A randomized controlled trial of efficacy and safety of Fecal Microbiota Transplant for preventing recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection.

BACKGROUND: Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) is the most common cause of healthcare-associated infections in US hospitals with 15%-30% of patients experiencing recurrence. The aim of our randomized, double-blind clinical trial was to assess the efficacy of capsule-delivered fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) versus placebo in reducing recurrent diarrhea and CDI recurrence. The secondary aim was FMT safety assessment. METHODS: Between 2018 and 2022, Veterans across the Veterans Health Administration system with recurrent CDI who responded to antibiotic treatment were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to oral FMT or placebo capsules. Randomization was stratified by number of prior CDI recurrences (1 or ≥2). The primary endpoint was clinical recurrence by day 56, defined as >3 unformed stools daily for ≥2 days with or without laboratory confirmation of C. difficile, or death within 56 days. RESULTS: The study was stopped due to futility after meeting pre-specified criteria. Of 153 participants (76 FMT, 77 placebo) with an average age of 66.5 years, 25 participants (32.9%) in the FMT arm and 23 (29.9%) in the placebo arm experienced the primary endpoint of diarrhea and possible or definite CDI recurrence or death within 56 days of capsule administration (absolute difference 3.0%; 95% CI [-11.7%, 17.7%]). Stratification by number of recurrences revealed no statistically significant differences. There were no clinically important differences in adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: FMT therapy vs. placebo did not reduce CDI recurrence or death at 56 days. There were no meaningful differences in adverse events between treatment groups.

AGA Clinical Practice Update on Evaluation and Management of Belching, Abdominal Bloating, and Distention: Expert Review.

DESCRIPTION: Belching, bloating, and abdominal distention are all highly prevalent gastrointestinal symptoms and account for some of the most common reasons for patient visits to outpatient gastroenterology practices. These symptoms are often debilitating, affecting patients' quality of life, and contributing to work absenteeism. Belching and bloating differ in their pathophysiology, diagnosis, and management, and there is limited evidence available for their various treatments. Therefore, the purpose of this American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Clinical Practice Update is to provide best practice advice based on both controlled trials and observational data for clinicians covering clinical features, diagnostics, and management considerations that include dietary, gut-directed behavioral, and drug therapies. METHODS: This Expert Review was commissioned and approved by the AGA Institute Clinical Practice Updates Committee and the AGA Governing Board to provide timely guidance on a topic of high clinical importance to the AGA membership, and underwent internal peer review by the Clinical Practice Updates Committee and external peer review through standard procedures of Gastroenterology. These best practice advice statements were drawn from a review of the published literature based on clinical trials, the more robust observational studies, and from expert opinion. Because systematic reviews were not performed, these best practice advice statements do not carry formal ratings regarding the quality of evidence or strength of the presented considerations. Best Practice Advice Statements BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: Clinical history and physical examination findings and impedance pH monitoring can help to differentiate between gastric and supragastric belching. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: Treatment options for supragastric belching may include brain-gut behavioral therapies, either separately or in combination, such as cognitive behavioral therapy, diaphragmatic breathing, speech therapy, and central neuromodulators. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: Rome IV criteria should be used to diagnose primary abdominal bloating and distention. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: Carbohydrate enzyme deficiencies may be ruled out with dietary restriction and/or breath testing. In a small subset of at-risk patients, small bowel aspiration and glucose- or lactulose-based hydrogen breath testing may be used to evaluate for small intestinal bacterial overgrowth. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: Serologic testing may rule out celiac disease in patients with bloating and, if serologies are positive, a small bowel biopsy should be done to confirm the diagnosis. A gastroenterology dietitian should be part of the multidisciplinary approach to care for patients with celiac disease and nonceliac gluten sensitivity. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: Abdominal imaging and upper endoscopy should be ordered in patients with alarm features, recent worsening symptoms, or an abnormal physical examination only. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: Gastric emptying studies should not be ordered routinely for bloating and distention, but may be considered if nausea and vomiting are present. Whole gut motility and radiopaque transit studies should not be ordered unless other additional and treatment-refractory lower gastrointestinal symptoms exist to warrant testing for neuromyopathic disorders. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: In patients with abdominal bloating and distention thought to be related to constipation or difficult evacuation, anorectal physiology testing is suggested to rule out a pelvic floor disorder. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: When dietary modifications are needed (eg, low-fermentable oligosaccharides, disaccharides, monosaccharides and polyols diet), a gastroenterology dietitian should preferably monitor treatment. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 10: Probiotics should not be used to treat abdominal bloating and distention. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 11: Biofeedback therapy may be effective for bloating and distention when a pelvic floor disorder is identified. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 12: Central neuromodulators (eg, antidepressants) are used to treat bloating and abdominal distention by reducing visceral hypersensitivity, raising sensation threshold, and improving psychological comorbidities. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 13: Medications used to treat constipation should be considered for treating bloating if constipation symptoms are present. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 14: Psychological therapies, such as hypnotherapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, and other brain-gut behavior therapies may be used to treat patients with bloating and distention. BEST PRACTICE 15: Diaphragmatic breathing and central neuromodulators are used to treat abdominophrenic dyssynergia.

Multilevel Interventions to Improve Colorectal Cancer Screening in an Urban Native American Community: A Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial.

Native Americans have the highest burden of colorectal cancer (CRC) and the lowest rates of CRC screening across the United States.1 The disparities in CRC screening were made worse during the pandemic, creating an unmet need to implement evidence-based, multilevel interventions to improve CRC screening uptake. This can be achieved through an organized outreach program with identification of screen-eligible individuals using health records from the clinic; and a screening program with the following: (1) a mailed invitation, (2) a package of materials so patients can complete a fecal immunochemical test (FIT) kit from their homes, (3) reminder calls and a letter, and (4) navigation to a diagnostic colonoscopy.2-5 We conducted a pilot randomized controlled trial of a program of outreach vs usual care for completion of CRC screening at an urban clinic serving the Native American community. Applying the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR),6 we also conducted patient and provider interviews to understand barriers and facilitators to the organized program and CRC screening in general.

Randomized Trial of Facilitated Adherence to Screening Colonoscopy vs Sequential Fecal-Based Blood Test.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening guidelines include screening colonoscopy and sequential high-sensitivity fecal occult blood testing (HSgFOBT), with expectation of similar effectiveness based on the assumption of similar high adherence. However, adherence to screening colonoscopy compared with sequential HSgFOBT has not been reported. In this randomized clinical trial, we assessed adherence and pathology findings for a single screening colonoscopy vs sequential and nonsequential HSgFOBTs. METHODS: Participants aged 40-69 years were enrolled at 3 centers representing different clinical settings. Participants were randomized into a single screening colonoscopy arm vs sequential HSgFOBT arm composed of 4-7 rounds. Initial adherence to screening colonoscopy and sequential adherence to HSgFOBT, follow-up colonoscopy for positive HSgFOBT tests, crossover to colonoscopy, and detection of advanced neoplasia or large serrated lesions (ADN-SERs) were measured. RESULTS: There were 3523 participants included in the trial; 1761 and 1762 participants were randomized to the screening colonoscopy and HSgFOBT arms, respectively. Adherence was 1473 (83.6%) for the screening colonoscopy arm vs 1288 (73.1%) for the HSgFOBT arm after 1 round (relative risk [RR], 1.14; 95% CI, 1.10-1.19; P ≤ .001), but only 674 (38.3%) over 4 sequential HSgFOBT rounds (RR, 2.19; 95% CI, 2.05-2.33). Overall adherence to any screening increased to 1558 (88.5%) in the screening colonoscopy arm during the entire study period and 1493 (84.7%) in the HSgFOBT arm (RR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.02-1.07). Four hundred thirty-six participants (24.7%) crossed over to screening colonoscopy during the first 4 rounds. ADN-SERs were detected in 121 of the 1473 participants (8.2%) in the colonoscopy arm who were adherent to protocol in the first 12 months of the study, whereas detection of ADN-SERs among those who were not sequentially adherent (n = 709) to HSgFOBT was subpar (0.6%) (RR, 14.72; 95% CI, 5.46-39.67) compared with those who were sequentially adherent (3.3%) (n = 647) (RR, 2.52; 95% CI, 1.61-3.98) to HSgFOBT in the first 4 rounds. When including colonoscopies from HSgFOBT patients who were never positive yet crossed over (n = 1483), 5.5% of ADN-SERs were detected (RR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.15-1.96) in the first 4 rounds. CONCLUSIONS: Observed adherence to sequential rounds of HSgFOBT was suboptimal compared with a single screening colonoscopy. Detection of ADN-SERs was inferior when nonsequential HSgFOBT adherence was compared with sequential adherence. However, the greatest number of ADN-SERs was detected among those who crossed over to colonoscopy and opted to receive a colonoscopy. The effectiveness of an HSgFOBT screening program may be enhanced if crossover to screening colonoscopy is permitted. CLINICALTRIALS: gov, Number: NCT00102011.

Adenomas and Sessile Serrated Lesions in 45- to 49-Year-Old Individuals Undergoing Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is now recommended at the age of 45 years in the United States. However, information regarding the adenomas detection rate (ADR) and sessile serrated lesions (SSLs) in 45- to 49-year-old individuals is limited. In addition, the impact of lowering the screening age to 45 years on the ADR and the detection rate of SSLs is not well elucidated. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to report the overall ADR and SSL detection rate in 45- to 49-year-old individuals undergoing colonoscopy. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov , and the Cochrane database from inception through October 2022 to identify studies reporting on ADR and SSL detection rates in 45- to 49-year-old individuals undergoing colonoscopies for all indications. This approach acknowledges the possibility of including individuals undergoing diagnostic colonoscopies or those with increased risk factors for CRC. We also conducted a separate analysis examining ADR in average-risk individuals undergoing screening colonoscopy. The pooled rates with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were generated using the fixed-effects model. I2 was used to adjudicate heterogeneity. RESULTS: Sixteen studies met the inclusion criteria. All studies were retrospective except one; 3 had data from national/local registries. There were 41,709 adenomas detected across 150,436 colonoscopies. The pooled overall ADR was 23.1% (95% CI 19.7%-27.0%, I2 = 98.6%). The pooled ADR in individuals with average risk of CRC from 7 studies was 28.2% (95% CI 24.6%-32.0%, I2 = 96.5%). The pooled overall SSL detection rate from 6 studies was 6.3% (95% CI 3.8%-10.5%, I2 = 97%). The included studies were heterogeneous because of differences in the inclusion and exclusion criteria and patient population. DISCUSSION: In 45- to 49-year-old individuals undergoing a colonoscopy for any indication, the ADR and SSL detection rates were 23.1% and 6.3%, respectively. We conclude that these outcomes in 45- to 49-year-olds are comparable with individuals aged 50-54 years.

Severe Polypharmacy Increases Risk of Hospitalization Among Older Adults With Inflammatory Bowel Disease.

INTRODUCTION: As the inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patient population is aging, the prevalence of polypharmacy is rising. However, data exploring the prevalence, risk factors, and clinical outcomes associated with polypharmacy among older adults with IBD are limited. The aim of the study is to determine (i) prevalence of polypharmacy (≥5 medications) and potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) utilization in older adults with IBD, (ii) changes in medications over time, (iii) predictors of polypharmacy, and (iv) the impact of polypharmacy/PIMs on 1-year hospitalization rates. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective single-center study of older adults with IBD from September 1, 2011, to December 31, 2022. Wilcoxon-signed rank and McNemar tests were used to assess changes in polypharmacy between visits, with ordinal logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards models used to determine risk factors for polypharmacy and time to hospitalization, respectively. RESULTS: Among 512 older adults with IBD, 74.0% experienced polypharmacy at the initial visit, with 42.6% receiving at least one PIM. In addition, severe polypharmacy (≥10 medications) was present among 28.6% individuals at the index visit and increased to 38.6% by the last visit ( P < 0.01). Multivariable analysis revealed that age ≥70 years, body mass index ≥30.0 kg/m 2 , previous IBD-related surgery, and the presence of comorbidities were associated with polypharmacy. Moreover, severe polypharmacy ( adj hazard ratio 1.95, 95% confidence interval 1.29-2.92), as well as PIM use ( adj hazard ratio 2.16, 95% confidence interval 1.37-3.43) among those with polypharmacy, was significantly associated with all-cause hospitalization within a year of the index visit. DISCUSSION: Severe polypharmacy was initially present in more than 25% of older adults with IBD and increased to 34% within 4 years of the index visit. Severe polypharmacy, as well as PIM utilization among those with polypharmacy, were also associated with an increased risk of hospitalization at 1 year, highlighting the need for deprescribing efforts in this population.

The Role of Tumor Location on Endoscopic and Surgical Management of Malignant Colon Polyps.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic polypectomy could be an appropriate, definitive treatment for pathologic T1 (pT1) colon polyps without high-risk features. Prior studies suggested worse prognosis for proximal versus distal advanced-stage colon cancers following curative treatment. However, there is limited evidence on the prognostic impact of tumor location for pT1s. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database to identify adults with T1NxMx or T1N0-3M0/x colon adenocarcinoma from 2000 to 2019. RESULTS: A total of 3398 patients underwent endoscopic polypectomy (17% proximal) and 28,334 had a partial colectomy (49% proximal) for pT1 adenocarcinoma. Following endoscopic polypectomy, 5-year overall and cancer-specific survival rates were 64% and 91% for proximal versus 83% and 96% for distal polyps, compared with 82% and 95% for proximal versus 88% and 97% for distal tumors after colectomy. In multivariable models, there was a greater difference in overall survival between proximal and distal polyps for those who underwent endoscopic versus surgical resection [hazard ratio (HR) 1.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.49-2.02 vs. HR 1.13, 95% CI 1.08-1.18]. Patients with proximal versus distal polyps who underwent polypectomy also exhibited increased cancer-specific mortality (HR 1.94, 95% CI 1.37-2.75). However, cancer-specific survival variations based on tumor location were no longer observed in patients undergoing partial colectomy (HR 1.09, 95% CI 0.98-1.21). CONCLUSIONS: Proximal tumor location was independently associated with worse overall and cancer-specific survival following endoscopic polypectomy. However, after colectomy, the cancer-specific disparity based on tumor laterality was mitigated. These findings suggest that proximal location may be considered a high-risk feature in endoscopic polypectomy.

Colon polyps: updates in classification and management.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Colon polyps are potential precursors to colorectal cancer (CRC), which remains one of the most common causes of cancer-associated death. The proper identification and management of these colorectal polyps is an important quality measure for colonoscopy outcomes. Here, we review colon polyp epidemiology, their natural history, and updates in endoscopic classification and management. RECENT FINDINGS: Colon polyps that form from not only the adenoma, but also the serrated polyp pathway have significant risk for future progression to CRC. Therefore, correct identification and management of sessile serrated lesions can improve the quality of screening colonoscopy. Malignant polyp recognition continues to be heavily reliant on well established endoscopic classification systems and plays an important role in intraprocedural management decisions. Hot snare remains the gold standard for pedunculated polyp resection. Nonpedunculated noninvasive lesions can be effectively removed by large forceps if diminutive, but cold snare is preferred for colon polyps 3-20 mm in diameter. Larger lesions at least 20 mm require endoscopic mucosal resection. Polyps with the endoscopic appearance of submucosal invasion require surgical referral or advanced endoscopic resection in select cases. Advances in artificial intelligence may revolutionize endoscopic polyp classification and improve both patient and cost-related outcomes of colonoscopy. SUMMARY: Clinicians should be aware of the most recent updates in colon polyp classification and management to provide the best care to their patients initiating screening colonoscopy.

Patient and procedural factors associated with true histology rates in patients undergoing colonoscopy with computer-aided detection of polyps.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Computer-aided detection (CADe) devices have been shown to increase adenoma detection rates and adenomas per colonoscopy compared to standard colonoscopies. Questions remain about whether CADe colonoscopies are mainly increasing the detection of small, nonneoplastic lesions or if they are detecting more pathologically meaningful polyps. In this analysis, we compare the true histology rate (defined as polyps with confirmation of clinically relevant histopathology) of CADe-identified polyps with polyps identified during standard colonoscopies. METHODS: Using data from the SKOUT trial, we compared the true histology rate (THR) between CADe and standard colonoscopies. We also conducted a subgroup analysis by patient, procedural, and endoscopist factors. To account for multiple testing of comparisons, we used the false discovery rate. RESULTS: A total of 1423 participants were included (CADe, n = 714; standard, n = 709). Overall, THR was similar between the CADe and standard colonoscopy arms for adenomas, sessile serrated lesions, and large hyperplastic polyps. Higher THR with CADe colonoscopy was observed in some subgroups for adenomas. Endoscopists with 11 to 20 years of experience and procedures occurring after 12 pm had significantly higher adenoma THRs in the CADe cohort. Patients younger than 65 years, male patients, and procedures with a withdrawal time of ≥8 minutes had borderline significance in the CADe device adenoma THR subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: CADe colonoscopies may hold the key to improving endoscopic quality measures, provided that the polyps identified by the CADe device are those of clinical relevance. Although the benefit and significance in the CADe group were demonstrated in this analysis, further research is warranted to ensure that the true histology is maintained when applied in real-world applications.

Establishment of standards for the referral of large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps: an international expert consensus using a modified Delphi process.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Resection of colorectal polyps has been shown to decrease the incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer. Large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps are often referred to expert centers for endoscopic resection, which requires relevant information to be conveyed to the therapeutic endoscopist to allow for triage and planning of resection technique. The primary objective of this study was to establish minimum expected standards for the referral of large nonpedunculated colonic polyps for potential endoscopic resection. METHODS: A Delphi method was used to establish consensus on minimum expected standards for the referral of large colorectal polyps among a panel of international endoscopy experts. The expert panel was recruited through purposive sampling, and 3 rounds of surveys were conducted to achieve consensus. Quantitative and qualitative data were analyzed for each round. RESULTS: A total of 24 international experts from diverse continents participated in the Delphi study, resulting in consensus on 19 statements related to the referral of large colorectal polyps. The identified factors, including patient demographic characteristics, relevant medications, lesion factors, photodocumentation, and the presence of a tattoo, were deemed important for conveying the necessary information to therapeutic endoscopists. The mean scores for the statements, which were scored on a scale of 1 to 10, ranged from 7.04 to 9.29, with high percentages of experts considering most statements as a very high priority. Subgroup analysis according to continent revealed some variations in consensus rates among experts from different regions. CONCLUSIONS: The identified consensus statements can aid in improving the triage and planning of resection techniques for large colorectal polyps, ultimately contributing to the reduction of colorectal cancer incidence and mortality.

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.

Risk of colorectal cancer in patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis and concomitant inflammatory bowel disease compared with primary sclerosing cholangitis only.

AIM: Primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) increases the risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients; however, there is a paucity of literature to suggest PSC alone as an independent risk factor for CRC. We aimed to determine if PSC is an independent risk factor for CRC in a large tertiary care medical center. Optimizing screening intervals is of great importance, given the burden and risks associated with a lifetime of colonoscopy screening. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study consists of patients diagnosed with PSC preceding IBD (PSC-IBD) and PSC-only before January 6, 2023 from a large, tertiary, academic medical center. Patients diagnosed with IBD concurrently or before PSC were excluded to reduce IBD's impact on CRC risk. Demographic data and colonoscopy findings were collected and assessed. RESULTS: Overall, 140 patients from all NYU Langone Health clinical settings were included. Patients with PSC-IBD were more likely to be diagnosed with CRC (23.3% vs. 1.8%, p < 0.01) and either low-grade or uncharacterized dysplasia (16.7% vs. 0.0%, p < 0.01) compared with those with PSC-only. Among PSC-only patients, the estimated CRC risk was significantly elevated compared with that expected of the standard NYU Langone population (SIR 9.2, 95% CI 1.1, 33.2). CONCLUSIONS: Our study revealed a significantly heightened CRC risk in PSC-IBD patients compared with those with PSC-only. Importantly, individuals with PSC-only also face a greater CRC risk compared with the general population. Individuals with PSC-alone may require extended screening and surveillance colonoscopy intervals compared with those with PSC-IBD, yet still require more frequent monitoring than screening guidelines recommend for the general population.

Computer-Aided Detection Improves Adenomas per Colonoscopy for Screening and Surveillance Colonoscopy: A Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening is endoscopist dependent, and colonoscopy quality improvement programs aim to improve efficacy. This study evaluated the clinical benefit and safety of using a computer-aided detection (CADe) device in colonoscopy procedures. METHODS: This randomized study prospectively evaluated the use of a CADe device at 5 academic and community centers by US board-certified gastroenterologists (n = 22). Participants aged ≥40 scheduled for screening or surveillance (≥3 years) colonoscopy were included; exclusion criteria included incomplete procedure, diagnostic indication, inflammatory bowel disease, and familial adenomatous polyposis. Patients were randomized by endoscopist to the standard or CADe colonoscopy arm using computer-generated, random-block method. The 2 primary endpoints were adenomas per colonoscopy (APC), the total number of adenomas resected divided by the total number of colonoscopies; and true histology rate (THR), the proportion of resections with clinically significant histology divided by the total number of polyp resections. The primary analysis used a modified intention-to-treat approach. RESULTS: Between January and September 2021, 1440 participants were enrolled to be randomized. After exclusion of participants who did not meet the eligibility criteria, 677 in the standard arm and 682 in the CADe arm were included in a modified intention-to-treat analysis. APC increased significantly with use of the CADe device (standard vs CADe: 0.83 vs 1.05, P = .002; total number of adenomas, 562 vs 719). There was no decrease in THR with use of the CADe device (standard vs CADe: 71.7% vs 67.4%, P for noninferiority < .001; total number of non-neoplastic lesions, 284 vs 375). Adenoma detection rate was 43.9% and 47.8% in the standard and CADe arms, respectively (P = .065). CONCLUSIONS: For experienced endoscopists performing screening and surveillance colonoscopies in the United States, the CADe device statistically improved overall adenoma detection (APC) without a concomitant increase in resection of non-neoplastic lesions (THR). CLINICALTRIALS: gov registration: NCT04754347.

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.

Colon Cancer Screening and the End of Life: Is Age Just a Number?

Age is the strongest risk factor for colorectal cancer. Although there is updated guidance for the age at which to start screening, there is little guidance for individuals or their medical teams on how to decide when to stop. Current recommendations from the US Preventive Services Task Force and other societies focus primarily on age. For patients older than 85 years, guidelines discourage screening because the harms largely outweigh benefits. Although at a population level, the overall benefit of screening in older individuals decreases, one must individualize the recommendation based on comorbidities, functional status, screening history, and gender-not solely base it on age. Patient and caregiver preferences must also be thoroughly explored. Current models struggle with incorporating other colorectal cancer risk factors such as family history, previous adenomas, and modality of previous screening into recommendations and simulations, but are likely to improve with machine learning and whole electronic health record prediction-based approaches.

Endoscopist-Level and Procedure-Level Factors Associated With Increased Adenoma Detection With the Use of a Computer-Aided Detection Device.

INTRODUCTION: To investigate the impact of procedure-related and endoscopist-related factors on the effectiveness of a computer-aided detection (CADe) device in adenomas per colonoscopy (APC) detection. METHODS: The SKOUT clinical trial was conducted at 5 US sites. We present prespecified analyses of procedure-related and endoscopist-related factors, and association with APC across treatment and control cohorts. RESULTS: There were numeric increases in APC between SKOUT vs standard colonoscopy in community-based endoscopists, withdrawal time of ≥8 minutes, for endoscopists with >20 years of experience, and endoscopists with baseline adenoma detection rate <45%. DISCUSSION: The application of CADe devices in clinical practice should be carefully evaluated. Larger studies should explore differences in endoscopist-related factors for CADe.

Preoperative Risk Factors for Adverse Events in Adults Undergoing Bowel Resection for Inflammatory Bowel Disease: 15-Year Assessment of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program.

INTRODUCTION: Older adults with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are at higher risk for postoperative complications as compared to their younger counterparts; however, factors contributing to this are unknown. We assessed risk factors associated with adverse IBD-related surgical outcomes, evaluated trends in emergency surgery, and explored differential risks by age. METHODS: Using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database, we identified adults ≥18 years of age who underwent an IBD-related intestinal resection from 2005 to 2019. Our primary outcome included a 30-day composite of mortality, readmission, reoperation, and/or major postoperative complication. RESULTS: Overall, 49,746 intestinal resections were performed with 9,390 (18.8%) occurring among older adults with IBD. Nearly 37% of older adults experienced an adverse outcome as compared to 28.1% among younger adults with IBD ( P < 0.01). Among all adults with IBD, the presence of preoperative sepsis (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.08; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.94-2.24), malnutrition (aOR, 1.22; 95% CI 1.14-1.31), dependent functional status (aOR, 6.92; 95% CI 4.36-11.57), and requiring emergency surgery (aOR, 1.50; 95% CI 1.38-1.64) increased the odds of an adverse postoperative outcome, with similar results observed when stratifying by age. Furthermore, 8.8% of surgeries among older adults were emergent, with no change observed over time ( P = 0.16). DISCUSSION: Preoperative factors contributing to the risk of an adverse surgical outcome are similar between younger and older individuals with IBD, and include elements such as malnutrition and functional status. Incorporating these measures into surgical decision-making can reduce surgical delays in older individuals at low risk and help target interventions in those at high risk, transforming care for thousands of older adults with IBD.

Faecal haemoglobin concentrations are associated with all-cause mortality and cause of death in colorectal cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening reduces all-cause and CRC-related mortality. New research demonstrates that the faecal haemoglobin concentration (f-Hb) may indicate the presence of other serious diseases not related to CRC. We investigated the association between f-Hb, measured by a faecal immunochemical test (FIT), and both all-cause mortality and cause of death in a population-wide cohort of screening participants. METHODS: Between 2014 and 2018, 1,262,165 participants submitted a FIT for the Danish CRC screening programme. We followed these participants, using the Danish CRC Screening Database and several other national registers on health and population, until December 31, 2018. We stratified participants by f-Hb and compared them using a Cox proportional hazards regression on all-cause mortality and cause of death reported as adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs). We adjusted for several covariates, including comorbidity, socioeconomic factors, demography and prescription medication. RESULTS: We observed 21,847 deaths in the study period. Our multivariate analyses indicated an association relationship between increasing f-Hb and the risk of dying in the study period. This risk increased steadily from aHR 1.38 (95% CI: 1.32, 1.44) in those with a f-Hb of 7.1-11.9 µg Hb/g faeces to 2.20 (95% CI: 2.10, 2.30) in those with a f-Hb ≥60.0 µg Hb/g faeces, when compared to those with a f-Hb ≤7.0 µg Hb/g faeces. The pattern remained when excluding CRC from the analysis. Similar patterns were observed between incrementally increasing f-Hb and the risk of dying from respiratory disease, cardiovascular disease and cancers other than CRC. Furthermore, we observed an increased risk of dying from CRC with increasing f-Hb. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support the hypothesis that f-Hb may indicate an elevated risk of having chronic conditions if causes for the bleeding have not been identified. The mechanisms still need to be established, but f-Hb may be a potential biomarker for several non-CRC diseases.

Cold snare endoscopic mucosal resection for colon polyps: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Cold snare endoscopic mucosal resection (CS-EMR) can reduce the risks associated with electrocautery during colon polyp resection. Data on efficacy are variable. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to estimate the pooled efficacy and safety rates of CS-EMR. METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive literature search of multiple databases, from inception to March 2023, for studies addressing outcomes of CS-EMR for colon polyps. The weighted pooled estimates with 95 %CIs were calculated using the random effects model. I2 statistics were used to evaluate heterogeneity. RESULTS: 4137 articles were reviewed, and 16 studies, including 2592 polyps in 1922 patients (51.4 % female), were included. Overall, 54.4 % of polyps were adenomas, 45 % were sessile serrated lesions (SSLs), and 0.6 % were invasive carcinomas. Polyp recurrence after CS-EMR was 6.7 % (95 %CI 2.4 %-17.4 %, I2  = 94 %). The recurrence rate was 12.3 % (95 %CI 3.4 %-35.7 %, I2  = 94 %) for polyps ≥ 20 mm, 17.1 % (95 %CI 4.6 %-46.7 %, I2  = 93 %) for adenomas, and 5.7 % (95 %CI 3.2 %-9.9 %, I2  = 50 %) for SSLs. The pooled intraprocedural bleeding rate was 2.6 % (95 %CI 1.5 %-4.5 %, I2  = 51 %), the delayed bleeding rate was 1.5 % (95 %CI 0.8 %-2.7 %, I2  = 18 %), and no perforations or post-polypectomy syndromes were reported, with estimated rates of 0.6 % (95 %CI 0.3 %-1.3 %, I2  = 0 %) and 0.6 % (95 %CI 0.3 %-1.4 %, I2  = 0 %), respectively. CONCLUSION: CS-EMR demonstrated an excellent safety profile for colon polyps, with variable recurrence rates based on polyp size and histology. Large prospective studies are needed to validate these findings.