Timing of recurrences of TEM resected rectal neoplasms is variable as per the surveillance practices of one tertiary care institution.

Transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) is widely used for the excision of rectal adenomas and early rectal adenocarcinoma. Few recommendations currently exist for surveillance of lesions excised by TEM. The purpose of this study was to review the surveillance practices and the patterns of recurrence among TEM resected lesions at a tertiary care hospital. A retrospective chart review was performed on all patients who underwent TEM for rectal adenoma or adenocarcinoma before June 2017. In our study population of 114 patients, the final pathology included 78 (68%) adenomas and 36 (32%) adenocarcinomas. Of the adenocarcinomas 23, 9, and 4 were T1, T2, T3 lesions, respectively. Of those, 25 patients opted for surveillance instead of further treatment. The most commonly recommended endoscopic surveillance strategy by our group for both adenomas and adenocarcinomas excised by TEM was flexible sigmoidoscopy every 6 months for 2 years. Recurrences occurred in 4/78 (5.1%) adenoma patients, all found within 16.9 months of surgery, and in 4/25 (16%) adenocarcinoma patients, found between 7.4 and 38.5 months post-surgery. Our data highlights the fact that the timing of recurrences post TEM surgery is variable. Further studies looking at recurrence patterns are needed in order to create comprehensive guidelines for surveillance of these patients.

Computed tomography versus lower endoscopy as initial diagnostic method for evaluating patients with hematochezia at emergency room.

For acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB), lower gastrointestinal endoscopy is the preferred initial diagnostic test. However, it is difficult to perform urgently. Computed tomography (CT) is a convenient alternative.This study aimed to determine the diagnostic performance of CT compared to lower endoscopy as an initial test for evaluating acute LGIB.The medical records of 382 patients who visited our emergency department with hematochezia between January 2012 and January 2017 were retrospectively analyzed. Of them, 112 underwent CT, 65 underwent colonoscopy, and 205 underwent sigmoidoscopy as an initial test. For each method, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were calculated upon active bleeding site detection and LGIB etiology diagnosis.The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of CT for active bleeding site detection were 85.7%, 100%, 100%, and 96.9%, respectively, while those for identifying the etiology of LGIB were 87.4%, 40.0%, 83.5, and 47.6%, respectively.CT was not inferior to lower endoscopy for active bleeding site detection. Early localization and the exclusion of active bleeding were possible with CT. Etiology was diagnosed with high sensitivity and PPV by CT. Thus, CT can be an alternative initial diagnostic tool for evaluating acute LGIB.

The role of routine flexible sigmoidoscopy in patients presenting with fistula-in-ano: an observational study.

OBJECTIVE: Flexible sigmoidoscopy is useful to look for an underlying aetiology in fistula-in-ano. This study was aimed to assess the yield of routine flexible sigmoidoscopy in patients presenting with fistula-in-ano. A retrospective analysis of 159 consecutive patients with fistula-in-ano who underwent routine flexible sigmoidoscopy was performed. Sigmoidoscopy findings were recorded on a standard uniform format using a computer database. Those with a known aetiology were excluded. RESULTS: The median age was 39 (range: 14-74) years and the majority were males (n = 128, 80.5%). Forty-nine patients (30.8%) presented with a recurrent fistula-in-ano. On flexible sigmoidoscopy, internal opening was seen in only 23 patients (14.4%). Furthermore, incidental findings of haemorrhoids (n = 5, 3.1%) and polyps (n = 7, 4.4%) were found. One patient (0.6%) had a healed anal fissure, 5 patients (3.1%) had inflamed mucosa and 2 patients (1.3%) had ulcers. Only two patients with inflamed mucosa were diagnosed to have Crohn's disease on histology. Therefore, flexible sigmoidoscopy was not helpful in the majority to locate the internal opening. Only two patients had evidence of an underlying aetiology, which was Crohn's disease. However, they had recurrent complex fistulae and other associated symptoms. Therefore, flexible sigmoidoscopy may be reserved for selected group of patients with symptoms of an underlying aetiology.

Management of rectal cancer in Canada: an evidence-based comparison of clinical practice guidelines

Background: Rectal cancer requires a multidisciplinary and multimodality treatment approach. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) provide a framework for delivering consistent, evidence-based health care. We compared provincial/territorial CPGs across Canada to identify areas of variability and evaluate their quality. Methods: We retrieved CPGs from Canadian organizations responsible for cancer care oversight and evaluated their quality and developmental methodology using the AGREE-II instrument. Recommendations for diagnostic and staging investigations, treatment by stage, and post-treatment surveillance of stage I­III rectal cancers were abstracted and compared. Results: We identified 7 sets of CPGs for analysis, varying in content, presentation, quality, and year last updated. Differences were noted in locoregional staging: 4 recommended magnetic resonance imaging over endorectal ultrasonography, 2 recommended either modality, and 3 specified scenarios for one over the other. Recommendations also varied for use of staging computed tomography of the chest versus chest radiography and for surgical management and indications for transanal excision. Recommendations for neoadjuvant therapy in stage II/III disease also differed: 3 guidelines recommended long-course chemoradiation over short-course radiation therapy alone, while 3 others recommended short-course radiation in specific clinical scenarios. Adjuvant chemotherapy for stage II/III disease was uniformly recommended, with variable protocols. The use of proctosigmoidoscopy and interval/duration of endoscopic post-treatment surveillance varied among guidelines. Conclusion: Canadian CPGs vary in their recommendations for staging, treatment, and surveillance of rectal cancer. Some of these differences reflect areas with limited definitive evidence. Consistent guidelines with uniform implementation across provinces/territories may lead to more equitable care to patients.

Contexte: Le cancer rectal requiert une approche thérapeutique multidisciplinaire et multimodalité. Les guides de pratique clinique (GPC) procurent un cadre pour assurer la prestation de soins de santé constants reposant sur des données probantes. Nous avons comparé les GPC des provinces et des territoires canadiens pour identifier les secteurs où ils varient et pour en évaluer la qualité. Méthodes: Nous avons obtenu les GPC des organisations canadiennes responsables des soins oncologiques et nous avons évalué leur qualité et la méthodologie de leur élaboration au moyen de l'outil AGREE II (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation). Nous avons extrait et comparé les recommandations en ce qui concerne les épreuves diagnostiques et la stadification, les traitements en fonction du stade et la surveillance post-thérapeutique du cancer rectal de stade I à III. Résultats: Nous avons recensé 7 GPC aux fins de cette analyse; leur contenu, leur présentation, leur qualité et l'année de leur plus récente mise à jour variaient. Des différences ont été observées au plan de la stadification locorégionale : 4 recommandaient l'imagerie par résonnance magnétique plutôt que l'échographie endorectale, 2 recommandaient l'une ou l'autre et 3 précisaient des circonstances où utiliser l'une plutôt que l'autre. Les recommandations variaient aussi pour ce qui est de l'utilisation de la scintigraphie c. radiographie thoracique de stadification, de la prise en charge chirurgicale et des indications de l'excision transanale. Les recommandations variaient également en ce qui concerne le traitement néoadjuvant pour la maladie de stade II/III : 3 guides recommandaient un traitement par chimioradiothérapie à long terme plutôt qu'une brève radiothérapie seule, tandis que 3 autres recommandaient une radiothérapie brève dans certains cas particuliers. La chimiothérapie adjuvante pour la maladie de stade II/III était uniformément recommandée, mais les protocoles variaient. L'utilisation de la proctosigmoïdoscopie et l'intervalle/durée de la surveillance endoscopique post-thérapeutique variaient d'un guide à l'autre. Conclusion: Les GPC canadiens varient quant à leurs recommandations pour la stadification, le traitement et la surveillance du cancer rectal. Certaines de ces différences témoignent du manque de données probantes concluantes dans certains secteurs. L'uniformisation des guides et de leur application entre les provinces et les territoires pourrait faciliter une prestation plus équitable des soins aux patients.

Long-term Risk of Colorectal Cancer After Removal of Conventional Adenomas and Serrated Polyps.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Endoscopic screening reduces incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer (CRC) because precursor lesions, such as conventional adenomas or serrated polyps, are removed. Individuals with polypectomies are advised to undergo colonoscopy surveillance to prevent CRC. However, guidelines for surveillance intervals after diagnosis of a precursor lesion, particularly for individuals with serrated polyps, vary widely, and lack sufficient supporting evidence. Consequently, some high-risk patients do not receive enough surveillance and lower-risk subjects receive excessive surveillance. METHODS: We examined the association between findings from first endoscopy and CRC risk among 122,899 participants who underwent flexible sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy in the Nurses' Health Study 1 (1990-2012), Nurses' Health Study 2 (1989-2013), or the Health Professionals Follow-up Study (1990-2012). Endoscopic findings were categorized as no polyp, conventional adenoma, or serrated polyp (hyperplastic polyp, traditional serrated adenoma, or sessile serrated adenoma, with or without cytological dysplasia). Conventional adenomas were classified as advanced (≥10 mm, high-grade dysplasia, or tubulovillous or villous histology) or nonadvanced, and serrated polyps were assigned to categories of large (≥10 mm) or small (<10 mm). We used a Cox proportional hazards regression model to calculate the hazard ratios (HRs) of CRC incidence, after adjusting for various potential risk factors. RESULTS: After a median follow-up period of 10 years, we documented 491 incident cases of CRC: 51 occurred in 6161 participants with conventional adenomas, 24 in 5918 participants with serrated polyps, and 427 in 112,107 participants with no polyp. Compared with participants with no polyp detected during initial endoscopy, the multivariable HR for incident CRC in individuals with an advanced adenoma was 4.07 (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.89-5.72) and the HR for CRC in individuals with a large serrated polyp was 3.35 (95% CI 1.37-8.15). In contrast, there was no significant increase in risk of CRC in patients with nonadvanced adenomas (HR 1.21; 95% CI 0.68-2.16, P = .52) or small serrated polyps (HR 1.25; 95% CI 0.76-2.08; P = .38). CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide support for guidelines that recommend repeat lower endoscopy within 3 years of a diagnosis of advanced adenoma and large serrated polyps. In contrast, patients with nonadvanced adenoma or small serrated polyps may not require more intensive surveillance than patients without polyps.

Strategies for Colorectal Cancer Screening.

The incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) is increasing worldwide. CRC has high mortality when detected at advanced stages, yet it is also highly preventable. Given the difficulties in implementing major lifestyle changes or widespread primary prevention strategies to decrease CRC risk, screening is the most powerful public health tool to reduce mortality. Screening methods are effective but have limitations. Furthermore, many screen-eligible people remain unscreened. We discuss established and emerging screening methods, and potential strategies to address current limitations in CRC screening. A quantum step in CRC prevention might come with the development of new screening strategies, but great gains can be made by deploying the available CRC screening modalities in ways that optimize outcomes while making judicious use of resources.

Colorectal cancer screening with faecal immunochemical testing, sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy: a microsimulation modelling study.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate benefits and harms of different colorectal cancer screening strategies, stratified by (baseline) 15-year colorectal cancer risk. DESIGN: Microsimulation modelling study using MIcrosimulation SCreening ANalysis-Colon (MISCAN-Colon). SETTING: A parallel guideline committee (BMJ Rapid Recommendations) defined the time frame and screening interventions, including selection of outcome measures. POPULATION: Norwegian men and women aged 50-79 years with varying 15-year colorectal cancer risk (1-7%). COMPARISONS: Four screening strategies were compared with no screening: biennial or annual faecal immunochemical test (FIT) or single sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy at 100% adherence. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Colorectal cancer mortality and incidence, burdens, and harms over 15 years of follow-up. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: Over 15 years of follow-up, screening individuals aged 50-79 at 3% risk of colorectal cancer with annual FIT or single colonoscopy reduced colorectal cancer mortality by 6 per 1000 individuals. Single sigmoidoscopy and biennial FIT reduced it by 5 per 1000 individuals. Colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, and annual FIT reduced colorectal cancer incidence by 10, 8, and 4 per 1000 individuals, respectively. The estimated incidence reduction for biennial FIT was 1 per 1000 individuals. Serious harms were estimated to be between 3 per 1000 (biennial FIT) and 5 per 1000 individuals (colonoscopy); harms increased with older age. The absolute benefits of screening increased with increasing colorectal cancer risk, while harms were less affected by baseline risk. Results were sensitive to the setting defined by the guideline panel. Because of uncertainty associated with modelling assumptions, we applied a GRADE rating of low certainty evidence to all estimates. CONCLUSIONS: Over a 15 year period, all screening strategies may reduce colorectal cancer mortality to a similar extent. Colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy may also reduce colorectal cancer incidence, while FIT shows a smaller incidence reduction. Harms are rare and of similar magnitude for all screening strategies.

Colorectal cancer screening with faecal immunochemical testing, sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy: a clinical practice guideline.

CLINICAL QUESTION: Recent 15-year updates of sigmoidoscopy screening trials provide new evidence on the effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening. Prompted by the new evidence, we asked: "Does colorectal cancer screening make an important difference to health outcomes in individuals initiating screening at age 50 to 79? And which screening option is best?" CURRENT PRACTICE: Numerous guidelines recommend screening, but vary on recommended test, age and screening frequency. This guideline looks at the evidence and makes recommendations on screening for four screening options: faecal immunochemical test (FIT) every year, FIT every two years, a single sigmoidoscopy, or a single colonoscopy. RECOMMENDATIONS: These recommendations apply to adults aged 50-79 years with no prior screening, no symptoms of colorectal cancer, and a life expectancy of at least 15 years. For individuals with an estimated 15-year colorectal cancer risk below 3%, we suggest no screening (weak recommendation). For individuals with an estimated 15-year risk above 3%, we suggest screening with one of the four screening options: FIT every year, FIT every two years, a single sigmoidoscopy, or a single colonoscopy (weak recommendation). With our guidance we publish the linked research, a graphic of the absolute harms and benefits, a clear description of how we reached our value judgments, and linked decision aids. HOW THIS GUIDELINE WAS CREATED: A guideline panel including patients, clinicians, content experts and methodologists produced these recommendations using GRADE and in adherence with standards for trustworthy guidelines. A linked systematic review of colorectal cancer screening trials and microsimulation modelling were performed to inform the panel of 15-year screening benefits and harms. The panel also reviewed each screening option's practical issues and burdens. Based on their own experience, the panel estimated the magnitude of benefit typical members of the population would value to opt for screening and used the benefit thresholds to inform their recommendations. THE EVIDENCE: Overall there was substantial uncertainty (low certainty evidence) regarding the 15-year benefits, burdens and harms of screening. Best estimates suggested that all four screening options resulted in similar colorectal cancer mortality reductions. FIT every two years may have little or no effect on cancer incidence over 15 years, while FIT every year, sigmoidoscopy, and colonoscopy may reduce cancer incidence, although for FIT the incidence reduction is small compared with sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy. Screening related serious gastrointestinal and cardiovascular adverse events are rare. The magnitude of the benefits is dependent on the individual risk, while harms and burdens are less strongly associated with cancer risk. UNDERSTANDING THE RECOMMENDATION: Based on benefits, harms, and burdens of screening, the panel inferred that most informed individuals with a 15-year risk of colorectal cancer of 3% or higher are likely to choose screening, and most individuals with a risk of below 3% are likely to decline screening. Given varying values and preferences, optimal care will require shared decision making.

Effectiveness of sigmoidoscopy for assessing ulcerative colitis disease activity and therapeutic response.

Ulcerative colitis (UC) typically begins in the rectum and progresses proximally in a contiguous fashion without skip lesions. Post-treatment inflammation distribution can change over time. Colonoscopy is unpleasant for the patient and clinical trials often use sigmoidoscopy for evaluation of disease severity. The aim of this study is to evaluate whether sigmoidoscopy is adequate to assess disease activity and therapeutic response as colonoscopy.We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent colonoscopy for the initial diagnosis and follow-up by evaluating their mucosal inflammation in our hospital from January 2012 and December 2017.A total of 69 patients were analyzed. During follow up, the inflamed segment changed post-treatment in 62% (43/69). Extensive UC was common in the changed disease extent group (P < .01). Patients treated with oral mesalazine had a higher rate of changed disease extent (P < .01). The sigmoid segment was the most commonly involved segment, and the rectum was the severely inflamed segment during initial diagnosis and follow-up. According to Mayo endoscopic subscore (MES) in the most severely inflamed colonic and rectosigmoid segment, there were high degrees of correlation in the initial UC diagnosis (r = .90, P < .01) and follow-up (r = .74, P < .01).Our findings suggest that sigmoidoscopy is effective as colonoscopy for detecting disease activity and evaluating therapeutic response in UC patients during follow-up.

Factors affecting adenoma detection rate in a national flexible sigmoidoscopy screening programme: a retrospective analysis.

BACKGROUND: A national colorectal cancer screening programme started in England in 2013, offering one-off flexible sigmoidoscopy to all men and women aged 55 years in addition to the biennial faecal occult blood testing programme offered to all individuals aged 60-74 years. We analysed data from six pilot flexible sigmoidoscopy screening centres to examine factors affecting the adenoma detection rate (ADR). METHODS: We did a retrospective analysis of flexible sigmoidoscopy screening procedures performed in individuals aged 55 years at six pilot sites in England as part of the National Health Service Bowel Scope Screening programme. ADR (number of procedures in which at least one adenoma was removed or biopsied, divided by total number of procedures) was calculated for each site and each endoscopist. Multiple regression models were used to examine the variation in ADR with withdrawal time and extent of examination, and the effect of other factors including comfort and bowel preparation on extent of examination. FINDINGS: The analysis included 8256 procedures done between May 7, 2013, and May 6, 2014. The overall ADR was 9·1% (95% CI 8·5-9·8; 755 of 8256 procedures), varying from 7·4% (6·2-8·9) to 11·0% (9·1-13·4) by screening centre. The ADR was 11·5% (95% CI 10·6-12·5; 493 of 4299 procedures) in men and 6·6% (5·9-7·4; 262 of 3957 procedures) in women (p<0·0001). On multivariate analysis, factors associated with adenoma detection were male sex (relative risk 1·69, 95% CI 1·46-1·95; p<0·0001) and a withdrawal time from the splenic flexure of at least 3·25 min in negative procedures (1·22, 1·00-1·48; p=0·045). However, increasing the withdrawal time to 4·0 min or more did not increase the likelihood of adenoma detection (1·22, 0·99-1·51; p=0·057). Procedures not reaching the splenic flexure were associated with lower chance of adenoma detection (eg, 0·77, 0·66-0·91; p=0·0015 for procedures reaching the descending colon), but there was no additional benefit associated with reaching the transverse colon (0·83, 0·67-1·02; p=0·069). Women (0·83, 0·80-0·87; p<0·0001), individuals with adequate (0·79, 0·76-0·83; p<0·0001) or poor (0·58, 0·51-0·67; p<0·0001) bowel preparation (compared with good bowel preparation), and those with mild (0·82, 0·76-0·88; p<0·0001) or moderate or severe (0·58, 0·51-0·66; p<0·0001) discomfort (compared with no discomfort) were less likely to have a procedure reaching the splenic flexure. INTERPRETATION: Key performance indicators for flexible sigmoidoscopy screening should be defined, including standards for insertion and withdrawal times, optimal depth, and bowel preparation. ADR could be improved by recommending a withdrawal time from the splenic flexure of at least 3·25 min (ideally 3·5-4·0 min). FUNDING: None.

Colorectal cancer screening with faecal immunochemical testing, sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy: a microsimulation modelling study

OBJECTIVE: To estimate benefits and harms of different colorectal cancer screening strategies, stratified by (baseline) 15-year colorectal cancer risk. DESIGN: Microsimulation modelling study using MIcrosimulation SCreening ANalysis-Colon (MISCAN-Colon).SETTING: A parallel guideline committee (BMJ Rapid Recommendations) defined the time frame and screening interventions, including selection of outcome measures.POPULATION: Norwegian men and women aged 50-79 years with varying 15-year colorectal cancer risk (1-7%).COMPARISONS: Four screening strategies were compared with no screening: biennial or annual faecal immunochemical test (FIT) or single sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy at 100% adherence. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Colorectal cancer mortality and incidence, burdens, and harms over 15 years of follow-up. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: Over 15 years of follow-up, screening individuals aged 50-79 at 3% risk of colorectal cancer with annual FIT or single colonoscopy reduced colorectal cancer mortality by 6 per 1000 individuals. Single sigmoidoscopy and biennial FIT reduced it by 5 per 1000 individuals. Colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, and annual FIT reduced colorectal cancer incidence by 10, 8, and 4 per 1000 individuals, respectively. The estimated incidence reduction for biennial FIT was 1 per 1000 individuals. Serious harms were estimated to be between 3 per 1000 (biennial FIT) and 5 per 1000 individuals (colonoscopy); harms increased with older age. The absolute benefits of screening increased with increasing colorectal cancer risk, while harms were less affected by baseline risk. Results were sensitive to the setting defined by the guideline panel. Because of uncertainty associated with modelling assumptions, we applied a GRADE rating of low certainty evidence to all estimates. CONCLUSIONS: Over a 15 year period, all screening strategies may reduce colorectal cancer mortality to a similar extent. Colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy may also reduce colorectal cancer incidence, while FIT shows a smaller incidence reduction. Harms are rare and of similar magnitude for all screening strategies

Changes in scoring of Direct Observation of Procedural Skills (DOPS) forms and the impact on competence assessment.

BACKGROUND: Direct Observation of Procedural Skills (DOPS) is an established competence assessment tool in endoscopy. In July 2016, the DOPS scoring format changed from a performance-based scale to a supervision-based scale. We aimed to evaluate the impact of changes to the DOPS scale format on the distribution of scores in novice trainees and on competence assessment. METHODS: We performed a prospective, multicenter (n = 276), observational study of formative DOPS assessments in endoscopy trainees with ≤ 100 lifetime procedures. DOPS were submitted in the 6-months before July 2016 (old scale) and after (new scale) for gastroscopy (n = 2998), sigmoidoscopy (n = 1310), colonoscopy (n = 3280), and polypectomy (n = 631). Scores for old and new DOPS were aligned to a 4-point scale and compared. RESULTS: 8219 DOPS (43 % new and 57 % old) submitted for 1300 trainees were analyzed. Compared with old DOPS, the use of the new DOPS was associated with greater utilization of the lowest score (2.4 % vs. 0.9 %; P < 0.001), broader range of scores, and a reduction in competent scores (60.8 % vs. 86.9 %; P < 0.001). The reduction in competent scores was evident on subgroup analysis across all procedure types (P < 0.001) and for each quartile of endoscopy experience. The new DOPS was superior in characterizing the endoscopy learning curve by demonstrating progression of competent scores across quartiles of procedural experience. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopy assessors applied a greater range of scores using the new DOPS scale based on degree of supervision in two cohorts of trainees matched for experience. Our study provides construct validity evidence in support of the new scale format.

Diagnostic Performance of One-off Flexible Sigmoidoscopy with Fecal Immunochemical Testing in a Large Screening Population.

BACKGROUND: Flexible sigmoidoscopy and fecal immunochemical tests are established diagnostic tests for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and less invasive, less expensive, and easier to conduct than colonoscopy. However, little is known about their joint diagnostic performance compared with colonoscopy. We aimed to assess the expected diagnostic performance of joint use of flexible sigmoidoscopy and fecal immunochemical test. METHODS: We assessed the overall and site-specific prevalences of colorectal neoplasms and the overall sensitivity, specificity, area under the receiver operating characteristics curve of a quantitative fecal immunochemical test (FOB Gold, Sentinel Diagnostics, Milano, Italy) among 3,466 participants in screening colonoscopy in Germany. Results were used to model the expected diagnostic performance of joint use of flexible sigmoidoscopy and fecal immunochemical testing. RESULTS: CRC and advanced adenomas were found in 29 (1%) and 354 (10%) participants, respectively. The area under the curve of fecal immunochemical testing for these outcomes could be raised from 96% to 100% and from 70% to 89%, respectively, by combining it with flexible sigmoidoscopy. At 90% specificity, sensitivity of fecal immunochemical testing would increase from 97% to 100% for CRC and from 40% to 79% for advanced adenomas. CONCLUSIONS: Combining flexible sigmoidoscopy and fecal immunochemical testing might strongly enhance diagnostic performance of each single test to a level close to the diagnostic performance of screening colonoscopy while avoiding many unnecessary colonoscopies.

Colonoscopy Surveillance After Colorectal Cancer Resection: Recommendations of the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer.

The US Multi-Society Task Force has developed updated recommendations to guide health care providers with the surveillance of patients after colorectal cancer (CRC) resection with curative intent. This document is based on a critical review of the literature regarding the role of colonoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy, endoscopic ultrasound, fecal testing and CT colonography in this setting. The document addresses the effect of surveillance, with focus on colonoscopy, on patient survival after CRC resection, the appropriate use and timing of colonoscopy for perioperative clearing and for postoperative prevention of metachronous CRC, specific considerations for the detection of local recurrence in the case of rectal cancer, as well as the place of CT colonography and fecal tests in post-CRC surveillance.

[International status colorectal cancer screening and quality assurance of screening-colonoscopy]. / Internationaler Status Dickdarmkrebs-Screening und Qualitätssicherung der Screening-Koloskopie.

Bowel cancer is frequent, early stages have much better prognosis and drug treatment of late stages is increasingly very expensive. Screening for colorectal cancer has the potential for both early detection and prevention. For a screening intervention colonoscopy is very invasive and holds the small risk of serious complications. Colonoscopy plays a key role for further diagnosis and intervention in all programs. Current international screening activities are presented. The emerging evidence on effectiveness of screening suggests that all strategies may have similar effect sizes. Participation rates and quality assurance thus are of key importance for realizing potential net health gains. Participation rates are higher for stool tests than for sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy. For quality assurance of screening-colonoscopy an established range of quality measures is available. The possibility of systematic quality assurance also in the context of opportunistic screening like in Austria is proven by Germany and Poland.

Factors influencing colorectal cancer screening in rural southern Taiwan.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the most common cancer in Taiwan. Colorectal cancer screening can prevent or detect cancer early, but the acceptance rate in rural southern Taiwan is unknown. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to explore the prevalence of CRC screening and related factors in rural south Taiwan. METHODS: Cross-sectional study was conducted. Sample population was recruited from 2 rural areas in southern Taiwan. A structured questionnaire was completed by 635 participants. The following outcomes were studied: sociodemographic characteristics, knowledge of CRC screening, acceptance of CRC screening, and the reasons for having or not having CRC screening. RESULTS: The results indicated that 4.7% of the respondents had undergone a fecal occult blood test, 3.1% had undergone a sigmoidoscopy, and 2.7% had undergone a colonoscopy. For overall CRC screening, knowledge that CRC was the most common form of cancer was significant (P < .01). Among participants who knew that CRC was the most common form of cancer, the odds of undergoing CRC screening were 4.20-fold greater than among participants who did not know that CRC was the most common form of cancer (P < .01; confidence interval, 1.62-10.89). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that the acceptance of CRC screening among men remains higher than among women in rural southern Taiwan. Efforts to improve CRC screening in rural areas should focus on increasing community residents' knowledge about cancer incidence and prevention. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Colorectal cancer screening is a useful cancer prevention measure, and community health center nurses should assess and promote rural residents' acceptance for CRC screening.

European guidelines for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis. First Edition--Quality assurance in endoscopy in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis.

Multidisciplinary, evidence-based guidelines for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis have been developed by experts in a project coordinated by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. The full guideline document covers the entire process of population-based screening. It consists of 10 chapters and over 250 recommendations, graded according to the strength of the recommendation and the supporting evidence. The 450-page guidelines and the extensive evidence base have been published by the European Commission. The chapter on quality assurance in endoscopy includes 50 graded recommendations. The content of the chapter is presented here to promote international discussion and collaboration by making the principles and standards recommended in the new EU Guidelines known to a wider professional and scientific community. Following these recommendations has the potential to enhance the control of colorectal cancer through improvement in the quality and effectiveness of endoscopy and other elements in the screening process, including multidisciplinary diagnosis and management of the disease.

Factors associated with inadequate colorectal cancer screening with flexible sigmoidoscopy.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIM: Inadequate colorectal cancer screening wastes limited endoscopic resources. We examined patients factors associated with inadequate flexible sigmoidoscopy (FSG) screening at baseline screening and repeat screening 3-5 years later in 10 geographically-dispersed screening centers participating in the ongoing Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial. METHODS: A total of 64,554 participants (aged 55-74) completed baseline questionnaires and underwent FSG at baseline. Of these, 39,385 participants returned for repeat screening. We used logistic regression models to assess factors that are associated with inadequate FSG (defined as a study in which the depth of insertion of FSG was <50 cm or visual inspection was limited to <90% of the mucosal surface but without detection of a polyp or mass). RESULTS: Of 7084 (11%) participants with inadequate FSG at baseline, 6496 (91.7%) had <50 cm depth of insertion (75.3% due to patient discomfort) and 500 (7.1%) participants had adequate depth of insertion but suboptimal bowel preparation. Compared to 55-59 year age group, advancing age in 5-year increments (odds ratios (OR) from 1.08 to 1.51) and female sex (OR = 2.40; 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.27-2.54) were associated with inadequate FSG. Obesity (BMI > 30 kg/m(2)) was associated with reduced odds (OR = 0.67; 95% CI: 0.62-0.72). Inadequate FSG screening at baseline was associated with inadequate FSG at repeat screening (OR = 6.24; 95% CI: 5.78-6.75). CONCLUSIONS: Sedation should be considered for patients with inadequate FSG or an alternative colorectal cancer screening method should be recommended.