Early-onset Colorectal Cancer Patients Do Not Require Shorter Intervals for Post-surgical Surveillance Colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Early-onset colorectal cancer (EO-CRC), diagnosed before age 50, is rising in incidence worldwide. Although post-surgical colonoscopy surveillance strategies exist, appropriate intervals in EO-CRC remain elusive, as long-term surveillance outcomes remain scant. We sought to compare findings of surveillance colonoscopies of EO-CRC with patients with average onset colorectal cancer (AO-CRC) to help define surveillance outcomes in these groups. METHODS: Single-institution retrospective chart review identified EO-CRC and AO-CRC patients with colonoscopy and no evidence of disease. Surveillance intervals and time to development of advanced neoplasia (CRC and advanced polyps [adenoma/sessile serrated]) were examined. For each group, 3 serial surveillance colonoscopies were evaluated. Statistical analyses were performed utilizing log-ranked Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards. RESULTS: A total of 1259 patients with CRC were identified, with 612 and 647 patients in the EO-CRC and AO-CRC groups, respectively. Compared with patients with AO-CRC, patients with EO-CRC had a 29% decreased risk of developing advanced neoplasia from time of initial surgery to first surveillance colonoscopy (hazard ratio, 0.71; 95% confidence interval, 0.52-1.0). Average follow-up time from surgical resection to first surveillance colonoscopy was 12.6 months for both cohorts. Overall surveillance findings differed between cohorts (P = .003), and patients with EO-CRC were found to have less advanced neoplasia compared with their counterparts with AO-CRC (12.4% vs 16.0%, respectively). Subsequent colonoscopies found that, while patients with EO-CRC returned for follow-up surveillance colonoscopy earlier than patients with AO-CRC, the EO-CRC cohort did not have more advanced neoplasia nor non-advanced adenomas. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with EO-CRC do not have an increased risk of advanced neoplasia compared with patients with AO-CRC and therefore do not require more frequent colonoscopy surveillance than current guidelines recommend.

Effectiveness of a surveillance program of upper endoscopy for upper gastrointestinal cancers in Lynch syndrome patients.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Lynch syndrome (LS) is the most common cause of hereditary colorectal cancer and is associated with an increased lifetime risk of gastric and duodenal cancers of 8-16% and 7%, respectively; therefore, we aim to describe an esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) surveillance program for upper gastrointestinal (GI) precursor lesions and cancer in LS patients. METHODS: Patients who either had positive genetic testing or met clinical criteria for LS who had a surveillance EGD at our institution from 1996 to 2017 were identified. Patients were included if they had at least two EGDs or an upper GI cancer detected on the first surveillance EGD. EGD and pathology reports were extracted manually. RESULTS: Our cohort included 247 patients with a mean age of 47.1 years (SD 12.6) at first EGD. Patients had a mean of 3.5 EGDs (range 1-16). Mean duration of follow-up was 5.7 years. Average interval between EGDs was 2.3 years. Surveillance EGD detected precursor lesions in 8 (3.2%) patients, two (0.8%) gastric cancers and two (0.8%) duodenal cancers. Two interval cancers were diagnosed: a duodenal adenocarcinoma was detected 2 years, 8 months after prior EGD and a jejunal adenocarcinoma was detected 1 year, 9 months after prior EGD. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that surveillance EGD is a useful tool to help detect precancerous and cancerous upper GI lesions in LS patients. To our knowledge, this is the first study to examine a program of surveillance EGDs in LS patients. More data are needed to determine the appropriate surveillance interval.

Digestive Manifestations in Patients Hospitalized With Coronavirus Disease 2019.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The prevalence and significance of digestive manifestations in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remain uncertain. We aimed to assess the prevalence, spectrum, severity, and significance of digestive manifestations in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. METHODS: Consecutive patients hospitalized with COVID-19 were identified across a geographically diverse alliance of medical centers in North America. Data pertaining to baseline characteristics, symptomatology, laboratory assessment, imaging, and endoscopic findings from the time of symptom onset until discharge or death were abstracted manually from electronic health records to characterize the prevalence, spectrum, and severity of digestive manifestations. Regression analyses were performed to evaluate the association between digestive manifestations and severe outcomes related to COVID-19. RESULTS: A total of 1992 patients across 36 centers met eligibility criteria and were included. Overall, 53% of patients experienced at least 1 gastrointestinal symptom at any time during their illness, most commonly diarrhea (34%), nausea (27%), vomiting (16%), and abdominal pain (11%). In 74% of cases, gastrointestinal symptoms were judged to be mild. In total, 35% of patients developed an abnormal alanine aminotransferase or total bilirubin level; these were increased to less than 5 times the upper limit of normal in 77% of cases. After adjusting for potential confounders, the presence of gastrointestinal symptoms at any time (odds ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.76-1.15) or liver test abnormalities on admission (odds ratio, 1.31; 95% CI, 0.80-2.12) were not associated independently with mechanical ventilation or death. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients hospitalized with COVID-19, gastrointestinal symptoms and liver test abnormalities were common, but the majority were mild and their presence was not associated with a more severe clinical course.

Bevacizumab does not increase risk of perforation in patients undergoing percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy or jejunostomy placement.

INTRODUCTION: Bevacizumab is a humanized anti-vascular endothelial growth factor monoclonal antibody used in the treatment of cervical cancer, ovarian cancer, colorectal cancer, lung cancer, renal cell cancer, and recurrent glioblastomas. Its approval by US FDA was issued with a black box warning that its use has been associated with a risk of gastrointestinal (GI) tract perforation and that it should be discontinued in patients who have experienced such. The reported incidence of GI perforation in those receiving bevacizumab is as high as 3%. However, the incidence of GI perforation in those receiving bevacizumab undergoing GI endoscopic procedures has not been well studied. METHODS: A retrospective, single-center observational study was conducted at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) between 2011 and 2018. All patients who underwent upper GI endoscopy with percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) or percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy (PEJ) tube placement and received bevacizumab within 6 months of their endoscopic procedure were included. RESULTS: We identified 176 patients who underwent PEG or PEJ tube placement and received bevacizumab within 6 months. Eighty-one percent of patients were female (n = 144) and the median age was 61 years. Prior to endoscopic procedures, patients received a median of seven doses of bevacizumab. Patients received bevacizumab from 170 days before to 170 days after their endoscopic procedures (median 44 days). No GI perforations were observed during or after the time of the endoscopic procedures. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrated that receiving bevacizumab within 6 months prior to their endoscopic procedure was not associated with an increased risk of GI tract perforation and thus not an absolute contraindication to proceeding with PEG and PEJ tube placement in these patients.

Donning a New Approach to the Practice of Gastroenterology: Perspectives From the COVID-19 Pandemic Epicenter.

The COVID-19 pandemic seemingly is peaking now in New York City and has triggered significant changes to the standard management of gastrointestinal diseases. Priorities such as minimizing viral transmission, preserving personal protective equipment, and freeing hospital beds have driven unconventional approaches to managing gastroenterology (GI) patients. Conversion of endoscopy units to COVID units and redeployment of GI fellows and faculty has profoundly changed the profile of most GI services. Meanwhile, consult and procedural volumes have been reduced drastically. In this review, we share our collective experiences regarding how we have changed our practice of medicine in response to the COVID surge. Although we review our management of specific consults and conditions, the overarching theme focuses primarily on noninvasive measures and maximizing medical therapies. Endoscopic procedures have been reserved for those timely interventions that are most likely to be therapeutic. The role of multidisciplinary discussion, although always important, now has become critical. The support of our faculty and trainees remains essential. Local leadership can encourage well-being by frequent team check-ins and by fostering trainee development through remote learning. Advancing a clear vision and a transparent process for how to organize and triage care in the recovery phase will allow for a smooth transition to our new normal.

Feasibility of Patient Navigation and Impact on Adherence to Screening Colonoscopy in a Large Diverse Urban Population.

INTRODUCTION: Disparities observed in colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality among blacks and Hispanics compared with whites may be in part due to lower screening rates. The New York City (NYC) Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DOHMH) has implemented a patient navigator (PN) program at NYC hospitals serving lower-income patients to promote high adherence by patients referred for screening colonoscopy. A prior study showed this PN program increased adherence at 3 public hospitals. The aim of this study was to determine the feasibility of expanding the PN program to 10 hospital sites by assessing the impact of the PN program on adherence to screening colonoscopy in a large, urban, lower-income population. METHODS: Data were collected from 2007 through the first quarter of 2012 from PN sites. One site also contributed data from the pilot phase of the project, from 2005 to 2006. Adherence to scheduled screening colonoscopy among those ≥ 50 years was assessed among 10 hospital sites in NYC participating in the colonoscopy PN program. RESULTS: Among the 37,077 asymptomatic adults ≥ 50 years who were scheduled for a screening colonoscopy from 2005 to the first quarter of 2012, 84.2% (83.2% of black, 84.9% of Hispanic, and 87.5% of white adults) were adherent to scheduled colonoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: Expansion of PN programs to navigate all patients referred for a colonoscopy was feasible in a large, urban setting. This can be implemented resulting in high overall adherence rates to screening colonoscopies. The program likely did not result in large ethnic disparities.