Post-colonoscopy colorectal cancers in a national fecal immunochemical test-based colorectal cancer screening program.

BACKGROUND: Post-colonoscopy colorectal cancers (PCCRCs) decrease the effect of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs. To enable PCCRC incidence reduction in the long-term, we classified PCCRCs diagnosed after colonoscopies performed in a fecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based screening program. METHODS: PCCRCs diagnosed after colonoscopies performed between 2014-2016 for a positive FIT in the Dutch CRC screening program were included. PCCRCs were categorized according to the World Endoscopy Organization consensus statement into (a) interval PCCRC (diagnosed before the recommended surveillance); (b) non-interval type A (diagnosed at the recommended surveillance interval); (c) non-interval type B (diagnosed after the recommended surveillance interval); or (d) non-interval type C (diagnosed after the intended recommended surveillance interval, with surveillance not implemented owing to co-morbidity). The most probable etiology was determined by root-cause analysis. Tumor stage distributions were compared between categories. RESULTS: 116362 colonoscopies were performed after a positive FIT with 9978 screen-detected CRCs. During follow-up, 432 PCCRCs were diagnosed. The 3-year PCCRC rate was 2.7%. PCCRCs were categorized as interval (53.5%), non-interval type A (14.6%), non-interval type B (30.6%), and non-interval type C (1.4%). The most common etiology for interval PCCRCs was possible missed lesion with adequate examination (73.6%); they were more often diagnosed at an advanced stage (stage III/IV; 53.2%) compared with non-interval type A (15.9%; P<0.001) and non-interval type B (40.9%; P=0.03) PCCRCs. CONCLUSIONS: The 3-year PCCRC rate was low in this FIT-based CRC screening program. Approximately half of PCCRCs were interval PCCRCs. These were mostly caused by missed lesions and were diagnosed at a more advanced stage. This emphasizes the importance of high quality colonoscopy with optimal polyp detection.

Adenoma Detection Rate and Risk for Interval Postcolonoscopy Colorectal Cancer in Fecal Immunochemical Test-Based Screening : A Population-Based Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: The adenoma detection rate (ADR) is an essential quality indicator for endoscopists performing colonoscopies for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening as it is associated with postcolonoscopy CRCs (PCCRCs). Currently, data on ADRs of endoscopists performing colonoscopies in fecal immunochemical testing (FIT)-based screening, the most common screening method, are scarce. Also, the association between the ADR and PCCRC has not been demonstrated in this setting. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between the ADR and PCCRC risk in colonoscopies done after a positive FIT result. DESIGN: Population-based cohort. SETTING: Dutch, FIT-based, CRC screening program. PARTICIPANTS: Patients undergoing colonoscopy, done by accredited endoscopists, after a positive FIT result. MEASUREMENTS: Quality indicator performance and PCCRC incidence for colonoscopies in FIT-positive screenees were assessed. The PCCRCs were classified as interval, a cancer detected before recommended surveillance, or noninterval. The association between ADR and interval PCCRC was evaluated with a multivariable Cox regression model and PCCRC incidence was determined for different ADRs. RESULTS: 362 endoscopists performed 116 360 colonoscopies with a median ADR of 67%. In total, 209 interval PCCRCs were identified. The ADR was associated with interval PCCRC, with an adjusted hazard ratio of 0.95 (95% CI, 0.92 to 0.97) per 1% increase in ADR. For every 1000 patients undergoing colonoscopy, the expected number of interval PCCRC diagnoses after 5 years was approximately 2 for endoscopists with ADRs of 70%, compared with more than 2.5, almost 3.5, and more than 4.5 for endoscopists with ADRs of 65%, 60%, and 55%, respectively. LIMITATION: The relative short duration of follow-up (median, 52 months) could be considered a limitation. CONCLUSION: The ADR of endoscopists is inversely associated with the risk for interval PCCRC in FIT-positive colonoscopies. Endoscopists performing colonoscopy in FIT-based screening should aim for markedly higher ADRs compared with primary colonoscopy. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

Combined oral and rectal mesalazine for the treatment of mild-to-moderately active ulcerative colitis: rapid symptom resolution and improvements in quality of life.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Mesalazine (5-aminosalicylic acid) is the standard first-line therapy for mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis. In the PINCE study, remission rates were significantly greater with combined oral/enema vs. oral/placebo treatment at 8 weeks (64% vs. 43%, respectively; p=0.030). In this analysis, we explored early response, mucosal healing rates, cessation of rectal bleeding, and quality of life in PINCE. METHODS: Patients with extensive mild-to-moderately active ulcerative colitis received 8weeks of oral mesalazine 4 g/day, plus 4 weeks of daily active (1g mesalazine) or placebo enema. Early response was assessed using the abbreviated ulcerative colitis disease activity index. Mucosal healing was assessed by disease activity index endoscopic mucosal appearance score. Cessation of bleeding (patient diaries), quality of life (EQ-5D), and patient acceptability (questionnaire) were also assessed. RESULTS: Combined mesalazine oral/enema treatment achieved a significantly higher rate of improvement in abbreviated ulcerative colitis disease activity index (score decrease ≥ 2) within 2 weeks, compared with oral-only treatment (p = 0.032). Bleeding ceased significantly more quickly with combination vs. oral therapy (p = 0.003). More patients showed mucosal healing (disease activity index endoscopic mucosal appearance score 0/1) with combination vs. oral therapy, which was significantly different between groups at week 4 (p = 0.052). Both groups showed quality of life improvements, with a significant benefit for combination vs. oral therapy at week 4 in multiple domains. Most patients reported finding the treatment acceptable. CONCLUSIONS: Rapid cessation of symptoms was seen with combination therapy, which is particularly important to patients and may improve quality of life.

Six months of balloon treatment does not predict the success of gastric banding.

BACKGROUND: We studied whether weight loss by intragastric balloon would predict the outcome of subsequent gastric banding with regard to weight loss and BMI reduction. METHODS: A prospective cohort of patients with a body mass index (BMI)>40 kg/m(2) received an intragastric balloon for 6 months followed by laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB). Successful balloon-induced weight loss was defined as > or =10% weight loss after 6 months. Successful surgical weight loss was defined as an additional 15% weight loss in the following 12 months. Patients were divided in group A, losing > or =10% of their initial weight with 6 months' balloon treatment, and group B, losing <10% of their initial weight. RESULTS: In 40 patients (32 female, 8 male; age 36.6 yr, range 26-54), the mean BMI decreased from 46.5 to 40.5 kg/m(2) (P<0.001) after 6 months of balloon treatment and to 35.2 kg/m(2) (P<0.001) 12 months after LAGB. Group A (25 patients) and group B (15 patients) had a significant difference in BMI decrease, 12.4 vs 9.0 kg/m(2) (P<0.05), after the total study duration of 18 months. However, there was no difference in BMI reduction (4.7 kg/m(2) vs 5.8 kg/m(2)) in the 12 months after LAGB. 6 patients in group A lost > or =10% of their starting weight during 6 months balloon treatment as well as > or =15% 12 months following LAGB. 6 patients in group B lost <10% of their starting weight after 6 months of BIB, but also lost > or =15% 12 months following LAGB. CONCLUSION: Intragastric balloon did not predict the success of subsequent LAGB.

Approach to treatment of dyspepsia in primary care: a randomized trial comparing "test-and-treat" with prompt endoscopy.

BACKGROUND: The value of the "test-and-treat" strategy in the approach to dyspepsia has been evaluated only in a few secondary care studies. Most patients with dyspepsia, however, are treated by their primary care physician. This study evaluated the test-and-treat strategy in primary care. METHODS: Patients consulting their general practitioners for dyspepsia were randomized to either direct open-access endoscopy with Helicobacter pylori testing or a test-and-treat strategy by H pylori serology. In the 12-month follow-up period, any additional treatment or referral for investigations was left at the discretion of the general practitioner. At the end of the study, data were collected concerning the number of endoscopies, changes in symptom severity and quality of life, patient satisfaction, and the use of medical resources. RESULTS: Two hundred seventy patients were enrolled (129 who received endoscopy and 141 in the test-and-treat group). The prevalence of H pylori infection was 38.3% and 37.2% in the test-and-treat and endoscopy groups, respectively. In the test-and-treat group, 46 patients (33%) were referred for endoscopy during follow-up. Improvement in symptom severity, quality of life, and patient satisfaction was comparable in both groups. Patients in the test-and-treat group paid more dyspepsia-related visits to their general practitioner (P =.005). Patients in the endoscopy group were more often prescribed proton pump inhibitors (P =.007), whereas patients in the test-and-treat group were more often prescribed prokinetic drugs (P =.005). CONCLUSIONS: The test-and-treat strategy proved to be as effective and safe as prompt endoscopy. Only a minority of patients were referred for endoscopy after the test-and-treat approach.