Impact of Single- vs. Split-Dose Low-Volume Bowel Preparations on Bowel Movement Kinetics, Patient Inconvenience, and Polyp Detection: A Prospective Trial.

OBJECTIVES: There are little data on bowel movement (BM) kinetics induced by bowel preparation. Whether single-dose (SID) or split-dose (SPD) regimens differ in terms of patient convenience is unclear. We compared BM kinetics, sleep and travel disruptions, and polyp detection rates in patients undergoing colonoscopy assigned to SID vs. SPDs. METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to 2-L SID or SPD (SPD1 and SPD2) bowel preparations. Surveys were completed querying the onset, duration, cessation, and intensity of BMs, along with sleep and travel disruption en route to the endoscopy center. Colon cleansing quality and polyp histology were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 341 patients were enrolled, 51% in SPD and 49% in SID. Over half of patients had their first BM within 60 min of starting the preparation. After dosing, 92% of SID and 66% of SPD1 patients achieved clear effluent (P<0.001), whereas it was reported in 97% of SPD2 patients (P=0.028 vs. SID). Total duration (P=0.041) and intensity (P<0.001) of BMs were greater in SID. More patients in SID woke up for BMs (65.9 vs. 48.8%, P<0.003). No differences in the need to stop driving en route to colonoscopy were noted. Bowel prep quality was better in SPD (P<0.001). Although no difference in the adenoma detection rate was noted, the sessile-serrated polyp detection rate was greater in SPD than in SID (9.9 vs. 2.4%, P=0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Our data demonstrate that SPD bowel preparation results in decreased intensity and duration of BMs, less patient inconvenience, improved bowel preparation, and increased sessile-serrated polyp detection rates.

A phase Ib study of the effects of black raspberries on rectal polyps in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis.

Familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) is characterized by the early onset of colonic polyposis and a high risk for colorectal cancer. FAP is treated by colectomy followed by lifelong removal of rectal polyps. This study determined whether black raspberries (BRBs) might regress rectal polyps in patients with FAP. Fourteen patients with FAP were treated with BRBs daily for 9 months. Seven patients received BRB powder orally plus two BRB suppositories inserted into the rectum at bedtime. The other 7 received an oral placebo plus the suppositories. Rectal polyp counts and polyp sizes were obtained at time zero and after 9 months of BRB treatment. Polyps and adjacent normal tissue were collected at both time points. The burden (P = 0.036) but not number (P = 0.069) of rectal polyps was significantly decreased. No benefit was noted with the addition of oral BRBs. Three patients were nonresponders. BRBs significantly decreased cellular proliferation, DNA methylation methyl transferase 1 protein expression, and p16 promoter methylation, but not promoter methylation of the Wnt pathway antagonists, SFRP2 and WIF1, in rectal polyps (adenomas) from responders but not from nonresponders. The MBD-seq assay revealed more demethylated transcription start sites (TSS), including those for miRNAs, in BRB-treated adenomas from the responders. In conclusion, BRB suppositories seem sufficient for regressing rectal polyps in patients with FAP.

Patients do not recall important details about polyps, required for colorectal cancer prevention.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Guidelines recommend that the age of initiation and frequency of colorectal cancer screening or surveillance be based on patients' personal and family histories of colorectal neoplasia. However, it is not clear whether patients accurately recall results from their colonoscopy examinations or features of specific polyps. METHODS: Between 2008 and 2011, a 35-question survey was given to outpatients at the Digestive Disease Institute at the Cleveland Clinic who had previously undergone colonoscopy there. We collected responses from 233 participants (mean age, 59 y; 49% male); they provided demographic information, along with responses to questions on past colonoscopies, personal and family history of colorectal neoplasia, detection of polyps by colonoscopy, and number and other key features of polyps detected. Patient responses were compared with medical records. RESULTS: Of the patients surveyed, 82% correctly recalled the presence or absence of polyp(s). Of the 118 who correctly reported having polyps, 61% correctly recalled the number, 26% recalled the size, and 6%-33% recalled features of polyp pathology. Only 8% of individuals correctly recalled all 3 key features of polyps (size, number, and pathology). The patients' age when they underwent colonoscopy, current age, sex, education, or method by which they received their colonoscopy results did not significantly affect the accuracy with which they recalled the presence or key features of polyps. CONCLUSIONS: Eighty-two percent of patients examined by colonoscopy correctly recalled whether or not they had polyp(s). However, most patients did not recall key details about their polyps (number, size, or pathology features) required to establish appropriate screening and surveillance intervals. New tools are needed to ensure that patients understand the importance of their colonoscopy findings and improve their recall accuracy.