Systematic upper endoscopy concomitant with colonoscopy performed within the colorectal cancer screening program: Impact on the patients' management.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The French colorectal cancer screening program is based on a fecal immunochemical test, followed by colonoscopy in case of positivity. The benefit of adding a concomitant upper endoscopy to detect upper digestive lesions (precancerous or others) is still debated. Our aim was to evaluate the frequency of upper digestive lesions detected by upper endoscopy performed concomitantly with colonoscopy following a positive fecal immunochemical test, and their impact on the patients' management (i.e., surveillance, medical treatment, endoscopic or surgical procedure). METHODS: Data of all the patients who consulted for a positive test between May 2016 and May 2019 in our center, and for whom concomitant upper endoscopy and colonoscopy were performed, were analyzed retrospectively. Patients with significant history of upper gastrointestinal diseases or with current gastrointestinal symptoms were excluded. RESULTS: One hundred patients were included [median age (min-max): 62 (50-75), men 64%]. Macroscopic and/or microscopic upper digestive lesions were found in 58 of them (58%): Helicobacter pylori infection in 17 patients, gastric precancerous lesions in 9 patients (chronic atrophic gastritis with intestinal metaplasia, n=8, low grade dysplasia, n=1), Barrett's esophagus requiring surveillance in 4 patients, and 1 duodenal adenoma with low-grade dysplasia. In 44 patients (44%), the upper endoscopy findings had an impact on patients' management, with no significant difference between the groups with positive (CRC or advanced adenoma)- or negative (any other lesions or normal) colonoscopy. CONCLUSION: A systematic upper endoscopy combined with colonoscopy for positive fecal immunochemical test could represent an efficient strategy for upper digestive lesions screening in France. Further studies are necessary to confirm these results and to evaluate cost-effectiveness of this approach.

Portal phase alone is equivalent to multiphasic phase for CT diagnosis of acute non-traumatic pains in an emergency context.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate radiological diagnosis concordance between a simplified and a multiphasic computed tomography (MCT) protocol for patients presenting acute non-traumatic abdominal pains (ANTAE). METHODS: During five consecutive months, all patients admitted in an emergency department for ANTAE were retrospectively included if they underwent MCT, including at least pre-contrast phase, late arterial phase (LAP), and portal venous phase (PVP). Clinical cases of suspected hemorrhagic conditions were secondarily excluded. For the study, two image sets, pre-contrast phase + LAP + PVP ± late phase called S1 and PVP alone called S2, were reviewed independently to give the most appropriate diagnosis with 5-point confidence scale. Diagnosis concordance and radiation dose were compared for each set of protocol by chi-square test. Linear mixed model was used to assess changes of diagnostic confidence and radiation dose. RESULTS: All in all, 196 patients were included. The kappa coefficient between S1 and S2 was excellent (98.5%, CI95% 95.6-99.7). Three errors due to an inappropriate protocol were observed (1.5%; CI95% = - 0.2 to 3.2%), 2 related to biliary tract obstruction causes and one due to gastric bleeding not suspected on clinical data. S2 was associated with a 61% decrease of the radiation dose (p = 0.01) with a mild decrease of the confidence scale (4.54 ± 0.05 versus 4.74 ± 0.03, p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: Using PVP-CT alone or MCT is equivalent for the diagnosis of ANTAE if suspected acute hemorrhages are excluded. A simplified CT protocol is associated with a dose decrease of 61%.