Colon Polyp Surveillance: Separating the Wheat From the Chaff.

One goal of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is to prevent CRC incidence by removing precancerous colonic polyps, which are detected in up to 50% of screening examinations. Yet, the lifetime risk of CRC is 3.9%-4.3%, so it is clear that most of these individuals with polyps would not develop CRC in their lifetime. It is, therefore, a challenge to determine which individuals with polyps will benefit from follow-up, and at what intervals. There is some evidence that individuals with advanced polyps, based on size and histology, benefit from intensive surveillance. However, a large proportion of individuals will have small polyps without advanced histologic features (ie, "nonadvanced"), where the benefits of surveillance are uncertain and controversial. Demand for surveillance will further increase as more polyps are detected due to increased screening uptake, recent United States recommendations to expand screening to younger individuals, and emergence of polyp detection technology. We review the current understanding and clinical implications of the natural history, biology, and outcomes associated with various categories of colon polyps based on size, histology, and number. Our aims are to highlight key knowledge gaps, specifically focusing on certain categories of polyps that may not be associated with future CRC risk, and to provide insights to inform research priorities and potential management strategies. Optimization of CRC prevention programs based on updated knowledge about the future risks associated with various colon polyps is essential to ensure cost-effective screening and surveillance, wise use of resources, and inform efforts to personalize recommendations.

Relative Efficacies of Interventions to Improve the Quality of Screening-Related Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Significant variability exists in colonoscopy quality indicators, including adenoma detection rate (ADR). We synthesized evidence from randomized trials in a network meta-analysis on interventions to improve colonoscopy quality. METHODS: We included trials from database inceptions to September 25, 2023, of patients undergoing screening-related colonoscopy and presented efficacies of interventions within domains (periprocedural parameters, endoscopist-directed interventions, intraprocedural techniques, endoscopic technologies, distal attachment devices, and additive substances) compared to standard colonoscopy. The primary outcome was ADR. We used a Bayesian random-effects model using Markov-chain Monte Carlo simulation, with 10,000 burn-ins and 100,000 iterations. We calculated odds ratios with 95% credible intervals and present surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) curves. RESULTS: We included 124 trials evaluating 37 interventions for the primary outcome. Nine interventions resulted in statistically significant improvements in ADR compared to standard colonoscopy (9-minute withdrawal time, dual observation, water exchange, i-SCAN [Pentax Ltd], linked color imaging, computer-aided detection, Endocuff [Olympus Corp], Endocuff Vision [Olympus Corp], and oral methylene blue). Dual observation (SUCRA, 0.84) and water exchange (SUCRA, 0.78) ranked highest among intraprocedural techniques; i-SCAN (SUCRA, 0.95), linked color imaging (SUCRA, 0.85), and computer-aided detection (SUCRA, 0.78) among endoscopic technologies; WingCap (A&A Medical Supply LLC) (SUCRA, 0.87) and Endocuff (SUCRA, 0.85) among distal attachment devices and oral methylene blue (SUCRA, 0.94) among additive substances. No interventions improved detection of advanced adenomas, and only narrow-band imaging improved detection of serrated lesions (odds ratio, 2.94; 95% credible interval, 1.46-6.25). CONCLUSIONS: Several interventions are effective in improving adenoma detection and overall colonoscopy quality, many of which are cost-free. These results can inform endoscopists, unit managers, and endoscopy societies on relative efficacies.

Autonomous Artificial Intelligence vs Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Human Optical Diagnosis of Colorectal Polyps: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Artificial intelligence (AI)-based optical diagnosis systems (CADx) have been developed to allow pathology prediction of colorectal polyps during colonoscopies. However, CADx systems have not yet been validated for autonomous performance. Therefore, we conducted a trial comparing autonomous AI to AI-assisted human (AI-H) optical diagnosis. METHODS: We performed a randomized noninferiority trial of patients undergoing elective colonoscopies at 1 academic institution. Patients were randomized into (1) autonomous AI-based CADx optical diagnosis of diminutive polyps without human input or (2) diagnosis by endoscopists who performed optical diagnosis of diminutive polyps after seeing the real-time CADx diagnosis. The primary outcome was accuracy in optical diagnosis in both arms using pathology as the gold standard. Secondary outcomes included agreement with pathology for surveillance intervals. RESULTS: A total of 467 patients were randomized (238 patients/158 polyps in the autonomous AI group and 229 patients/179 polyps in the AI-H group). Accuracy for optical diagnosis was 77.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 69.7-84.7) in the autonomous AI group and 72.1% (95% CI, 65.5-78.6) in the AI-H group (P = .86). For high-confidence diagnoses, accuracy for optical diagnosis was 77.2% (95% CI, 69.7-84.7) in the autonomous AI group and 75.5% (95% CI, 67.9-82.0) in the AI-H group. Autonomous AI had statistically significantly higher agreement with pathology-based surveillance intervals compared to AI-H (91.5% [95% CI, 86.9-96.1] vs 82.1% [95% CI, 76.5-87.7]; P = .016). CONCLUSIONS: Autonomous AI-based optical diagnosis exhibits noninferior accuracy to endoscopist-based diagnosis. Both autonomous AI and AI-H exhibited relatively low accuracy for optical diagnosis; however, autonomous AI achieved higher agreement with pathology-based surveillance intervals. (ClinicalTrials.gov, Number NCT05236790).

Colonoscopy vs the Fecal Immunochemical Test: Which is Best?

Although there is no debate around the effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening in reducing disease burden, there remains a question regarding the most effective and cost-effective screening modality. Current United States guidelines present a panel of options that include the 2 most commonly used modalities, colonoscopy and stool testing with the fecal immunochemical test (FIT). Large-scale comparative effectiveness trials comparing colonoscopy and FIT for colorectal cancer outcomes are underway, but results are not yet available. This review will separately state the "best case" for FIT and colonoscopy as the screening tool of first choice. In addition, the review will examine these modalities from a health economics perspective to provide the reader further context about the relative advantages of these commonly used tests.

Rapid Endoscopic Diagnosis of Benign Ulcerative Colorectal Diseases With an Artificial Intelligence Contextual Framework.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Benign ulcerative colorectal diseases (UCDs) such as ulcerative colitis, Crohn's disease, ischemic colitis, and intestinal tuberculosis share similar phenotypes with different etiologies and treatment strategies. To accurately diagnose closely related diseases like UCDs, we hypothesize that contextual learning is critical in enhancing the ability of the artificial intelligence models to differentiate the subtle differences in lesions amidst the vastly divergent spatial contexts. METHODS: White-light colonoscopy datasets of patients with confirmed UCDs and healthy controls were retrospectively collected. We developed a Multiclass Contextual Classification (MCC) model that can differentiate among the mentioned UCDs and healthy controls by incorporating the tissue object contexts surrounding the individual lesion region in a scene and spatial information from other endoscopic frames (video-level) into a unified framework. Internal and external datasets were used to validate the model's performance. RESULTS: Training datasets included 762 patients, and the internal and external testing cohorts included 257 patients and 293 patients, respectively. Our MCC model provided a rapid reference diagnosis on internal test sets with a high averaged area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (image-level: 0.950 and video-level: 0.973) and balanced accuracy (image-level: 76.1% and video-level: 80.8%), which was superior to junior endoscopists (accuracy: 71.8%, P < .0001) and similar to experts (accuracy: 79.7%, P = .732). The MCC model achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.988 and balanced accuracy of 85.8% using external testing datasets. CONCLUSIONS: These results enable this model to fit in the routine endoscopic workflow, and the contextual framework to be adopted for diagnosing other closely related diseases.

Cold Versus Hot Snare Endoscopic Resection of Large Nonpedunculated Colorectal Polyps: Randomized Controlled German CHRONICLE Trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is standard therapy for nonpedunculated colorectal polyps ≥20 mm. It has been suggested recently that polyp resection without current (cold resection) may be superior to the standard technique using cutting/coagulation current (hot resection) by reducing adverse events (AEs), but evidence from a randomized trial is missing. METHODS: In this randomized controlled multicentric trial involving 19 centers, nonpedunculated colorectal polyps ≥20 mm were randomly assigned to cold or hot EMR. The primary outcome was major AE (eg, perforation or postendoscopic bleeding). Among secondary outcomes, major AE subcategories, postpolypectomy syndrome, and residual adenoma were most relevant. RESULTS: Between 2021 and 2023, there were 396 polyps in 363 patients (48.2% were female) enrolled for the intention-to-treat analysis. Major AEs occurred in 1.0% of the cold group and in 7.9% of the hot group (P = .001; odds ratio [OR], 0.12; 95% CI, 0.03-0.54). Rates for perforation and postendoscopic bleeding were significantly lower in the cold group, with 0% vs 3.9% (P = .007) and 1.0% vs 4.4% (P = .040). Postpolypectomy syndrome occurred with similar frequency (3.1% vs 4.4%; P = .490). After cold resection, residual adenoma was found more frequently, with 23.7% vs 13.8% (P = .020; OR, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.12-3.38). In multivariable analysis, lesion diameter of ≥4 cm was an independent predictor both for major AEs (OR, 3.37) and residual adenoma (OR, 2.47) and high-grade dysplasia/cancer for residual adenoma (OR, 2.92). CONCLUSIONS: Cold resection of large, nonpedunculated colorectal polyps appears to be considerably safer than hot EMR; however, at the cost of a higher residual adenoma rate. Further studies have to confirm to what extent polyp size and histology can determine an individualized approach. German Clinical Trials Registry (Deutsches Register Klinischer Studien), Number DRKS00025170.

Colorectal cancer screening for average-risk adults: 2018 guideline update from the American Cancer Society.

In the United States, colorectal cancer (CRC) is the fourth most common cancer diagnosed among adults and the second leading cause of death from cancer. For this guideline update, the American Cancer Society (ACS) used an existing systematic evidence review of the CRC screening literature and microsimulation modeling analyses, including a new evaluation of the age to begin screening by race and sex and additional modeling that incorporates changes in US CRC incidence. Screening with any one of multiple options is associated with a significant reduction in CRC incidence through the detection and removal of adenomatous polyps and other precancerous lesions and with a reduction in mortality through incidence reduction and early detection of CRC. Results from modeling analyses identified efficient and model-recommendable strategies that started screening at age 45 years. The ACS Guideline Development Group applied the Grades of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria in developing and rating the recommendations. The ACS recommends that adults aged 45 years and older with an average risk of CRC undergo regular screening with either a high-sensitivity stool-based test or a structural (visual) examination, depending on patient preference and test availability. As a part of the screening process, all positive results on noncolonoscopy screening tests should be followed up with timely colonoscopy. The recommendation to begin screening at age 45 years is a qualified recommendation. The recommendation for regular screening in adults aged 50 years and older is a strong recommendation. The ACS recommends (qualified recommendations) that: 1) average-risk adults in good health with a life expectancy of more than 10 years continue CRC screening through the age of 75 years; 2) clinicians individualize CRC screening decisions for individuals aged 76 through 85 years based on patient preferences, life expectancy, health status, and prior screening history; and 3) clinicians discourage individuals older than 85 years from continuing CRC screening. The options for CRC screening are: fecal immunochemical test annually; high-sensitivity, guaiac-based fecal occult blood test annually; multitarget stool DNA test every 3 years; colonoscopy every 10 years; computed tomography colonography every 5 years; and flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5 years. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68:250-281. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

Impact of margin thermal ablation after endoscopic mucosal resection of large (≥20 mm) non-pedunculated colonic polyps on long-term recurrence.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The efficacy of colorectal endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is limited by recurrence and the necessity for conservative surveillance. Margin thermal ablation (MTA) after EMR has reduced the incidence of recurrence at the first surveillance colonoscopy at 6 months (SC1). Whether this effect is durable to second surveillance colonoscopy (SC2) is unknown. We evaluated long-term surveillance outcomes in a cohort of LNPCPs that have undergone MTA. METHODS: LNPCPs undergoing EMR and MTA from four academic endoscopy centres were prospectively recruited. EMR scars were evaluated at SC1 and in the absence of recurrence, SC2 colonoscopy was conducted in a further 12 months. A historical control arm was generated from LNPCPs that underwent EMR without MTA. The primary outcome was recurrence at SC2 in all LNPCPs with a recurrence-free scar at SC1. RESULTS: 1152 LNPCPs underwent EMR with complete MTA over 90 months until October 2022. 854 LNPCPs underwent SC1 with 29/854 (3.4%) LNPCPs demonstrating recurrence. 472 LNPCPs free of recurrence at SC1 underwent SC2. 260 LNPCPs with complete SC2 follow-up formed the control arm from January 2012 to May 2016. Recurrence at SC2 was significantly less in the MTA arm versus controls (1/472 (0.2%) vs 9/260 (3.5%); p<0.001)). CONCLUSION: LNPCPs that have undergone successful EMR with MTA and are free of recurrence at SC1 are unlikely to develop recurrence in subsequent surveillance out to 2 years. Provided the colon is cleared of synchronous neoplasia, the next surveillance can be potentially extended to 3-5 years. Such an approach would reduce costs and enhance patient compliance.

Risk of colorectal neoplasia after removal of conventional adenomas and serrated polyps: a comprehensive evaluation of risk factors and surveillance use.

BACKGROUND: Surveillance colonoscopy after polyp removal is recommended to prevent subsequent colorectal cancer (CRC). It is known that advanced adenomas have a substantially higher risk than non-advanced ones, but optimal intervals for surveillance remain unclear. DESIGN: We prospectively followed 156 699 participants who had undergone a colonoscopy from 2007 to 2017 in a large integrated healthcare system. Using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression we estimated the subsequent risk of CRC and high-risk polyps, respectively, according to index colonoscopy polyps, colonoscopy quality measures, patient characteristics and the use of surveillance colonoscopy. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 5.3 years, we documented 309 CRC and 3053 high-risk polyp cases. Compared with participants with no polyps at index colonoscopy, those with high-risk adenomas and high-risk serrated polyps had a consistently higher risk of CRC during follow-up, with the highest risk observed at 3 years after polypectomy (multivariable HR 5.44 (95% CI 3.56 to 8.29) and 8.35 (95% CI 4.20 to 16.59), respectively). Recurrence of high-risk polyps showed a similar risk distribution. The use of surveillance colonoscopy was associated with lower risk of CRC, with an HR of 0.61 (95% CI 0.39 to 0.98) among patients with high-risk polyps and 0.57 (95% CI 0.35 to 0.92) among low-risk polyps. Among 1548 patients who had high-risk polyps at both index and surveillance colonoscopies, 65% had their index polyps in the proximal colon and 30% had index and interval polyps in the same segments. CONCLUSION: Patients with high-risk polyp findings were at higher risk of subsequent CRC and high-risk polyps and may benefit from early surveillance within 3 years. The subsite distribution of the index and recurrent high-risk polyps suggests the contribution of incomplete resection and missed lesions to the development of interval neoplasia.

Blood-based colorectal cancer screening in an integrated health system: a randomised trial of patient adherence.

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated whether people who had not completed a faecal immunochemical test (FIT) for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening would complete a blood-based testing option if offered one during health encounters. Blood-based screening tests for CRC could add to the total number of people screened for CRC by providing another testing alternative. DESIGN: Study participants were patients aged 45-75 years at a large, integrated health system who were offered but did not complete an FIT in the prior 3-9 months and were scheduled for a clinical encounter. Individuals were randomised (1:1) to be offered a commercially available CRC blood test (Shield, Guardant Health) versus usual care. We compared 3-month CRC screening proportions in the two groups. RESULTS: We randomised 2026 patients; 2004 remained eligible following postrandomisation exclusions (1003 to usual care and 1001 to blood draw offer; mean age: 60, 62% female, 80% non-Hispanic white). Of the 1001 allocated to the blood test group, 924 were recruited following chart-review exclusions; 548 (59.3%) were reached via phone, of which 280 (51.1%) scheduled an appointment with the research team. CRC screening proportions were 17.5 percentage points higher in the blood test group versus usual care (30.5% vs 13.0%; OR 2.94, 95% CI 2.34 to 3.70; p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Among adults who had declined prior CRC screening, the offer of a blood-based screening test boosted CRC screening by 17.5 percentage points over usual care. Further research is needed on how to balance the favourable adherence with lower advanced adenoma detection compared with other available tests. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05987709.

Cold versus hot snare endoscopic mucosal resection for large (≥15 mm) flat non-pedunculated colorectal polyps: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Conventional hot snare endoscopic mucosal resection (H-EMR) is effective for the management of large (≥20 mm) non-pedunculated colon polyps (LNPCPs) however, electrocautery-related complications may incur significant morbidity. With a superior safety profile, cold snare EMR (C-EMR) of LNPCPs is an attractive alternative however evidence is lacking. We conducted a randomised trial to compare the efficacy and safety of C-EMR to H-EMR. METHODS: Flat, 15-50 mm adenomatous LNPCPs were prospectively enrolled and randomly assigned to C-EMR or H-EMR with margin thermal ablation at a single tertiary centre. The primary outcome was endoscopically visible and/or histologically confirmed recurrence at 6 months surveillance colonoscopy. Secondary outcomes were clinically significant post-EMR bleeding (CSPEB), delayed perforation and technical success. RESULTS: 177 LNPCPs in 177 patients were randomised to C-EMR arm (n=87) or H-EMR (n=90). Treatment groups were equivalent for technical success 86/87 (98.9%) C-EMR versus H-EMR 90/90 (100%); p=0.31. Recurrence was significantly greater in C-EMR (16/87, 18.4% vs 1/90, 1.1%; relative risk (RR) 16.6, 95% CI 2.24 to 122; p<0.001).Delayed perforation (1/90 (1.1%) vs 0; p=0.32) only occurred in the H-EMR group. CSPEB was significantly greater in the H-EMR arm (7/90 (7.8%) vs 1/87 (1.1%); RR 6.77, 95% CI 0.85 to 53.9; p=0.034). CONCLUSION: Compared with H-EMR, C-EMR for flat, adenomatous LNPCPs, demonstrates superior safety with equivalent technical success. However, endoscopic recurrence is significantly greater for cold snare resection and is currently a limitation of the technique. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04138030.

British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines on sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Over 2.5 million gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures are carried out in the United Kingdom (UK) every year. Procedures are carried out with local anaesthetic r with sedation. Sedation is commonly used for gastrointestinal endoscopy, but the type and amount of sedation administered is influenced by the complexity and nature of the procedure and patient factors. The elective and emergency nature of endoscopy procedures and local resources also have a significant impact on the delivery of sedation. In the UK, the vast majority of sedated procedures are carried out using benzodiazepines, with or without opiates, whereas deeper sedation using propofol or general anaesthetic requires the involvement of an anaesthetic team. Patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy need to have good understanding of the options for sedation, including the option for no sedation and alternatives, balancing the intended aims of the procedure and reducing the risk of complications. These guidelines were commissioned by the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) Endoscopy Committee with input from major stakeholders, to provide a detailed update, incorporating recent advances in sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy.This guideline covers aspects from pre-assessment of the elective 'well' patient to patients with significant comorbidity requiring emergency procedures. Types of sedation are discussed, procedure and room requirements and the recovery period, providing guidance to enhance safety and minimise complications. These guidelines are intended to inform practising clinicians and all staff involved in the delivery of gastrointestinal endoscopy with an expectation that this guideline will be revised in 5-years' time.

An in vitro medium for modeling gut dysbiosis associated with cystic fibrosis.

The gut physiology of pediatric and adult persons with cystic fibrosis (pwCF) is altered relative to healthy persons. The CF gut is characterized, in part, as having excess mucus, increased fat content, acidic pH, increased inflammation, increased antibiotic perturbation, and the potential for increased oxygen availability. These physiological differences shift nutritional availability and the local environment for intestinal microbes, thus likely driving significant changes in microbial metabolism, colonization, and competition with other microbes. The impact of any specific change in this physiological landscape is difficult to parse using human or animal studies. Thus, we have developed a novel culture medium representative of the CF gut environment, inclusive of all the aforementioned features. This medium, called CF-MiPro, maintains CF gut microbiome communities, while significantly shifting nonCF gut microbiome communities toward a CF-like microbial profile, characterized by low Bacteroidetes and high Proteobacteria abundance. This medium is able to maintain this culture composition for up to 5 days of passage. Additionally, microbial communities passaged in CF-MiPro produce significantly less immunomodulatory short-chain fatty acids (SCFA), including propionate and butyrate, than communities passaged in MiPro, a culture medium representative of healthy gut physiology, confirming not only a shift in microbial composition but also altered community function. Our results support the potential for this in vitro culture medium as a new tool for the study of CF gut dysbiosis. IMPORTANCE Cystic fibrosis is an autosomal recessive disease that disrupts ion transport at mucosal surfaces, leading to mucus accumulation and altered physiology of both the lungs and the intestines, among other organs, with the resulting altered environment contributing to an imbalance of microbial communities. Culture media representative of the CF airway have been developed and validated; however, no such medium exists for modeling the CF intestine. Here, we develop and validate a first-generation culture medium inclusive of features that are altered in the CF colon. Our findings suggest this novel medium, called CF-MiPro, as a maintenance medium for CF gut microbiome samples and a flexible tool for studying key drivers of CF-associated gut dysbiosis.

Rare Case of Echinostoma cinetorchis Infection, South Korea.

A woman in South Korea who underwent a colonoscopy for occasional gastrointestinal discomfort had 4 adult flukes of Echinostoma cinetorchis showing 37 collar spines around the oral sucker recovered from the terminal ileum through the ascending colon. Partial gene sequencing showed high identity with E. cinetorchis.

Prevalence of neoplasia at colonoscopy among testicular cancer survivors treated with platinum-based chemotherapy.

Testicular cancer survivors (TCS) treated with platinum-based chemotherapy have an increased risk of colorectal cancer (CRC). We determined the yield of colonoscopy in TCS to assess its potential in reducing CRC incidence and mortality. We conducted a colonoscopy screening study among TCS in four Dutch hospitals to assess the yield of colorectal neoplasia. Neoplasia was defined as adenomas, serrated polyps (SPs), advanced adenomas (AAs: ≥10 mm diameter, high-grade dysplasia or ≥25% villous component), advanced serrated polyps (ASPs: ≥10 mm diameter or dysplasia) or CRC. Advanced neoplasia (AN) was defined as AA, ASP or CRC. Colonoscopy yield was compared to average-risk American males who underwent screening colonoscopy (n = 24,193) using a propensity score matched analysis, adjusted for age, smoking status, alcohol consumption and body mass index. A total of 137 TCS underwent colonoscopy. Median age was 50 years among TCS (IQR 43-57) vs 55 years (IQR 51-62) among American controls. A total of 126 TCS were matched to 602 controls. The prevalence of AN was higher in TCS than in controls (8.7% vs 1.7%; P = .0002). Nonadvanced adenomas and SPs were detected in 45.2% of TCS vs 5.5% of controls (P < .0001). No lesions were detected in 46.0% of TCS vs 92.9% of controls (P < .0001). TCS treated with platinum-based chemotherapy have a higher prevalence of neoplasia and AN than matched controls. These results support our hypothesis that platinum-based chemotherapy increases the risk of colorectal neoplasia in TCS. Cost-effectiveness studies are warranted to ascertain the threshold of AN prevalence that justifies the recommendation of colonoscopy for TCS.

Current Approaches in Managing Colonic Serrated Polyps and Serrated Polyposis.

For decades, conventional adenomas were the only known precursor lesions of colorectal cancer (CRC). Accordingly, education and research regarding CRC prevention were mainly focused on adenomas. The groundbreaking discovery that serrated polyps (SPs) also have the potential to develop into CRCs, and seem to account for a considerable proportion of sporadic CRCs, has led to a paradigm shift in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of CRC. Studies in recent years have led to our current understanding of SPs and associated CRC, but a lot of work is still to be done to further improve knowledge about this serrated neoplasia pathway and the clinical management of SPs and serrated polyposis syndrome (SPS). In this review, we reflect on the current understanding of SPs with respect to terminology, detection, resection, and surveillance and reflect on the management of SPS.

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis: The Three-year Post-colonoscopy Colorectal Cancer Rate as per the World Endoscopy Organization Methodology.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: In 2018, the World Endoscopy Organization (WEO) introduced standardized methods for calculating post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer-3yr rates (PCCRC-3yr). This systematic review aimed to calculate the global PCCRC-3yr according to the WEO methodology, its change over time, and to measure the association between risk factors and PCCRC occurrences. METHODS: We searched 5 databases from inception until January 2024 for PCCRC-3yr studies that strictly adhered to the WEO methodology. The overall pooled PCCRC-3yr was calculated. For risk factors and time-trend analyses, the pooled PCCRC-3yr and odds ratios (ORs) of subgroups were compared. RESULTS: Several studies failed to adhere to the WEO methodology. Eight studies from 4 Western European and 2 Northern American countries were included, totalling 220,106 detected-colorectal cancers (CRCs) and 18,148 PCCRCs between 2002 and 2017. The pooled Western World PCCRC-3yr was 7.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 6.4%-8.7%). The PCCRC-3yr significantly (P < .05) decreased from 7.9% (95% CI, 6.6%-9.4%) in 2006 to 6.7% (95% CI, 6.1%-7.3%) in 2012 (OR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.72-0.87). There were significantly higher rates for people with inflammatory bowel disease (PCCRC-3yr, 29.3%; OR, 6.17; 95% CI, 4.73-8.06), prior CRC (PCCRC-3yr, 29.8%; OR, 3.03; 95% CI, 1.34-4.72), proximal CRC (PCCRC-3yr, 8.6%; OR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.41-1.61), diverticular disease (PCCRC 3-yr, 11.6%; OR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.37-2.10), and female sex (PCCRC-3yr, 7.9%; OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.11-1.20). CONCLUSION: According to the WEO methodology, the Western World PCCRC-3yr was 7.5%. Reassuringly, this has decreased over time, but further work is required to identify the reasons for PCCRCs, especially in higher-risk groups. We devised a WEO methodology checklist to increase its adoption and standardise the categorization of patients in future PCCRC-3yr studies.

Combination of Mucosa-Exposure Device and Computer-Aided Detection for Adenoma Detection During Colonoscopy: A Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Both computer-aided detection (CADe)-assisted and Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy have been found to increase adenoma detection. We investigated the performance of the combination of the 2 tools compared with CADe-assisted colonoscopy alone to detect colorectal neoplasias during colonoscopy in a multicenter randomized trial. METHODS: Men and women undergoing colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening, polyp surveillance, or clincial indications at 6 centers in Italy and Switzerland were enrolled. Patients were assigned (1:1) to colonoscopy with the combinations of CADe (GI-Genius; Medtronic) and a mucosal exposure device (Endocuff Vision [ECV]; Olympus) or to CADe-assisted colonoscopy alone (control group). All detected lesions were removed and sent to histopathology for diagnosis. The primary outcome was adenoma detection rate (percentage of patients with at least 1 histologically proven adenoma or carcinoma). Secondary outcomes were adenomas detected per colonoscopy, advanced adenomas and serrated lesions detection rate, the rate of unnecessary polypectomies (polyp resection without histologically proven adenomas), and withdrawal time. RESULTS: From July 1, 2021 to May 31, 2022, there were 1316 subjects randomized and eligible for analysis; 660 to the ECV group, 656 to the control group). The adenoma detection rate was significantly higher in the ECV group (49.6%) than in the control group (44.0%) (relative risk, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.00-1.26; P = .04). Adenomas detected per colonoscopy were significantly higher in the ECV group (mean ± SD, 0.94 ± 0.54) than in the control group (0.74 ± 0.21) (incidence rate ratio, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.04-1.54; P = .02). The 2 groups did not differ in term of detection of advanced adenomas and serrated lesions. There was no significant difference between groups in mean ± SD withdrawal time (9.01 ± 2.48 seconds for the ECV group vs 8.96 ± 2.24 seconds for controls; P = .69) or proportion of subjects undergoing unnecessary polypectomies (relative risk, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.69-1.14; P = .38). CONCLUSIONS: The combination of CADe and ECV during colonoscopy increases adenoma detection rate and adenomas detected per colonoscopy without increasing withdrawal time compared with CADe alone. CLINICALTRIALS: gov, Number: NCT04676308.

Follow-Up Colonoscopy for Detection of Missed Colorectal Cancer After Diverticulitis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Colonoscopy often is recommended after an episode of diverticulitis to exclude missed colorectal cancer (CRC). This is a controversial recommendation based on limited evidence. We estimated the prevalence and odds of CRC and advanced colorectal neoplasia on colonoscopy in patients with diverticulitis compared with CRC screening. METHODS: Using data from the Gastrointestinal Quality Improvement Consortium registry, we performed a cross-sectional study with patients ≥40 years old undergoing outpatient colonoscopy for an indication of diverticulitis follow-up evaluation or CRC screening. The primary outcome was CRC. The secondary outcome was advanced colorectal neoplasia. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs were calculated. RESULTS: We identified 4,591,921 outpatient colonoscopies performed for screening and 91,993 colonoscopies for diverticulitis follow-up evaluation. CRC prevalence was 0.33% in colonoscopies for screening and 0.31% in colonoscopies for diverticulitis. Compared with screening, patients with diverticulitis were less likely to have CRC (adjusted OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.74-0.94). CRC prevalence decreased to 0.17% in colonoscopies performed for diverticulitis only. Compared with screening, patients with diverticulitis as the only indication were less likely to have CRC (adjusted OR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.36-0.68). CRC prevalence increased to 1.43% in patients with complicated diverticulitis. Compared with screening, patients with complicated diverticulitis were more likely to have CRC (adjusted OR, 3.57; 95% CI, 1.59-8.01). CONCLUSIONS: The risk of CRC cancer is low in most patients with diverticulitis. Patients with complicated diverticulitis are the exception. Our results suggest that colonoscopy to detect missed CRC should include diverticulitis patients with a complication and those not current with CRC screening.

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.