Detection rate of serrated polyps and serrated polyposis syndrome in colorectal cancer screening cohorts: a European overview.

OBJECTIVE: The role of serrated polyps (SPs) as colorectal cancer precursor is increasingly recognised. However, the true prevalence SPs is largely unknown. We aimed to evaluate the detection rate of SPs subtypes as well as serrated polyposis syndrome (SPS) among European screening cohorts. METHODS: Prospectively collected screening cohorts of ≥1000 individuals were eligible for inclusion. Colonoscopies performed before 2009 and/or in individuals aged below 50 were excluded. Rate of SPs was assessed, categorised for histology, location and size. Age-sex-standardised number needed to screen (NNS) to detect SPs were calculated. Rate of SPS was assessed in cohorts with known colonoscopy follow-up data. Clinically relevant SPs (regarded as a separate entity) were defined as SPs ≥10 mm and/or SPs >5 mm in the proximal colon. RESULTS: Three faecal occult blood test (FOBT) screening cohorts and two primary colonoscopy screening cohorts (range 1.426-205.949 individuals) were included. Rate of SPs ranged between 15.1% and 27.2% (median 19.5%), of sessile serrated polyps between 2.2% and 4.8% (median 3.3%) and of clinically relevant SPs between 2.1% and 7.8% (median 4.6%). Rate of SPs was similar in FOBT-based cohorts as in colonoscopy screening cohorts. No apparent association between the rate of SP and gender or age was shown. Rate of SPS ranged from 0% to 0.5%, which increased to 0.4% to 0.8% after follow-up colonoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: The detection rate of SPs is variable among screening cohorts, and standards for reporting, detection and histopathological assessment should be established. The median rate, as found in this study, may contribute to define uniform minimum standards for males and females between 50 and 75 years of age.

Bowel preparation for colonoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: This Guideline is an official statement of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE). It addresses the choice amongst regimens available for cleansing the colon in preparation for colonoscopy. METHODS: This Guideline is based on a targeted literature search to evaluate the evidence supporting the use of bowel preparation for colonoscopy. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system was adopted to define the strength of recommendation and the quality of evidence. RESULTS: The main recommendations are as follows. (1) The ESGE recommends a low-fiber diet on the day preceding colonoscopy (weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence). (2) The ESGE recommends a split regimen of 4 L of polyethylene glycol (PEG) solution (or a same-day regimen in the case of afternoon colonoscopy) for routine bowel preparation. A split regimen (or same-day regimen in the case of afternoon colonoscopy) of 2 L PEG plus ascorbate or of sodium picosulphate plus magnesium citrate may be valid alternatives, in particular for elective outpatient colonoscopy (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). In patients with renal failure, PEG is the only recommended bowel preparation. The delay between the last dose of bowel preparation and colonoscopy should be minimized and no longer than 4 hours (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). (3) The ESGE advises against the routine use of sodium phosphate for bowel preparation because of safety concerns (strong recommendation, low quality evidence).

European guidelines for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis: overview and introduction to the full supplement publication.

Population-based screening for early detection and treatment of colorectal cancer (CRC) and precursor lesions, using evidence-based methods, can be effective in populations with a significant burden of the disease provided the services are of high quality. Multidisciplinary, evidence-based guidelines for quality assurance in CRC screening and diagnosis have been developed by experts in a project co-financed by the European Union. The 450-page guidelines were published in book format by the European Commission in 2010.  They include 10 chapters and over 250 recommendations, individually graded according to the strength of the recommendation and the supporting evidence. Adoption of the recommendations can improve and maintain the quality and effectiveness of an entire screening process, including identification and invitation of the target population, diagnosis and management of the disease and appropriate surveillance in people with detected lesions. To make the principles, recommendations and standards in the guidelines known to a wider professional and scientific community and to facilitate their use in the scientific literature, the original content is presented in journal format in an open-access Supplement of Endoscopy. The editors have prepared the present overview to inform readers of the comprehensive scope and content of the guidelines.

The NordICC Study: rationale and design of a randomized trial on colonoscopy screening for colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIM: While colonoscopy screening is widely used in several European countries and the United States, there are no randomized trials to quantify its benefits. The Nordic-European Initiative on Colorectal Cancer (NordICC) is a multinational, randomized controlled trial aiming at investigating the effect of colonoscopy screening on colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality. This paper describes the rationale and design of the NordICC trial. STUDY DESIGN: Men and women aged 55 to 64 years are drawn from the population registries in the participating countries and randomly assigned to either once-only colonoscopy screening with removal of all detected lesions, or no screening (standard of care in the trial regions). All individuals are followed for 15 years after inclusion using dedicated national registries. The primary end points of the trial are cumulative CRC-specific death and CRC incidence during 15 years of follow-up. POWER ANALYSIS: We hypothesize a 50 % CRC mortality-reducing efficacy of the colonoscopy intervention and predict 50 % compliance, yielding a 25 % mortality reduction among those invited to screening. For 90 % power and a two-sided alpha level of 0.05, using a 2:1 randomization, 45 600 individuals will be randomized to control, and 22 800 individuals to the colonoscopy group. Interim analyses of the effect of colonoscopy on CRC incidence and mortality will be performed at 10-year follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The aim of the NordICC trial is to quantify the effectiveness of population-based colonoscopy screening. This will allow development of evidence-based guidelines for CRC screening in the general population.

Effectiveness of digital feedback on patient experience and 30-day complications after screening colonoscopy: a randomized health services study.

Background and study aims European guidelines (ESGE) recommend measuring patient experience and 30-day complication rate after colonoscopy. We compared digital and paper-based feedback on patients' experience and 30-day complications after screening colonoscopy. Patients and methods Screenees attending for primary screening colonoscopies in two centers from September 2015 to December 2016 were randomized (1:1) to an intervention arm (choice of feedback method) or control arm (routine paper-based feedback). Participants in the intervention arm could choose preferred feedback method (paper-based, automated telephone or online survey) and were contacted by automated telephone 30 days after colonoscopy to assess complications. Control group participants self-reported complications. Primary and secondary endpoints were response rates to feedback and complications questionnaire, respectively. Results There were 1,281 and 1,260 participants in the intervention and control arms, respectively. There was no significant difference in response rate between study groups (64.8 % vs 61.5 %; P  = 0.08). Free choice of feedback improved response for participants identified as poor responders: younger than 60 years (60.8 % vs 54.7 %; P  = 0.031), male (64.0 % vs 58.6 %; P  = 0.045) and in small non-public center (56.2 % vs 42.5 %; P  = 0.043). In the intervention arm, 1,168 participants (91.2 %) answered the phone call concerning complications. A total of 79 participants (6.2 %) reported complications, of which two (0.2 %) were verified by telephone as clinically relevant. No complications were self-reported in the control group. Conclusion The overall response rate was not significantly improved with digital feedback, yet the technology yielded significant improvement in participants defined as poor responders. Our study demonstrated feasibility and efficacy of digital patient feedback about complications after colonoscopy.

Colorectal cancer screening by colonoscopy--current issues.

Of all colorectal cancer screening methods, colonoscopy used as a primary screening tool is both the most promising and the most discussed in the current literature. Several countries have introduced colonoscopic screening on a national scale, but many issues still require further research. The practicality of using colonoscopic screening can be questionable given the huge target population, which requires a great increase in endoscopic resources. Limiting the target population by shifting the use of colonoscopy from low-risk to high-risk groups is a valid option. The quality of colonoscopy related to the individual colonoscopist's skill has become a surprisingly considerable problem, and it is obvious that continuous quality improvement programs need to be established. The accuracy of detecting important colorectal lesions is also still influenced by the old problem of cleansing the large bowel, and further research would be welcome. Technological improvements in current endoscopic equipment will hopefully increase the diagnostic yield of colonoscopy and eventually strengthen its use in the setting of colorectal cancer screening.

Adenoma detection rate and risk of colorectal cancer.

GOALS: The aim of this paper was to discuss association between adenoma detection rate (ADR) and interval colorectal cancer risk. BACKGROUND: Adenoma detection rate is being used as a benchmark quality measure for colonoscopy. There are three studies showing inverse association between ADR and interval colorectal cancer risk. One recent study reports significant impact of increased ADR on decreasing interval colorectal cancer risk. STUDY: We discussed evidence for using ADR as a quality measures in colonoscopy and flexible sigmoidoscopy. We revised three studies (Kaminski et al., N Engl J Med 2010; Corley et al., N Engl J Med 2014 and Rogal et al., Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2013) analyzing association between ADR and interval colorectal cancer. We collated strengths and weaknesses of these studies with the perspective of clinical impact of their results. RESULTS: Kaminski et al. and Corley et al. reported inverse association between ADR at colonoscopy and interval colorectal cancer. Kaminski et al. showed that patients examined by endoscopists with ADR of less than 20% had over 10 times greater risk of interval colorectal cancer during the follow-up time than those examined by endoscopists with ADR ≥20%. Additionally, Corley et al. showed that ADR ≥28% resulted in a significantly lower risk of colorectal cancer death than ADR of less than 19%. In parallel, Rogal et al. reported similar association for flexible sigmoidoscopy, with 2.4 higher odds of interval colorectal cancer diagnosis during follow-up time in patients examined by endoscopists with distal ADR <7.2% than those with distal ADR ≥7.2%. Apart from inevitable clinical importance of the studies, they are not without disadvantages. In Kaminski et al. study cohort and study endpoint are well defined, but there is lack of statistical power to provide more robust results. In Rogal et al. study cohort is well defined, but approximation of the study endpoint was used. Finally, Corley et al. study has both poorly defined study cohort and study endpoint, but has the highest statistical power of all three to detect the differences for both interval colorectal cancer and colorectal cancer death. CONCLUSION: Both, inverse relationship between ADR and ADR improvement and colorectal cancer risk and death reaffirm ADR as a crucial quality control parameter.

Surveillance of patients at high-risk of squamous cell esophageal cancer.

Currently curative treatment for esophageal squamous cell cancer (ESCC) is possible only in patients with early-stage, usually asymptomatic disease. In Western countries, where the incidence of ESCC is relatively low, a screening of asymptomatic, average-risk population is untenable. In order to detect early-stage ESCC or its precursor lesions it is important to identify high-risk patients and consider endoscopic surveillance in these groups. These high-risk groups include patients after curative treatment for head and neck cancer, previous endoscopic resection of ESCC, caustic injury, and patients with tylosis or achalasia. This paper discuss the evidence and proposed method of endoscopy surveillance of these high-risk patients.

Need critical care nurses? Inquire within.

A serious shortage of critical care nurses encouraged a nurse manager to develop intensive care unit (ICU) nurses through an innovative preceptor program.

Need critical care nurses? Inquire within.

A serious shortage of critical care nurses encouraged a nurse-manager to develop intensive care unit nurses through an innovative preceptor program.