An Observational Analysis of a Novel Digital Rectoscope.

BACKGROUND: This is an analysis of the first 50 in-human uses of a novel digital rigid sigmoidoscope. The technology provides digital image capture, telemedicine capabilities, improved ergonomics, and the ability to biopsy under pneumorectum while maintaining the low cost of conventional rigid sigmoidoscopy. The primary outcome was adverse events, and the secondary outcome was diagnostic view. PRELIMINARY RESULTS: Fifty patients underwent outpatient (n = 25) and surgical rectal assessment (n = 25), with a mean age of 60 years. This included 31 men and 19 women with 12 different clinical use indications. No adverse events were reported, and no defects were reported with the instrumentation. Satisfactory diagnoses were obtained in 48 (96%) of 50 uses, images were captured in 48 (96%) of 50 uses, and biopsies were successfully taken in 13 uses (26%). No adverse events were recorded. Independent reviewers of recorded videos agreed on the quality and diagnostic value of the images with a κ of 0.225 (95% CI, 0.144-0.305) when assessing whether the target pathology was adequately visualized. IMPACT OF INNOVATION: The improved views afforded by digital rectoscopy facilitated a satisfactory clinical diagnosis in 96% of uses. The device was successfully deployed in the operating room and outpatients irrespective of bowel preparation method, where it has the potential to replace flexible sigmoidoscopy for specific use cases. The technology provides a high-quality image and video that can be securely recorded for documentation and medicolegal purposes with agreement between blinded users despite a lack of standardized training and heterogenous pathology. We perceive significant impact of this technology for the assessment of colorectal anastomoses, the office management of colitis, "watch and wait," and for diagnostic support in rectal cancer diagnosis. The technology has significant potential to facilitate proctoring and training, and it now requires prospective trials to validate its diagnostic accuracy against more costly flexible sigmoidoscopy systems.

Effects of screening for colorectal cancer: Development, documentation and validation of a multistate Markov model.

Simulation models are a powerful tool to overcome gaps of evidence needed to inform medical decision-making. Here, we present development and application of COSIMO, a Markov-based Colorectal Cancer (CRC) Multi-state Simulation Model to simulate effects of CRC screening, along with a thorough assessment of the model's ability to reproduce real-life outcomes. Firstly, we provide a comprehensive documentation of COSIMO's development, structure and assumptions. Secondly, to assess the model's external validity, we compared model-derived cumulative incidence and prevalences of colorectal neoplasms to (a) results from KolosSal, a study in German screening colonoscopy participants, (b) registry-based estimates of CRC incidence in Germany, and (c) outcome patterns of randomized sigmoidoscopy screening studies. We found that (a) more than 90% of observed prevalences in the KolosSal study were within the 95% confidence intervals of the model-predicted neoplasm prevalences; (b) the 15-year cumulative CRC incidences estimated by simulations for the German population deviated by 0.0% to 0.2% units in men and 0.0% to 0.3% units in women when compared to corresponding registry-derived estimates; and (c) the time course of cumulative CRC incidence and mortality in the modeled intervention group and control group closely resembles the time course reported from sigmoidoscopy screening trials. Overall, COSIMO adequately predicted colorectal neoplasm prevalences and incidences in a German population for up to 25 years, with estimated patterns of the effect of screening colonoscopy resembling those seen in registry data and real-world studies. This suggests that the model may represent a valid tool to assess the comparative effectiveness of CRC screening strategies.

Acceptability of receiving lifestyle advice at cervical, breast and bowel cancer screening.

Cancer screening could be an opportunity to deliver cancer prevention advice, but it is not known how such information would be received. We explored willingness to receive lifestyle advice in the context of the English National Health Service cervical, breast, and bowel (FS; flexible sigmoidoscopy) screening programmes. A population-based survey was conducted in 2016 to collect nationally representative data on willingness to receive lifestyle advice across cervical (n = 768), breast (n = 420) and FS (n = 308) screening programmes. Additional items assessed the impact of lifestyle advice on screening attendance, preference for receiving advice in the event of an abnormal screening result, and timing of advice. Most respondents were willing to receive lifestyle advice around the time of cancer screening (cervical 78.9%, breast 79.4%, FS 81.8%), and if their results were abnormal (cervical 86.3%, breast 83.0%, FS 85.1%). A small proportion indicated it may discourage future attendance (cervical 4.9%, breast 7.0%, FS 8.8%). Most preferred information to be delivered at the screening appointment (cervical 69.8%, breast 72.6%, FS 70.7%). There were no associations between sociodemographic characteristics and willingness to receive lifestyle advice at breast screening. For those intending to attend cervical screening, non-White ethnicity and higher education were associated with increased willingness to receive lifestyle advice. Women were more likely to be willing to receive advice at FS screening than men. Providing lifestyle advice at cancer screening is likely to be acceptable to the general population. The optimal approach for delivery needs careful consideration to minimise potential negative effects on screening attendance.

Is whole-colon investigation by colonoscopy, computerised tomography colonography or barium enema necessary for all patients with colorectal cancer symptoms, and for which patients would flexible sigmoidoscopy suffice? A retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: For patients referred to hospital with suspected colorectal cancer (CRC), it is current standard clinical practice to conduct an examination of the whole colon and rectum. However, studies have shown that an examination of the distal colorectum using flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) can be a safe and clinically effective investigation for some patients. These findings require validation in a multicentre study. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the links between patient symptoms at presentation and CRC risk by subsite, and to provide evidence of whether or not FS is an effective alternative to whole-colon investigation (WCI) in patients whose symptoms do not suggest proximal or obstructive disease. DESIGN: A multicentre retrospective study using data collected prospectively from two randomised controlled trials. Additional data were collected from trial diagnostic procedure reports and hospital records. CRC diagnoses within 3 years of referral were sourced from hospital records and national cancer registries via the Health and Social Care Information Centre. SETTING: Participants were recruited to the two randomised controlled trials from 21 NHS hospitals in England between 2004 and 2007. PARTICIPANTS: Men and women aged ≥ 55 years referred to secondary care for the investigation of symptoms suggestive of CRC. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Diagnostic yield of CRC at distal (to the splenic flexure) and proximal subsites by symptoms/clinical signs at presentation. RESULTS: The data set for analysis comprised 7380 patients, of whom 59% were women (median age 69 years, interquartile range 62-76 years). Change in bowel habit (CIBH) was the most frequently presenting symptom (73%), followed by rectal bleeding (38%) and abdominal pain (29%); 26% of patients had anaemia. CRC was diagnosed in 551 patients (7.5%): 424 (77%) patients with distal CRC, 122 (22%) patients with cancer proximal to the descending colon and five patients with both proximal and distal CRC. Proximal cancer was diagnosed in 96 out of 2021 (4.8%) patients with anaemia and/or an abdominal mass. The yield of proximal cancer in patients without anaemia or an abdominal mass who presented with rectal bleeding with or without a CIBH or with a CIBH to looser and/or more frequent stools as a single symptom was low (0.5%). These low-risk groups for proximal cancer accounted for 41% (3032/7380) of the cohort; only three proximal cancers were diagnosed in 814 low-risk patients examined by FS (diagnostic yield 0.4%). LIMITATIONS: A limitation to this study is that changes to practice since the trial ended, such as new referral guidelines and improvements in endoscopy quality, potentially weaken the generalisability of our findings. CONCLUSIONS: Symptom profiles can be used to determine whether or not WCI is necessary. Most proximal cancers were diagnosed in patients who presented with anaemia and/or an abdominal mass. In patients without anaemia or an abdominal mass, proximal cancer diagnoses were rare in those with rectal bleeding with or without a CIBH or with a CIBH to looser and/or more frequent stools as a single symptom. FS alone should be a safe and clinically effective investigation in these patients. A cost-effectiveness analysis of symptom-based tailoring of diagnostic investigations for CRC is recommended. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN95152621. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 66. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Comparative effectiveness of screening strategies for colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) has been successful in decreasing the incidence and mortality from CRC. Although new screening tests have become available, their relative impact on CRC outcomes remains unexplored. This study compares the outcomes of various screening strategies on CRC outcomes. METHODS: A Markov model representing the natural history of CRC was built and validated against empiric data from screening trials as well as the Microstimulation Screening Analysis (MISCAN) model. Thirteen screening strategies based on colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, computed tomographic colonography, as well as fecal immunochemical, occult blood, and stool DNA testing were compared with no screening. A simulated sample of the US general population ages 50 to 75 years with an average risk of CRC was followed for up to 35 years or until death. Effectiveness was measured by discounted life years gained and the number of CRCs prevented. Discounted costs and cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated. A discount rate of 3% was used in calculations. The study took a societal perspective. RESULTS: Colonoscopy emerged as the most effective screening strategy with the highest life years gained (0.022 life years) and CRCs prevented (n = 1068) and the lowest total costs ($2861). These values were 0.012 life years gained, 574 CRCs prevented, and a total cost of $3164, respectively, for FOBT; and 0.011 life years gained, 647 CRCs prevented, and a total cost of $4296, respectively, for DNA testing. Improved sensitivity or specificity of a screening test for CRC detection was not sufficient to close the outcomes gap compared with colonoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: Improvement in CRC-detection performance is not sufficient to improve screening outcomes. Special attention must be directed to detecting precancerous adenomas. Cancer 2017;123:1516-1527. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Cost Effectiveness of Screening Colonoscopy Depends on Adequate Bowel Preparation Rates - A Modeling Study.

BACKGROUND: Inadequate bowel preparation during screening colonoscopy necessitates repeating colonoscopy. Studies suggest inadequate bowel preparation rates of 20-60%. This increases the cost of colonoscopy for our society. AIM: The aim of this study is to determine the impact of inadequate bowel preparation rate on the cost effectiveness of colonoscopy compared to other screening strategies for colorectal cancer (CRC). METHODS: A microsimulation model of CRC screening strategies for the general population at average risk for CRC. The strategies include fecal immunochemistry test (FIT) every year, colonoscopy every ten years, sigmoidoscopy every five years, or stool DNA test every 3 years. The screening could be performed at private practice offices, outpatient hospitals, and ambulatory surgical centers. RESULTS: At the current assumed inadequate bowel preparation rate of 25%, the cost of colonoscopy as a screening strategy is above society's willingness to pay (<$50,000/QALY). Threshold analysis demonstrated that an inadequate bowel preparation rate of 13% or less is necessary before colonoscopy is considered more cost effective than FIT. At inadequate bowel preparation rates of 25%, colonoscopy is still more cost effective compared to sigmoidoscopy and stool DNA test. Sensitivity analysis of all inputs adjusted by ±10% showed incremental cost effectiveness ratio values were influenced most by the specificity, adherence, and sensitivity of FIT and colonoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: Screening colonoscopy is not a cost effective strategy when compared with fecal immunochemical test, as long as the inadequate bowel preparation rate is greater than 13%.

Screening for colorectal cancer: spoiled for choice?

There are many different potential screening strategies for colorectal cancer (CRC) that vary both in the likely magnitude of their benefits on CRC mortality and their impact on health services. Many approaches to CRC screening are cost-effective, but there is substantial uncertainty about the optimal approach. Decision models using Markov or microsimulation modelling that compare the cost-effectiveness of different screening strategies are useful in this regard. We have reviewed recent decision models that compare the cost-effectiveness of one-off flexible sigmoidoscopy screening with immunochemical faecal occult blood (FIT) based screening. Models consistently show that any population-based screening is cost-effective compared with no screening, and that FIT-based screening is more effective than one-off sigmoidoscopy screening. The combination of one-off sigmoidoscopy with FIT is more effective in saving lives than either modality alone, but has the greatest impact on health service resources. The recent decision to proceed with biennial FIT-based screening is consistent with current evidence.

Race/Ethnicity and Adoption of a Population Health Management Approach to Colorectal Cancer Screening in a Community-Based Healthcare System.

BACKGROUND: Screening outreach programs using population health management principles offer services uniformly to all eligible persons, but racial/ethnic colorectal cancer (CRC) screening patterns in such programs are not well known. OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between race/ethnicity and the receipt of CRC screening and timely follow-up of positive results before and after implementation of a screening program. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study of screen-eligible individuals at the Kaiser Permanente Northern California community-based integrated healthcare delivery system (2004-2013). SUBJECTS: A total of 868,934 screen-eligible individuals 51-74 years of age at cohort entry, which included 662,872 persons in the period before program implementation (2004-2006), 654,633 during the first 3 years after implementation (2007-2009), and 665,268 in the period from 4 to 7 years (2010-2013) after program implementation. INTERVENTION: A comprehensive system-wide long-term effort to increase CRC that included leadership alignment, goal-setting, and quality assurance through a PHM approach, using mailed fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) along with offering screening at office visits. MAIN MEASURES: Differences over time and by race/ethnicity in up-to-date CRC screening (overall and by test type) and timely follow-up of a positive screen. Race/ethnicity categories included non-Hispanic white, non-Hispanic black, Hispanic/Latino, Asian/Pacific Islander, Native American, and multiple races. KEY RESULTS: From 2004 to 2013, age/sex-adjusted CRC screening rates increased in all groups, including 35.2 to 81.1 % among whites and 35.6 to 78.0 % among blacks. Screening rates among Hispanics (33.1 to 78.3 %) and Native Americans (29.4 to 74.5 %) remained lower than those for whites both before and after program implementation. Blacks, who had slightly higher rates before program implementation (adjusted rate ratio [RR] = 1.04, 99 % CI: 1.02-1.05), had lower rates after program implementation (RR for period from 4 to 7 years = 0.97, 99 % CI: 0.96-0.97). There were also substantial improvements in timely follow-up of positive screening results. CONCLUSIONS: In this screening program using core PHM principles, CRC screening increased markedly in all racial/ethnic groups, but disparities persisted for some groups and developed in others, which correlated with levels of adoption of mailed FIT.

Colorectal Cancer Screening Based on Age and Gender: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

We evaluated whether age- and gender-based colorectal cancer screening is cost-effective.Recent studies in the United States identified age and gender as 2 important variables predicting advanced proximal neoplasia, and that women aged <60 to 70 years were more suited for sigmoidoscopy screening due to their low risk of proximal neoplasia. Yet, quantitative assessment of the incremental benefits, risks, and cost remains to be performed.Primary care screening practice (2008-2015).A Markov modeling was constructed using data from a screening cohort. The following strategies were compared according to the Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) for 1 life-year saved: flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) 5 yearly; colonoscopy 10 yearly; FS for each woman at 50- and 55-year old followed by colonoscopy at 60- and 70-year old; FS for each woman at 50-, 55-, 60-, and 65-year old followed by colonoscopy at 70-year old; FS for each woman at 50-, 55-, 60-, 65-, and 70-year old. All male subjects received colonoscopy at 50-, 60-, and 70-year old under strategies 3 to 5.From a hypothetical population of 100,000 asymptomatic subjects, strategy 2 could save the largest number of life-years (4226 vs 2268 to 3841 by other strategies). When compared with no screening, strategy 5 had the lowest ICER (US$42,515), followed by strategy 3 (US$43,517), strategy 2 (US$43,739), strategy 4 (US$47,710), and strategy 1 (US$56,510). Strategy 2 leads to the highest number of bleeding and perforations, and required a prohibitive number of colonoscopy procedures. Strategy 5 remains the most cost-effective when assessed with a wide range of deterministic sensitivity analyses around the base case.From the cost effectiveness analysis, FS for women and colonoscopy for men represent an economically favorable screening strategy. These findings could inform physicians and policy-makers in triaging eligible subjects for risk-based screening, especially in countries with limited colonoscopic resources. Future research should study the acceptability, feasibility, and feasibility of this risk-based strategy in different populations.

The cost-effectiveness of training US primary care physicians to conduct colorectal cancer screening in family medicine residency programs.

BACKGROUND: Demand for a wide array of colorectal cancer screening strategies continues to outpace supply. One strategy to reduce this deficit is to dramatically increase the number of primary care physicians who are trained and supportive of performing office-based colonoscopies or flexible sigmoidoscopies. This study evaluates the clinical and economic implications of training primary care physicians via family medicine residency programs to offer colorectal cancer screening services as an in-office procedure. METHODS: Using previously established clinical and economic assumptions from existing literature and budget data from a local grant (2013), incremental cost-effectiveness ratios are calculated that incorporate the costs of a proposed national training program and subsequent improvements in patient compliance. Sensitivity analyses are also conducted. RESULTS: Baseline assumptions suggest that the intervention would produce 2394 newly trained residents who could perform 71,820 additional colonoscopies or 119,700 additional flexible sigmoidoscopies after ten years. Despite high costs associated with the national training program, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios remain well below standard willingness-to-pay thresholds under base case assumptions. Interestingly, the status quo hierarchy of preferred screening strategies is disrupted by the proposed intervention. CONCLUSIONS: A national overhaul of family medicine residency programs offering training for colorectal cancer screening yields satisfactory incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. However, the model places high expectations on primary care physicians to improve current compliance levels in the US.

Time to benefit for colorectal cancer screening: survival meta-analysis of flexible sigmoidoscopy trials.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the time to benefit of using flexible sigmoidoscopy for colorectal cancer screening. DESIGN: Survival meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: A Cochrane Collaboration systematic review published in 2013, Medline, and Cochrane Library databases. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials comparing screening flexible sigmoidoscopy with no screening. Trials with fewer than 100 flexible sigmoidoscopy screenings were excluded. RESULTS: Four studies were eligible (total n = 459,814). They were similar for patients' age (50-74 years), length of follow-up (11.2-11.9 years), and relative risk for colorectal cancer related mortality (0.69-0.78 with flexible sigmoidoscopy screening). For every 1000 people screened at five and 10 years, 0.3 and 1.2 colorectal cancer related deaths, respectively, were prevented. It took 4.3 years (95% confidence interval 2.8 to 5.8) to observe an absolute risk reduction of 0.0002 (one colorectal cancer related death prevented for every 5000 flexible sigmoidoscopy screenings). It took 9.4 years (7.6 to 11.3) to observe an absolute risk reduction of 0.001 (one colorectal cancer related death prevented for every 1000 flexible sigmoidoscopy screenings). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that screening flexible sigmoidoscopy is most appropriate for older adults with a life expectancy greater than approximately 10 years.

Should anastomotic assessment with flexible sigmoidoscopy be routine following laparoscopic restorative left colorectal resection?

AIM: The aim of the study was to evaluate the value of routine intra-operative flexible sigmoidoscopy (IOFS) for left-sided anastomotic integrity and to determine the safest step after a positive leak test. METHOD: All consecutive patients undergoing left-sided colorectal resections for benign and malignant disease between August 2005 and April 2011 were included. Data regarding procedure, type of anastomosis and outcomes of IOFS were collected. A positive intra-operative leak test resulted in redoing the anastomosis and repeating the leak test. RESULTS: A total of 415 consecutive patients underwent hand-assisted laparoscopic colorectal resection with a colorectal/ileoanal anastomosis. All patients underwent IOFS. Seventeen patients had abnormality on IOFS. Fifteen patients had a positive air leak test. One patient had anastomotic bleeding. There was one stapler misfiring. Fourteen anastomoses were redone without diversion. One patient required diversion to protect the ileoanal anastomosis and another had already been diverted. Minor bleeding from the staple line in one patient resolved without intervention; however, he had a postoperative anastomotic leak needing surgical intervention. None of the patients who had a takedown and refashioning of the anastomosis following a positive leak on IOFS had postoperative anastomotic leakage or bleeding. Our overall anastomotic leak rate was 2.1%. CONCLUSIONS: Intra-operative flexible sigmoidoscopy for restorative colorectal resection is safe and reliable and should be performed routinely to assess anastomotic integrity and bleeding. Refashioning the anastomosis after formal takedown would obviate the risk of leakage and is our recommended method of managing intra-operative leaks.

Screening colonoscopy versus sigmoidoscopy: implications of a negative examination for cancer prevention and racial disparities in average-risk patients.

BACKGROUND: Both colonoscopy and flexible sigmoidoscopy are accepted procedures for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in the United States. OBJECTIVE: To compare risk of CRC after negative findings on screening colonoscopy versus sigmoidoscopy and to evaluate racial/ethnic disparities in postscreening CRC. DESIGN: Retrospective, comparative cohort study. SETTING: Integrated community-based health-care system. PATIENTS: Average-risk patients 50 to 75 years of age with negative findings on an initial endoscopic screening examination from January 2000 to December 2010. INTERVENTIONS: Colonoscopy versus sigmoidoscopy as the initial screening procedure. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Incident cases of CRC identified via a prospective internal cancer registry, risk of CRC determined by Cox regression adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity, and comorbidity. RESULTS: The study cohort included 138,297 patients (42,938 patients with negative findings on colonoscopy and 95,359 with negative findings on sigmoidoscopy). The median age was 57.9 years (interquartile range 53.0-64.1 years). Women comprised 51.8% of the cohort with 42.2% non-Hispanic white patients, 24.1% Hispanic patients, 10.7% non-Hispanic black patients, 9.7% Asian patients, and 13.3% other/unknown. A total of 241 cases of CRC was detected during 553,543 person-years of follow-up. The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of postscreening CRC was 0.42 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.28-0.64; P < .0001) for colonoscopy versus sigmoidoscopy. Risk reduction was primarily among proximal tumors (adjusted HR 0.30; 95% CI, 0.16-0.57). Non-Hispanic black patients were at higher risk of postscreening CRC compared with non-Hispanic white patients (adjusted HR 1.71; 95% CI, 1.20-2.42); however, this disparity was noted only in the sigmoidoscopy cohort. LIMITATIONS: Retrospective study with potential selection bias and residual confounding. CONCLUSIONS: Negative screening colonoscopy was associated with decreased incidence of subsequent CRC and a decrease in disparities compared with negative sigmoidoscopy findings in this large, community-based setting.

Rate of detection of advanced neoplasms in proximal colon by simulated sigmoidoscopy vs fecal immunochemical tests.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: We compared the ability of biennial fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) and one-time sigmoidoscopy to detect colon side-specific advanced neoplasms in a population-based, multicenter, nationwide, randomized controlled trial. METHODS: We identified asymptomatic men and women, 50-69 years old, through community health registries and randomly assigned them to groups that received a single colonoscopy examination or biennial FIT. Sigmoidoscopy yield was simulated from results obtained from the colonoscopy group, according to the criteria proposed in the UK Flexible Sigmoidoscopy Trial for colonoscopy referral. Patients who underwent FIT and were found to have ≥75 ng hemoglobin/mL were referred for colonoscopy. Data were analyzed from 5059 subjects in the colonoscopy group and 10,507 in the FIT group. The main outcome was rate of detection of any advanced neoplasm proximal to the splenic flexure. RESULTS: Advanced neoplasms were detected in 317 subjects (6.3%) in the sigmoidoscopy simulation group compared with 288 (2.7%) in the FIT group (odds ratio for sigmoidoscopy, 2.29; 95% confidence interval, 1.93-2.70; P = .0001). Sigmoidoscopy also detected advanced distal neoplasia in a higher percentage of patients than FIT (odds ratio, 2.61; 95% confidence interval, 2.20-3.10; P = .0001). The methods did not differ significantly in identifying patients with advanced proximal neoplasms (odds ratio, 1.17; 95% confidence interval, 0.78-1.76; P = .44). This was probably due to the lower performance of both strategies in detecting patients with proximal lesions (sigmoidoscopy detected these in 19.1% of patients and FIT in 14.9% of patients) vs distal ones (sigmoidoscopy detected these in 86.8% of patients and FIT in 33.5% of patients). Sigmoidoscopy, but not FIT, detected proximal lesions in lower percentages of women (especially those 50-59 years old) than men. CONCLUSIONS: Sigmoidoscopy and FIT have similar limitations in detecting advanced proximal neoplasms, which depend on patients' characteristics; sigmoidoscopy underperforms for women 50-59 years old. Screening strategies should be designed on the basis of target population to increase effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT00906997.

My treatment approach to the management of ulcerative colitis.

Ulcerative colitis diagnosis and management represent a challenge for clinicians. The disguises of ischemia and acute infectious colitis continue to confound the diagnosis. The therapeutic options have remarkably expanded in the way of immunomodulators, biologics, or ileoanal pouch surgery, yet all carry potential considerable risks. These risks can confuse and impair patient acceptance, particularly elderly patients and men younger than 30 years. Predictors of outcome of medical and surgical therapy have improved but are far from complete. Nevertheless, therapies focused on the specific patient's condition continue to offer hope.

Increased odds of interval left-sided colorectal cancer after flexible sigmoidoscopy compared with colonoscopy in older patients in the United States: a population-based analysis of the SEER-Medicare linked database, 2001-2005.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the proportion of interval left-sided colorectal cancers (CRCs) after flexible sigmoidoscopy vs colonoscopy in older patients and to identify factors associated with interval CRC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare-linked database, we studied patients 67 years or older with left-sided CRC who had at least one lower endoscopy performed within the previous 36 months between July 1, 2001, and December 31, 2005. The CRCs diagnosed within 6 months of lower endoscopy were defined as detected CRCs; CRCs diagnosed 6 to 36 months after lower endoscopy were defined as interval CRCs. The proportion of interval CRCs was calculated as number of interval CRCs divided by number of detected and interval CRCs. The χ(2) test and a multivariate logistic regression model were used in the statistical analysis. RESULTS: Of 15,484 older patients with left-sided CRC, the proportion of interval CRCs after flexible sigmoidoscopy was 8.8% compared with 2.5% after colonoscopy (P<.001). This difference was similar across left colon locations and largest in the descending colon (17.1% vs 3.5%; P<.001). In multivariate logistic regression, the odds of interval CRC after flexible sigmoidoscopy was 3 times as high as that after colonoscopy (odds ratio, 3.52; 95% CI, 2.66-4.65). CONCLUSION: In older patients with left-sided CRC, the odds of interval CRC after flexible sigmoidoscopy was 3 times as high as that after colonoscopy. Whether this finding reflects differences in bowel preparation quality, sedation use, or depth of insertion warrants future research.

Risk of colorectal cancer after colonoscopy compared with flexible sigmoidoscopy or no lower endoscopy among older patients in the United States, 1998-2005.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) decreases after colonoscopy compared with sigmoidoscopy or no lower endoscopy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients 67 to 80 years old in the 5% random Medicare sample of the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results and Medicare-linked database were grouped into those who underwent colonoscopy or flexible sigmoidoscopy from January 1, 1998, through December 31, 2002, and those who did not undergo lower endoscopy. We excluded patients with inflammatory bowel disease, history of colon polyps, or family history of CRC. All patients were followed up until the diagnosis of CRC or carcinoma in situ, death, or December 31, 2005. The risk of CRC after colonoscopy was compared with the risk after sigmoidoscopy or no lower endoscopy. The multivariate Cox proportional hazards model was used in statistical analysis. RESULTS: In the colonoscopy group (n=12,266), 58 CRCs (0.5%) were diagnosed during follow-up compared with 66 CRCs (1.0%) in the sigmoidoscopy group (n=6402) and 634 (1.5%) in the control group (n=41,410) (all P<.001). In the sigmoidoscopy group, 771 patients (12.0%) underwent colonoscopy within the next 12 months. In multivariate Cox regressions, colonoscopy was associated with a decreased risk of distal CRC (hazard ratio [HR], 0.266; 95% CI, 0.161-0.437) and proximal CRC (HR, 0.451; 95% CI, 0.305-0.666); sigmoidoscopy was associated with a decreased risk of distal CRC (HR, 0.409; 95% CI, 0.207-0.809) but not proximal CRC. CONCLUSION: Among older patients, the risk of distal CRC decreased after both colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy; the risk of proximal CRC decreased after colonoscopy but not sigmoidoscopy.

A new accessory, endoscopic cuff, improves colonoscopic access for complex polyp resection and scar assessment in the sigmoid colon (with video).

BACKGROUND: Difficult and unstable endoscopic access to large sessile/flat colon polyps in the sigmoid colon may prevent successful and complete EMR. OBJECTIVE: We report our experience with the use of an endoscopic cuff, a new endoscopic accessory, to improve endoscopic access during endoscopic therapy and scar assessment. DESIGN: Single-center, retrospective, feasibility case series. SETTING: Tertiary referral academic endoscopy unit. PATIENTS: Nonconsecutive patients referred for endoscopic resection of large flat/sessile sigmoid colon polyps or surveillance of postpolypectomy scars in the sigmoid colon. INTERVENTIONS: When conventional methods to achieve stable access and visualization were unsuccessful, the endoscopic cuff was used to retract sigmoid colon folds. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Safety, procedural success, and complications. RESULTS: Five patients (mean age 62 years, 3 male/2 female) underwent endoscopic cuff-assisted EMR polypectomy, and 7 patients (mean age 62 years, 2 male/5 female) underwent post-EMR scar surveillance with an endoscopic cuff-assisted flexible sigmoidoscopy. All sessile/flat polyps (mean size 29 mm) or post-EMR scar sites (mean size 15 mm) were located at acute bends in the sigmoid colon. With the endoscopic cuff placed around the tip of the colonoscope, endoscopic access improved significantly by flattening/depressing colon folds close to the lesion/scar. The entire polyp/scar surface was revealed, facilitating a complete polyp excision and a meticulous scar assessment. No immediate or delayed adverse events were seen. LIMITATIONS: Single-center, nonrandomized case series. CONCLUSIONS: An endoscopic cuff appears to be a safe and easily used accessory to facilitate colonoscopic access for complex polypectomy and scar assessment in the sigmoid colon.

Screening for colorectal cancer: what fits best?

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening has been shown to be effective in reducing CRC incidence and mortality. There are currently a number of screening modalities available for implementation into a population-based CRC screening program. Each screening method offers different strengths but also possesses its own limitations as a population-based screening strategy. We review the current evidence base for accepted CRC screening tools and evaluate their merits alongside their challenges in fulfilling their role in the detection of CRC. We also aim to provide an outlook on the demands of a low-risk population-based CRC screening program with a view to providing insight as to which modality would best suit current and future needs.