RESUMEN
Video 1XXX.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Nonpharmacologic factors, including patient education, affect bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Optimal cleansing increases quality and reduces repeat procedures. This study prospectively analyzes use of an individualized online patient education module in place of traditional patient education. AIMS: To determine the effectiveness of online education for patients, measured by the proportion achieving sufficient bowel preparation. Secondary measures include assessment of patient satisfaction. METHODS: Prospective, single-center, observational study. Adults aged 19 years and over, with an e-mail account, scheduled for nonurgent colonoscopy, with English proficiency (or someone who could translate for them) were recruited. Demographics and objective bowel preparation quality were collected. Patient satisfaction was assessed via survey to assess clarity and usefulness of the module. RESULTS: Nine hundred consecutive patients completed the study. 84.6% of patients achieved adequate bowel preparation as measured by Boston bowel preparation score ≥ 6 and 90.1% scored adequately using Ottawa bowel preparation score ≤7. 94.2% and 92.1% of patients rated the web-education module as 'very useful' and 'very clear', respectively (≥8/10 on respective scales). CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis suggests that internet-based patient education prior to colonoscopy is a viable option and achieves adequate bowel preparation. Preparation quality is comparable to previously published trials. Included patients found the process clear and useful. Pragmatic benefits of a web-based protocol such as time and cost savings were not formally assessed but may contribute to greater satisfaction for endoscopists and patients.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Recent guidelines recommend consideration of germline testing for all newly diagnosed pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). The primary aim of this study was to determine the burden of hereditary cancer susceptibility in PDAC. A secondary aim was to compare genetic testing uptake rates across different modes of genetic counselling. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All patients diagnosed with PDAC in the province of British Columbia, Canada referred to a population-based hereditary cancer program were eligible for multi-gene panel testing, irrespective of cancer family history. Any healthcare provider or patients themselves could refer. RESULTS: A total of 305 patients with PDAC were referred between July 2016 and January 2019. Two hundred thirty-five patients attended a consultation and 177 completed index germline genetic testing. 25/177 (14.1%) of unrelated patients had a pathogenic variant (PV); 19/25 PV were in known PDAC susceptibility genes with cancer screening or risk-reduction implications. PDAC was significantly associated with PV in ATM (OR, 7.73; 95% CI, 3.10 to 19.33, P = 6.14E-05) when comparing age and gender and ethnicity-matched controls tested on the same platform. The overall uptake rate for index testing was 59.2% and was significantly higher with 1-on-1 consultations and group consultations compared to telehealth consultations (88.9% vs 82.9% vs 61.8%, P < .001). CONCLUSION: In a prospective clinic-based cohort of patients with PDAC referred for testing irrespective of family history, germline PV were detected in 14.1%. PV in ATM accounted for half of all PVs and were significantly associated with PDAC. These findings support recent guidelines and will guide future service planning in this population.