Impact of inadequate bowel cleansing in sigmoidoscopy screening.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Long-time follow-up of sigmoidoscopy screening trials has shown reduced incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer (CRC), but inadequate bowel cleansing may hamper efficacy. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of bowel cleansing quality in sigmoidoscopy screening. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Individuals 50 to 74 years old who had a screening sigmoidoscopy in a population-based Norwegian, randomized trial between 2012 and 2019, were included in this cross-sectional study. The bowel cleansing quality was categorised as excellent, good, partly poor, or poor. The effect of bowel cleansing quality on adenoma detection rate (ADR) and referral to colonoscopy was evaluated by fitting multivariable logistic regression models. RESULTS: 35,710 individuals were included. The bowel cleansing at sigmoidoscopy was excellent in 20,934 (58.6%) individuals, good in 6580 (18.4%), partly poor in 7097 (19.9%) and poor in 1099 (3.1%). The corresponding ADRs were 17.0%, 16.6%, 14.5%, and 13.0%. Compared to participants with excellent bowel cleansing, those with poor bowel cleansing had an odds ratio for adenoma detection of 0.66 (95% confidence interval 0.55-0.79). We found substantial differences in the assessment of bowel cleansing quality among endoscopists. CONCLUSIONS: Inadequate bowel cleansing reduces the efficacy of sigmoidoscopy screening, by lowering ADR. A validated rating scale and improved bowel preparation are needed to make sigmoidoscopy an appropriate screening method.Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01538550).

RISK FACTORS FOR METACHRONOUS COLORECTAL CANCER OR ADVANCED LESIONS AFTER ENDOSCOPIC RESECTION OF SERRATED POLYPS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Serrated polyps (SPs) are precursors to 15-20% of colorectal cancers (CRCs). However, there are uncertainties regarding which SPs require surveillance and at what intervals, with recommendations adapted from those for adenomas in the absence of solid evidence. Our aim was to assess which SP risk characteristics relate to a higher risk of metachronous CRC or advanced polyps. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane for cohort, case-control studies, and clinical trials from inception to Dec 31, 2023, for CRC or advanced polyps [advanced adenoma (AA) or advanced SP] incidence at surveillance stratified by baseline SP size, dysplasia, location, and multiplicity. We defined advanced SPs as those >10mm or with dysplasia. CRC and advanced polyp incidence per 1,000 person-years (p-y) were estimated. We performed a meta-analysis by calculating pooled relative risks (RR) using a random-effects model. RESULTS: 5,903 studies were reviewed and 14 included, with 493,949 patients (mean age 59·5 years, 55% men). Mean follow-up was 4·9 years. CRC incidence per 1,000 p-y was 2·09 (95%CI 1·29-2·90) for advanced SP, 1·52 (0·78-2·25) for SP>10mm, 5·86 (2·16-9·56) for SP with dysplasia, 1·18 (0·77-1·60) for proximal SP, 0·52 (0·08-1·12) for >3SP, 0·50 (0·35-0·66) for non-advanced SP, and 0·44 (0·41-0·46) for normal colonoscopy. Metachronous CRC risk was higher in advanced SP vs non-advanced SP (RR 1·84, 95%CI 1·11-3·04), and vs normal colonoscopy (RR 2·92, 2·26-3·77); in SP>10mm vs <10mm (RR 2·61, 1·43-4·77), and vs normal colonoscopy (RR 3·52, 2·17-5·69); and in SP with dysplasia vs normal colonoscopy (RR 2·71, 2·00-3·67). No increase in CRC or advanced polyp risk was found in patients with proximal vs distal SP, nor in >3SP vs 1-2SP. CONCLUSIONS: CRC risk is significantly higher in patients with baseline advanced SP after 4·9 years of follow-up, with risk magnitudes similar to those described for AA, supporting the current recommendation for 3-year surveillance in patients with advanced SP.

Dramatic improvements in outcome following pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic and periampullary cancers.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatoduodenectomy is the only cure for cancers of the pancreas and the periampullary region but has considerable operative complications and uncertain prognosis. Our goal was to analyse temporal improvements and provide contemporary population-based benchmarks for outcomes following pancreatoduodenectomy. METHODS: We empanelled a cohort comprising all patients in Sweden with pancreatic or periampullary cancer treated with pancreatoduodenectomy from 1964 to 2016 and achieved complete follow-up through 2016. We analysed postoperative deaths and disease-specific net survival. RESULTS: We analysed 5923 patients with cancer of the pancreas (3876), duodenum (444), bile duct (504), or duodenal papilla (963) who underwent classic (3332) or modified (1652) Whipple's procedure or total pancreatectomy (803). Postoperative deaths declined from 17.2% in the 1960s to 1.6% in the contemporary time period (2010-2016). For all four cancer types, median, 1-year and 5-year survival improved substantially over time. Among patients operated between 2010 and 2016, 5-year survival was 29.0% (95% confidence interval (CI): 25.5, 33.0) for pancreatic cancer, 71.2% (95% CI: 62.9, 80.5) for duodenal cancer, 30.8% (95% CI: 23.0, 41.3) for bile duct cancer, and 62.7% (95% CI: 55.5, 70.8) for duodenal papilla cancer. CONCLUSION: There is a continuous and substantial improvement in the benefit-harm ratio after pancreatoduodenectomy for cancer.

Gastroenterology/Hepatology: What You May Have Missed in 2023.

This article summarizes clinically important gastroenterology developments from 2023 for internal medicine specialists. In colorectal cancer screening, a new RNA fecal screening test is on the horizon, as well as a new analysis on the benefits of using artificial intelligence in screening colonoscopy to detect more polyps. There is new evidence for management of gastrointestinal bleeding, a new drug for treatment of recurrent small-intestinal angiodysplasia, and a new endoscopic treatment method in patients with gastrointestinal tumor bleeding. The authors feature a randomized trial about amitriptyline as treatment for patients with irritable bowel syndrome by primary care providers and bring you news about new biologic agents for inflammatory bowel disease and eosinophilic esophagitis. Finally, they review 2 important articles on new terminology and management of metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease.

Effectiveness of Colonoscopy Screening vs Sigmoidoscopy Screening in Colorectal Cancer.

Importance: Randomized clinical screening trials have shown that sigmoidoscopy screening reduces colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality. Colonoscopy has largely replaced sigmoidoscopy for CRC screening, but long-term results from randomized trials on colonoscopy screening are still lacking. Objective: To estimate the additional screening benefit of colonoscopy compared with sigmoidoscopy. Design, Setting, and Participants: This comparative effectiveness simulation study pooled data on 358 204 men and women randomly assigned to sigmoidoscopy screening or usual care in 4 randomized sigmoidoscopy screening trials conducted in Norway, Italy, the US, and UK with inclusion periods in the years 1993 to 2001. The primary analysis of the study was conducted from January 19 to December 30, 2021. Intervention: Invitation to endoscopic screening. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes were CRC incidence and mortality. Using pooled 15-year follow-up data, colonoscopy screening effectiveness was estimated assuming that the efficacy of colonoscopy in the proximal colon was similar to that observed in the distal colon in the sigmoidoscopy screening trials. The simulation model was validated using data from Norwegian participants in a colonoscopy screening trial. Results: This analysis included 358 204 individuals (181 971 women [51%]) aged 55 to 64 years at inclusion with a median follow-up time ranging from 15 to 17 years. Compared with usual care, colonoscopy prevented an estimated 50 (95% CI, 42-58) CRC cases per 100 000 person-years, corresponding to 30% incidence reduction (rate ratio, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.66-0.75]), and prevented an estimated 15 (95% CI, 11-19) CRC deaths per 100 000 person-years, corresponding to 32% mortality reduction (rate ratio, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.61-0.76]). The additional benefit of colonoscopy screening compared with sigmoidoscopy was 12 (95% CI, 10-14) fewer CRC cases and 4 (95% CI, 3-5) fewer CRC deaths per 100 000 person-years, corresponding to percentage point reductions of 6.9 (95% CI, 6.0-7.9) for CRC incidence and 7.6 (95% CI, 5.7-9.6) for CRC mortality. The number needed to switch from sigmoidoscopy to colonoscopy screening was 560 (95% CI, 486-661) to prevent 1 CRC case and 1611 (95% CI, 1275-2188) to prevent 1 CRC death. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this comparative effectiveness study assessing long-term follow-up after CRC screening suggest that there was an additional preventive effect on CRC incidence and mortality associated with colonoscopy screening compared with sigmoidoscopy screening, but the additional preventive effect was less than what was achieved by introducing sigmoidoscopy screening where no screening existed. The results probably represent the upper limit of what may be achieved with colonoscopy screening compared with sigmoidoscopy screening.

Følger Helsedirektoratets retningslinjer internasjonale standarder for troverdighet?

BACKGROUND: The Norwegian Directorate of Health produces national clinical guidelines for the health service, and the development of guidelines must follow international standards for trustworthy clinical practice. We investigated whether the standards are being adhered to. MATERIAL AND METHOD: We used the National Guideline Clearinghouse Extent Adherence to Trustworthy Standards Instrument (NEATS) as the scoring tool and assessed a randomly selected chapter from national clinical guidelines that were published or updated during the period 2013 to January 2022. NEATS has 15 domain items; three are assessed with the response alternatives Yes/No/Not known, and twelve are assessed on a Likert scale from 1 to 5, where 1 corresponds to very low trustworthiness and 5 to very high trustworthiness. The assessments were made individually by two authors. Inter-rater reliability was assessed with exact or close reliability, and Cohen's kappa coefficient. RESULTS: We included 60 relevant guidelines. For nine of the twelve NEATS domain items assessed using the Likert scale, there was very low or low adherence to standards for trustworthy clinical guidelines (median score 1 or 2). The domain items with the lowest score (median score 1) were 'The study selection', 'Description of the studies and the results', 'Rating the strength of recommendations' and 'External review'. The domain item with the highest score was 'Specific and unambiguous articulation of recommendations' (median score 4). INTERPRETATION: The majority of the national clinical guidelines had low adherence to the standards for trustworthy clinical guidelines assessed using the NEATS scoring tool.

Estimated Lifetime Gained With Cancer Screening Tests: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials.

Importance: Cancer screening tests are promoted to save life by increasing longevity, but it is unknown whether people will live longer with commonly used cancer screening tests. Objective: To estimate lifetime gained with cancer screening. Data Sources: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted of randomized clinical trials with more than 9 years of follow-up reporting all-cause mortality and estimated lifetime gained for 6 commonly used cancer screening tests, comparing screening with no screening. The analysis included the general population. MEDLINE and the Cochrane library databases were searched, and the last search was performed October 12, 2022. Study Selection: Mammography screening for breast cancer; colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, or fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) for colorectal cancer; computed tomography screening for lung cancer in smokers and former smokers; or prostate-specific antigen testing for prostate cancer. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Searches and selection criteria followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline. Data were independently extracted by a single observer, and pooled analysis of clinical trials was used for analyses. Main Outcomes and Measures: Life-years gained by screening was calculated as the difference in observed lifetime in the screening vs the no screening groups and computed absolute lifetime gained in days with 95% CIs for each screening test from meta-analyses or single randomized clinical trials. Results: In total, 2 111 958 individuals enrolled in randomized clinical trials comparing screening with no screening using 6 different tests were eligible. Median follow-up was 10 years for computed tomography, prostate-specific antigen testing, and colonoscopy; 13 years for mammography; and 15 years for sigmoidoscopy and FOBT. The only screening test with a significant lifetime gain was sigmoidoscopy (110 days; 95% CI, 0-274 days). There was no significant difference following mammography (0 days: 95% CI, -190 to 237 days), prostate cancer screening (37 days; 95% CI, -37 to 73 days), colonoscopy (37 days; 95% CI, -146 to 146 days), FOBT screening every year or every other year (0 days; 95% CI, -70.7 to 70.7 days), and lung cancer screening (107 days; 95% CI, -286 days to 430 days). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this meta-analysis suggest that current evidence does not substantiate the claim that common cancer screening tests save lives by extending lifetime, except possibly for colorectal cancer screening with sigmoidoscopy.

The Future of Cancer Screening-Guided Without Conflicts of Interest.

This Viewpoint discusses the benefits and harms of cancer screening tests in the context of various stakeholders.

Informed consent for endoscopic procedures: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Position Statement.

All endoscopic procedures are invasive and carry risk. Accordingly, all endoscopists should involve the patient in the decision-making process about the most appropriate endoscopic procedure for that individual, in keeping with a patient's right to self-determination and autonomy. Recognition of this has led to detailed guidelines on informed consent for endoscopy in some countries, but in many no such guidance exists; this may lead to variations in care and exposure to risk of litigation. In this document, the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) sets out a series of statements that cover best practice in informed consent for endoscopy. These statements should be seen as a minimum standard of practice, but practitioners must be aware of and adhere to the law in their own country. 1: Patients should give informed consent for all gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures for which they have capacity to do so. 2: The healthcare professional seeking consent for an endoscopic procedure should ensure that the patient has the capacity to consent to that procedure. 3: For patients who lack capacity, healthcare personnel should at all times try to engage with people close to the patient, such as family, friends, or caregivers, to achieve consensus on the appropriateness of performing the procedure. 4: Where a patient lacks capacity to provide informed consent, the best interest decision should be clearly documented in the medical record. This should include information about the capacity assessment, reason(s) that the decision cannot be delayed for capacity recovery (or if recovery is not expected), who has been consulted, and where relevant the form of authority for the decision. 5: There should be a systematic and transparent disclosure of the expected benefits and harms that may reasonably affect patient choice on whether or not to undergo any diagnostic or interventional endoscopic procedure. Information about possible alternatives, as well as the consequences of doing nothing, should also be provided when relevant. 6: The information provided on the benefit and harms of an endoscopic procedure should be adapted to the procedure and patient-specific risk factors, and the preferences of the patient should be central to the consent process. 7: The consent discussion should be undertaken by an individual who is familiar with the procedure and its risks, and is able to discuss these in the context of the individual patient. 8: Patients should confirm consent to an endoscopic procedure in a private, unrushed, and non-coercive environment. 9: If a patient requests that an endoscopic procedure be discontinued, the procedure should be paused and the patient's capacity for decision making assessed. If a competent patient continues to object to the procedure, or if a conclusive determination of capacity is not feasible, the examination should be terminated as soon as it is safe to do so. 10: Informed consent should be sufficiently detailed to cover all findings that can be reasonably anticipated during an endoscopic examination. The scope of this consent should not be expanded, nor a patient's implicit consent for additional interventions assumed, unless failure to proceed with such interventions would result in immediate and predictable harm to the patient.

A novel framework for incorporating patient values and preferences in making guideline recommendations: guideline panel surveys.

OBJECTIVE: Universally acknowledged standards for trustworthy guidelines include the necessity to ground recommendations in patient values and preferences. When information is limited-which is typically the case-guideline panels often find it difficult to explicitly integrate patient values and preferences into their recommendations. Our objective was to develop and evaluate a framework for systematically navigating guideline panels in incorporating patient values and preferences in making recommendations. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: In the context of developing a guideline for colorectal cancer screening, we generated an initial framework for creating panel surveys to elicit guideline panelists' views of patient values and preferences and to inform panel discussions on recommendations. With further applications in guidelines of diverse topic areas, we dynamically refined the framework through iterative discussions and consensus. RESULTS: The finial framework consists of five steps for creating and implementing panel surveys. The surveys can serve three objectives following from the quantitative information regarding patient values and preferences that guideline panels usually require. An accompanying video provides detailed instructions of the survey. CONCLUSION: The framework for creating and implementing panel surveys offers explicit guidance for guideline panels considering transparently and systematically incorporating patient values and preferences into guideline recommendations.