Cost-Effectiveness of Increasing Access to Colorectal Cancer Diagnosis: Analysis From Thailand.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of increasing access to colorectal cancer (CRC) diagnosis, considering resource limitations in Thailand. METHODS: We analyzed the cost-effectiveness of increasing access to fecal immunochemical test screening (strategy I), symptom evaluation (strategy II), and their combination through healthcare and societal perspectives using Colo-Sim, a simulation model of CRC care. We extended our analysis by adding a risk-stratification score (RS) to the strategies. We analyzed all strategies under the currently limited annual colonoscopy capacity and sufficient capacity. We estimated quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and costs over 2023 to 2047 and performed sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Annual costs for CRC care will increase over 25 years in Thailand, resulting in a cumulative cost of 323B Thai baht (THB). Each strategy results in higher QALYs gained and additional costs. With the current colonoscopy capacity and willingness-to-pay threshold of 160 000 THB, strategy I with and without RS is not cost-effective. Strategy II + RS is the most cost-effective, resulting in 0.68 million QALYs gained with additional costs of 66B THB. Under sufficient colonoscopy capacity, all strategies are deemed cost-effective, with the combined approach (strategy I + II + RS) being the most favorable, achieving the highest QALYs (1.55 million) at an additional cost of 131 billion THB. This strategy also maintains the highest probability of being cost-effective at any willingness-to-pay threshold above 96 000 THB. CONCLUSIONS: In Thailand, fecal immunochemical test screening, symptom evaluation, and RS use can achieve the highest QALYs; however, boosting colonoscopy capacity is essential for cost-effectiveness.

Assessment of risk factors for adverse events in analgosedation for pediatric endoscopy: A 10-year retrospective analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Data regarding the occurrence of complications specifically during pediatric anesthesia for endoscopic procedures is limited. By evaluating such data, factors could be identified to assure proper staffing and preparation to minimize adverse events and improve patient safety during flexible endoscopy. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included children undergoing anesthesia for gastroscopy, colonoscopy, bronchoscopy, or combined endoscopic procedures over 10-year period. The primary study aim was to evaluate the incidence of complications and identify risk factors for adverse events. RESULTS: Overall, 2064 endoscopic procedures including 1356 gastroscopies (65.7%), 93 colonoscopies (4.5%), 235 bronchoscopies (11.4%), and 380 combined procedures (18.4%) were performed. Of the 1613 patients, 151 (7.3%) patients exhibited an adverse event, with respiratory complications being the most common (65 [3.1%]). Combination of gastrointestinal endoscopies did not lead to an increased adverse event rate (gastroscopy: 5.5%, colonoscopy: 3.2%). Diagnostic endoscopy as compared to interventional had a lower rate. If bronchoscopy was performed, the rate was similar to that of bronchoscopy alone (19.5% vs. 20.4%). Age < 5.8 years or body weight less than 20 kg, bronchoscopy, American Society of Anesthesiologists status ≥ 2 or pre-existing anesthesia-relevant diseases, and urgency of the procedure were independent risk factors for adverse events. For each risk factor, the risk for events increased 2.1-fold [1.8-2.4]. CONCLUSIONS: This study identifies multiple factors that increase the rate of adverse events associated anesthesia-based endoscopy. Combined gastrointestinal procedures did not increase the risk for adverse events while combination of bronchoscopy to gastrointestinal endoscopy showed a similar risk as bronchoscopy alone.

Assessment of the role of false-positive alerts in computer-aided polyp detection for assistance capabilities.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: False positives (FPs) pose a significant challenge in the application of artificial intelligence (AI) for polyp detection during colonoscopy. The study aimed to quantitatively evaluate the impact of computer-aided polyp detection (CADe) systems' FPs on endoscopists. METHODS: The model's FPs were categorized into four gradients: 0-5, 5-10, 10-15, and 15-20 FPs per minute (FPPM). Fifty-six colonoscopy videos were collected for a crossover study involving 10 endoscopists. Polyp missed rate (PMR) was set as primary outcome. Subsequently, to further verify the impact of FPPM on the assistance capability of AI in clinical environments, a secondary analysis was conducted on a prospective randomized controlled trial (RCT) from Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University in China from July 1 to October 15, 2020, with the adenoma detection rate (ADR) as primary outcome. RESULTS: Compared with routine group, CADe reduced PMR when FPPM was less than 5. However, with the continuous increase of FPPM, the beneficial effect of CADe gradually weakens. For secondary analysis of RCT, a total of 956 patients were enrolled. In AI-assisted group, ADR is higher when FPPM ≤ 5 compared with FPPM > 5 (CADe group: 27.78% vs 11.90%; P = 0.014; odds ratio [OR], 0.351; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.152-0.812; COMBO group: 38.40% vs 23.46%, P = 0.029; OR, 0.427; 95% CI, 0.199-0.916). After AI intervention, ADR increased when FPPM ≤ 5 (27.78% vs 14.76%; P = 0.001; OR, 0.399; 95% CI, 0.231-0.690), but no statistically significant difference was found when FPPM > 5 (11.90% vs 14.76%, P = 0.788; OR, 1.111; 95% CI, 0.514-2.403). CONCLUSION: The level of FPs of CADe does affect its effectiveness as an aid to endoscopists, with its best effect when FPPM is less than 5.

Automatic assessment of bowel preparation by an artificial intelligence model and its clinical applicability.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Reliable bowel preparation assessment is important in colonoscopy. However, current scoring systems are limited by laborious and time-consuming tasks and interobserver variability. We aimed to develop an artificial intelligence (AI) model to assess bowel cleanliness and evaluate its clinical applicability. METHODS: A still image-driven AI model to assess the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) was developed and validated using 2361 colonoscopy images. For evaluating real-world applicability, the model was validated using 113 10-s colonoscopy video clips and 30 full colonoscopy videos to identify "adequate (BBPS 2-3)" or "inadequate (BBPS 0-1)" preparation. The model was tested with an external dataset of 29 colonoscopy videos. The clinical applicability of the model was evaluated using 225 consecutive colonoscopies. Inter-rater variability was analyzed between the AI model and endoscopists. RESULTS: The AI model achieved an accuracy of 94.0% and an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.939 with the still images. Model testing with an external dataset showed an accuracy of 95.3%, an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.976, and a sensitivity of 100% for the detection of inadequate preparations. The clinical applicability study showed an overall agreement rate of 85.3% between endoscopists and the AI model, with Fleiss' kappa of 0.686. The agreement rate was lower for the right colon compared with the transverse and left colon, with Fleiss' kappa of 0.563, 0.575, and 0.789, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The AI model demonstrated accurate bowel preparation assessment and substantial agreement with endoscopists. Further refinement of the AI model is warranted for effective monitoring of qualified colonoscopy in large-scale screening programs.

Predictors of stool deoxyribonucleic acid test use in the United States: Implications for outreach to under-resourced populations.

OBJECTIVE: Although colorectal cancer screening (CRCS) is a public health priority, uptake is suboptimal in under-resourced groups. Noninvasive modalities, including stool deoxyribonucleic acid (sDNA) testing, may mitigate economic, geographic, cultural, or impairment-related barriers to CRCS. We assessed use of sDNA testing and other CRCS modalities in U.S. residents, comparing subgroups defined by several social determinants of health (SDOH). METHODS: A nationally representative sample of community-dwelling respondents aged 50-75 years self-reported use of CRCS modalities in the 2020 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Survey. Statistical analyses assessed up-to-date screening status and choice of modality in the recommended screening interval. RESULTS: Of 179,833 sampled respondents, 60.8% reported colonoscopy, 5.7% sDNA testing, 5.5% another modality. The rate of up-to-date screening was 72.0% overall and negatively associated with Hispanic ethnicity (63.6%), lower educational and annual income levels (e.g.,

Costs in Colectomy Episodes of Care: Opportunities to Prevent Emergency Operations and Decrease Costs.

INTRODUCTION: Payment structured around Episodes of Care is a method for incentivizing decreased care utilization after major procedures. We examined Major Bowel Episodes of Care (MB-EoC)-the focus among general surgery procedures-within a large health system to determine the contribution of emergency bowel surgery to higher costs of care. METHODS: Adult MB-EoC cases from July 2018 to June 2021 were reviewed for 90-d costs, examining patient age, insurance, diagnosis, cost of care, and contributors to cost. For patients aged ≥45 y who had nonelective care for colon cancer, incidence of prior screening colonoscopy was examined. RESULTS: We identified 1292 colectomy cases. Mean age was 65 y. Of these patients, 90% had Medicare/commercial insurance. Colon cancer comprised 41% of primary diagnoses. Twenty-eight percent of cases were nonelective, more likely to have Medicaid/underinsured (21% versus 7%, P < 0.001), and had higher utilization of postdischarge cost-drivers. Ninety-day EoC per case cost was 66% higher for emergent versus elective cases. Of eligible emergency cancer cases, 43% (40/93) had undergone prior colonoscopy within 10 y. For patients with colon cancer, 90-d EoC per case was 39% higher for emergent versus elective cases. CONCLUSIONS: Emergency MB-EoC cases disproportionally contribute to higher 90-d care utilization and costs. Efforts to increase screening colonoscopy in appropriate populations may have a substantial impact on MB-EoC costs.

The Prevalence and Management Outcomes of Diverticular Disease in a Tertiary Facility in Ghana.

Background: Diverticular disease of the colon, previously believed to be rare among Africans, is now an emerging disease entity in many African countries. The increasing morbidity and varied presentations are associated with this. Objectives: To determine the prevalence of diverticular disease among patients who underwent lower gastrointestinal endoscopies over a 5-year period and evaluate the common presentations, interventions, and treatment outcomes at the Korle-Bu Teaching Hospital (KBTH), Ghana. Materials and Methods: This was a retrospective cross-sectional study of patients who underwent either a colonoscopy or proctosigmoidoscopy between January 2017 and December 2021, at the KBTH. The records of patients admitted for complications of diverticular disease over the same period were also reviewed. Results: A total of 4266 patients underwent lower gastrointestinal endoscopy over the study period. Out of this, 380 were diagnosed with diverticular disease giving a prevalence of 8.91%. This comprised 58.95% male and 41.05% female. Their mean age was 67.02 (standard deviation ± 11.45). The age ranged from 26 to 95 years with a median of 67. Sixty-seven patients with 88 episodes of admission were managed for complications. The average age was 69.26 (SD ± 13.28) and ranged from 40 to 98 years with an interquartile range of 20 years. Complications were predominantly bleeding diverticular disease (94.32%), whereas 5.6% presented with diverticulitis. Ninety percent were managed conservatively, and 10% had surgical intervention. Conclusion: This study concludes that the prevalence of diverticular disease among Ghanaians undergoing lower gastrointestinal endoscopy is still low and bleeding is the commonest indication for admission which is mostly managed conservatively.

A balance of clinical assessment and use of diagnostic imaging: A CT colonography comparative case report.

Computer tomography colonography (CTC) is a non-invasive procedure which has replaced barium enema. CTC uses helical images of a cleansed and gas-distended colon for the diagnosis and treatment of colonic neoplasms. This case study compares 2 patients: one with positive pathology (patient A) and another as comparator (patient B) with a similar pathology to discuss and debate possible treatment pathways. Patient (A) CTC showed 2 polyps: 6 mm and 10 mm, which the colorectal surgeons thought only needed follow-up. Our comparator (patient B) displayed a similar pathology which measured 9 mm. In this case (patient B), there was mutual agreement with the surgeons for polypectomy but without haematology involvement which was atypical of the usual pathway. The surgeons did not see the 9 mm polyp at polypectomy which could be due to observer error or radiology reporter error. Given that conventional colonoscopy is more sensitive in detecting polyps; a repeat of both tests could confirm the presence of polyp, however, the surgeons gave patient (B) a virtual appointment and requested a repeat CTC in 12 months. In colorectal medicine there can be variations in the treatment of patients with polyps. While a repeat of both tests could confirm the presence of polyp in patient (B), the surgeons' decisions regarding the patient's treatment reflected a balance of confidence in clinical assessment and use of diagnostic imaging which can reduce unnecessary requests and use of diagnostic tests.

Computer-aided quality assessment of endoscopist competence during colonoscopy: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopists' competence can vary widely, as shown in the variation in adenoma detection rate (ADR). Computer-aided quality assessment (CAQ) can automatically assess performance during individual procedures. This review aims to identify and describe different CAQ systems for colonoscopy. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was done using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and SCOPUS based on three blocks of terms according to the inclusion criteria: Colonoscopy, Competence assessment, and Automatic evaluation. Articles were systematically reviewed by two reviewers, first by abstract and then in full text. The methodological quality was assessed using the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI). RESULTS: 12,575 studies were identified, 6,831 remained after removal of duplicates, and 6,806 did not pass the eligibility criteria and were excluded, leaving thirteen studies for final analysis. Five categories of CAQ systems were identified: Withdrawal speedometer (seven studies), Scope movement analysis (three studies), Effective withdrawal time (one study), Fold examination quality (one study), and Visual gaze pattern (one study). The withdrawal speedometer was the only CAQ system that tested its feedback by examining changes in ADR. Three studies observed an improvement in ADR, and two studies did not. The methodological quality of the studies was high (mean MERSQI 15.2 points, maximum 18 points). CONCLUSIONS: Thirteen studies developed or tested CAQ systems, most frequently by correlating it to ADR. Only five studies tested feedback by implementing the CAQ system. A meta-analysis was impossible due to the heterogeneous study designs, and more studies are warranted.

Propofol sedation does not improve measures of colonoscopy quality but increase cost - findings from a large population-based cohort study.

Background: Propofol is often used for sedation during colonoscopy. We assessed the impact of propofol sedation on colonoscopy related quality metrics and cost in a population-based cohort study. Methods: All colonoscopies performed at 21 hospitals in the province of Ontario, Canada, during an 18-month period, from April 1, 2017 to October 31, 2018, using either propofol or conscious sedation were evaluated. The primary outcome was adenoma detection rate (ADR) and secondary outcomes were sessile serrated polyp detection rate (ssPDR), polyp detection rate (PDR), cecal intubation rate (CIR), and perforation rate. Binary outcomes were assessed using a modified Poisson regression model adjusted for clustering and potential confounders based on patient, procedure, and physician characteristics. Findings: A total of 46,634 colonoscopies were performed, of which 16,408 (35.2%) received propofol and 30,226 (64.8%) received conscious sedation. Compared to conscious sedation, the use of propofol was associated with a lower ADR (24.6% vs. 27.0%, p < 0.0001) but not ssPDR (5.0% vs. 4.7%, p = 0.26), PDR (40.5% vs 40.4%, p = 0.79), CIR (97.1% vs. 96.8%, p = 0.15) or perforation rate (0.04% vs. 0.06%, p = 0.45). On multi-variable analysis, propofol sedation was not associated with any differences in ADR (RR = 0.90, 95% CI 0.74-1.10, p = 0.30), ssPDR (RR = 1.20, 95% CI 0.90-1.60, p = 0.22), PDR (RR = 1.00, 95% CI 0.90-1.11, p = 0.99), or CIR (RR = 1.00, 95% CI 0.80-1.26, p = 0.99). The additional cost associated with propofol sedation was $12,730,496 for every 100,000 cases. Interpretation: The use of propofol sedation was not associated with improved colonoscopy related quality metrics but increased costs. The routine use of propofol for colonoscopy should be reevaluated. Funding: None.

Expert endoscopist assessment of colorectal polyp size using virtual scale endoscopy, visual or snare-based estimation: a prospective video-based study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Accurate polyp size estimation during colonoscopy has an impact on clinical decision-making. A laser-based virtual scale endoscope (VSE) is available to allow measuring polyp size using a virtual adaptive scale. This study evaluates video-based polyp size measurement accuracy among expert endoscopists using either VSE or visual assessment (VA) with either snare as reference size or without any reference size information. METHODS: A prospective, video-based study was conducted with 10 expert endoscopists. Video sequences from 90 polyps with known reference size (fresh specimen measured using calipers) were distributed on three different slide sets so that each slide set showed the same polyp only once with either VSE, VA or snare-based information. A slide set was randomly assigned to each endoscopist. Endoscopists were asked to provide size estimation based on video review. RESULTS: Relative accuracies for VSE, VA, and snare-based estimation were 75.1% (95% CI [71.6-78.5]), 65.0% (95% CI [59.5-70.4]) and 62.0% (95% CI [54.8-69.0]), respectively. VSE yielded significantly higher relative accuracy compared to VA (p = 0.002) and to snare (p = 0.001). A significantly lower percentage of polyps 1-5 mm were misclassified as >5 mm using VSE versus VA and snare (6.52% vs. 19.6% and 17.5%, p = 0.004) and a significantly lower percentage of polyps >5 mm were misclassified as 1-5 mm using VSE versus VA and snare (11.4% vs. 31.9% and 14.9%, p = 0.038). CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopists estimate polyp size with the highest accuracy when virtual adaptive scale information is displayed. Using a snare to assist sizing did not improve measurement accuracy compared to displaying visual information alone.

Colonoscopy vs the Fecal Immunochemical Test: Which is Best?

Although there is no debate around the effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening in reducing disease burden, there remains a question regarding the most effective and cost-effective screening modality. Current United States guidelines present a panel of options that include the 2 most commonly used modalities, colonoscopy and stool testing with the fecal immunochemical test (FIT). Large-scale comparative effectiveness trials comparing colonoscopy and FIT for colorectal cancer outcomes are underway, but results are not yet available. This review will separately state the "best case" for FIT and colonoscopy as the screening tool of first choice. In addition, the review will examine these modalities from a health economics perspective to provide the reader further context about the relative advantages of these commonly used tests.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of single colonoscopy versus single fecal test for colorectal cancer diagnosis and treatment.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Regular endoscopy or fecal immunochemical test (FIT) is ideal for screening colorectal cancer. However, only a limited number of individuals undergo regular screening. This study aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of a single colonoscopy with a single FIT performed for colorectal cancer screening. METHODS: A microsimulation model was constructed based on real-world observational data collected from three institutions between 2019 and 2022 that compared colonoscopy-based screening with FIT-based screening. The total costs of diagnosis and treatment of the detected lesions using the two strategies were calculated. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per life year gained (LYG) of the colonoscopy-based strategy was calculated. RESULTS: Data from 11 407 patients undergoing colonoscopies and 59 176 patients undergoing FITs were used to establish a model. In the base case analysis of screening strategies, colonoscopy was more cost-effective than FIT (ICER 415 193 yen/LYG). The ICER of the colonoscopy-based strategy among 60- to 69-year-old patients was lowest at 394 200 yen/LYG, whereas that in 20- to 29-year-old patients was highest. Monte Carlo simulations showed that the colonoscopy-based strategy was more cost-effective than the FIT-based strategy (net monetary benefit [NMB]: 5 695 957 yen vs 5 348 253 yen). When the adenoma detection rate in the colonoscopy was over 30% or the positive FIT rate was lower than 8.6% in the FIT-based strategy, the NMB of the colonoscopy-based strategy exceeded that of the FIT-based strategy. CONCLUSION: In the microsimulation model, colonoscopy is recommended as a one-time screening procedure in patients aged >60 years with >30% ADR or <8.6% positive FIT rate.

Role of Social Support in Screening Colonoscopy/Sigmoidoscopy Uptake among U.S. Adults.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a major clinical and public health burden. Screening has been shown to be effective in preventing CRC. In 2021, less than 72% of adult Americans had received CRC screening based on the most recent guidelines. This study examined the relationship between social support and screening colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy uptake among U.S. adults and the socioeconomic factors that impact the relationship. We conducted a cross-sectional study using the 2021 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) data for 20,008 U.S. adults to assess the weighted rates of screening colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy among individuals with strong, some, and weak social support. Adjusted binary logistic regression models were utilized to obtain the weighted odds of receiving a screening colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy among adults with different levels of social support and socioeconomic status. About 58.0% of adults who reported having colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy had strong social support, compared to 52.0% who had some or weak social support. In addition, compared to adults with weak social support, the weighted adjusted odds of having colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy were 1.0 (95% C.I. = 0.994, 0.997; p < 0.001) and 1.3 (95% C.I. = 1.260, 1.263; p < 0.001) for adults with some and strong social support, respectively. Socioeconomic differences were observed in the odds of colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy uptake based on having strong social support. Having strong social support is an important factor in increasing colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy screening uptake. Policies and interventions that enhance social support among adults for screening colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy are warranted.

Preventive service utilization among adults with cystic fibrosis covered by private insurance is comparable to the general population.

BACKGROUND: As the life expectancy of the cystic fibrosis (CF) population is lengthening with modulator therapies, diligent age-appropriate screening and preventive care are increasingly vital for long-term health and wellbeing. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis comparing rates of receiving age- and sex-appropriate preventive services by commercially insured adult people with CF (PwCF) and adults without CF from the general population (GP) via the Truven Health MarketScan database (2012-2018). RESULTS: We captured 25,369 adults with CF and 488,534 adults from the GP in the United States. Comparing these groups, we found that 43% versus 39% received an annual preventive visit, 28% versus 28% were screened for chlamydia, 38% versus 37% received pap smears every 3 years (21-29-year-old females), 33% versus 31% received pap smears every 5 years (30-64-year-old females), 55% versus 44% received mammograms, 23% versus 21% received colonoscopies, and 21% versus 20% received dyslipidemia screening (all screening rates expressed per 100 person-years). In age-stratified analysis, 18-27-year-old PwCF had a lower rate of annual preventive visits compared to adults in the same age group of the GP (27% versus 42%). CONCLUSIONS: We discovered a comparable-to-superior rate of preventive service utilization in adults with CF relative to the GP, except in young adulthood from 18-27 years. Our findings establish the importance of meeting the primary care needs of adults with CF and call for development of strategies to improve preventive service delivery to young adults.

Barriers and Facilitators of Colorectal Cancer Screening During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 introduced new barriers to health care including cancer screenings. This study evaluated the role of pandemic- and copay-related barriers to colonoscopy and the extent to which home-based testing methods were utilized. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey assessed colorectal cancer (CRC) attitudes and screening early in the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: Respondents (342; 50.37% female) were 62.32 (SD = 6.87) years old. Roughly half were White/Caucasian (329; 48.45%); 29.75% were Black/African American (202); and 21.80% were another race (148). Roughly two-thirds were up-to-date with CRC screening (459; 67.59%). In an adjusted model, those with a higher agreement that concerns about COVID-19 delayed scheduling their colonoscopy (OR = .79; 95% CI: .08, .63; P = .045) and concerns about copays delayed scheduling their colonoscopy (OR = .73; 95% CI: .73, .57; P = .02) were less likely to be up-to-date on screening. In another adjusted model, those screened during the pandemic were significantly more likely to be screened via an at-home test (OR = 10.93; 95% CI: 5.95, 20.27; P < .001). DISCUSSION: During the COVID-19 pandemic, screening copay-related concerns persisted and were significantly higher among those not up-to-date with CRC screening. Increased at-home testing and addressing copay barriers may increase CRC screening adherence now and in future infectious disease outbreaks.

Interval cancers in a national colorectal screening programme based on faecal immunochemical testing: Implications for faecal haemoglobin concentration threshold and sex inequality.

OBJECTIVE: To compare interval cancer proportions (ICP) in the faecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based Scottish Bowel Screening Programme (SBoSP) with the former guaiac faecal occult blood test (gFOBT)-based SBoSP and investigate associations between interval cancer (IC) and faecal haemoglobin concentration (f-Hb) threshold, sex, age, deprivation, site, and stage. METHODS: The ICP data from first year of the FIT-based SBoSP and the penultimate year of the gFOBT-based SBoSP were compared in a prospective cohort design. RESULTS: With FIT, 801 colorectal cancers (CRCs) were screen detected (SDC), 802 were in non-participants, 548 were ICs, 39 were colonoscopy missed and 72 were diagnosed after incomplete screening; with gFOBT: 540, 904, 556, 45, and 13, respectively. FIT had a significantly higher proportion of SDC compared to IC than gFOBT. For FIT and gFOBT, ICP was significantly higher in women than men. As f-Hb threshold increased, ICP increased and, for any f-Hb threshold for men, a lower threshold was required for comparable ICP in women. In Scotland, the current threshold of ≥80 µg Hb/g faeces would have to be lowered to ≥40 µg Hb/g faeces for women to achieve sex equality for ICP. In the FIT-based SBoSP, there were four times as many stage I SDC than IC. This was reversed in advanced stages, with twice as many stage IV CRC diagnosed as IC versus SDC. CONCLUSIONS: Reducing the numbers of IC requires lowering the f-Hb threshold. Using different f-Hb thresholds for women and men could eliminate the sex disparity, but with additional colonoscopy.

Provision of colonoscopy in rural settings: A qualitative assessment of provider context, barriers, facilitators, and capacity.

PURPOSE: Colonoscopy can prevent morbidity and mortality from colorectal cancer (CRC) and is the most commonly used screening method in the United States. Barriers to colonoscopy at multiple levels can contribute to disparities. Yet, in rural settings, little is known about who delivers colonoscopy and facilitators and barriers to colonoscopy access through screening completion. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study with providers in rural Oregon who worked in endoscopy centers or primary care clinics. Semistructured interviews, conducted in July and August, 2021, focused on clinician experiences providing colonoscopy to rural Medicaid patients, including workflows, barriers, and access. We used thematic analysis, through immersion crystallization, to analyze interview transcripts and develop emergent themes. FINDINGS: We interviewed 19 providers. We found two categories of colonoscopy providers: primary care providers (PCPs) doing colonoscopy on their own patients (n = 9; 47%) and general surgeons providing colonoscopy to patients referred to their services (n = 10; 53%). Providers described barriers to colonoscopy at the provider, community, and patient levels and suggested patient supports could help overcome them. Providers found current colonoscopy capacity sufficient, but noted PCPs trained to perform colonoscopy would be key to continued accessibility. Finally, providers shared concerns about the shrinking number of PCP endoscopists, especially with anticipated increased screening demand related to the CRC screening guideline shift. CONCLUSIONS: These themes reflect opportunities to address multilevel barriers to improve access, colonoscopy capacity, and patient education approaches. Our results highlight that PCPs are an essential part of the workforce that provides colonoscopy in rural areas.

Endoscopic scoring system utilization for inflammatory bowel disease activity assessment: A multicenter real-world study from Argentina.

BACKGROUND: The frequency and patterns of use of scores for the assessment of endoscopic activity in inflammatory bowel disease patients are not known. AIM: To describe the prevalence of adequate use of endoscopic scores in IBD patients who underwent colonoscopy in a real-life setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A multicenter observational study comprising six community hospitals in Argentina was undertaken. Patients with a diagnosis of Crohn's disease or ulcerative colitis who underwent colonoscopy for endoscopic activity assessment between 2018 and 2022 were included. Colonoscopy reports of included subjects were manually reviewed to determine the proportion of colonoscopies that included an endoscopic score report. We determined the proportion of colonoscopy reports that included all of the IBD colonoscopy report quality elements proposed by BRIDGe group. Endoscopist's specialty, years of experience as well as expertise in IBD were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 1556 patients were included for analysis (31.94% patients with Crohn's disease). Mean age was 45.94±15.46. Endoscopic score reporting was found in 58.41% of colonoscopies. Most frequently used scores were Mayo endoscopic score (90.56%) and SES-CD (56.03%) for ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease, respectively. In addition, 79.11% of endoscopic reports failed to comply with all recommendations on endoscopic reporting for inflammatory bowel disease. CONCLUSIONS: A significant proportion of endoscopic reports of inflammatory bowel disease patients do not include the description of an endoscopic score to assess mucosal inflammatory activity in a real-world setting. This is also associated with a lack of compliance in recommended criteria for proper endoscopic reporting.

Comparing the resource implications of old and new colorectal adenoma surveillance guidelines in Australia.

BACKGROUND: The latest update to the Australian adenoma surveillance guideline in 2018 introduced a novel risk stratification system with updated surveillance recommendations. The resource implications of adopting this new system are unclear. AIMS: To quanitfy the resource demands of adopting new over old adenoma surveillance guidelines. METHODS: We studied data from 2443 patients undergoing colonoscopies, in which a clinically significant lesion was identified in their latest, or previous procedure(s) across five Australian hospitals. We excluded procedures with inflammatory bowel disease, new or prior history of colorectal cancer or resection, inadequate bowel preparation and incomplete procedures. Old and new Australian surveillance intervals were calculated according to the number, size and histological characteristics of lesions identified. We used these data to compare the rate of procedures according to each guideline. RESULTS: Based on the procedures for 766 patients, the new surveillance guidelines significantly increased the number of procedures allocated an interval of 1 year (relative risk (RR): 1.57, P = 0.009) and 10 years (RR: 3.83, P < 0.00001) and reduced those allocated to half a year (RR: 0.08, P = 0.00219), 3 years (RR: 0.51, P < 0.00001) and 5 years (RR: 0.59, P < 0.00001). Overall, this reduced the relative number of surveillance procedures by 21% over 10 years (25.92 vs 32.78 procedures/100 patient-years), which increased to 22% after excluding patients 75 or older at the time of surveillance (19.9 vs 25.65 procedures/100 patient-years). CONCLUSION: The adoption of the latest Australian adenoma surveillance guidelines can reduce demand for surveillance colonoscopy by more than a fifth (21-22%) over 10 years.