lesions that may be suitable for local endoscopic excision as well as identifying lesions for surgical resection, thus avoiding unnecessary surgical intervention in some and ensuring potentially curative surgery in others. This paper uses the current evidence base to provide a structured approach to the assessment of potentially malignant polyps and their management. http://group.bmj.com/products/journals/instructions-for-authors/licence-forms.

Reducing alcohol-related health risks: the role of the nurse.

The negative effects of alcohol consumption are increasingly being recognised in the UK, with statistics highlighting the health and social problems associated with the misuse of alcohol. Consequently, nurses need to consider their role in educating and advising patients about 'safe' drinking limits. This article identifies some of the problems with adhering to such safe drinking limits, for example, the miscalculation of alcohol units. In addition, the article highlights nursing interventions that can be used with all patients, not just those presenting with alcohol-related problems, to increase awareness of the negative effects of harmful alcohol consumption.