Risk of colorectal cancer in patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis and concomitant inflammatory bowel disease compared with primary sclerosing cholangitis only.

AIM: Primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) increases the risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients; however, there is a paucity of literature to suggest PSC alone as an independent risk factor for CRC. We aimed to determine if PSC is an independent risk factor for CRC in a large tertiary care medical center. Optimizing screening intervals is of great importance, given the burden and risks associated with a lifetime of colonoscopy screening. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study consists of patients diagnosed with PSC preceding IBD (PSC-IBD) and PSC-only before January 6, 2023 from a large, tertiary, academic medical center. Patients diagnosed with IBD concurrently or before PSC were excluded to reduce IBD's impact on CRC risk. Demographic data and colonoscopy findings were collected and assessed. RESULTS: Overall, 140 patients from all NYU Langone Health clinical settings were included. Patients with PSC-IBD were more likely to be diagnosed with CRC (23.3% vs. 1.8%, p < 0.01) and either low-grade or uncharacterized dysplasia (16.7% vs. 0.0%, p < 0.01) compared with those with PSC-only. Among PSC-only patients, the estimated CRC risk was significantly elevated compared with that expected of the standard NYU Langone population (SIR 9.2, 95% CI 1.1, 33.2). CONCLUSIONS: Our study revealed a significantly heightened CRC risk in PSC-IBD patients compared with those with PSC-only. Importantly, individuals with PSC-only also face a greater CRC risk compared with the general population. Individuals with PSC-alone may require extended screening and surveillance colonoscopy intervals compared with those with PSC-IBD, yet still require more frequent monitoring than screening guidelines recommend for the general population.

Effectiveness of switching endoscopists for repeat surveillance colonoscopy: a retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Surveillance colonoscopy decreases colorectal cancer mortality; however, lesions are occasionally missed. Although an appropriate surveillance interval is indicated, variations may occur in the methods used, such as scope manipulation or observation. Therefore, individual endoscopists may miss certain areas. This study aimed to verify the effectiveness of performing repeat colonoscopies with a different endoscopist from the initial procedure. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed a database of 8093 consecutive colonoscopies performed in the Omori Red Cross Hospital from January 1st 2018 to June 30th 2021. Data from repeat total colonoscopies performed within three months were collected to assess missed lesions. The patients were divided into two groups according to whether the two examinations were performed by different endoscopists (group D) or the same endoscopist (group S). The primary outcome in both groups was the missed lesion detection rate (MLDR). RESULTS: Overall, 205 eligible patients were analyzed. In total, 102 and 103 patients were enrolled in groups D and S, respectively. The MLDR was significantly higher in group D (61.8% vs. 31.1%, P < 0.0001). Multivariate logistic regression analysis for the detection of missed lesions identified performance by the different endoscopists (odds ratio, 3.38; 95% CI, 1.81-6.30), and sufficient withdrawal time (> 6 min) (odds ratio, 3.10; 95% CI, 1.12-8.61) as significant variables. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, our study showed a significant improvement in the detection of missed lesions when performed by different endoscopists. When performing repeat colonoscopy, it is desirable that a different endoscopist perform the second colonoscopy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Omori Red Cross Hospital on November 28, 2022 (approval number:22-43).

The Impacts of Computer-Aided Detection of Colorectal Polyps on Subsequent Colonoscopy Surveillance Intervals: Simulation Study.

BACKGROUND: Computer-aided detection (CADe) of colorectal polyps has been shown to increase adenoma detection rates, which would potentially shorten subsequent surveillance intervals. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to simulate the potential changes in subsequent colonoscopy surveillance intervals after the application of CADe in a large cohort of patients. METHODS: We simulated the projected increase in polyp and adenoma detection by universal CADe application in our patients who had undergone colonoscopy with complete endoscopic and histological findings between 2016 and 2020. The simulation was based on bootstrapping the published performance of CADe. The corresponding changes in surveillance intervals for each patient, as recommended by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer (USMSTF) or the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), were determined after the CADe was determined. RESULTS: A total of 3735 patients who had undergone colonoscopy were included. Based on the simulated CADe effect, the application of CADe would result in 19.1% (n=714) and 1.9% (n=71) of patients having shorter surveillance intervals, according to the USMSTF and ESGE guidelines, respectively. In particular, all (or 2.7% (n=101) of the total) patients who were originally scheduled to have 3-5 years of surveillance would have their surveillance intervals shortened to 3 years, following the USMSTF guidelines. The changes in this group of patients were largely attributed to an increase in the number of adenomas (n=75, 74%) rather than serrated lesions being detected. CONCLUSIONS: Widespread adoption of CADe would inevitably increase the demand for surveillance colonoscopies with the shortening of original surveillance intervals, particularly following the current USMSTF guideline.

Practice Patterns and Predictors of Stopping Colonoscopy in Older Adults With Colorectal Polyps.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Older adults with colorectal polyps undergo frequent surveillance colonoscopy. There is no specific guidance regarding when to stop surveillance. We aimed to characterize endoscopist recommendations regarding surveillance colonoscopy in older adults and identify patient, procedure, and endoscopist characteristics associated with recommendations to stop. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study at a single academic medical center of adults aged ≥75 years who underwent colonoscopy for polyp surveillance or screening during which polyps were found. The primary outcome was a recommendation to stop surveillance. Predictors examined included patient age, sex, family history of colorectal cancer, polyp findings, and endoscopist sex and years in practice. Associations were evaluated using multilevel logistic regression. RESULTS: Among 1426 colonoscopies performed by 17 endoscopists, 34.6% contained a recommendation to stop and 52.3% to continue. Older patients were more likely to receive a recommendation to stop, including those 80-84 years (odds ratio [OR], 7.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.8-12.3) and ≥85 years (OR, 9.0; 95% CI, 3.3-24.6), compared with those 75-79 years. Family history of colorectal cancer (OR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.24-0.74) and a history of low-risk (OR, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.11-0.24) or high-risk (OR, 0.02; 95% CI, 0.01-0.04) polyps were inversely associated with recommendations to stop. The likelihood of a recommendation to stop varied significantly across endoscopists. CONCLUSIONS: Only 35% of adults ≥75 years of age are recommended to stop surveillance colonoscopy. The presence of polyps was strongly associated with fewer recommendations to stop. The variation in endoscopist recommendations highlights an opportunity to better standardize recommendations following colonoscopy in older adults.

Faecal immunochemical test mitigates risk of delayed colonoscopy in people with elevated risk of colorectal neoplasia.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Surveillance colonoscopies may be delayed because of pressure on resources, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. This study aimed to determine whether delayed surveillance colonoscopy increases the risk for advanced neoplasia and whether interval screening with faecal immunochemical tests (FITs) and other known risk factors can mitigate this risk. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of individuals undergoing surveillance colonoscopy for personal or family history of colorectal neoplasia was being provided with FIT between colonoscopies. Colonoscopy ≥ 6 months after the guideline-recommended interval was considered "delayed." Individuals were stratified based on prime colonoscopy findings to nonneoplastic findings, non-advanced adenoma, and advanced adenoma. The relative risk (RR) for developing advanced neoplasia was determined using a robust multivariable modified Poisson regression. RESULTS: Of 2548 surveillance colonoscopies, 1457 (57.18%) were delayed. Prior advanced adenoma, older age (> 60 years) and nonparticipation in interval FIT were associated with increased risk for advanced neoplasia (P < 0.05). There was a trend to increased risk in those with prior advanced adenoma with an increasing colonoscopy delay (P trend = 0.01). In participants who did not complete interval FIT and having advanced adenoma in the prime colonoscopy, risk of advanced neoplasia was 2.48 times higher (RR = 2.48, 95% confidence interval: 1.20-5.13) in participants who had beyond 2 years of delayed colonoscopy compared with those with on-time colonoscopy. Colonoscopy delay did not increase the risk of advanced neoplasia in participants with negative interval FIT results. CONCLUSION: Surveillance colonoscopy can be safely extended beyond 6 months in elevated colorectal cancer risk patients who do not have prior advanced adenoma diagnosis, particularly if interval FIT is negative.

Early-Onset Colorectal Cancer Is Associated with a Lower Risk of Metachronous Advanced Neoplasia than Traditional-Onset Colorectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence in the USA has increased in adults under age 50. Current CRC surveillance guidelines do not consider age at diagnosis, and there are limited data available on outcomes from surveillance colonoscopies in early-onset CRC (EO-CRC) to guide recommendations on surveillance intervals. AIMS: To compare surveillance outcomes between EO-CRC and traditional-onset colorectal cancer (TO-CRC). METHODS: In a retrospective cohort study in a large tertiary care academic medical center, we collected data on patients with a diagnosis of CRC between 2000 and 2014 who received surgery with curative intent. We used log-rank test and inverse probability of treatment weighted Cox regression analysis to compare the development of metachronous advanced neoplasia (MAN) in patients with EO-CRC (diagnosed ages 18-49) and TO-CRC (diagnosed ages 50-75). RESULTS: Patients with EO-CRC (n = 107) were more likely to present with advanced-stage disease (62% versus 35%, p < 0.0001), rectal tumors (45% versus 27%, p < 0.01), and a family history of CRC (30% versus 16%, p = 0.02) compared to those with TO-CRC (n = 139). Patients with EO-CRC had lower risk of MAN (adjusted HR 0.44, 95% CI 0.22-0.88) than TO-CRC patients. The 5-year event rate for MAN was lower for patients with EO-CRC compared to patients with TO-CRC (5.8% vs. 16.1%, p = 0.07). The presence of synchronous neoplasia or history of diabetes was also predictive of MAN. CONCLUSIONS: EO-CRC was independently associated with a lower risk of developing MAN compared to TO-CRC. Shorter surveillance intervals may not be warranted in EO-CRC; however, large prospective studies are needed.

Prevalence of Adenomas on Surveillance Colonoscopies for Patients with a History of Colonic Polyps of Unknown Histology.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines for surveillance colonoscopy depend on polyp histology. When patients present to a new healthcare system and report a personal history of "colon polyps," however, information on polyp histology is frequently unavailable. AIMS: To assess adenoma prevalence in patients with a history of colonic polyps of unknown histology and to compare it to patients undergoing either screening colonoscopy or surveillance colonoscopy for known adenomatous polyps. METHODS: This cohort study evaluated colonoscopies of patients ≥ 50 years of age over a 14-year period at a single institution. The exposure of interest was colonoscopy indication, categorized into three groups: screening colonoscopy, surveillance colonoscopy for history of colonic polyp(s) of unknown histology, and surveillance colonoscopy for history of adenoma(s). The primary outcome was adenoma detection rate. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the association between colonoscopy indication and adenoma detection rate. RESULTS: Of 31,856 colonoscopies, the adenoma prevalence was 26.1% for patients undergoing screening colonoscopy, 32.9% for patients with a history of polyps of unknown histology, and 41.9% for patients with a history of known adenomatous polyps. Relative to screening colonoscopies, there were higher odds of adenoma detection in surveillance colonoscopies for polyps of unknown histology (aOR compared to screening 1.42, 95% CI 1.30-1.55) and even higher odds among surveillance colonoscopies for a history of adenoma (aOR compared to screening 1.89, 95% CI 1.75-2.05). CONCLUSION: The adenoma prevalence on surveillance colonoscopy for patients with polyps of unknown histology was higher than that of screening colonoscopies but lower than that of surveillance colonoscopies for patients with adenomatous polyps.

Optimal surveillance interval after piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection for large colorectal neoplasia: a multicenter randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Colorectal neoplastic lesions (≥ 20 mm) are commonly treated via piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection (p-EMR) but have a high rate of local recurrence. We aimed to clarify the optimal surveillance interval after p-EMR for these neoplasias. METHODS: In this multicenter (15 participating institutions) prospective, randomized trial, 180 patients recruited over a 4-year period and were classified based on tumor location, tumor diameter, histological diagnosis, institution, and number of resected specimens. The patients underwent curative p-EMR followed by scheduled surveillance colonoscopy at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after p-EMR (group A; n = 90) or at 6, 12, and 24 months after p-EMR (group B; n = 90). The primary endpoint was cumulative local recurrence at 6 months after p-EMR. Secondary endpoints included local recurrence and the cumulative surgical resection rate of recurrent tumors during the 24-month follow-up period. RESULTS: The median tumor diameter was 25 mm (IQR 20-30). Six months after p-EMR, 12 and 6 local recurrences were noted in groups A and B, which corresponded to 13 and 8 recurrences, respectively, during the 24-month surveillance period. The primary and secondary endpoints of recurrence were not significantly different between the groups on either intention-to-treat or per-protocol analysis; no surgery case was observed in group B when a strict surveillance protocol of 6-, 12-, and 24-month follow-up post-EMR was followed. CONCLUSIONS: For patients who underwent p-EMR for neoplastic lesions, additional postprocedural 3-month surveillance did not show superior results in detecting recurrence compared with a 6-month surveillance interval. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: UMIN000015740.

The necessity of intensive surveillance colonoscopy for patients with a remaining right colon after resection of colorectal cancer: a retrospective cohort study.

PURPOSE: To clarify how often postoperative surveillance colonoscopy should be undertaken based on the risk factors for the development of metachronous cancer (MC) and advanced adenoma (AA) after surgery for colorectal cancer. METHODS: We collected data of consecutive patients who underwent curative resection for primary colorectal cancer between 2005 and 2012, with preoperative colonoscopy and surveillance colonoscopy at 1 year after surgery (406 patients, mean age: 69 years, 59% male). The detection rates of AA (with villous features, > 10 mm or high-grade dysplasia) and MC by surveillance colonoscopy were the primary outcomes. RESULTS: At 5 years, colonoscopy was performed as postoperative surveillance an average of 3.2 times. AA and MC were detected in 57 (14.0%) and 18 patients (4.4%), respectively. Both lesions were more common in the right colon (n = 43) than in the left colon (n = 28). The detection rate did not differ to a statistically significant extent according to the number of colonoscopies performed for surveillance (p = 0.21). However, after left-sided colectomy, both types of lesions were more commonly detected in those who received ≥ 3 colonoscopies than in those with one or two colonoscopies (p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: A remaining right colon after left-sided colectomy was associated with a higher risk of developing AA and MC. Physicians should consider performing surveillance colonoscopy more frequently if the right colon remains after surgery.

Advanced endoscopy for the management of inflammatory digestive diseases: Review of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society core session.

A series of workshops entitled "Advanced endoscopy in the management of inflammatory digestive disease" was held at the 97th to 100th biannual meeting of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society. During these core sessions, research findings concerning various endoscopic practices in the field of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) were presented, and meaningful discussions were shared on the evolving role and future challenges of endoscopy in IBD. This article reviews these core sessions and discusses current topics on the role of endoscopy, focusing on the diagnosis, disease monitoring, mucosal healing assessments, cancer surveillance, and therapeutic interventions in IBD.

Use of advanced endoscopic technology for optical characterization of neoplasia in patients with ulcerative colitis: Systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: Advances in endoscopic technology, including magnifying and image-enhanced techniques, have been attracting increasing attention for the optical characterization of colorectal lesions. These techniques are being implemented into clinical practice as cost-effective and real-time approaches. Additionally, with the recent progress in endoscopic interventions, endoscopic resection is gaining acceptance as a treatment option in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC). Therefore, accurate preoperative characterization of lesions is now required. However, lesion characterization in patients with UC may be difficult because UC is often affected by inflammation, and it may be characterized by a distinct "bottom-up" growth pattern, and even expert endoscopists have relatively little experience with such cases. In this systematic review, we assessed the current status and limitations of the use of optical characterization of lesions in patients with UC. METHODS: A literature search of online databases (MEDLINE via PubMed and CENTRAL via the Cochrane Library) was performed from 1 January 2000 to 30 November 2021. RESULTS: The database search initially identified 748 unique articles. Finally, 25 studies were included in the systematic review: 23 focused on differentiation of neoplasia from non-neoplasia, one focused on differentiation of UC-associated neoplasia from sporadic neoplasia, and one focused on differentiation of low-grade dysplasia from high-grade dysplasia and cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Optical characterization of neoplasia in patients with UC, even using advanced endoscopic technology, is still challenging and several issues remain to be addressed. We believe that the information revealed in this review will encourage researchers to commit to the improvement of optical diagnostics for UC-associated lesions.

Very-low-dose aspirin and surveillance colonoscopy is cost-effective in secondary prevention of colorectal cancer in individuals with advanced adenomas: network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Individuals with advanced colorectal adenomas (ACAs) are at high risk for colorectal cancer (CRC), and it is unclear which chemopreventive agent (CPA) is safe and cost-effective for secondary prevention. We aimed to determine, firstly, the most suitable CPA using network meta-analysis (NMA) and secondly, cost-effectiveness of CPA with or without surveillance colonoscopy (SC). METHODS: Systematic review and NMA of randomised controlled trials were performed, and the most suitable CPA was chosen based on efficacy and the most favourable risk-benefit profile. The economic benefits of CPA alone, 3 yearly SC alone, and a combination of CPA and SC were determined using the cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) in the Malaysian health-care perspective. Outcomes were reported as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in 2018 US Dollars ($) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), and life-years (LYs) gained. RESULTS: According to NMA, the risk-benefit profile favours the use of aspirin at very-low-dose (ASAVLD, ≤ 100 mg/day) for secondary prevention in individuals with previous ACAs. Celecoxib is the most effective CPA but the cardiovascular adverse events are of concern. According to CEA, the combination strategy (ASAVLD with 3-yearly SC) was cost-saving and dominates its competitors as the best buy option. The probability of being cost-effective for ASAVLD alone, 3-yearly SC alone, and combination strategy were 22%, 26%, and 53%, respectively. Extending the SC interval to five years in combination strategy was more cost-effective when compared to 3-yearly SC alone (ICER of $484/LY gain and $1875/QALY). However, extending to ten years in combination strategy was not cost-effective. CONCLUSION: ASAVLD combined with 3-yearly SC in individuals with ACAs may be a cost-effective strategy for CRC prevention. An extension of SC intervals to five years can be considered in resource-limited countries.

Clear colonoscopy as a surveillance tool in the prediction and reduction of advanced neoplasms: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Missed and incompletely resected lesions remain the main cause of the recurrence of advanced neoplasms (ANs) in post-polypectomy patients. This study aims to determine whether the recurrence of ANs can be predicted and reduced by the newly developed clear colonoscopy procedure. METHODS: Between 2006 and 2010, a total of 1350 participants with colorectal neoplasm were equally randomized to clear colonoscopy surveillance (CCS) and routine colonoscopy surveillance (RCS) in our center. Clear colonoscopy was achieved through repeat colonoscopy. On surveillance colonoscopy at 3 (for high-risk patients) and 5 (for low-risk patients) years, the recurrence of ANs and the relationship between the frequency of repeat examinations required for a clear colonoscopy and the recurrence of ANs were analyzed. RESULTS: Surveillance colonoscopy at 3 and 5 years showed that the incidence of ANs in patients belonging to the CCS group was 1.7%, which was lower than 4.7% in patients belonging to the RCS group (P = 0.012) for both high- and low-risk patients. Out of the 1126 patients who achieved clear colonoscopy on first repeat examination, only 5 ( 0.4%) were found to have ANs on surveillance examination, whereas 12 out of the 217 (5.4%) patients on second repeat examination and 5 out of the 29 (17.2%) patients on third repeat examination were found to have ANs (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Surveillance based on clear colonoscopy decreased the incidence of ANs in post-polypectomy patients. The number of repeat examinations required for a clear colonoscopy is an important factor in the prediction of the recurrence of ANs.

Withdrawal time of 8 minutes is associated with higher adenoma detection rates in surveillance colonoscopy after surgery for colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Although several studies have been conducted on the relation between withdrawal time (WT) and adenoma detection rate (ADR) in the intact colonKim, little is known about the optimal WT needed to increase ADR in the postoperative colon. We investigated the association between WT and ADR in surveillance colonoscopy after colorectal cancer (CRC) surgery. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of CRC patients who underwent 1st surveillance colonoscopy after curative colectomy. We excluded patients with incomplete inspection of colon during preoperative colonoscopy, inadequate bowel preparation, and total colectomy or subtotal colectomy. The colonoscopies were performed by 8 board-certified colonoscopists. The receiver operating characteristic curve of the WT revealed an optimal cutoff value of 7.8 min for adenoma detection. We divided the colonoscopists into fast and slow colonoscopists using the 8-min WT as cutoff, and compared the ADR between the two groups. RESULTS: We analyzed a total of 1341 patients underwent first surveillance colonoscopy after CRC surgery. Mean WTs by 8 colonoscopists during colonoscopy with and without polypectomy were 18.9 ± 13.7 and 8.1 ± 5.6 min, respectively. ADR varied from 29.3 to 50.6% by individual colonoscopists. Slow colonoscopists showed significantly higher ADR than fast colonoscopists (49.1% vs 32.2%, P < 0.001). The mean WT during colonoscopy without polypectomy for each colonoscopist and the detection rate of all neoplasia were positively correlated (Rs = 0.874, P = 0.005). CONCLUSION: Because patients who underwent colorectal surgery possess high risk of metachronous CRC and adenoma, sufficient WT (8-10 min) is mandatory, despite short length colon due to surgery.

Adoption of Multi-society Guidelines Facilitates Value-Based Reduction in Screening and Surveillance Colonoscopy Volume During COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has caused a backlog of endoscopic procedures; colonoscopy must now be prioritized to those who would benefit most. We determined the proportion of screening and surveillance colonoscopies appropriate for rescheduling to a future year through strict adoption of US Multi-Society Task Force (USMSTF) guidelines. METHODS: We conducted a single-center observational study of patients scheduled for "open-access colonoscopy"-ordered by a primary care provider without being seen in gastroenterology clinic-over a 6-week period during the COVID-19 pandemic. Each chart was reviewed to appropriately assign a surveillance year per USMSTF guidelines including demographics, colonoscopy history and family history. When guidelines recommended a range of colonoscopy intervals, both a "conservative" and "liberal" guideline adherence were assessed. RESULTS: We delayed 769 "open-access" screening or surveillance colonoscopies due to COVID-19. Between 14.8% (conservative) and 20.7% (liberal), colonoscopies were appropriate for rescheduling to a future year. Conversely, 415 (54.0%) patients were overdue for colonoscopy. Family history of CRC was associated with being scheduled too early for both screening (OR 3.9; CI 1.9-8.2) and surveillance colonoscopy (OR 2.6, CI 1.0-6.5). The most common reasons a colonoscopy was inappropriately scheduled this year were failure to use new surveillance colonoscopy intervals (28.9%), incorrectly applied family history guidelines (27.2%) and recommending early surveillance colonoscopy after recent normal colonoscopy (19.3%). CONCLUSION: Up to one-fifth of patients scheduled for "open-access" colonoscopy can be rescheduled into a future year based on USMSTF guidelines. Rigorously applying guidelines could judiciously allocate colonoscopy resources as we recover from the COVID-19 pandemic.

Risk stratification of advanced colorectal neoplasia after baseline colonoscopy: Cohort study of 17 Japanese community practices.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: In Japan, risk stratification after baseline colonoscopy is not widely accepted. We investigated the findings of baseline colonoscopies at 17 community practices and evaluated the risk of the incidence of advanced neoplasia over a 5-year period. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study enrolled 3115 subjects over 40 years of age who underwent baseline colonoscopies and had at least one repeated colonoscopy within 5 years. Each group was classified based on the endoscopic findings of the baseline colonoscopy: no neoplasia/diminutive polyp <5 mm (N/D); small adenoma <10 mm; advanced adenoma; invasive cancer, respectively. We examined the incidence of advanced neoplasia during these 5 years and investigated the relationship between the surveillance colonoscopy and newly detected advanced neoplasia. RESULTS: The small adenoma group did not show any significant increased risk as compared to the N/D group (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.799. 95% CI 0.442-1.443). There was a significantly increased risk in the advanced adenoma and invasive cancer groups (HR: 4.996, 95% CI 2.940-8.491, HR: 3.737, 95% CI 1.309-10.666). Cancer incidences during the study period were 0.18% in the N/D group, and 1.9% in the invasive cancer group, respectively. Undergoing surveillance colonoscopies twice within 5 years decreased the risk of advanced neoplasia. CONCLUSIONS: There was a close relationship between the endoscopic findings of baseline colonoscopies and subsequent advanced neoplasia development. Risk stratification for advanced neoplasia based on the baseline findings can serve as a useful index for determining the optimal interval and frequency of colonoscopies over a 5-year period.

Performance measures in inflammatory bowel disease surveillance colonoscopy: Implementing changes to practice improves performance.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Dye-based chromoendoscopy (DCE) with targeted biopsies is recommended for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) surveillance. However, DCE has not yet been widely adopted into clinical practice. We evaluated quality indicators in IBD surveillance following introduction of structured changes in service delivery. METHODS: In August 2016, we introduced a number of changes to IBD surveillance practice in our endoscopy unit. These included training using interactive videos/images in a structured module, DCE as standard by using a foot-pedal operated pump jet, allocation of 45-minute procedure timeslots, targeted biopsies (except in high-risk patients), scoring of endoscopic disease activity, and lesion detection/morphology characterization. All IBD surveillance colonoscopies were allocated to a small team of four DCE-trained endoscopists. We compared quality measures for surveillance procedures carried out pre- and post-August 2016. The two groups were compared using chi-squared statistics RESULTS: A total of 598 IBD surveillance procedures (277 pre-August 2016 and 321 post-August 2016) were done and included in the study. Use of DCE increased (54.2% vs 76.0% P < 0.0005) whereas random biopsy surveillance decreased (12.3% vs 3.1% P < 0.0005). Use of Paris classification (26.1% vs 57.0% P < 0.0005) and Kudo pit pattern increased (21.7% vs 59.0% P < 0.0005). There was also an increase in lesion detection rate (24.9% vs 33.1% P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of extensive changes in practice of surveillance colonoscopy resulted in significant improvement in quality indicators within a short period of time. Training, education and audit may continue to facilitate the adoption of DCE and further improve quality of performance in IBD surveillance.

Incident colorectal cancer in Lynch syndrome is usually not preceded by compromised quality of colonoscopy.

Background: Lifetime incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) especially in carriers of MLH1 and MSH2 pathogenic germline variants in mismatch repair genes is high despite ongoing colonoscopy surveillance. Lynch syndrome (LS) registries have been criticized for not reporting colonoscopy quality adequately.Methods: Prospective follow-up data from the national registry were combined with a retrospective assessment of the colonoscopy reports from Helsinki University Hospital electronic patients records in 2004-2019.Results: Total of 366 MLH1, MSH2 and MSH6 carriers underwent 1564 colorectal endoscopies (mean 4.3 per patient, range 1-10) at a single unit. At least one subsequent examination was performed on 336 patients.Bowel preparation was suboptimal (Boston Bowel Preparation Scale 0-2) on either right or left side of the colon in 12.9% of planned surveillance examinations. Caecal intubation rate for full-length colonoscopies was 98.9%. Adenoma detection rate (ADR) was 15.8% in 2004-2014 but substantially increased (21.9%) after introduction of high-definition (HD) technology in 2015-2019 (p = .004; 18.7% across all examinations).CRCs were detected in 23 cases. Nineteen cancers were detected after 977 optimal quality colonoscopies and 4 after 151 compromised quality (BBPS <3 or non-complete examination; p = .16). Advanced neoplasias were not more frequently reported after compromised quality examinations.Conclusion: The majority of LS-associated incident CRCs were detected after colonoscopies with proper bowel preparation and complete examination. There is a considerable time trend towards higher ADR after introducing HD technology of endoscopes. The effect of time trend in ADR to CRC incidence in LS needs to be studied in larger, prospective settings.

Appropriate Surveillance Interval after Colonoscopic Polypectomy in Patients Younger than 50 Years.

BACKGROUND: Current postpolypectomy surveillance guidelines are based on studies in patients aged ≥50 years. Equal application of the guidelines in patients aged < 50 years may be unreasonable. We aimed to determine an appropriate surveillance interval after adenoma removal in patients aged < 50 years. METHODS: We studied 10,013 patients who underwent ≥ 1 adenoma removal and follow-up colonoscopy. The cumulative risk of metachronous advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACRN) was compared among the eight groups based on age (30-39, 40-44, 45-49 and ≥ 50 years) and baseline adenoma characteristics (low- [LRA] and high-risk adenoma [HRA]). RESULTS: The risk of metachronous ACRN in patients aged 30-39 and 40-44 years with HRA was comparable to that in those aged ≥ 50 years with LRA (P = 0.839 and P = 0.381, respectively). However, the risk in those aged 45-49 years with HRA was higher than in those aged ≥ 50 years with LRA (P = 0.003), and the risk was not significantly different from that in those aged ≥ 50 years with HRA (P = 0.092). Additionally, the 5-year cumulative risk in those aged 45-49 years with LRA was not significantly different from that in those aged ≥ 50 years with LRA. CONCLUSION: The postpolypectomy surveillance interval can be extended up to 5 years in patients aged 30-44 years with HRA, similar to those aged ≥ 50 years with LRA. However, the interval in patients aged 45-49 years with HRA and LRA should be 3 and 5 years, respectively, similar to those aged ≥ 50 years.

Predictors of High-Risk Adenoma Occurrence at Surveillance Colonoscopy in Patients Who Undergo Colorectal Adenoma Removal.

OBJECTIVES: Surveillance colonoscopy is recommended after polypectomy because adenoma recurrence is common. The aim of this study was to evaluate the predictors of high-risk adenoma occurrence at surveillance colonoscopy in patients who undergo colorectal adenoma removal and to clarify the association between age and recurrent colorectal adenoma. METHODS: This retrospective study included 563 patients who had colorectal adenomas at baseline colonoscopy and who underwent surveillance colonoscopy. The risk factors for recurrent adenoma were evaluated and the 5-year cumulative incidence rates of overall and high-risk adenoma were compared according to age group. RESULTS: During a mean follow-up period of 3.1 years, 305 (54.2%) patients had overall adenoma recurrence, and 80 (14.2%) patients had high-risk adenoma at surveillance colonoscopy. In a multivariate analysis, old age (≥60 years) and presence of multiple adenomas (3 or more) were significantly associated with high-risk adenoma (p = 0.002 and p = 0.006 respectively). The 5-year cumulative incidence rates of high-risk adenoma were 7.4, 16.7, and 24.1% in the < 50, 50-59, and ≥60 years group respectively (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Old age (≥60 years) and presence of multiple adenomas (3 or more) were strongly associated with the occurrence of high-risk adenoma at surveillance colonoscopy. The 5-year cumulative incidence of high-grade adenoma was significantly high in the old age group.