Impact of inadequate bowel cleansing in sigmoidoscopy screening.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Long-time follow-up of sigmoidoscopy screening trials has shown reduced incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer (CRC), but inadequate bowel cleansing may hamper efficacy. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of bowel cleansing quality in sigmoidoscopy screening. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Individuals 50 to 74 years old who had a screening sigmoidoscopy in a population-based Norwegian, randomized trial between 2012 and 2019, were included in this cross-sectional study. The bowel cleansing quality was categorised as excellent, good, partly poor, or poor. The effect of bowel cleansing quality on adenoma detection rate (ADR) and referral to colonoscopy was evaluated by fitting multivariable logistic regression models. RESULTS: 35,710 individuals were included. The bowel cleansing at sigmoidoscopy was excellent in 20,934 (58.6%) individuals, good in 6580 (18.4%), partly poor in 7097 (19.9%) and poor in 1099 (3.1%). The corresponding ADRs were 17.0%, 16.6%, 14.5%, and 13.0%. Compared to participants with excellent bowel cleansing, those with poor bowel cleansing had an odds ratio for adenoma detection of 0.66 (95% confidence interval 0.55-0.79). We found substantial differences in the assessment of bowel cleansing quality among endoscopists. CONCLUSIONS: Inadequate bowel cleansing reduces the efficacy of sigmoidoscopy screening, by lowering ADR. A validated rating scale and improved bowel preparation are needed to make sigmoidoscopy an appropriate screening method.Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01538550).

Multiple choice as formative assessment in dental education.

INTRODUCTION: The effectiveness of multiple-choice questions (MCQs) in dental education is pivotal to student performance and knowledge advancement. However, their optimal implementation requires exploration to enhance the benefits. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An educational tool incorporating MCQs was administered from the 5th to the 10th semester in a dental curriculum. The students filled out a questionnaire after the MCQ, which was linked to the learning management system. Four cohorts of four semesters generated 2300 data points analysed by Spearmen correlation and mixed model regression analysis. RESULTS: Demonstrated a significant correlation between early exam preparation and improved student performance. Independent study hours and lecture attendance emerged as significant predictors, accounting for approximately 10.27% of the variance in student performance on MCQs. While the number of MCQs taken showed an inverse relationship with study hours, the perceived clarity of these questions positively correlated with academic achievement. CONCLUSION: MCQs have proven effective in enhancing student learning and knowledge within the discipline. Our analysis underscores the important role of independent study and consistent lecture attendance in positively influencing MCQ scores. The study provides valuable insights into using MCQs as a practical tool for dental student learning. Moreover, the clarity of assessment tools, such as MCQs, remains pivotal in influencing student outcomes. This study underscores the multifaceted nature of learning experiences in dental education and the importance of bridging the gap between student expectations and actual performance.

Students' perceptions of post-exam feedback in oral radiology-A comparative study from two dental hygienist educational settings.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to investigate how students perceive the benefit of participating in a teacher-organised session providing feedback on exams, termed post-exam feedback, in two dental hygienist programmes. METHODS: The study was based on interviews with 22 participants, including 18 students and 4 faculty teachers. The data were approached on the basis of thematic analysis, allowing us to generate insights on how the participants reflected on their participation in the post-exam feedback sessions and how they perceived this arrangement as learners. RESULTS: The findings from the study suggest that motivated students consider post-exam feedback to be beneficial in clearing up uncertainties and deepening their understanding of issues not fully understood during the exam, as well as supporting their further learning. Less motivated students mainly consider post-exam feedback to be relevant for students who do not pass the exams. CONCLUSIONS: Organised in a student-centred way and with attentiveness to student learning preferences, the results suggest that post-exam feedback can be valuable for enhancing assessment and supporting student learning related to exams.

Diagnostic yield for video capsule endoscopy in gastrointestinal graft- versus -host disease: a systematic review and metaanalysis.

BACKGROUND: The gastrointestinal tract is the second most involved organ for graft-versus-host disease where involvement of the small intestine is present in 50% of the cases. Therefore, the use of a non-invasive investigation i.e., video capsule endoscopy (VCE) seems ideal in the diagnostic work-up, but this has never been systematically evaluated before. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review was to determine the efficacy and safety of VCE, in comparison with conventional endoscopy in patients who received hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. METHOD: Databases searched were PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL. All databases were searched from their inception date until June 17, 2022. The search identified 792 publications, of which 8 studies were included in our analysis comprising of 232 unique patients. Efficacy was calculated in comparison with the golden standard i.e., histology. Risk of bias assessment was performed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. RESULTS: The pooled sensitivity was higher for VCE at 0.77 (95% CI: 0.60-0.89) compared to conventional endoscopy 0.62 (95% CI: 0.47-0.75) but the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.155, Q = 2.02). Similarly, the pooled specificity was higher for VCE at 0.68 (95% CI: 0.46-0.84) than for conventional endoscopy at 0.58 (95% CI: 0.40-0.74) but not statistically significant (p = 0.457, Q = 0.55). Moreover, concern for adverse events such as intestinal obstruction or perforation was not justified since none of the capsules were retained in the small bowel and no perforations occurred in relation to VCE. A limitation to the study is the retrospective approach seen in 50% of the studies. CONCLUSION: The role of video capsule endoscopy in diagnosing or dismissing graft-versus-host disease is not yet established and requires further studies. However, the modality appears safe in this cohort.

Outcome of self-expandable metal stents placement for obstructive colorectal cancer: 7 years' experience from a Swedish tertiary center.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Self expandable metal stents (SEMS) is an alternative to emergency surgery to treat malignant large bowel obstruction. It can be used either for palliation or as a bridge to curative surgery. Our study aims to review the outcomes of SEMS treatment in a tertiary center and to find predictors for the clinical outcome. PATIENT AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed data from SEMS insertion at Sahlgrenska University Hospital, a referral center in Western Sweden (1.7 million inhabitants), between 2014 and 2020. Data collected were age, the intent of intervention, tumor localization, complication rate, technical and clinical success, 30- and 90-days mortality as well as long-term survival for the indication bridge to surgery. RESULTS: We identified 265 SEMS insertions (mean age 72, female 49.4%). Most SEMS were used for palliation (90.2%). The malign obstruction was most often located in the left colon (71.7%). Technical success was achieved in 259 (97.7%) cases and clinical success in 244 (92.1%) cases. Post-operative complications occurred in 11 cases (4.2%). The 30-days mortality rate was 11.7% and the 90-day was 31.7%. In our analysis the tumor site was not associated with adverse outcomes and bridge to surgery indication was a positive prognostic factor for the 90-day mortality. CONCLUSIONS: We found that SEMS is an effective and safe treatment for patients with acute obstructive colorectal cancer.

The use of post-exam feedback in oral radiology: A survey study of dental and dental hygienist schools in Europe.

INTRODUCTION: A combination of summative assessments and post-exam feedback can create a formative environment to support student learning. It remains unknown to what extent feedback sessions are conducted after exams in oral radiology courses for dental and dental hygienist students in Europe. This survey study aimed to explore whether post-exam feedback sessions were conducted, and if so, in what format. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A questionnaire was distributed to 76 dental schools in 26 countries and 34 dental hygienist schools in 14 countries in Europe. The questions addressed whether feedback was provided after exams in oral radiology, the feedback format, and whether feedback sessions were formalised or performed for other reasons. RESULTS: Questionnaire responses were received from 33 dental schools in 18 countries, and 20 dental hygienist schools in 11 countries. Information about grades was provided in 23-30% of the schools. Post-exam feedback sessions including opportunities for discussion was provided at 39% of the schools, all with guidelines stating that these sessions should be carried out. The remaining schools provided feedback either on request by individual students or as written examples of correct answers. CONCLUSION: Almost one third of the dental schools announced grades without providing any post-exam feedback that could support learning. Two fifth utilised feedback sessions to assist students in gaining knowledge and sorting out misconceptions, all according to guidelines. Given the possible learning potential in post-exam feedback with opportunity to discuss, further studies of this format would be valuable, including the role and use of feedback guidelines.

Characteristics of nonparticipants in a randomised colorectal cancer screening trial comparing sigmoidoscopy and faecal immunochemical testing.

Public health systems should guarantee universal access to health care services, including cancer screening. We assessed whether certain population subgroups were underrepresented among participants in colorectal cancer screening with sigmoidoscopy and faecal immunochemical testing (FIT). Between 2012 and 2019, about 140 000 individuals aged 50 to 74 years were randomly invited to once-only sigmoidoscopy or first round of FIT screening. Our study included 46 919 individuals invited to sigmoidoscopy and 70 019 to FIT between 2012 and 2017. We used logistic regression models to evaluate if demographic and socioeconomic factors and use of certain drugs were associated with participation. Twenty-four thousand one hundred and fifty-nine (51.5%) individuals attended sigmoidoscopy and 40 931 (58.5%) FIT screening. Male gender, young age, low education and income, being retired or unemployed, living alone, being an immigrant, long driving time to screening centre, and use of antidiabetic and psychotropic drugs were associated with low participation in both screening groups. Many of these factors also predicted low acceptance of colonoscopy after positive FIT. While male gender, young age and living alone were more strongly associated with nonparticipation in FIT than sigmoidoscopy, low education and income, being retired or immigrant and long driving time were more strongly associated with nonparticipation in sigmoidoscopy than FIT. In conclusion, participation was lower in sigmoidoscopy than FIT. Predictors of nonparticipation were similar between arms. However, low socioeconomic status, being an immigrant and long driving time affected participation more in sigmoidoscopy screening, suggesting that FIT may guarantee more equal access to screening services than sigmoidoscopy.

Colorectal Cancer Screening With Repeated Fecal Immunochemical Test Versus Sigmoidoscopy: Baseline Results From a Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The comparative effectiveness of sigmoidoscopy and fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is unknown. METHODS: Individuals aged 50-74 years living in Southeast Norway were randomly invited between 2012 and 2019 to either once-only flexible sigmoidoscopy or FIT screening every second year. Colonoscopy was recommended after sigmoidoscopy if any polyp of ≥10 mm, ≥3 adenomas, any advanced adenomas, or CRC was found or, subsequent to, FIT >15 µg hemoglobin/g feces. Data for this report were obtained after complete recruitment in both groups and included 2 full FIT rounds and part of the third round. Outcome measures were participation, neoplasia detection, and adverse events. Age-standardized detection rates and age-adjusted odds ratios (ORs) were calculated. RESULTS: We included 139,291 individuals: 69,195 randomized to sigmoidoscopy and 70,096 to FIT. The participation rate was 52% for sigmoidoscopy, 58% in the first FIT round, and 68% for 3 cumulative FIT rounds. Compared to sigmoidoscopy, the detection rate for CRC was similar in the first FIT round (0.25% vs 0.27%; OR, 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75-1.13) but higher after 3 FIT rounds (0.49% vs 0.27%; OR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.54-2.27). Advanced adenoma detection rate was lower in the first FIT round compared to sigmoidoscopy at 1.4% vs 2.4% (OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.53-0.62) but higher after 3 cumulative FIT rounds at 2.7% vs 2.4% (OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.05-1.23). There were 33 (0.05%) serious adverse events in the sigmoidoscopy group compared to 47 (0.07%) in the FIT group (P = .13). CONCLUSIONS: Participation was higher and more CRC and advanced adenomas were detected with repeated FIT compared to sigmoidoscopy. The risk of perforation and bleeding was comparable. Clinicaltrials.gov, Number: NCT01538550.

The CRCbiome study: a large prospective cohort study examining the role of lifestyle and the gut microbiome in colorectal cancer screening participants.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening reduces CRC incidence and mortality. However, current screening methods are either hampered by invasiveness or suboptimal performance, limiting their effectiveness as primary screening methods. To aid in the development of a non-invasive screening test with improved sensitivity and specificity, we have initiated a prospective biomarker study (CRCbiome), nested within a large randomized CRC screening trial in Norway. We aim to develop a microbiome-based classification algorithm to identify advanced colorectal lesions in screening participants testing positive for an immunochemical fecal occult blood test (FIT). We will also examine interactions with host factors, diet, lifestyle and prescription drugs. The prospective nature of the study also enables the analysis of changes in the gut microbiome following the removal of precancerous lesions. METHODS: The CRCbiome study recruits participants enrolled in the Bowel Cancer Screening in Norway (BCSN) study, a randomized trial initiated in 2012 comparing once-only sigmoidoscopy to repeated biennial FIT, where women and men aged 50-74 years at study entry are invited to participate. Since 2017, participants randomized to FIT screening with a positive test result have been invited to join the CRCbiome study. Self-reported diet, lifestyle and demographic data are collected prior to colonoscopy after the positive FIT-test (baseline). Screening data, including colonoscopy findings are obtained from the BCSN database. Fecal samples for gut microbiome analyses are collected both before and 2 and 12 months after colonoscopy. Samples are analyzed using metagenome sequencing, with taxonomy profiles, and gene and pathway content as primary measures. CRCbiome data will also be linked to national registries to obtain information on prescription histories and cancer relevant outcomes occurring during the 10 year follow-up period. DISCUSSION: The CRCbiome study will increase our understanding of how the gut microbiome, in combination with lifestyle and environmental factors, influences the early stages of colorectal carcinogenesis. This knowledge will be crucial to develop microbiome-based screening tools for CRC. By evaluating biomarker performance in a screening setting, using samples from the target population, the generalizability of the findings to future screening cohorts is likely to be high. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01538550 .

Women require routine opioids to prevent painful colonoscopies: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Women are at high risk for painful colonoscopy. Pain, but also sedation, are barriers to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening participation. In a randomised controlled trial, we compared on-demand with pre-colonoscopy opioid administration to control pain in women at CRC screening age. METHODS: Women, aged 55-79 years, attending colonoscopy at two Norwegian endoscopy units were randomised 1:1:1 to (1) fentanyl on-demand, (2) fentanyl prior to colonoscopy, or (3) alfentanil on-demand. The primary endpoint was procedural pain reported by the patients on a validated four-point Likert scale and further dichotomized for the study into painful (moderate or severe pain) and non-painful (slight or no pain) colonoscopy. Secondary endpoints were: willingness to repeat colonoscopy, adverse events, cecal intubation time and rate, and post-procedure recovery time. RESULTS: Between June 2017 and May 2020, 183 patients were included in intention-to-treat analyses in the fentanyl on-demand group, 177 in the fentanyl prior to colonoscopy group, and 179 in the alfentanil on-demand group. Fewer women receiving fentanyl prior to colonoscopy reported a painful colonoscopy compared to those who were given fentanyl on-demand (25.2% vs. 44.1%, p < .001). There was no difference in the proportion of painful colonoscopies between fentanyl on-demand and alfentanil on-demand (44.1% vs. 39.5%, p = .40). No differences were observed for adverse events or any of the other secondary endpoints between the three groups. CONCLUSIONS: Fentanyl prior to colonoscopy provided better pain control than fentanyl or alfentanil on-demand. Fentanyl before colonoscopy should be recommended to all women at screening age. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01538550). Norwegian Medicines Agency (16/16266-13). EU Clinical Trials Register (EUDRACTNR. 2016-005090-13).

Effects of Oral Anticoagulants and Aspirin on Performance of Fecal Immunochemical Tests in Colorectal Cancer Screening.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The fecal immunochemical test (FIT) is the tool most frequently used for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening worldwide. It is unclear how the use of aspirin and oral anticoagulants in the screening population affects the diagnostic performance of FIT. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional study in an ongoing CRC screening trial in Norway. Participants aged 50-74 years with a positive result from an FIT (>15 µg hemoglobin/g feces) and subsequent colonoscopy (reference standard) were included. Those who used regular aspirin, warfarin, or direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) were defined as users. Non-users were matched according to age, sex, screening center, and screening round. The primary outcomes were the positive predictive value (PPV) for CRC and advanced adenoma. RESULTS: Among 4908 eligible participants, 1008 used aspirin, 147 used warfarin, 212 used DOACs, and 3541 were non-users. CRCs were found in 234 individuals and advanced adenomas in 1305 individuals. The PPV for CRC was 3.8% for aspirin users vs 6.4% for matched non-users (P = .006), The PPV for advanced adenoma in aspirin users was 27.2% vs 32.6% for matched non-users (P = .011). For DOAC, the PPV for CRC was 0.9% in users vs 6.8% in matched non-users (P = .001). The PPV for advanced adenoma in DOAC users was 20.5% vs 32.4% in matched non-users (P = .002). There was no significant difference in PPV for CRC or advanced adenoma in warfarin users compared to non-users. CONCLUSIONS: In a large screening cohort in Norway, regular use of aspirin and particularly DOACs, were associated with lower PPV of FIT for detection of CRCs and advanced adenomas. ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT01538550.

Continuous development of colorectal cancer screening programs.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs are far from perfect. Many crucial questions remain, yet expensive CRC screening services are implemented throughout the world without a plan on how to evaluate and improve the service. The time is ripe for improving the design of CRC screening programs.

Endoscopy assistants influence the quality of colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy performance varies between endoscopists, but little is known about the impact of endoscopy assistants on key performance indicators. We used a large prospective colonoscopy quality database to perform an exploratory study to evaluate differences in selected quality indicators between endoscopy assistants. METHODS: All colonoscopies reported to the Norwegian colonoscopy quality assurance register Gastronet can be used to trace individual endoscopy assistants. We analyzed key quality indicators (cecum intubation rate, polyp detection rate, colonoscopies rated as severely painful, colonoscopies with sedation or analgesia, and satisfaction with information) for colonoscopies performed between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2014. Differences between individual assistants were analyzed by fitting multivariable logistic regression models, with the best performing assistant at each participating hospital as reference. All models were adjusted for the endoscopist. RESULTS: 63 endoscopy assistants from 12 hospitals assisted in 15 365 colonoscopies. Compared with their top performing peers from the same hospital, one assistant was associated with cecum intubation failure, four with poor polyp detection, nine with painful colonoscopy, 16 with administration of sedation or analgesics during colonoscopy, and three with patient dissatisfaction about information given relating to the colonoscopy. The number of procedures during the study period or lifetime experience as an endoscopy assistant were not associated with any quality indicator. CONCLUSION: In this exploratory study, there was little variation on important colonoscopy quality indicators between endoscopy assistants. However, there were differences among assistants that may be clinically important. Endoscopy assistants should be subject to quality surveillance similarly to endoscopists.

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

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and United European Gastroenterology present a list of key performance measures for endoscopy services. We recommend that these performance measures be adopted by all endoscopy services across Europe. The measures include those related to the leadership, organization, and delivery of the service, as well as those associated with the patient journey. Each measure includes a recommendation for a minimum and target standard for endoscopy services to achieve. We recommend that all stakeholders in endoscopy take note of these ESGE endoscopy services performance measures to accelerate their adoption and implementation. Stakeholders include patients and their advocacy groups; service leaders; staff, including endoscopists; professional societies; payers; and regulators.

Evaluating gut microbiota profiles from archived fecal samples.

BACKGROUND: Associations between colorectal cancer and microbiota have been identified. Archived fecal samples might be valuable sample sources for investigating causality in carcinogenesis and biomarkers discovery due to the potential of performing longitudinal studies. However, the quality, quantity and stability of the gut microbiota in these fecal samples must be assessed prior to such studies. We evaluated i) cross-contamination during analysis for fecal blood and ii) evaporation in stored perforated fecal immunochemical tests (iFOBT) samples, iii) temperature stability as well as iv) comparison of the gut microbiota diversity and composition in archived, iFOBT and fresh fecal samples in order to assess feasibility of large scale microbiota studies. METHODS: The microbiota profiles were obtained by sequencing the V3-V4 region of 16S rDNA gene. RESULTS: The iFOBT does not introduce any cross-sample contamination detectable by qPCR. Neither could we detect evaporation during freeze-thaw cycle of perforated iFOBT samples. Our results confirm room temperature stability of the gut microbiome. Diverse microbial profiles were achieved in 100% of fresh, 81% of long-term archived and 96% of iFOBT samples. Microbial diversity and composition were comparable between fresh and iFOBT samples, however, diversity differed significantly between long-term archived, fresh and iFOBT samples. CONCLUSION: Our data showed that it is feasible to exploit archived fecal sample sets originally collected for testing of fecal blood. The advantages of using these sample sets for microbial biomarker discovery and longitudinal observational studies are the availability of high-quality diagnostic and follow-up data. However, care must be taken when microbiota are profiled in long-term archived fecal samples.

Electronic checklists improve referral letters in gastroenterology: a randomized vignette survey.

OBJECTIVE: Investigate whether gastroenterologists rate the quality of referral letters higher if electronic dynamic checklist items are added to a standard free-text referral letter. Assess how this affects the gastroenterologists' assessment of the patient's need for healthcare and the agreement between their assessments. DESIGN: Randomized vignette study. SETTING: Norwegian primary gastroenterology services. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-two Norwegian gastroenterologists. INTERVENTION: Between June 2015 and January 2016, participants were recruited through an open invitation to all members of the Norwegian Society of Gastroenterology. They were asked to rate 16 referral letters (vignettes) in a web interface: eight letters in free text following a general template and eight letters based on a general referral template combined with diagnosis-specific checklist items. The study was completed in two subsequent rounds ≥3 months apart. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Quality of referral letters assessed on a rating scale from 0 to 10. Agreement in the referral assessment and accuracy of the selection of correct preliminary diagnosis and appropriate work-up. RESULTS: The mean quality assesses on the rating scale was 7.0 (95% confidence interval [CI] 6.8-7.2) for all letters combined (n = 511), 6.5(CI 6.2-6.8) for the free-text referrals (n = 256) and 7.5(CI 7.3-7.7) for the checklist referrals (n = 255) (P < 0.001, paired t-test). No difference was observed in the triage of the patients, but fewer gastroenterologists felt the need to collect additional information about the patients in the checklist group. CONCLUSION: Checklist items may ease the assessment of the referrals for gastroenterologists. We were not able to show that checklists significantly influence the management of patients.

Lifestyle predictors for non-participation and outcome in the second round of faecal immunochemical test in colorectal cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: To reduce colorectal cancer (CRC) mortality through population-based screening programmes using faecal tests, it is important that individuals continue to participate in the repeated rounds of screening. We aimed to identify lifestyle predictors for discontinuation of faecal immunochemical test (FIT) screening after the first round, as well as lifestyle predictors for colorectal neoplasia detected in the second-round FIT screening. METHODS: In this longitudinal study, we invited 6959 individuals aged 50-74 years from south-east Norway for a first round of FIT screening and to complete a self-reported lifestyle questionnaire on demographic factors, body mass index (BMI, kg m-2), smoking habits, physical activity, consumption of alcohol and dietary items. Two years later, we estimated the associations between these factors, non-participation and screening results in the second round of FIT screening using adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: Of the 3114 responders to the questionnaire who completed the first-round FIT and who were invited to participate in second-round FIT screening, 540 (17%) did not participate. The OR and (95% CI) for discontinuation of FIT screening after the first round was 1.61 (1.24-2.10) for current smoking compared with non-smoking; 2.01 (1.25-3.24) for BMI⩾35 kg m-2 compared with BMI 16.9-24.9 kg m-2 and 0.70 (0.52-0.94) for physical activity in the third quartile vs the first. Among participants, smoking, high BMI and high alcohol consumption were associated with an increased odds of detecting colorectal neoplasia (n=107). CONCLUSIONS: These results may indicate that Norwegian FIT screening participants who discontinue after the first round have lifestyle behaviours associated with increased risk of CRC.

Acceptability of two colorectal cancer screening tests: pain as a key determinant in sigmoidoscopy.

Background Participants' experience with a screening test can influence adherence, and therefore the efficacy of screening programs. We compared screening with unsedated flexible sigmoidoscopy and fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) for participants' satisfaction with the decision and for willingness to repeat colorectal cancer screening. Methods In a prospective, randomized trial 3257 individuals (50 - 74 years) were invited to either flexible sigmoidoscopy or FIT (1:1), of whom 1650 took up the offer (52.6 %). In total, 1497 screening participants completed at least one questionnaire, either before screening, and/or at three time points in the following year, that measured willingness to repeat screening, willingness to recommend screening, and satisfaction with decision to attend. There were 769 and 728 responders in the flexible sigmoidoscopy and FIT group, respectively. Additionally, 581 flexible sigmoidoscopy participants also completed a pain questionnaire. Results 1 year later, 10 % of the flexible sigmoidoscopy participants were not willing to repeat screening, compared to 5 % of FIT participants. A higher percentage of women compared to men would not repeat flexible sigmoidoscopy screening (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 2.52, 95 % confidence interval [95 %CI] 1.48 to 4.28). Notably, 22 % of women reported pain during flexible sigmoidoscopy compared to 5 % of men. When we added pain to the statistical model, pain was significantly associated with unwillingness to repeat flexible sigmoidoscopy (OR 3.15, 95 %CI 1.68 to 5.87), while gender was no longer associated (OR 1.53, 95 %CI 0.82 to 2.88). Conclusion Acceptability for flexible sigmoidoscopy and for FIT was high among Norwegian screening participants, though FIT participants were more willing to repeat screening. Women were less willing to repeat screening with flexible sigmoidoscopy compared to men. This gender difference seemed partly due to pain, and therefore preventable.This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01538550.

Patient-reported adverse events after colonoscopy in Norway.

Background and aims Patient-reported outcome measures are increasingly important in healthcare. European guidelines have recommended inclusion of patient feedback to capture adverse events due to colonoscopy, but this is rarely implemented. Methods The Norwegian Quality Assurance network for endoscopy (Gastronet) collects patient-reported outcome for colonoscopies. Free-text comments on patient reports from January to December 2015 were characterized as positive or negative. All negative free-text comments were scrutinized for information that might suggest colonoscopy-related adverse events. We identified severe adverse events with and without admission to hospital. Results We included 16 552 outpatient colonoscopies performed at 21 hospitals. A total of 11 248 procedures (68 %) were accompanied by a patient feedback report, of which 2628 (23 %) had free-text comments (2196 [20 %] characterized as positive and 432 [3.8 %] as negative). These negative free texts on patient reports revealed 15 post-colonoscopy hospital admissions due to adverse events that had not been registered in the colonoscopy report. This increased the number of hospital admissions caused by adverse events from 3 (0.03 %) to 18 (0.16 %). In addition, there were 14 patient reports of severe events without hospital admission. Therefore, a total of 29 severe adverse events reported by patients were missed by conventional documentation in the colonoscopy form. Conclusion It is feasible to implement patient feedback as routine reporting to capture the full picture of colonoscopy-related adverse events. Some patients experience significant complications that are not recorded through any registries. Patient feedback forms should be tailored to capture adverse events after colonoscopy that are otherwise not easily disclosed.

Do no harm: no psychological harm from colorectal cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: Participation in cancer screening programmes might cause worries in the population outweighting the benefits of reduced mortality. The present study aimed to investigate possible psychological harm of participation in a colorectal cancer (CRC) screening pilot in Norway. METHODS: In a prospective, randomised trial participants (aged 50-74 years) were invited to either flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) screening, faecal immunochemical test (FIT), or no screening (the control group; 1 : 1: 1). Three thousand two hundred and thirteen screening participants (42% of screened individuals) completed the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale questionnaire as well as the SF-12-a health-related quality of life (HRQOL) questionnaire when invited to screening and when receiving the screening result. A control group was invited to complete the questionnaires only. Two thousand six hundred and eighteen control participants (35% of invited individuals) completed the questionnaire. RESULTS: A positive screening result did not increase participants' level of anxiety or depression, or decrease participants' level of HRQOL. Participants who received a negative result reported decreased anxiety and improvement on some HRQOL dimensions. However, no change was considered to be of clinical relevance. CONCLUSION: The current study showed no clinically relevant psychological harm of receiving a positive CRC screening result or of participating in FS or FIT screening, in a Norwegian population.