Adverse events in gastrointestinal endoscopy: Validation of the AGREE classification in a real-life 5-year setting.

BACKGROUND: The novel AGREE classification for adverse events (AEs) in gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy has not yet been validated in a real-world setting. AIMS: Our study aims to evaluate the correlation between the grades of AEs in the ASGE and AGREE classifications and to assess the interobserver agreement of the two classification systems. METHODS: The correlation and association between the AE grades of the ASGE and AGREE classifications were analyzed using the Spearman rank correlation test and the chi-squared analysis, respectively. A weighted Cohen's kappa coefficient analysis was performed to determine the interobserver agreement of both classification systems. RESULTS: We prospectively collected the AEs that occurred in our endoscopy unit over the past five years. A total of 226 AEs (226/84,863, 0.3%) occurred. There was a correlation between the ASGE and AGREE classifications (ρ = 0.61) and a moderately significant association (p < 0.01, Cramer's V = 0.7). The interobserver agreement for the ASGE classification was fair (kappa 0.60, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.54, 0.67), whereas it was good for the AGREE classification (kappa 0.80, 95% CI: 0.62, 0.87). CONCLUSIONS: The AGREE classification was validated for the first time in a real-world setting and showed a positive correlation and higher interobserver agreement than the ASGE classification.

Colonoscopic findings in first-degree relatives of patients with colorectal cancer: a population-based screening program.

BACKGROUND: A screening colonoscopy is recommended in first-degree relatives (FDRs) of colorectal cancer patients; few prospective, controlled studies have evaluated colorectal findings in a population-based screening program. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the prevalence of colorectal neoplasia (adenomas and adenocarcinomas) in this increased-risk population, to compare it with that of average-risk individuals, and to identify features that might allow risk stratification for neoplasia among FDRs. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Population-based screening program in Trentino, Italy. PATIENTS: FDRs of colorectal cancer patients between 45 and 75 years of age with no history of hereditary colorectal cancer syndromes or inflammatory bowel disease. CONTROLS: Average-risk individuals undergoing screening colonoscopy. INTERVENTION: Screening colonoscopy. RESULTS: Neoplasia was found in 33.4% of 1252 FDRs and in 30.3% of 765 controls; advanced neoplasia was found in 11.3% of FDRs and in 6.3% of controls. Odds ratios (ORs) from the multivariate logistic regression analysis adjusted for age, sex, cecal intubation rates, and colon cleansing showed an increased risk of advanced neoplasia (OR 2.41; 95% CI, 1.69-3.43; P < .0001) in FDRs. Age older than 56 years (OR 1.83; 95% CI, 1.15-2.99; P = .013) and male sex (OR 2.17; 95% CI, 1.39-3.10; P < .001) are independent predictors of advanced neoplasia. LIMITATIONS: Italian subjects living in the same geographic area; of 4301 FDRs, 2521 were excluded. CONCLUSIONS: The increased risk of advanced neoplasia supports the current recommendation for colonoscopic screening in this group; age and sex may assist in risk stratification of these individuals.

Appropriateness and yield of surveillance colonoscopy in first-degree relatives of colorectal cancer patients: A 5-year follow-up population-based study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: There are few prospective data about the use of surveillance colonoscopy and the risk of recurrent neoplasia in first degree relatives (FDRs) of colorectal cancer (CRC) patients. We examined the use and yield of surveillance colonoscopy in a population-based screening program (Trentino, Italy) METHODS: 1252 FDRs have been included in this study. We calculated compliance (percentage of FDRs who underwent surveillance colonoscopy among those eligible), appropriateness of colonoscopy (appropriate if performed within 6 months of the guidelines recommended interval) and diagnostic yield for neoplasia. We compared these data with those of 765 individuals without a family history (FH) of CRC who underwent screening colonoscopy in the same period (controls). RESULTS: Compliance and appropriateness were higher in FDRs than in controls (93.0% vs. 48.0%; p < 0.001; 59.6% vs. 18.8%; p < 0.0001, respectively). Younger age, female sex, FH of CRC and both non-advanced adenomas (nAA) and advanced adenomas (AA) at screening colonoscopy were predictors of appropriate surveillance. The cumulative incidence of nAA and AA was similar in FDRs and controls (31.7% and 4.9% in FDRs, including three invasive cancers; 32.4% and 5.8% in controls, respectively). CONCLUSION: FH does not increase the risk of AA in a 5-year follow-up; appropriate surveillance practices in FDRs could be highly expected in an organized screening program.