Findings in the distal and proximal colon in colonoscopy screening after positive FIT and related pre-procedure factors.

BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy is the gold standard method for the early diagnosis and prevention of colorectal cancer (CRC). Screening programs include immune determination of blood in feces. Regardless of the method used, proximal colon lesions appear to be detected less frequently. OBJECTIVE: Analyze the characteristics of proximal and distal lesions and possible predisposing factors. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was performed of 692 patients from the CRC screening program with FIT ≥ 100ngHb/ml (October 2017 - October 2018). The right colon was examined twice as patients were participating in a randomized clinical trial to re-evaluate the right colon by forward-viewing endoscope or proximal retroflexion. The adenoma detection rate (ADR), advanced neoplasia (AN) and CRC in the proximal and distal colon, the histological and morphological characteristics in each section were analyzed. RESULTS: 52.9% of the patients were male, with a mean age of 59.5 years (SD: 7.6). 1490 polyps were found and the ADR was 57.7% (distal 42% and proximal 37%). Detection rates were 45.8% for AN, 40.9% for advanced adenomas, 5.2% for advanced SSL and CRC was diagnosed in 4.8% of patients. Males had more AN than females. The mean age of patients with AN was significantly higher. AN were associated with smoking and alcohol consumption (p=0.0001). Globally, FIT levels were higher in patients with AN (p=0.003). Sixty-six per cent of cancers were distally located and 61.3% of CRC were diagnosed in the early stages. CONCLUSIONS: In an average-risk asymptomatic population undergoing colonoscopy after positive FIT, AN were more common in the distal colon in males, older patients, smokers and those with alcohol intake.

Evaluation of endoscopy requests in the resumption of activity during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: denial of nonindicated requests and prioritization of accepted requests.

INTRODUCTION: the global SARS-CoV-2 pandemic forced the closure of endoscopy units. Before resuming endoscopic activity, we designed a protocol to evaluate gastroscopies and colonoscopies cancelled during the pandemic, denying inappropriate requests and prioritizing appropriate ones. METHODS: two types of inappropriate request were established: a) COVID-19 context, people aged ≤ 50 years without alarm symptoms and a low probability of relevant endoscopic findings; and b) inappropriate context, requests not in line with clinical guidelines or protocols. Denials were filed in the medical record. Appropriate requests were classified into priority, conventional and follow-up. Requests denied by specialty were compared and the findings of priority requests were evaluated. RESULTS: between March 16th and June 30th 2020, 1,658 requests (44 % gastroscopies and 56 % colonoscopies) were evaluated, of which 1,164 (70 %) were considered as appropriate (priority 8.5 %, conventional 48 %, follow-up 43 % and non-evaluable 0.5 %) and 494 (30 %) as inappropriate (20 % COVID-19 context, 80 % inappropriate context). The reasons for denial of gastroscopy were follow-up of lesions (33 %), insufficiently studied symptoms (20 %) and relapsing symptoms after a previous gastroscopy (18 %). The reasons for denial of colonoscopies were post-polypectomy surveillance (25 %), colorectal cancer after surgery (21 %) and a family history of cancer (13 %). There were significant differences in denied requests according to specialty: General Surgery (52 %), Hematology (37 %) and Primary Care (29 %); 31 % of priority cases showed relevant findings. CONCLUSIONS: according to our study, 24 % of endoscopies were discordant with scientific recommendations. Therefore, their denial and the prioritization of appropriate ones optimize the use of resources.

Satisfaction with care in colorectal cancer patients: inpatient versus outpatient study.

BACKGROUND: satisfaction with healthcare is focused on the patient and is known as "patient-centered care". However, user satisfaction is not always synonymous with good care. Healthcare practitioners should determine and understand what patients need and expect in order to improve the quality of care. AIMS: the main objective of this study was to determine the perceived quality of care of patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer in our unit. METHODS: a cross-sectional study was performed in all patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer (CRC) that underwent staging studies and were hospitalized in the Gastroenterology Department from May 2013 to October 2013. Furthermore, outpatients with rapid consultations for CRC staging from November 2013 to November 2014 were also included. Two questionnaires were administered: a) a survey of 20 questions with closed responses regarding the competence of treating physicians and nurses, the information received and the waiting time; b) the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-INFO25: information on the disease, medical tests, treatment and other services, with eight single items. RESULTS: there were no differences in the perceived healthcare quality, delays in starting treatment, the tumor stage, symptoms (performance status) or the time spent studying the disease. In-patients and those with advanced disease started treatment earlier than outpatients and those with disease stage I or II. Likewise, outpatients perceived a better psychological support. CONCLUSIONS: outpatient study did not reduce the quality of care and did not delay treatment.