Low Colorectal Cancer Risk After Resection of High-Risk Pedunculated Polyps.

BACKGROUND: Post-fecal immunochemical test (FIT) colonoscopy represents a setting with an enriched prevalence of advanced adenomas. Due to an expected higher risk of colorectal cancer (CRC), postpolypectomy surveillance is recommended, generating a substantially increased load on endoscopy services. The aim of our study was to investigate postpolypectomy CRC risk in a screening population of FIT+ subjects after resection of low-risk adenomas (LRAs) or high-risk adenomas (HRAs). METHODS: We retrieved data from a cohort of patients undergoing postpolypectomy surveillance within a FIT-based CRC screening program in Italy between 2002 and 2017 and followed-up to December 2021. Main outcomes were postpolypectomy CRC incidence and mortality risks according to type of adenoma (LRA/HRA) removed at colonoscopy as well as morphology, size, dysplasia, and location of the index lesion. We adopted as comparators FIT+/colonoscopy-negative and FIT- patients. The absolute risk was calculated as the number of incident CRCs per 100,000 person-years of follow-up. We used Cox multivariable regression models to identify associations between CRC risks and patient- and polyp-related variables. RESULTS: Overall, we included 87,248 post-FIT+ colonoscopies (133 endoscopists). Of these, 42,899 (49.2%) were negative, 21,650 (24.8%) had an LRA, and 22,709 (26.0%) an HRA. After a median follow-up of 7.25 years, a total of 635 CRCs were observed. For patients with LRAs, CRC incidence (hazard ratio [HR], 1.18; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.92-1.53) was not increased compared with the FIT+/colonoscopy-negative group, while for HRAs a significant increase in CRC incidence (HR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.14-2.04) was found. The presence of 1 or more risk factors among proximal location, nonpedunculated morphology, and high-grade dysplasia explained most of this excess CRC risk in the HRA group (HR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.36-2.52). Patients with only distal pedunculated polyps without high-grade dysplasia, representing 39.2% of HRA, did not have increased risk compared with the FIT- group (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.59-1.28). CONCLUSIONS: CRC incidence is significantly higher in patients with HRAs diagnosed at colonoscopy. However, such excess risk does not appear to apply to patients with only distal pedunculated polyps without high-grade dysplasia, an observation that could potentially reduce the burden of surveillance in FIT programs.

Adenoma Detection Rate and Colorectal Cancer Risk in Fecal Immunochemical Test Screening Programs : An Observational Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs based on fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) represent the standard of care for population-based interventions. Their benefit depends on the identification of neoplasia at colonoscopy after FIT positivity. Colonoscopy quality measured by adenoma detection rate (ADR) may affect screening program effectiveness. OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between ADR and postcolonoscopy CRC (PCCRC) risk in a FIT-based screening program. DESIGN: Retrospective population-based cohort study. SETTING: Fecal immunochemical test-based CRC screening program between 2003 and 2021 in northeastern Italy. PATIENTS: All patients with a positive FIT result who had a colonoscopy were included. MEASUREMENTS: The regional cancer registry supplied information on any PCCRC diagnosed between 6 months and 10 years after colonoscopy. Endoscopists' ADR was categorized into 5 groups (20% to 39.9%, 40% to 44.9%, 45% to 49.9%, 50% to 54.9%, and 55% to 70%). To examine the association of ADR with PCCRC incidence risk, Cox regression models were fitted to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs. RESULTS: Of the 110 109 initial colonoscopies, 49 626 colonoscopies done by 113 endoscopists between 2012 and 2017 were included. After 328 778 person-years follow-up, 277 cases of PCCRC were diagnosed. Mean ADR was 48.3% (range, 23% and 70%). Incidence rates of PCCRC from lowest to highest ADR group were 13.13, 10.61, 7.60, 6.01, and 5.78 per 10 000 person-years. There was a significant inverse association between ADR and PCCRC incidence risk, with a 2.35-fold risk increase (95% CI, 1.63 to 3.38) in the lowest group compared with the highest. The adjusted HR for PCCRC associated with 1% increase in ADR was 0.96 (CI, 0.95 to 0.98). LIMITATION: Adenoma detection rate is partly determined by FIT positivity cutoff; exact values may vary in different settings. CONCLUSION: In a FIT-based screening program, ADR is inversely associated with PCCRC incidence risk, mandating appropriate colonoscopy quality monitoring in this setting. Increasing endoscopists' ADR may significantly reduce PCCRC risk. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

Comparison between different colon cleansing products for screening colonoscopy. A noninferiority trial in population-based screening programs in Italy.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: The high volume and poor palatability of 4 L of polyethylene glycol (PEG)-based bowel cleansing preparation required before a colonoscopy represent a major obstacle for patients. The aim of this study was to compare two low volume PEG-based preparations with standard 4 L PEG in individuals with a positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT) within organized screening programs in Italy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 3660 patients with a positive FIT result were randomized to receive, in a split-dose regimen, 4 L PEG or 2 L PEG plus ascorbate (PEG-A) or 2 L PEG with citrate and simethicone plus bisacodyl (PEG-CS). The noninferiority of the low volume preparations vs. 4 L PEG was tested through the difference in proportions of adequate cleansing. RESULTS: A total of 2802 patients were included in the study. Adequate bowel cleansing was achieved in 868 of 926 cases (93.7 %) in the 4 L PEG group, in 872 out of 911 cases in the PEG-A group (95.7 %, difference in proportions  + 1.9 %, 95 % confidence interval [CI]  - 0.1 to 3.9), and in 862 out of 921 cases in the PEG-CS group (93.6 %, difference in proportions  - 0.2 %, 95 %CI  - 2.4 to 2.0). Bowel cleansing was adequate in 95.5 % of cases when the preparation-to-colonoscopy interval was between 120 and 239 minutes, whereas it dropped to 83.3 % with longer intervals. Better cleansing was observed in patients with regular bowel movements (95.6 %) compared with those with diarrhea (92.4 %) or constipation (90.8 %). CONCLUSION: Low volume PEG-based preparations administered in a split-dose regimen guarantee noninferior bowel cleansing compared with 4 L PEG. Constipated patients require a personalized preparation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT 2012 - 003958 - 82.

Clean Colon Software Program (CCSP), Proposal of a standardized Method to quantify Colon Cleansing During Colonoscopy: Preliminary Results.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Neoplastic lesions can be missed during colonoscopy, especially when cleansing is inadequate. Bowel preparation scales have significant limitations and no objective and standardized method currently exists to establish colon cleanliness during colonoscopy. The aims of our study are to create a software algorithm that is able to analyze bowel cleansing during colonoscopies and to compare it to a validate bowel preparation scale. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A software application (the Clean Colon Software Program, CCSP) was developed. Fifty colonoscopies were carried out and video-recorded. Each video was divided into 3 segments: cecum-hepatic flexure (1st Segment), hepatic flexure-descending colon (2nd Segment) and rectosigmoid segment (3rd Segment). Each segment was recorded twice, both before and after careful cleansing of the intestinal wall. A score from 0 (dirty) to 3 (clean) was then assigned by CCSP. All the videos were also viewed by four endoscopists and colon cleansing was established using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale. Interclass correlation coefficient was then calculated between the endoscopists and the software. RESULTS: The cleansing score of the prelavage colonoscopies was 1.56 ±â€Š0.52 and the postlavage one was 2,08 ±â€Š0,59 (P < 0.001) showing an approximate 33.3 % improvement in cleansing after lavage. Right colon segment prelavage (0.99 ±â€Š0.69) was dirtier than left colon segment prelavage (2.07 ±â€Š0.71). The overall interobserver agreement between the average cleansing score for the 4 endoscopists and the software pre-cleansing was 0.87 (95 % CI, 0.84 - 0.90) and post-cleansing was 0.86 (95 % CI, 0.83 - 0.89). CONCLUSIONS: The software is able to discriminate clean from non-clean colon tracts with high significance and is comparable to endoscopist evaluation.