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.

Evaluation of transient elastography for fibrosis assessment compared with large biopsies in chronic hepatitis B and C.

BACKGROUND: Fibrosis determines prognosis and management in patients with chronic hepatitis B and C (CHB and CHC). Transient elastography (TE) is a promising non-invasive method to assess fibrosis. We prospectively studied the performance of TE compared to histology and also whether there are differences between CHB and CHC. Only large biopsies (≥ 25 mm) were used. METHODS: We included 241 patients with CHB (n = 125) and CHC (n = 116), of whom we acquired 257 liver biopsies, all preceded by elastography. We correlated liver stiffness with fibrosis stage according to the METAVIR system, inflammation (Histology Activity Index), steatosis and iron. The impact of gender, age, body mass index, alcohol, alanine aminotransferase levels, platelet count, viral load and genotype on liver stiffness was evaluated. RESULTS: The AUROC's for F ≥ 2 were 0.85 for CHB and 0.76 for CHC. AUROC's for F ≥ 3 were 0.91 for CHB and 0.87 for CHC and 0.90 and 0.91 for F4 for CHB and CHC respectively. For F ≥ 2 the cut-off value was 6.0 kPa for CHB and 5.0 kPa for CHC. The cut-off values for ≥ F3 were 9.0 and 8.0 kPa for CHB and CHC, respectively, and 13.0 kPa for F4 in both CHB and CHC patients. Besides inflammation, all other remaining factors do not influence liver stiffness. CONCLUSION: For the diagnosis of fibrosis stages F ≤ 2 TE is suboptimal, and inflammation may induce higher values. For stages F ≥ 3 TE performance is good and equal in both CHB and CHC patients.

Impact of Fibroscan on management of chronic viral hepatitis in clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: Liver stiffness measurement (LSM) using Fibroscan is an increasingly popular non-invasive method for quantifying liver fibrosis in patients with chronic viral hepatitis. We aimed to explore potential impact of Fibroscan on clinical management. MATERIAL AND METHODS: 133 patients with chronic hepatitis B (HBV, n = 75) or C (HCV, n = 58) underwent Fibroscan measurement. LSM results were compared with liver biopsy results, ultrasound, and APRI-scores, and the impact of LSM on clinical management was evaluated. RESULTS: LSM results indicated fibrosis stage F0-F1 in 84 patients (63%), F2 in 28 (21%), F3 in 8 (6%), and F4 in 13 patients (10%). Nineteen patients had liver biopsies within one year of LSM. In ten patients, LSM and biopsy showed the same fibrosis stage, in 8 there was one stage difference, and in 1 three stages difference. Ultrasound only showed cirrhosis in three patients, who all exhibited advanced cirrhosis at LSM. There was a statistically significant, but weak correlation between LSM results and APRI scores (r = 0.31, pvalue < 0.001). LSM results changed clinical management in 39% of patients (55 cases): in 15 patients antiviral treatment was indicated, in 21 patients surveillance for hepatocellular carcinoma was indicated, and 19 successfully treated hepatitis C patients could be discharged from clinical follow-up in absence of severe fibrosis or cirrhosis. CONCLUSION: LSM appears to be a valuable non-invasive tool to manage patients with chronic viral hepatitis in clinical practice.

Comparison of non-invasive assessment to diagnose liver fibrosis in chronic hepatitis B and C patients.

OBJECTIVE: Chronic viral hepatitis B and C cause liver fibrosis, leading to cirrhosis. Fibrosis assessment is essential to establish prognosis and treatment indication. We compared seven non-invasive tests, separately and in combination, in chronic hepatitis patients to detect early stages of fibrosis according to the Metavir score in liver biopsy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Galactose and methacetin breath tests (GBT and MBT), biomarkers (hyaluronic acid (HA), aspartate aminotransferase platelet ratio index (APRI), FibroTest, and Fib-4) and transient elastography (TE) were evaluated in 89 patients. Additionally, 31 healthy controls were included for evaluation of breath tests and biomarkers. RESULTS: Serum markers (HA, APRI, FibroTest, and Fib-4) and elastography significantly distinguished non-cirrhotic (F0123) from cirrhotic (F4) patients (p < 0.001, p = 0.015, p < 0.001, p = 0.005, p = 0.006, respectively). GBT, HA, APRI, FibroTest, Fib-4, and TE detected F01 from F234 (p = 0.04, p = 0.011, p = 0.009, p < 0.001, p < 0.001, and p < 0.001, respectively). A combination of different tests (TE, HA, and FibroTest) improved the performance statistically, area under the curve (AUC) = 0.87 for F234, 0.92 for F34, and 0.90 for F4. CONCLUSION: HA, APRI, FibroTest, Fib-4, and TE reliably distinguish non-cirrhotic and cirrhotic patients. Except for MBT, all tests discriminate between mild and moderate fibrosis. As single tests: FibroTest, Fib-4, and TE were the most accurate for detecting early fibrosis; combining different non-invasive tests increased the accuracy for detection of liver fibrosis to such an extent and thus might be acceptable to replace liver biopsy.

Non-invasive measurement of liver fibrosis: application of the FibroScan in hepatology.

The liver biopsy is still regarded as the gold standard for the assessment of liver disease. However, there is a growing demand for non-invasive assessment of liver fibrosis, which is the most important prognostic factor in chronic liver disease, in particular in viral hepatitis. Transient elastography is a novel, non-invasive and rapid bedside method for assessing liver fibrosis by measuring liver stiffness. Some recent extensive studies, mainly from France, have demonstrated that measurement with the FibroScan is a good alternative for the liver biopsy. The amount of fibrosis can be quantified very easily and reliably. In this review, we describe the technique and discuss the available studies in order to establish applicability and to provide points for discussion.