Differences between men and women with respect to colorectal cancer mortality despite screening colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Women aged 55 to 59 years have a similar prevalence rate and number needed to screen for colorectal adenomas as men at a 10-year younger age. The aim of this study was to determine sex-specific differences in colorectal cancer mortality and estimate the association with adenomas at screening colonoscopy. METHODS: This retrospective study analyzed 323,139 individuals who underwent colonoscopy within a national colorectal cancer screening program in Austria between January 2007 and December 2020. RESULTS: Median patient age was 60 years (interquartile range, 54-67), and the sex distribution in all age groups was nearly identical. Men had significantly higher odds of having an adenoma or serrated polyp, low-risk polyp, high-risk polyp, or colorectal cancer detected at colonoscopy than women (odds ratio [OR] 1.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.80-1.86; OR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.44-1.49; OR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.69-1.80; and OR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.70-2.05, respectively). Strikingly, male sex, when compared with female sex, was associated with an almost 2-fold (hazard ratio, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.05-2.67) increased risk to die from colorectal cancer when an adenoma or serrated polyp was found at the screening colonoscopy and a 4-fold (hazard ratio, 4.14; 95% CI, 2.72-6.3) increased risk when a high-risk polyp was found at the screening colonoscopy. The cumulative incidence for death of colorectal cancer for 60-year-old individuals was 8.5-fold higher in men as compared with women. Markedly, this sex gap narrowed with increasing age, whereas the difference in deaths of other causes remained similar in all age groups. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings strengthen the necessity of sex-specific screening recommendations. Importantly, further prospective studies should focus on sex differences in tumor biology to propose personalized surveillance guidelines.

Polyp size is associated with colorectal cancer death across histologic polyp subtypes: a retrospective study of a screening colonoscopy registry.

BACKGROUND: Surveillance colonoscopy after polyps have been detected at screening aims to reduce the risk for subsequent colorectal cancer, so-called post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC). Inconsistencies exist as to whether the risk should be stratified by histologic subtype. We aimed to compare the risk for PCCRC mortality in screening participants with sessile serrated lesions (SSLs)/traditional serrated adenomas (TSAs), hyperplastic polyps (HPPs), or conventional adenomas. METHODS: Screening colonoscopy registry data were linked to death registry data between 2010 and 2022. We assessed the association of PCCRC death after a diagnosis of SSL/TSA, conventional adenoma, or HPP by Cox regression, and stratified by polyp size ≥10 and <10 mm. RESULTS: 383,801 participants were included in the analysis. There were 1490 HPPs ≥10 mm (2.6%), compared with 1853 SSL/TSAs (19.6%) and 10,960 conventional adenomas (12.9%). When adjusted for polyp location, the association of polyp size ≥10 mm with PCCRC death was of similar magnitude in participants with conventional adenomas (hazard ratio [HR] 3.68, 95%CI 2.49-5.44), SSL/TSAs (HR 2.55, 95%CI 1.13-5.72), and HPPs (HR 5.01, 95%CI 2.45-10.22). Participants with HPPs mostly died of tumors in the distal colon (54.1%; n = 20), while participants with SSL/TSAs more frequently died of proximal tumors (33.3%; n = 3). CONCLUSIONS: Across all histologic types, participants with polyps ≥10 mm had at least a two-fold increase in the likelihood of PCCRC death compared with those with polyps <10 mm. These data suggest that size, rather than histologic subtype, should be a determinant for risk stratification after screening colonoscopy.

Colorectal polypectomy and endoscopic mucosal resection: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline - Update 2024.

1: ESGE recommends cold snare polypectomy (CSP), to include a clear margin of normal tissue (1-2 mm) surrounding the polyp, for the removal of diminutive polyps (≤ 5 mm).Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 2: ESGE recommends against the use of cold biopsy forceps excision because of its high rate of incomplete resection.Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. 3: ESGE recommends CSP, to include a clear margin of normal tissue (1-2 mm) surrounding the polyp, for the removal of small polyps (6-9 mm).Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 4: ESGE recommends hot snare polypectomy for the removal of nonpedunculated adenomatous polyps of 10-19 mm in size.Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 5: ESGE recommends conventional (diathermy-based) endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for large (≥ 20 mm) nonpedunculated adenomatous polyps (LNPCPs).Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 6: ESGE suggests that underwater EMR can be considered an alternative to conventional hot EMR for the treatment of adenomatous LNPCPs.Weak recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. 7: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) may also be suggested as an alternative for removal of LNPCPs of ≥ 20 mm in selected cases and in high-volume centers.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 8: ESGE recommends that, after piecemeal EMR of LNPCPs by hot snare, the resection margins should be treated by thermal ablation using snare-tip soft coagulation to prevent adenoma recurrence.Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 9: ESGE recommends (piecemeal) cold snare polypectomy or cold EMR for SSLs of all sizes without suspected dysplasia.Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. 10: ESGE recommends prophylactic endoscopic clip closure of the mucosal defect after EMR of LNPCPs in the right colon to reduce to reduce the risk of delayed bleeding.Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 11: ESGE recommends that en bloc resection techniques, such as en bloc EMR, ESD, endoscopic intermuscular dissection, endoscopic full-thickness resection, or surgery should be the techniques of choice in cases with suspected superficial invasive carcinoma, which otherwise cannot be removed en bloc by standard polypectomy or EMR.Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence.

Rates of repeated colonoscopies to clean the colon from low-risk and high-risk adenomas: results from the EPoS trials.

OBJECTIVE: High-quality colonoscopy (adequate bowel preparation, whole-colon visualisation and removal of all neoplastic polyps) is a prerequisite to start polyp surveillance, and is ideally achieved in one colonoscopy. In a large multinational polyp surveillance trial, we aimed to investigate clinical practice variation in number of colonoscopies needed to enrol patients with low-risk and high-risk adenomas in polyp surveillance. DESIGN: We retrieved data of all patients with low-risk adenomas (one or two tubular adenomas <10 mm with low-grade dysplasia) and high-risk adenomas (3-10 adenomas, ≥1 adenoma ≥10 mm, high-grade dysplasia or villous components) in the European Polyp Surveillance trials fulfilling certain logistic and methodologic criteria. We analysed variations in number of colonoscopies needed to achieve high-quality colonoscopy and enter polyp surveillance by endoscopy centre, and by endoscopists who enrolled ≥30 patients. RESULTS: The study comprised 15 581 patients from 38 endoscopy centres in five European countries; 6794 patients had low-risk and 8787 had high-risk adenomas. 961 patients (6.2%, 95% CI 5.8% to 6.6%) underwent two or more colonoscopies before surveillance began; 101 (1.5%, 95% CI 1.2% to 1.8%) in the low-risk group and 860 (9.8%, 95% CI 9.2% to 10.4%) in the high-risk group. Main reasons were poor bowel preparation (21.3%) or incomplete colonoscopy/polypectomy (14.4%) or planned second procedure (27.8%). Need of repeat colonoscopy varied between study centres ranging from 0% to 11.8% in low-risk adenoma patients and from 0% to 63.9% in high-risk adenoma patients. On the second colonoscopy, the two most common reasons for a repeat (third) colonoscopy were piecemeal resection (26.5%) and unspecified reason (23.9%). CONCLUSION: There is considerable practice variation in the number of colonoscopies performed to achieve complete polyp removal, indicating need for targeted quality improvement to reduce patient burden. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02319928.

Polyp characteristics at screening colonoscopy and post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer mortality: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Polyp size and high-grade dysplasia in polyps at screening colonoscopy are considered risk factors for post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC) development and death, which might be averted by surveillance colonoscopy. However, robust evidence backing these risk factors is lacking. We aimed to investigate whether polyp size or dysplasia grade is associated with PCCRC mortality. METHODS: This was a retrospective study including individuals of the Austrian Quality Certificate for Screening Colonoscopy who underwent a colonoscopy between January 2007 and December 2020. We investigated the association of polyp size and dysplasia in polyps with PCCRC mortality according to Cox regression analysis. In addition, whether patients with certain polyp characteristics had similar risk for CRC death compared with the Austrian population was assessed by calculating standardized mortality ratios (SMRs). RESULTS: A total of 316,001 individuals were included. After a median follow-up time of 5.27 years (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.25-5.29), a significant association of polyps 10 to 20 mm (hazard ratio, 4.00; 95% CI, 2.46-6.50; P < .001) as well as high-grade dysplasia (hazard ratio, 6.61; 95% CI, 3.31-13.2; P < .001) with PCCRC death was observed. PCCRC mortality was significantly lower than the expected CRC mortality in the general population in patients with polyps <10 mm and without high-grade dysplasia (SMR, .27; 95% CI, .21-.33; P < .001), which was not observed for patients with polyps ≥10 mm or with high-grade dysplasia (SMR, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.64-2.57; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Polyp size ≥10 mm and high-grade dysplasia are associated with PCCRC mortality in screening patients. The data suggest that these patients might benefit most from surveillance colonoscopy.

Comparison of adenoma detection rate and proximal serrated polyp detection rate and their effect on post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer mortality in screening patients.

BACKGROUND: Patients with serrated polyps are at increased risk for post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC); however, evidence for a dedicated serrated polyp detection rate is lacking. The aim of this study was to investigate the association of the proximal serrated polyp detection rate (PSDR) and adenoma detection rate (ADR) with PCCRC death. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis within the Austrian quality assurance program for screening colonoscopy. Spearman's rank coefficient was calculated for the assessment of association between ADR and PSDR. Whether ADR or PSDR were associated with colorectal cancer mortality was assessed by Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: 229/729 screening colonoscopies performed by 308 endoscopists were analyzed. The ADR (hazard ratio [HR] per 1 percentage point increase 0.98, 95 %CI 0.96-0.99) as well as the PSDR (HR per 1 percentage point increase 0.97, 95 %CI 0.94-0.99) were significantly associated with PCCRC death. The correlation coefficient of the ADR and PSDR calculated at every colonoscopy was 0.70 (95 %CI 0.70-0.71), and the corresponding PSDR value for an ADR performance standard of 25 % was 11.1 %. At the end of the study period, 86 endoscopists (27.9 %) reached an ADR of > 25 % and a PSDR of > 11.1 %. CONCLUSIONS: The ADR as well as the PSDR were associated with PCCRC death. Striving for a high PSDR in addition to a high ADR might reduce the risk for PCCRC mortality in patients undergoing screening colonoscopy.

Colonoscopist Performance and Colorectal Cancer Risk After Adenoma Removal to Stratify Surveillance: Two Nationwide Observational Studies.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Colonoscopy surveillance after adenoma removal is an increasing burden in many countries. Surveillance recommendations consider characteristics of removed adenomas, but not colonoscopist performance. We investigated the impact of colonoscopist performance on colorectal cancer risk after adenoma removal. METHODS: We compared colorectal cancer risk after removal of high-risk adenomas, low-risk adenomas, and after negative colonoscopy for all colonoscopies performed by colonoscopists with low vs high performance quality (adenoma detection rate <20% vs ≥20%) in the Polish screening program between 2000 and 2011, with follow-up until 2017. Findings were validated in the Austrian colonoscopy screening program. RESULTS: A total of 173,288 Polish colonoscopies were included in the study. Of 262 colonoscopists, 160 (61.1%) were low performers, and 102 (38.9%) were high performers; 11.1% of individuals had low-risk and 6.6% had high-risk adenomas removed at screening; 82.2% had no adenomas. During 10 years of follow-up, 443 colorectal cancers were diagnosed. For low-risk adenoma individuals, colorectal cancer incidence was 0.55% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.40-0.75) with low-performing colonoscopists vs 0.22% (95% CI 0.14-0.34) with high-performing colonoscopists (hazard ratio [HR] 2.35; 95% CI 1.31-4.21; P = .004). For individuals with high-risk adenomas, colorectal cancer incidence was 1.14% (95% CI 0.87-1.48) with low-performing colonoscopists vs 0.43% (95% CI 0.27-0.69) with high-performing colonoscopists (HR 2.69; 95% CI 1.62-4.47; P < .001). After negative colonoscopy, colorectal cancer incidence was 0.30% (95% CI 0.27-0.34) for individuals examined by low-performing colonoscopists, vs 0.15% (95% CI 0.11-0.20) for high-performing (HR 2.10; 95% CI 1.52-2.91; P < .001). The observed trends were reproduced in the Austrian validation cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that endoscopist performance may be an important contributor in addition to polyp characteristics in determining colorectal cancer risk after colonoscopy screening.

Interval cancer after colonoscopy in the Austrian National Screening Programme: influence of physician and patient factors.

OBJECTIVE: Postscreening colorectal cancer (PSCRC) after screening colonoscopy is associated with endoscopists' performance and characteristics of resected lesions. Prior studies have shown that adenoma detection rate (ADR) is a decisive factor for PSCRC, but correlations with other parameters need further analysis and ADR may change over time. DESIGN: Cohort study including individuals undergoing screening colonoscopy between 1/2008 and 12/2019 performed by physicians participating in a quality assurance programme in Austria. Data were linked with hospitalisation data for the diagnosis of PSCRC (defined as CRC diagnosis >6 months after colonoscopy). ADR was defined dynamically in relation to the time point of subsequent colonoscopies; high-risk groups of patients were those with an adenoma ≥10 mm, or with high-grade dysplasia, or villous or tubulovillous histology, or a serrated lesion ≥10 mm or with dysplasia, or colonoscopies with ≥3 lesions. Main outcome was PSCRC for each risk group (negative colonoscopy, hyperplastic polyps, low-risk and high-risk group of patients) after colonoscopy by endoscopists with an ADR <20% compared with endoscopists with an ADR ≥20%. RESULTS: 352 685 individuals were included in the study (51.0% women, median age 60 years) of which 10.5% were classified as high-risk group. During a median follow-up of 55.4 months, 241 (0.06%) PSCRC were identified; of 387 participating physicians, 19.6% had at least one PSCRC (8.4% two or more). While higher endoscopist ADR decreased PSCRC incidence (HR per 1% increase 0.97, 95% CI 0.95 to 0.98), affiliation to the high-risk group of patients was also associated with higher PSCRC incidence (HR 3.27, 95% CI 2.36 to 4.00). Similar correlations were seen with regards to high-risk, and advanced adenomas. The risk for PSCRC was significantly higher after colonoscopy by an endoscopist with an ADR <20% as compared with an endoscopist with an ADR ≥20% in patients after negative colonoscopy (HR 2.01, 95% CI 1.35 to 3.0, p<0.001) and for the high-risk group of patients (HR 2.51, 95% CI 1.49 to 4.22, p<0.001). CONCLUSION: A dynamic calculation of the ADR takes into account changes over time but confirms the correlation of ADR and interval cancer. Both lesion characteristics and endoscopists ADR may play a similar role for the risk of PSCRC. This should be considered in deciding about appropriate surveillance intervals in the future.

Association of Adenoma Detection Rate and Adenoma Characteristics With Colorectal Cancer Mortality After Screening Colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The adenoma detection rate (ADR) and characteristics of previously resected adenomas are associated with colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality. However, the combined effect of both factors on CRC mortality is unknown. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Using data of the Austrian quality assurance program for screening colonoscopy, we evaluated the combined effect of ADR and lesion characteristics on subsequent risk for CRC mortality. We analyzed mortality rates for individuals with low-risk adenomas (1-2 adenomas <10 mm), individuals with high-risk adenomas (advanced adenomas or ≥3 adenomas), and after negative colonoscopy (negative colonoscopy or small hyperplastic polyps) performed by endoscopists with an ADR <25% compared with ≥25%. Cox regression was used to determine the association of combined risk groups with CRC mortality, adjusted for age and sex. RESULTS: We evaluated 259,885 colonoscopies performed by 361 endoscopists. A total of 165 CRC-related deaths occurred during the follow-up period, up to 12.2 years. In all risk groups, CRC mortality was higher when colonoscopy was performed by an endoscopist with an ADR <25%. Compared with negative colonoscopy with an ADR ≥25%, CRC mortality was similar for individuals with low-risk adenomas irrespective of ADR (for ADR ≥25%: adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.22; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.59-2.49; for ADR <25%: adjusted HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.64-2.43) and after negative colonoscopy with ADR <25% (adjusted HR, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.81-2.00). Individuals with high-risk adenomas were at significantly higher risk for CRC death if colonoscopy was performed by an endoscopist with an ADR <25% (adjusted HR, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.18-4.31) but not if performed by an endoscopist with an ADR ≥25% (adjusted HR, 1.35; 95% CI, 0.61-3.02). CONCLUSIONS: Our study adds important evidence for mandatory assessment and monitoring of performance quality in screening colonoscopy. High-quality colonoscopy was associated with a lower risk for CRC death, and the impact of ADR was strongest for individuals with high-risk adenomas.

When and How To Use Endoscopic Tattooing in the Colon: An International Delphi Agreement.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: There is a lack of clinical studies to establish indications and methodology for tattooing, therefore technique and practice of tattooing is very variable. We aimed to establish a consensus on the indications and appropriate techniques for colonic tattoo through a modified Delphi process. METHODS: The baseline questionnaire was classified into 3 areas: where tattooing should not be used (1 domain, 6 questions), where tattooing should be used (4 domains, 20 questions), and how to perform tattooing (1 domain 20 questions). A total of 29 experts participated in the 3 rounds of the Delphi process. RESULTS: A total of 15 statements were approved. The statements that achieved the highest agreement were as follows: tattooing should always be used after endoscopic resection of a lesion with suspicion of submucosal invasion (agreement score, 4.59; degree of consensus, 97%). For a colorectal lesion that is left in situ but considered suitable for endoscopic resection, tattooing may be used if the lesion is considered difficult to detect at a subsequent endoscopy (agreement score, 4.62; degree of consensus, 100%). A tattoo should never be injected directly into or underneath a lesion that might be removed endoscopically at a later point in time (agreement score, 4.79; degree of consensus, 97%). Details of the tattoo injection should be stated clearly in the endoscopy report (agreement score, 4.76; degree of consensus, 100%). CONCLUSIONS: This expert consensus has developed different statements about where tattooing should not be used, when it should be used, and how that should be done.

Efficacy and Tolerability of High- vs Low-Volume Split-Dose Bowel Cleansing Regimens for Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Efficacy of bowel preparation is an important determinant of outcomes of colonoscopy. It is not clear whether approved low-volume polyethylene glycol (PEG) and non-PEG regimens are as effective as high-volume PEG regimens when taken in a split dose. METHODS: In a systematic review of multiple electronic databases through January 31, 2019 with a registered protocol (PROSPERO: CRD42019128067), we identified randomized controlled trials that compared low- vs high-volume bowel cleansing regimens, administered in a split dose, for colonoscopy. The primary efficacy outcome was rate of adequate bowel cleansing, and the secondary efficacy outcome was adenoma detection rate. Primary tolerability outcomes were compliance, tolerability, and willingness to repeat. We calculated relative risk (RR) and 95% CI values and assessed heterogeneity among studies by using the I2 statistic. The overall quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE framework. RESULTS: In an analysis of data from 17 randomized controlled trials, comprising 7528 patients, we found no significant differences in adequacy of bowel cleansing between the low- vs high-volume split-dose regimens (86.1% vs 87.4%; RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.98-1.02) and there was minimal heterogeneity (I2 = 17%). There was no significant difference in adenoma detection rate (RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.87-1.08) among 4 randomized controlled trials. Compared with high-volume, split-dose regimens, low-volume split-dose regimens had higher odds for compliance or completion (RR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.02-1.10), tolerability (RR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.12-1.74), and willingness to repeat bowel preparation (RR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.20-1.66). The overall quality of evidence was moderate. CONCLUSIONS: Based on a systematic review of 17 randomized controlled trials, low-volume, split-dose regimens appear to be as effective as high-volume, split-dose regimens in bowel cleansing and are better tolerated, with superior compliance.

Impact of adenoma detection rate on detection of advanced adenomas and endoscopic adverse events in a study of over 200,000 screening colonoscopies.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is the best established quality parameter for screening colonoscopy. Guidelines recommend a target ADR >25% because previous studies have shown that patients of endoscopists with higher ADRs have a lower risk of postcolonoscopy interval cancers. However, studies have shown that improvement in ADR mainly results in increased detection of clinically irrelevant nonadvanced adenomas (NAAs). The impact of ADR on the detection of advanced adenomas (AAs) as well as adverse event rates has yet to be determined. METHODS: A total of 218,193 screening colonoscopies performed between 2007 and 2010 by 262 endoscopists within the Austrian quality assurance program were analyzed. We divided endoscopists into quintiles based on ADRs and calculated mean advanced ADRs (AADRs), NAA detection rates (NAADRs), and adverse event rates for each quintile. Spearman rank-order was used to calculate overall correlations between ADRs and AADRs as well as adverse event rates. Endoscopists with an ADR <25% were compared with those with an ADR >25%. RESULTS: Fifty-one percent of patients were women. Mean ADR was 23.03% (95% confidence interval [CI], 21.93-24.13), AADRs 7.72% (95% CI, 7.19-8.25), and NAADRs 15.31% (95% CI, 14.36-16.27). Overall, there was a significant correlation between ADR and AADR (rho = .51; P < .001). When ADR was divided into quintiles, mean AADR increased with increasing ADR. Even in the highest ADR group (ADR, 31.36%-52.27%) there was a further increase in AADR with a mean of 10.75% (95% CI, 9.31-12.19). Importantly, NAADRs increased continuously with improvement in ADRs but never dissociated from a simultaneous improvement in AADRs. However, there was also a significant correlation of ADRs and endoscopic adverse events (rho = .26, P < .001), even if the perforation rate of .028% (95% CI, .004-.052) in the highest ADR group still remained within the accepted limits based on guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: Increasing ADR is associated with improved detection of AAs and therefore is likely to prevent more cases of colorectal cancer. However, higher ADR was also associated with a higher rate of adverse events, although the adverse event rate was low.

Post-polypectomy colonoscopy surveillance: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline - Update 2020.

The following recommendations for post-polypectomy colonoscopic surveillance apply to all patients who had one or more polyps that were completely removed during a high quality baseline colonoscopy. 1: ESGE recommends that patients with complete removal of 1 - 4 < 10 mm adenomas with low grade dysplasia, irrespective of villous components, or any serrated polyp < 10 mm without dysplasia, do not require endoscopic surveillance and should be returned to screening.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.If organized screening is not available, repetition of colonoscopy 10 years after the index procedure is recommended.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 2: ESGE recommends surveillance colonoscopy after 3 years for patients with complete removal of at least 1 adenoma ≥ 10 mm or with high grade dysplasia, or ≥ 5 adenomas, or any serrated polyp ≥ 10 mm or with dysplasia. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 3: ESGE recommends a 3 - 6-month early repeat colonoscopy following piecemeal endoscopic resection of polyps ≥ 20 mm.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. A first surveillance colonoscopy 12 months after the repeat colonoscopy is recommended to detect late recurrence.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 4: If no polyps requiring surveillance are detected at the first surveillance colonoscopy, ESGE suggests to perform a second surveillance colonoscopy after 5 years. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.After that, if no polyps requiring surveillance are detected, patients can be returned to screening. 5: ESGE suggests that, if polyps requiring surveillance are detected at first or subsequent surveillance examinations, surveillance colonoscopy may be performed at 3 years. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.A flowchart showing the recommended surveillance intervals is provided (Fig. 1).

Anemia and iron deficiency in compensated and decompensated cirrhosis: Prevalence and impact on clinical outcomes.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Iron deficiency anemia (IDA)is the leading cause of anemia worldwide. Data on prevalence and clinical impact of anemia in cirrhosis are scarce. Aim was to report on the following:(i) prevalence of anemia and IDA in cirrhosis and (ii) its possible impact on clinical outcomes. METHODS: Consecutive cirrhotic patients from a prospective registry study were included. Anemia was defined as hemoglobin concentration ≤ 12 g/dL. IDA was defined as Hb ≤ 12 g/dL + transferrin-saturation < 20%. Follow up for hepatic decompensation and mortality started with study inclusion and terminated in December 2017. A retrospective validation cohort of 1244 patients was used to validate our findings. RESULTS: Two hundred forty-two patients with compensated (n = 53 [21.9%]) and decompensated (n = 189 [78.1%]) cirrhosis were included. Anemia was present in 128 patients (52.9%); of those, 63 (49.2%) had IDA. Prevalence of anemia increased with Child-Pugh Score (CPS; A: 26.5%, B: 59.2%, C: 69%; P < 0.001) and with decompensated cirrhosis(62.4% vs 18.8%, P < 0.001). Within anemic patients, a higher proportion of patients in CPS A/B vs C (73% vs 35%; P = 0.025) and in compensated cirrhosis (80% vs 46.6%; P = 0.043) were found with IDA. Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores were significantly lower in patients with IDA (14.4 vs 17.9 non-ID-anemia; P = 0.005). Similar results were found in the validation cohort: median MELD (16[8-28]non-IDA vs 12 [7-23] IDA; P < 0.001) and within anemic patients IDA was more common in patients with MELD <15 (58%) versus >15 (24%, P < 0.001). Anemia was associated with a significant risk for hepatic decompensation and/or mortality both in the validation (aSHR: 1.65, P = 0.008) and in the derivation cohort (aSHR: 2.11, P < 0.001) and an independent risk factor for hepatic decompensation and/or mortality in compensated patients (aHR: 4.91, P = 0.004). CONCLUSION: Anemia is highly prevalent in cirrhosis. In compensated cirrhosis, CPS A/B, and low MELD, IDA seems to be the most likely reason for anemia. Furthermore, anemia is associated with a significant risk for hepatic decompensation or mortality during long-term follow up.

Evaluation of adenomas per colonoscopy and adenomas per positive participant as new quality parameters in screening colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The primary aim of this study was to evaluate adenomas per positive participant (APP) and adenomas per colonoscopy (APC) as new quality parameters in screening colonoscopy. Furthermore, we wanted to assess whether these parameters differ depending on the setting or profession. METHODS: Colonoscopy records were obtained from the database of the Austrian certificate of quality for screening colonoscopy. The Spearman correlation was calculated to compare the adenoma detection rate (ADR), APC, APP, and advanced ADR. The parameters were compared between surgeons and internists and between private practices and hospitals by using the t test. RESULTS: A total of 44,142 colonoscopies performed by 202 endoscopists were included. APC showed a strong correlation with ADR (r = 0.94; P < .01), and both showed a similar correlation with the advanced ADR (ADR: r = 0.47; P < 0.01, APC: r = 0.46; P < .01). APP showed weaker correlations compared with all other parameters (ADR: r = 0.36; P < .01; advanced ADR: r = 0.19; P < .01). Private practices did not differ in ADR, APP or APC from hospitals. Among endoscopists with ADRs of ≥25%, 7 (10.3%) had an APP in the lowest quartile, whereas no endoscopists had an APC in the lowest quartile. CONCLUSIONS: APC did not reveal additional information to ADR, and thus there is no need to use it instead of or additionally to ADR. Although the APP identifies endoscopists who find few adenomas per procedure despite acceptable ADRs, this additional information might not be important in regard to sufficient colorectal cancer prevention, because these endoscopists still had high advanced ADRs.

Bowel preparation for colonoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline - Update 2019.

ESGE recommends a low fiber diet on the day preceding colonoscopy.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE recommends the use of enhanced instructions for bowel preparation.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE suggests adding oral simethicone to bowel preparation.Weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE recommends split-dose bowel preparation for elective colonoscopy.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.ESGE recommends, for patients undergoing afternoon colonoscopy, a same-day bowel preparation as an acceptable alternative to split dosing.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.ESGE recommends to start the last dose of bowel preparation within 5 hours of colonoscopy, and to complete it at least 2 hours before the beginning of the procedure.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE recommends the use of high volume or low volume PEG-based regimens as well as that of non-PEG-based agents that have been clinically validated for routine bowel preparation. In patients at risk for hydroelectrolyte disturbances, the choice of laxative should be individualized.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.

Effectiveness, benefit harm and cost effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening in Austria.

BACKGROUND: Clear evidence on the benefit-harm balance and cost effectiveness of population-based screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) is missing. We aim to systematically evaluate the long-term effectiveness, harms and cost effectiveness of different organized CRC screening strategies in Austria. METHODS: A decision-analytic cohort simulation model for colorectal adenoma and cancer with a lifelong time horizon was developed, calibrated to the Austrian epidemiological setting and validated against observed data. We compared four strategies: 1) No Screening, 2) FIT: annual immunochemical fecal occult blood test age 40-75 years, 3) gFOBT: annual guaiac-based fecal occult blood test age 40-75 years, and 4) COL: 10-yearly colonoscopy age 50-70 years. Predicted outcomes included: benefits expressed as life-years gained [LYG], CRC-related deaths avoided and CRC cases avoided; harms as additional complications due to colonoscopy (physical harm) and positive test results (psychological harm); and lifetime costs. Tradeoffs were expressed as incremental harm-benefit ratios (IHBR, incremental positive test results per LYG) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios [ICER]. The perspective of the Austrian public health care system was adopted. Comprehensive sensitivity analyses were performed to assess uncertainty. RESULTS: The most effective strategies were FIT and COL. gFOBT was less effective and more costly than FIT. Moving from COL to FIT results in an incremental unintended psychological harm of 16 additional positive test results to gain one life-year. COL was cost saving compared to No Screening. Moving from COL to FIT has an ICER of 15,000 EUR per LYG. CONCLUSIONS: Organized CRC-screening with annual FIT or 10-yearly colonoscopy is most effective. The choice between these two options depends on the individual preferences and benefit-harm tradeoffs of screening candidates.

Surveillance colonoscopy in Austria: Are we following the guidelines?

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIM: The European guidelines for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis contain postpolypectomy surveillance recommendations. They recommend follow-up intervals depending on the findings at index colonoscopy, and divide patients into a low-, intermediate- or high-risk group. The aim of this study was to assess the adherence of Austrian endoscopists to the European guidelines and to determine whether sending a reminder letter resulted in better adherence. METHODS: A single reminder letter containing the guidelines was sent to all endoscopists who participated in the Certificate of Quality for Screening Colonoscopy program in Austria. Adherence was assessed before and after the letter had been sent. Factors associated with adherence were investigated. RESULTS: We found poor baseline adherence to the guidelines. After the reminder letter, the adherence slightly improved in the low-risk group, but did not change in the intermediate-risk or high-risk groups. An adenoma detection rate of at least 20 % was associated with higher adherence rates. Generally, internists and hospitals showed better adherence compared with surgeons and private practices, respectively, both before and after the reminder letter. CONCLUSION: A single reminder letter was not enough to improve the poor adherence to the European postpolypectomy surveillance guidelines. Thus, future studies are required to identify and eliminate all factors responsible for nonadherence to postpolypectomy guidelines in order to reach the goal of a safe, effective, and cost-effective colorectal cancer prevention tool in the near future.

Performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Quality Improvement Initiative.

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and United European Gastroenterology present a short list of key performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy. We recommend that endoscopy services across Europe adopt the following seven key performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy for measurement and evaluation in daily practice at a center and endoscopist level: 1 Rate of adequate bowel preparation (minimum standard 90 %); 2 Cecal intubation rate (minimum standard 90 %); 3 Adenoma detection rate (minimum standard 25 %); 4 Appropriate polypectomy technique (minimum standard 80 %); 5 Complication rate (minimum standard not set); 6 Patient experience (minimum standard not set); 7 Appropriate post-polypectomy surveillance recommendations (minimum standard not set). Other identified performance measures have been listed as less relevant based on an assessment of their importance, scientific acceptability, feasibility, usability, and comparison to competing measures.