Colorectal cancer statistics, 2020.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most common cause of cancer death in the United States. Every 3 years, the American Cancer Society provides an update of CRC occurrence based on incidence data (available through 2016) from population-based cancer registries and mortality data (through 2017) from the National Center for Health Statistics. In 2020, approximately 147,950 individuals will be diagnosed with CRC and 53,200 will die from the disease, including 17,930 cases and 3,640 deaths in individuals aged younger than 50 years. The incidence rate during 2012 through 2016 ranged from 30 (per 100,000 persons) in Asian/Pacific Islanders to 45.7 in blacks and 89 in Alaska Natives. Rapid declines in incidence among screening-aged individuals during the 2000s continued during 2011 through 2016 in those aged 65 years and older (by 3.3% annually) but reversed in those aged 50 to 64 years, among whom rates increased by 1% annually. Among individuals aged younger than 50 years, the incidence rate increased by approximately 2% annually for tumors in the proximal and distal colon, as well as the rectum, driven by trends in non-Hispanic whites. CRC death rates during 2008 through 2017 declined by 3% annually in individuals aged 65 years and older and by 0.6% annually in individuals aged 50 to 64 years while increasing by 1.3% annually in those aged younger than 50 years. Mortality declines among individuals aged 50 years and older were steepest among blacks, who also had the only decreasing trend among those aged younger than 50 years, and excluded American Indians/Alaska Natives, among whom rates remained stable. Progress against CRC can be accelerated by increasing access to guideline-recommended screening and high-quality treatment, particularly among Alaska Natives, and elucidating causes for rising incidence in young and middle-aged adults.

Association of Endoscopist Colonoscopy Quality Measures With Follow-Up Colonoscopy Outcomes After Positive Stool Tests (Multitarget Stool DNA or Fecal Immunochemical Test): Retrospective Cross-Sectional Analysis of Data From the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry.

INTRODUCTION: Negative colonoscopies following positive stool tests could result from stool test characteristics or from the quality of endoscopist performance. We used New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry data to examine the association between endoscopist detection rates and polyp yield in colonoscopies performed for positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT) or multitarget stool DNA (mt-sDNA) test to evaluate the degree to which positive stool tests followed by negative colonoscopy ("false positives") vary with endoscopist quality. In addition, we investigated the frequency of significant polyps in the subgroup of highest quality colonoscopies following positive stool tests. METHODS: We compared the frequencies of negative colonoscopies and of specific polyps following positive stool tests across quartiles of endoscopist adenoma detection rate (ADR) and clinically significant serrated polyp detection rate (CSSDR). RESULTS: Our sample included 864 mt-sDNA+ and 497 FIT+ patients. We found a significantly lower frequency of negative colonoscopies following positive stool tests among endoscopists with higher ADR and CSSDR, particularly in the 2 highest quartiles. In addition, detection of any adenoma after a positive stool test for endoscopists in the fourth ADR quartile was 63.3% (FIT+) and 62.8% (mt-sDNA+). Among endoscopists in the fourth CSSDR quartile, sessile serrated lesions were found in 29.2% of examinations following a positive mt-sDNA and in 13.5% following FIT+ examinations. DISCUSSION: The frequency of negative colonoscopies after positive stool tests was significantly higher in examinations performed by endoscopists with low ADR and CSSDR. Our results also suggest a benchmark target of at least 40% for ADR in patients with mt-sDNA+ or FIT+ tests and 20% for sessile serrated lesions in mt-sDNA+ patients.

Association between Colonoscopy Sedation Type and Polyp Detection: A Registry-based Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer is a leading cause of cancer-related death. Adenomas and serrated polyps are precursors of colorectal cancer, with serrated polyps being more difficult to detect during colonoscopy. The relationship between propofol use and polyp detection remains unclear. The authors investigated the association of propofol-based versus mild-moderate sedation on adenoma and serrated polyp detection during colonoscopy. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used observational data from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry. Patients aged greater than 50 yr with screening or surveillance colonoscopies between January 1, 2015, and February 28, 2020, were included. Exclusions were diagnostic examinations, no sedation, missing pathology data, and poor bowel preparation. Multivariate logistic regression was used to evaluate differences in polyp detection between propofol and moderate sedation in the full sample while adjusting for covariates. Propensity score adjustment and clustering at the endoscopist level were used in a restricted sample analysis that included endoscopists and facilities with between 5% and 95% propofol sedation use. RESULTS: A total of 54,063 colonoscopies were analyzed in the full sample and 18,998 in the restricted sample. Serrated polyp prevalence was significantly higher using propofol (9,957 of 29,312; 34.0% [95% CI, 33.4 to 34.5%]) versus moderate sedation (6,066 of 24,751; 24.5% [95% CI, 24.0 to 25.1%]) in the full sample and restricted samples (1,410 of 4,661; 30.3% [95% CI, 28.9 to 31.6%] vs. 3,690 of 14,337; 25.7% [95% CI, 25.0 to 26.5%]). In the full sample multivariate logistic regression, propofol was associated with higher neoplasm (adjusted odds ratio, 1.25 [95% CI, 1.21 to 1.29]), adenoma (odds ratio, 1.07 [95% CI, 1.03 to 1.11]), and serrated polyp detection (odds ratio, 1.51 [95% CI, 1.46 to 1.57]). In the restricted sample using inverse probability of treatment weighted propensity score adjustment and clustering at the endoscopist level, an attenuated but statistically significant effect size was observed for serrated polyps (odds ratio, 1.13 [95% CI, 1.07 to 1.19]), but not for adenomas (odds ratio, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.95 to 1.05]) or any neoplastic lesion (odds ratio, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.98 to 1.08]). CONCLUSIONS: Propofol sedation during colonoscopy may be associated with improved detection of serrated polyps, but not adenomas.

Expert endoscopist assessment of colorectal polyp size using virtual scale endoscopy, visual or snare-based estimation: a prospective video-based study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Accurate polyp size estimation during colonoscopy has an impact on clinical decision-making. A laser-based virtual scale endoscope (VSE) is available to allow measuring polyp size using a virtual adaptive scale. This study evaluates video-based polyp size measurement accuracy among expert endoscopists using either VSE or visual assessment (VA) with either snare as reference size or without any reference size information. METHODS: A prospective, video-based study was conducted with 10 expert endoscopists. Video sequences from 90 polyps with known reference size (fresh specimen measured using calipers) were distributed on three different slide sets so that each slide set showed the same polyp only once with either VSE, VA or snare-based information. A slide set was randomly assigned to each endoscopist. Endoscopists were asked to provide size estimation based on video review. RESULTS: Relative accuracies for VSE, VA, and snare-based estimation were 75.1% (95% CI [71.6-78.5]), 65.0% (95% CI [59.5-70.4]) and 62.0% (95% CI [54.8-69.0]), respectively. VSE yielded significantly higher relative accuracy compared to VA (p = 0.002) and to snare (p = 0.001). A significantly lower percentage of polyps 1-5 mm were misclassified as >5 mm using VSE versus VA and snare (6.52% vs. 19.6% and 17.5%, p = 0.004) and a significantly lower percentage of polyps >5 mm were misclassified as 1-5 mm using VSE versus VA and snare (11.4% vs. 31.9% and 14.9%, p = 0.038). CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopists estimate polyp size with the highest accuracy when virtual adaptive scale information is displayed. Using a snare to assist sizing did not improve measurement accuracy compared to displaying visual information alone.

Virtual Interviews in the Post-COVID-19 Emergency Era: Insights from the Gastroenterology Fellowship Applicants and Programs.

BACKGROUND: Virtual interviews are still recommended for fellowship applications, 3 years after the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. Improving equity by reducing the cost for the applicants has been the most important reason for continuing virtual interviews. However, some argue that important information may be missed in a virtual setting. Our objective was to assess the perspective of Gastroenterology (GI) fellowship interviewers and applicants toward virtual interviews. METHODS: We designed two different anonymous surveys directed at GI programs and GI applicants who were interviewed for GI fellowship programs from 2020 to 2022 and matched to a GI program. Survey links were emailed to the Program Directors (PDs) and Program Coordinators via the AGA listserv starting in January 2023. A descriptive analysis was performed using Excel, and Fisher's exact tests were performed using R version 4.3.1. RESULTS: Sixty-one applicants and 79 interviewers responded to our survey. More than 80% of applicants strongly agreed (n = 36; 59%) and agreed (n = 14; 23%) that they would prefer in-person interviews if money was not an issue. When applicants were asked about the interview format in order of their preference, "in-person, hybrid, virtual" was the most popular answer (n = 16; 26.2%). Most interviewers (n = 47; 59.5%) do not prefer virtual interviews over in-person interviews. Furthermore, some interviewers were rarely able to judge the applicants' interpersonal (n = 17; 21.5%) and ethical skills (n = 16; 20.3%). These results differed according to the type of interviewer (p = 0.013 and 0.018, respectively). CONCLUSION: Based on our survey, most programs still prefer in-person interviews. Despite the several advantages of virtual interviews, the majority of applicants would prefer an in-person setting if the financial burden was not a factor. Nonetheless, many applicants think that the cost savings outweigh all the disadvantages associated with virtual interviews. The lack of empathy, personal connections, and engagement may impact the ability of interviewers to judge and ultimately rank a candidate. The virtual interview is here to stay, and we need input from the applicants and the interviewers to make the process more productive.

Updates on Age to Start and Stop Colorectal Cancer Screening: Recommendations From the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer.

This document is a focused update to the 2017 colorectal cancer (CRC) screening recommendations from the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, which represents the American College of Gastroenterology, the American Gastroenterological Association, and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. This update is restricted to addressing the age to start and stop CRC screening in average-risk individuals and the recommended screening modalities. Although there is no literature demonstrating that CRC screening in individuals under age 50 improves health outcomes such as CRC incidence or CRC-related mortality, sufficient data support the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force to suggest average-risk CRC screening begin at age 45. This recommendation is based on the increasing disease burden among individuals under age 50, emerging data that the prevalence of advanced colorectal neoplasia in individuals ages 45 to 49 approaches rates in individuals 50 to 59, and modeling studies that demonstrate the benefits of screening outweigh the potential harms and costs. For individuals ages 76 to 85, the decision to start or continue screening should be individualized and based on prior screening history, life expectancy, CRC risk, and personal preference. Screening is not recommended after age 85.

Diagnosis and Management of Cancer Risk in the Gastrointestinal Hamartomatous Polyposis Syndromes: Recommendations From the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer.

The gastrointestinal hamartomatous polyposis syndromes are rare, autosomal dominant disorders associated with an increased risk of benign and malignant intestinal and extraintestinal tumors. They include Peutz-Jeghers syndrome, juvenile polyposis syndrome, the PTEN hamartoma tumor syndrome (including Cowden's syndrome and Bannayan-Riley-Ruvalcaba syndrome), and hereditary mixed polyposis syndrome. Diagnoses are based on clinical criteria and, in some cases, confirmed by demonstrating the presence of a germline pathogenic variant. The best understood hamartomatous polyposis syndrome is Peutz-Jeghers syndrome, caused by germline pathogenic variants in the STK11 gene. The management is focused on prevention of bleeding and mechanical obstruction of the small bowel by polyps and surveillance of organs at increased risk for cancer. Juvenile polyposis syndrome is caused by a germline pathogenic variant in either the SMAD4 or BMPR1A genes, with differing clinical courses. Patients with SMAD4 pathogenic variants may have massive gastric polyposis, which can result in gastrointestinal bleeding and/or protein-losing gastropathy. Patients with SMAD4 mutations usually have the simultaneous occurrence of hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia (juvenile polyposis syndrome-hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia overlap syndrome) that can result in epistaxis, gastrointestinal bleeding from mucocutaneous telangiectasias, and arteriovenous malformations. Germline pathogenic variants in the PTEN gene cause overlapping clinical phenotypes (known as the PTEN hamartoma tumor syndromes), including Cowden's syndrome and related disorders that are associated with an increased risk of gastrointestinal and colonic polyposis, colon cancer, and other extraintestinal manifestations and cancers. Due to the relative rarity of the hamartomatous polyposis syndromes, recommendations for management are based on few studies. This U.S Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer consensus statement summarizes the clinical features, assesses the current literature, and provides guidance for diagnosis, assessment, and management of patients with the hamartomatous polyposis syndromes, with a focus on endoscopic management.

Performing High-Quality, Safe, Cost-Effective, and Efficient Basic Colonoscopy in 2023: Advice From Two Experts.

Based on published evidence and our expert experience, we provide recommendations to maximize the efficacy, safety, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness of routine colonoscopy. High-quality colonoscopy begins with colon preparation using a split or same-day dose and preferably a low-volume regimen for optimal patient tolerance and compliance. Successful cecal intubation can be achieved by choosing the correct colonoscope and using techniques to facilitate navigation through challenges such as severe angulations and redundant colons. Safety is a primary goal, and complications such as perforation and splenic rupture can be prevented by avoiding pushing through fixed resistance and avoiding loops in proximal colon. Furthermore, barotrauma can be avoided by converting to water filling only (no gas insufflation) in every patient with a narrowed, angulated sigmoid. Optimal polyp detection relies primarily on compulsive attention to inspection as manifested by adequate inspection time, vigorous probing of the spaces between haustral folds, washing and removing residual debris, and achieving full distention. Achieving minimum recommended adenoma detection rate thresholds (30% in men and 20% in women) is mandatory, and colonoscopists should aspire to adenoma detection rate approaching 50% in screening patients. Distal attachments can improve mucosal exposure and increase detection while shortening withdrawal times. Complete resection of polyps complements polyp detection in preventing colorectal cancer. Cold resection is the preferred method for all polyps < 10 mm. For effective cold resection, an adequate rim of normal tissue should be captured in the snare. Finally, cost-effective high-quality colonoscopy requires the procedure not be overused, as demonstrated by following updated United States Multi Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer postpolypectomy surveillance recommendations.

Higher Serrated Polyp Detection Rates Are Associated With Lower Risk of Postcolonoscopy Colorectal Cancer: Data From the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry.

INTRODUCTION: We used New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry data to examine the association between postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC) and sessile serrated detection rates (SSLDRs). METHODS: We included patients with either a colonoscopy or a CRC diagnosis in the NH State Cancer Registry. PCCRC was any CRC diagnosed ≥ 6 months after index examination. RESULTS: Of 26,901 patients, 162 were diagnosed with PCCRC. The hazard ratio for PCCRC was lowest for patients whose endoscopists had the highest SSLDR quintile (≥6%) (hazard ratio 0.29; 95% confidence interval 0.16-0.50). DISCUSSION: Endoscopists with higher SSLDRs had lower risks of PCCRC. These data validate SSLDR as a clinically relevant quality measure.

Endoscopist adenomas-per-colonoscopy detection rates and risk for postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer: Data from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Adenomas per colonoscopy (APC) may be a better measure of colonoscopy quality than adenoma detection rate (ADR) because it credits endoscopists for each detected adenoma. There are few data examining the association between APC and postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC) incidence. We used data from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry to examine APC and PCCRC risk. METHODS: We included New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry patients with an index examination and at least 1 follow-up event, either a colonoscopy or a colorectal cancer (CRC) diagnosis. Our outcome was PCCRC defined as any CRC diagnosed ≥6 months after an index examination. The exposure variable was endoscopist-specific APC quintiles of .25, .40, .50, and .70. Cox regression was used to model the hazard of PCCRC on APC, controlled for age, sex, year of index examination, index findings, bowel preparation, and having more than 1 surveillance examination. RESULTS: In 32,535 patients, a lower hazard for PCCRC (n = 178) was observed for higher APCs as compared to APCs of <.25 (reference): .25 to <.40: hazard ratio (HR), .35; 95% confidence interval (CI), .22-.56; .40 to <.50: HR, .31; 95% CI, .20-.49; .50 to <.70: HR, .20; 95% CI, .11-.36; and ≥.70: HR, .19; 95% CI, .09-.37. When examining endoscopists with an ADR of at least 25%, an APC of <.50 was associated with a significantly higher hazard than an APC of ≥.50 (HR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.06-2.56). A large proportion of endoscopists-one-fifth (32 of 152; 21.1%)-had an ADR of ≥25% but an APC of <.50. CONCLUSIONS: Our novel data demonstrating lower PCCRC risk in examinations performed by endoscopists with higher APCs suggest that APC could be a useful quality measure. Quality improvement programs may identify important deficiencies in endoscopist detection performance by measuring APC for endoscopists with an ADR of ≥25%.

Comparison of adenoma miss rate and adenoma detection rate between conventional colonoscopy and colonoscopy with second generation distal attachment cuff: a multicenter, randomized, back-to-back trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endocuff VisionTM has been designed to enhance mucosal visualization thereby improving detection of (pre-)malignant colorectal lesions. This multicenter, international, back-to-back, randomized colonoscopy trial compared adenoma detection rate (ADR) and adenoma miss rate (AMR) between Endocuff Vision-assisted colonoscopy (EVC) and conventional colonoscopy (CC). METHODS: Patients aged 40-75 years referred for non-immunochemical fecal occult blood test-based screening, surveillance, or diagnostic colonoscopy were included at ten hospitals and randomized into four groups: Group 1; 2xCC, Group 2; CC followed by EVC, Group 3; EVC followed CC and Group 4; 2xEVC. Primary outcomes included ADR and AMR. RESULTS: A total of 717 patients were randomized of which 661 patients (92.2%) had one and 646 (90.1%) patients had two completed back-to-back colonoscopies. EVC did not significantly improve ADR compared to CC (41.1% [95%-CI;36.1-46.3] versus 35.5% [95%-CI;30.7-40.6], respectively, P=0.125), but EVC did reduced AMR by 11.7% (29.6% [95%-CI;23.6-36.5] versus 17.9% [95%-CI;12.5-23.5], respectively, P=0.049). AMR of 2xCC compared to 2xEVC was also not significantly different (25.9% [95%-CI;19.3-33.9] versus 18.8% [95%-CI;13.9-24.8], respectively, P=0.172). Only 3.7% of the polyps missed during the first procedures had advanced pathologic features. Factors affecting risk of missing adenomas were age (P=0.002), Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (P=0.008) and region where colonoscopy was performed (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our trial shows that EVC reduces the risk of missing adenomas but does not lead to a significant improved ADR. Remarkably, 25% of adenomas are still missed during conventional colonoscopies, which is not different from miss rates reported 25 years ago; reassuringly, advanced features were only found in 3.7% of these missed lesions. TRAIL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03418948.

Using New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry data to assess United States and European post-polypectomy surveillance guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Our goal was to compare the updated European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and United States Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer (USMSTF) high risk groups in predicting metachronous advanced neoplasia on first follow-up colonoscopy and long-term colorectal cancer (CRC). METHODS: We compared advanced metachronous neoplasia risk (serrated polyps ≥ 1 cm or with dysplasia, advanced adenomas [≥ 1 cm, villous, high grade dysplasia], CRC) on first surveillance colonoscopy in patients with high risk findings according to ESGE versus USMSTF guidelines. We also compared the positive and negative predictive values (PPV, NPV) of both guidelines for metachronous neoplasia. RESULTS: The risk for metachronous neoplasia in our sample (n = 20 458) was higher in the high risk USMSTF (3 year) (13.6 %; 95 %CI 12.3-14.9) and ESGE groups (13.6 %; 95 %CI 12.3-15.0) compared with the lowest risk USMSTF (5.1 %; 95 %CI 4.7-5.5; P < 0.001) and ESGE categories (6.3 %; 95 %CI 6.0-6.7; P < 0.001), respectively. Adding other groups such as USMSTF 5-10-year and 3-5-year groups to the 3-year category resulted in minimal change in the PPV and NPV for metachronous advanced neoplasia. High risk ESGE (hazard ratio [HR] 3.03, 95 %CI 1.97-4.65) and USMSTF (HR 3.07, 95 %CI 2.03-4.66) designations were associated with similar long-term CRC risk (CRC per 100 000 person-years: USMSTF 3-year group 3.54, 95 %CI 2.68-4.68; ESGE high risk group: 3.43, 95 %CI 2.57-4.59). CONCLUSION: Performance characteristics for the ESGE and USMSTF recommendations are similar in predicting metachronous advanced neoplasia and long-term CRC. The addition of risk groups, such as the USMSTF 5-10-year and 3-5-year groups to the USMSTF 3-year category did not alter the PPV or NPV significantly.

Risk of total metachronous advanced neoplasia at surveillance colonoscopy after detection of serrated lesions: a matched case-cohort study.

BACKGROUND : Serrated lesions are potential colorectal cancer precursors. This study evaluated the presence of total metachronous advanced neoplasia (T-MAN) at follow-up in patients with index serrated lesions compared with a matched cohort without serrated lesions. METHODS : Patients aged 45-74 years with serrated lesions were matched 2:1 by sex, age, synchronous polyps, and timing of index colonoscopy, to patients without serrated lesions. The primary outcome was T-MAN (advanced adenoma or high-risk serrated lesion) at follow-up. Secondary outcomes included presence of T-MAN stratified by synchronous polyps and serrated lesion characteristics. RESULTS : 1425 patients were included (475 patients, 642 serrated lesions; 950 controls; median follow-up 2.9 versus 3.6 years). Patients with serrated lesions had greater risk of T-MAN than those without (hazard ratio [HR] 6.1, 95 %CI 3.9-9.6). Patients with serrated lesions and high-risk adenoma (HRA) had higher risk of T-MAN than those with HRA alone (HR 2.6, 95 %CI 1.4-4.7); similarly, patients with serrated lesions plus low-risk adenoma (LRA) had higher risk than those with LRA alone (HR 7.0, 95 %CI 2.8-18.4), as did patients with serrated lesions without adenoma compared with no adenoma (HR 14.9, 95 %CI 6.5-34.0). Presence of proximal sessile serrated lesion (SSL; HR 9.3, 95 %CI 5.4-15.9), large SSL (HR 17.8, 95 %CI 7.4-43.3), and proximal large SSL (HR 25.0, 95 %CI 8.8-71.3), but not distal SSL, were associated with greater risk for T-MAN. CONCLUSION : Patients with serrated lesions had higher risk for T-MAN regardless of synchronous adenomas. Patients with serrated lesions and HRA, and those with large or proximal SSLs, were at greatest risk.

Burnout Among US Gastroenterologists and Fellows in Training: Identifying Contributing Factors and Offering Solutions.

BACKGROUND: Consequences of physician burnout include medical errors, higher rate of staff turnover, and decreased patient satisfaction. We examined the prevalence of burnout and identified the contributing factors in gastroenterologists and fellows in training. METHODS: We performed 3 separate surveys through the American College of Gastroenterology. (1) A national survey of practicing gastroenterologists in the United States that measured burnout and contributing factors, (2) a survey of gastroenterology fellows in training to determine self-identified burnout, as well as mitigating and exacerbating factors, and (3) a follow-up survey of fellows during the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: One thousand and twenty-one persons responded (9.2% response rate) to the first survey, including 756 individuals who completed the Maslach Burnout Inventory survey. Overall, the prevalence of high burnout was 49.3%. Factors associated with high burnout included female sex, younger age, shorter duration in practice, considering the electronic health record non-user-friendly, 2 or more hours of patient-related work at home per day, 8 or more hours of outpatient time per day, 6 or more inpatient consults per day, taking call with procedures 10 or more times per year, and having children at home. With regard to lifestyle factors, taking 20 days or more of vacation time was associated with a lower rate of burnout. The level of burnout for fellows was observed to be high (42.7% in survey 2 and 35.3% in survey 3). CONCLUSIONS: Burnout is high in gastroenterologists and fellows in training. Specific contributing factors were both systems based and personal and provide insight into changes that can be made to address burnout.

Updates on Age to Start and Stop Colorectal Cancer Screening: Recommendations From the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer.

This document is a focused update to the 2017 colorectal cancer (CRC) screening recommendations from the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, which represents the American College of Gastroenterology, the American Gastroenterological Association, and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. This update is restricted to addressing the age to start and stop CRC screening in average-risk individuals and the recommended screening modalities. Although there is no literature demonstrating that CRC screening in individuals under age 50 improves health outcomes such as CRC incidence or CRC-related mortality, sufficient data support the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force to suggest average-risk CRC screening begin at age 45. This recommendation is based on the increasing disease burden among individuals under age 50, emerging data that the prevalence of advanced colorectal neoplasia in individuals ages 45 to 49 approaches rates in individuals 50 to 59, and modeling studies that demonstrate the benefits of screening outweigh the potential harms and costs. For individuals ages 76 to 85, the decision to start or continue screening should be individualized and based on prior screening history, life expectancy, CRC risk, and personal preference. Screening is not recommended after age 85.

Diagnosis and Management of Cancer Risk in the Gastrointestinal Hamartomatous Polyposis Syndromes: Recommendations From the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer.

The gastrointestinal hamartomatous polyposis syndromes are rare, autosomal dominant disorders associated with an increased risk of benign and malignant intestinal and extraintestinal tumors. They include Peutz-Jeghers syndrome, juvenile polyposis syndrome, the PTEN hamartoma tumor syndrome (including Cowden's syndrome and Bannayan-Riley-Ruvalcaba syndrome), and hereditary mixed polyposis syndrome. Diagnoses are based on clinical criteria and, in some cases, confirmed by demonstrating the presence of a germline pathogenic variant. The best understood hamartomatous polyposis syndrome is Peutz-Jeghers syndrome, caused by germline pathogenic variants in the STK11 gene. The management is focused on prevention of bleeding and mechanical obstruction of the small bowel by polyps and surveillance of organs at increased risk for cancer. Juvenile polyposis syndrome is caused by a germline pathogenic variant in either the SMAD4 or BMPR1A genes, with differing clinical courses. Patients with SMAD4 pathogenic variants may have massive gastric polyposis, which can result in gastrointestinal bleeding and/or protein-losing gastropathy. Patients with SMAD4 mutations usually have the simultaneous occurrence of hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia (juvenile polyposis syndrome-hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia overlap syndrome) that can result in epistaxis, gastrointestinal bleeding from mucocutaneous telangiectasias, and arteriovenous malformations. Germline pathogenic variants in the PTEN gene cause overlapping clinical phenotypes (known as the PTEN hamartoma tumor syndromes), including Cowden's syndrome and related disorders that are associated with an increased risk of gastrointestinal and colonic polyposis, colon cancer, and other extraintestinal manifestations and cancers. Due to the relative rarity of the hamartomatous polyposis syndromes, recommendations for management are based on few studies. This US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer consensus statement summarizes the clinical features, assesses the current literature, and provides guidance for diagnosis, assessment, and management of patients with the hamartomatous polyposis syndromes, with a focus on endoscopic management.

Clinically significant serrated polyp detection rates and risk for postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer: data from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Higher adenoma detection rates reduce the risk of postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC). Clinically significant serrated polyps (CSSPs; defined as any sessile serrated polyp, traditional serrated adenoma, large [≥1 cm] or proximal hyperplastic polyp >5 mm) also lead to PCCRC, but there are no data on associated CSSP detection rates (CSSDRs). We used data from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry (NHCR) to investigate the association between PCCRC risk and endoscopist CSSDR. METHODS: We included NHCR patients with 1 or more follow-up events: either a colonoscopy or a colorectal cancer (CRC) diagnosis identified through linkage with the New Hampshire State Cancer Registry. We defined our outcome, PCCRC, in 3 time periods: CRC diagnosed 6 to 36 months, 6 to 60 months, or all examinations (6 months or longer) after an index examination. We excluded patients with CRC diagnosed at or within 6 months of the index examination, with incomplete examinations, or with inflammatory bowel disease. The exposure variable was endoscopist CSSDR at the index colonoscopy. Cox regression was used to model the hazard of PCCRC on CSSDR controlling for age, sex, index findings, year of examination, personal history of colorectal neoplasia, and having more than 1 surveillance examination. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-eight patients with CRC diagnosed at least 6 months after their index examination were included. Our cohort included 142 endoscopists (92 gastroenterologists). We observed that the risk for PCCRC 6 months or longer after the index examination was significantly lower for examinations performed by endoscopists with CSSDRs of 3% to <9% (hazard ratio [HR], .57; 95% confidence interval [CI], .39-.83) or 9% or higher (HR, .39; 95% CI, .20-.78) relative to those with CSSDRs under 3%. CONCLUSIONS: Our study is the first to demonstrate a lower PCCRC risk after examinations performed by endoscopists with higher CSSDRs. Both CSSDRs of 9% and 3% to <9% had statistically lower risk of PCCRC than CSSDRs of <3%. These data validate CSSDR as a clinically relevant quality measure for endoscopists.

Cold versus hot snare resection with or without submucosal injection of 6- to 15-mm colorectal polyps: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Cold snare resection of colorectal lesions has been found to be safe and effective for an expanding set of colorectal lesions. In this study, we sought to understand the efficacy of simple cold snare resection and cold EMR versus hot snare resection and hot EMR for colorectal lesions 6 to 15 mm in size. METHODS: At 3 U.S. centers, 235 patients with 286 colorectal lesions 6 to 15 mm in size were randomized to cold snaring, cold EMR, hot snaring, or hot EMR for nonpedunculated colorectal lesions 6 to 15 mm in size. The primary outcome was complete resection determined by 4 biopsy samples from the defect margin and 1 biopsy sample from the center of the resection defect. RESULTS: The overall incomplete resection rate was 2.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], .8%-7.5%). All 7 incompletely removed polyps were 10 to 15 mm in size and removed by hot EMR (n = 4, 6.2%), hot snare (n = 2, 2.2%), or cold EMR (n = 1, 1.8%). Cold snaring had no incomplete resections, required less procedural time than the other methods, and was not associated with serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Cold snaring is a dominant resection technique for nonpedunculated colorectal lesions 6 to 15 mm in size. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03462706.).

Updates on age to start and stop colorectal cancer screening: recommendations from the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer.

This document is a focused update to the 2017 colorectal cancer (CRC) screening recommendations from the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, which represents the American College of Gastroenterology, the American Gastroenterological Association, and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. This update is restricted to addressing the age to start and stop CRC screening in average-risk individuals and the recommended screening modalities. Although there is no literature demonstrating that CRC screening in individuals under age 50 improves health outcomes such as CRC incidence or CRC-related mortality, sufficient data support the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force to suggest average-risk CRC screening begin at age 45. This recommendation is based on the increasing disease burden among individuals under age 50, emerging data that the prevalence of advanced colorectal neoplasia in individuals ages 45 to 49 approaches rates in individuals 50 to 59, and modeling studies that demonstrate the benefits of screening outweigh the potential harms and costs. For individuals ages 76 to 85, the decision to start or continue screening should be individualized and based on prior screening history, life expectancy, CRC risk, and personal preference. Screening is not recommended after age 85.

Diagnosis and management of cancer risk in the gastrointestinal hamartomatous polyposis syndromes: recommendations from the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer.

The gastrointestinal hamartomatous polyposis syndromes are rare, autosomal dominant disorders associated with an increased risk of benign and malignant intestinal and extraintestinal tumors. They include Peutz-Jeghers syndrome, juvenile polyposis syndrome, the PTEN hamartoma tumor syndrome (including Cowden's syndrome and Bannayan-Riley-Ruvalcaba syndrome), and hereditary mixed polyposis syndrome. Diagnoses are based on clinical criteria and, in some cases, confirmed by demonstrating the presence of a germline pathogenic variant. The best understood hamartomatous polyposis syndrome is Peutz-Jeghers syndrome, caused by germline pathogenic variants in the STK11 gene. The management is focused on prevention of bleeding and mechanical obstruction of the small bowel by polyps and surveillance of organs at increased risk for cancer. Juvenile polyposis syndrome is caused by a germline pathogenic variant in either the SMAD4 or BMPR1A genes, with differing clinical courses. Patients with SMAD4 pathogenic variants may have massive gastric polyposis, which can result in gastrointestinal bleeding and/or protein-losing gastropathy. Patients with SMAD4 mutations usually have the simultaneous occurrence of hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia (juvenile polyposis syndrome-hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia overlap syndrome) that can result in epistaxis, gastrointestinal bleeding from mucocutaneous telangiectasias, and arteriovenous malformations. Germline pathogenic variants in the PTEN gene cause overlapping clinical phenotypes (known as the PTEN hamartoma tumor syndromes), including Cowden's syndrome and related disorders that are associated with an increased risk of gastrointestinal and colonic polyposis, colon cancer, and other extraintestinal manifestations and cancers. Due to the relative rarity of the hamartomatous polyposis syndromes, recommendations for management are based on few studies. This U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer consensus statement summarizes the clinical features, assesses the current literature, and provides guidance for diagnosis, assessment, and management of patients with the hamartomatous polyposis syndromes, with a focus on endoscopic management.