Search

Background: The performance of bowel preparation (BP) in patients with Crohn's disease (CD) is unknown., Aims: To evaluate the operating properties of instruments used to assess BP quality in patients with CD., Methods: We used the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale, modified Boston Bowel Preparation Scale, Harefield Cleansing Scale, Food and Drug Administration Bowel Cleansing Assessment Scale (BCAS), and a 100-mm visual analogue scale of bowel cleanliness to assess BP quality in 50 videos from 40 patients with CD. We assessed endoscopic activity with the Simple Endoscopic Score for CD (SES-CD). Assessments were on endoscope insertion and withdrawal. Reliability was quantified using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). We assessed validity by within-patient correlation between instruments and the visual analogue scale using mixed-effect models. The correlation between BP quality and SES-SD scores was assessed using Spearman's rho., Results: Inter- and intra-rater reliability for all BP quality instruments was substantial (ICC ≥0.61) except for the Food and Drug Administration BCAS on insertion (inter-rater reliability ICC ≥0.41). The visual analogue scale had substantial inter- and almost perfect (ICC ≥0.81) intra-rater reliability. Correlation coefficients for the validity of the instruments exceeded 0.58. BP quality and endoscopic disease activity scores in the colon were negatively correlated., Conclusion: Most existing instruments reliably assess BP quality in patients with CD. These results support the use of these instruments in clinical practice, provide a framework for scoring BP quality in CD clinical trials, and support evaluation of novel BP agents in patients with CD., (© 2024 The Author(s). Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

The determination of an optimal treatment plan for an individual patient with rectal cancer is a complex process. In addition to decisions relating to the intent of rectal cancer surgery (ie, curative or palliative), consideration must also be given to the likely functional results of treatment, including the probability of maintaining or restoring normal bowel function/anal continence and preserving genitourinary functions. Particularly for patients with distal rectal cancer, finding a balance between curative-intent therapy while having minimal impact on quality of life can be challenging. Furthermore, the risk of pelvic recurrence is higher in patients with rectal cancer compared with those with colon cancer, and locally recurrent rectal cancer is associated with a poor prognosis. Careful patient selection and the use of sequenced multimodality therapy following a multidisciplinary approach is recommended. These NCCN Guidelines Insights detail recent updates to the NCCN Guidelines for Rectal Cancer, including the addition of endoscopic submucosal dissection as an option for early-stage rectal cancer, updates to the total neoadjuvant therapy approach based on the results of recent clinical trials, and the addition of a "watch-and-wait" nonoperative management approach for clinical complete responders to neoadjuvant therapy.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the fourth most frequently diagnosed cancer and the second leading cause of cancer death in the United States. Management of disseminated metastatic CRC involves various active drugs, either in combination or as single agents. The choice of therapy is based on consideration of the goals of therapy, the type and timing of prior therapy, the mutational profile of the tumor, and the differing toxicity profiles of the constituent drugs. This manuscript summarizes the data supporting the systemic therapy options recommended for metastatic CRC in the NCCN Guidelines for Colon Cancer.

Context.—: Quality measures that are supported by evidence-based clinical practice guidelines are preferred for assessing the quality of pathologists' practices. Careful testing of a measure ensures that scores obtained by that measure reflect the quality of a pathologist's practice., Objective.—: To specify a new quality measure and to demonstrate through testing that it is suitable for measuring pathologists' appropriate incorporation of information regarding microsatellite instability (MSI) and/or mismatch repair (MMR) status in pathology reports for colorectal, endometrial, gastroesophageal, and small bowel carcinoma., Design.—: The College of American Pathologists collaborated with the American Gastroenterological Association to specify and test the new measure. Face validity testing was used to investigate the validity of the measure. Feasibility testing was conducted to understand if data elements required by the measure specification were readily accessible. Signal-to-noise analysis was used to characterize the measure's reliability., Results.—: Guideline recommendations for MSI and/or MMR testing supported specifications for the measure. Face validity testing indicated that the measure could distinguish the quality of care provided. Data elements required by the measure specification were found to be accessible, which supported the measure's feasibility. Reliability testing showed that differences in measure score were attributable to real differences in performance rather than random variation in scoring., Conclusions.—: The Mismatch Repair or Microsatellite Instability Biomarker Testing Status in Colorectal Carcinoma, Endometrial, Gastroesophageal, or Small Bowel Carcinoma measure was appropriately specified, and testing demonstrated that it is well suited for characterizing the quality of pathologists' communication of MMR and/or MSI status., Competing Interests: The authors have no relevant financial interest in the products or companies described in this article., (© 2024 College of American Pathologists.)

Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) is acquired early in life as asymptomatic or symptomatic infectious mononucleosis (IM) and remains latent in a few B cells in most individuals. Pathologic EBV-reactivation affects immunosuppressed individuals and manifests as IM-like syndromes, polyclonal lymphoproliferative disorders, EBV-related lymphomas, and carcinomas. EBV-associated gastritis is an underrecognized and very rarely reported entity. We report a case of a 65-year-old woman with ruxolitinib-treated polycythemia vera, who developed EBV viremia and EBV gastritis. The patient improved after the ruxolitinib dose reduction and administration of antiviral therapy. A few months after discontinuation of the antiviral therapy the gastric symptoms recurred, numerous gastric ulcers were identified, and a nasopharyngeal mass was detected. A biopsy of the nasopharynx showed an EBV (+) diffuse large B cell lymphoma. Ruxolitinib was discontinued and the patient was started on rituximab monotherapy with a resolution of symptoms and pathologic improvement. Our case supports earlier reports of an association of ruxolitinib therapy with EBV complications. An early diagnosis of EBV gastritis in immunocompromised patients is important since the gastric infection may precede or co-exist with a developing EBV-associated malignancy. Our case and existing literature suggest that EBV gastritis in symptomatic patients with iatrogenic immunosuppression requires discontinuation of immunosuppressive therapy if feasible, treatment with antivirals, and close surveillance for possible evolving/concurrent EBV (+) malignancy., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Background: Despite regular need for colonoscopy in patients with Crohn's disease (CD), the efficacy and tolerability of bowel preparation (BP) agents is rarely assessed in this population. Assessing BP quality with existing scales may be challenging in CD due to presence of inflammation, bowel resection, and strictures., Aims: To provide recommendations for assessing BP quality in clinical trials for CD using a modified Research and Development/University of California, Los Angeles appropriateness process., Methods: Based on systematic reviews and a literature search, 110 statements relating to BP quality assessment in CD were developed. A panel of 15 gastroenterologists rated the statements as appropriate, uncertain, or inappropriate using a 9-point Likert scale., Results: Panelists considered it appropriate that central readers, either alone or with local assessment, score BP quality in clinical trials. Central readers should be trained on scoring BP quality and local endoscopists on performing high-quality video recording. Both endoscope insertion and withdrawal phases should be reviewed to score BP quality in each colonic segment and segments should align with endoscopic disease activity indices. The Harefield Cleansing Scale and the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale were considered appropriate. The final score should be calculated as the average of all visualized segments. Both total and worst segment scores should also be assessed., Conclusions: We developed a framework for assessing BP quality in patients with CD based on expert feedback. This framework could support the development or refinement of BP quality scales and the integration of BP quality assessment in future CD studies., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: Several online calculators estimate colorectal cancer risk, but their consistency is unknown. Our objectives were to quantify the variation in predicted risk and to determine which calculators are best used in the clinical setting., Methods: We used the Google search engine to identify online colorectal cancer risk calculators and assessed the output of each for 3 hypothetical screening scenarios (low-, average-, and high-risk), varied by age (50, 62, 75 years), sex, and race (Black, White), with risk levels based on risk-appropriate values for variables in each model. Estimated risks for models within a given scenario were rated as consistent or inconsistent based on comparison with either the absolute magnitude of difference or average lifetime risk of colorectal cancer. Summary statistics for consistent and inconsistent estimates were compared using chi-square and Fisher's exact tests., Results: We identified 5 online colorectal cancer risk calculators. Inconsistencies were found in none of 5-year, 19% of 10-year, and 81% of lifetime colorectal cancer risk estimate comparisons (P < .001). For a 50-year-old, 22% of risk estimate comparisons were inconsistent, vs 33% for a 62-year-old, and 36% for a 75-year-old (P = 0.14)., Conclusions: Online colorectal cancer risk models are more consistent in predicting colorectal cancer risk for 5- and 10-year time frames compared with lifetime. For a US population, the National Cancer Institute's Colorectal Cancer Risk Assessment Tool is a rigorously developed calculator that can be used in the clinical setting to provide 5-year and lifetime risk estimates., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

This selection from the NCCN Guidelines for Rectal Cancer focuses on management of malignant polyps and resectable nonmetastatic rectal cancer because important updates have been made to these guidelines. These recent updates include redrawing the algorithms for stage II and III disease to reflect new data supporting the increasingly prominent role of total neoadjuvant therapy, expanded recommendations for short-course radiation therapy techniques, and new recommendations for a "watch-and-wait" nonoperative management technique for patients with cancer that shows a complete response to neoadjuvant therapy. The complete version of the NCCN Guidelines for Rectal Cancer, available online at NCCN.org, covers additional topics including risk assessment, pathology and staging, management of metastatic disease, posttreatment surveillance, treatment of recurrent disease, and survivorship.

Lynch syndrome (LS) is an autosomal dominant hereditary cancer syndrome caused by pathogenic germline variants (PGV) in any of the 4 DNA mismatch repair (MMR) genes, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2, or deletions in EPCAM. LS leads to an increased risk of intestinal and extraintestinal cancers, of which colorectal and endometrial cancers are the most common. Individuals at risk for LS can be identified by using clinical criteria, prediction models, and universal tumor testing. Understanding each of these tools, including limitations and mimics of LS, is essential to the early identification of at-risk individuals., Competing Interests: Disclosure Dr. Maratt receives support from Grant Number UL1TR002529 from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, Clinical and Translational Sciences Award. The views expressed in this manuscript do not reflect views of the NIH., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background. In some health care systems, patients face long wait times for screening colonoscopy. We sought to assess whether patients at low risk for colorectal cancer (CRC) would be willing to delay their own colonoscopy so higher-risk peers could undergo colonoscopy sooner. Methods. We surveyed 1054 Veterans regarding their attitudes toward repeat colonoscopy and risk-based prioritization. We used multivariable regression to identify patient factors associated with willingness to delay screening for a higher-risk peer. Results. Despite a physician recommendation to stop screening, 29% of respondents reported being "not at all likely" to stop. However, 94% reported that they would be willing to delay their own colonoscopy for a higher-risk peer. Greater trust in physician and greater health literacy were positively associated with willingness to wait, while greater perceived threat of CRC and Black or Latino race/ethnicity were negatively associated with willingness to wait. Conclusion. Despite high enthusiasm for repeat screening, patients were willing to delay their own colonoscopy for higher-risk peers. Appealing to altruism could be effective when utilizing scarce resources., Competing Interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article., (© The Author(s) 2021.)

Background: Inappropriate prescribing is a highly important problem, given the growing aging multimorbid population with associated polypharmacy. An increasing number of studies have recently developed and tested interventions to withdraw inappropriate drugs, a process called deprescribing. However, we still lack complete information on the types and prevalence of measures used to assess the success of such interventions., Objective: To categorize and synthesize the full spectrum of measures used in intervention studies focused on reducing inappropriate prescribing of chronic drugs in adults, to standardize measurements in future studies and help researchers design studies inclusive of the important measure types., Design: We searched Ovid/MEDLINE to identify intervention studies focused on deprescribing chronic drugs in adults, published between 2010 and 2019., Measurements: We extracted data on study characteristics, intervention components, and outcome measures. We categorized and synthesized the measures using a comprehensive and systematic framework, separating measures of intended and unintended consequences., Results: Most (90/93) studies used measures of appropriate prescribing, such as drug cessation or dose reduction. The following measures were used infrequently across studies: patient-reported experience, preferences, and outcome (12 (13%), 2 (2%), and 25 (27%) studies, respectively); provider-reported experience (11 (12%) studies); patient-provider interaction (4 (4%) studies); and measures of unintended consequences (24 (26%) studies). Studies varied in the type and number of measures assessed, ranging from 1 to 20 different measures by study., Conclusion: To ensure initiation, success, and long-term sustainability of deprescribing, it is important to assess the success of intervention studies using clinically relevant patient- and provider-centered measures. This categorized synthesis of outcome measures used in deprescribing studies may facilitate implementation of important measure types (e.g., patient-reported measures and measures of unintended consequences) in future studies. J Am Geriatr Soc 68:2390-2398, 2020., (© 2020 The American Geriatrics Society.)

Importance: Studies of interventions to reduce low-value care are increasingly common. However, little is known about how the effects of such interventions are measured., Objective: To characterize measures used to assess interventions to reduce low-value care., Evidence Review: We searched PubMed and Web of Science to identify studies published between 2010 and 2016 that examined the effects of interventions to reduce low-value care. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov to identify ongoing studies. We extracted data on characteristics of studies, interventions, and measures. We then developed a framework to classify measures into the following categories: utilization (e.g., number of tests ordered), outcome (e.g., mortality), appropriateness (e.g., overuse of antibiotics), patient-reported (e.g., satisfaction), provider-reported (e.g., satisfaction), patient-provider interaction (e.g., informed decision-making elements), value, and cost. We also determined whether each measure was designed to assess unintended consequences., Findings: A total of 1805 studies were identified, of which 101 published and 16 ongoing studies were included. Of published studies (N = 101), 68% included at least one measure of utilization, 41% of an outcome, 52% of appropriateness, 36% of cost, 8% patient-reported, and 3% provider-reported. Funded studies were more likely to use patient-reported measures (17% vs 0%). Of ongoing studies (registered trials) (N = 16), 69% included at least one measure of utilization, 75% of an outcome, 50% of appropriateness, 19% of cost, 50% patient-reported, 13% provider-reported, and 6% patient-provider interaction. Of published studies, 34% included at least one measure of an unintended consequence as compared to 63% of ongoing studies., Conclusions and Relevance: Most published studies focused on reductions in utilization rather than on clinically meaningful measures (e.g., improvements in appropriateness, patient-reported outcomes) or unintended consequences. Investigators should systematically incorporate more clinically meaningful measures into their study designs, and sponsors should develop standardized guidance for the evaluation of interventions to reduce low-value care.

Purpose of Review: The purpose of this chapter is to highlight current recommendations regarding colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and post-polypectomy surveillance colonoscopy in older adults and to review the available literature in order to help inform decision-making in this age group., Recent Findings: Age is a risk factor for CRC; however, older adults with a history of prior screening are at lower risk for CRC compared to those who have never been screened. Decision-making for CRC screening and post-polypectomy surveillance colonoscopy in older adults is complex and several factors including age, screening history, comorbidities, functional status, bowel preparation, prior experiences, preferences, and barriers need to be considered when weighing risks and benefits. Recent guidelines have started to incorporate life expectancy and prior screening history into their recommendations; however, how to incorporate these factors into actual clinical practice is less clear. There are limited data on the relative benefits of screening and surveillance in older adults and therefore, at this time, decision-making should be individualized and incorporate patient preferences in addition to medical factors.

Importance: Guidelines for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening recommend an individualized approach in older adults that is informed by consideration of life expectancy and cancer risk. However, little is known about how patients perceive individualized screening recommendations., Objective: To assess veterans' attitudes toward and comfort with cessation of low-value CRC screening (defined as screening in a patient for whom the benefit is expected to be small based on quantitative estimates from hypothetical risk calculators)., Design, Setting, and Participants: This survey study included patients older than 50 years who had undergone prior screening colonoscopy with normal results at the Veterans Affairs Ann Arbor Healthcare System. A total of 1500 surveys were mailed to potential participants from November 1, 2010, to January 1, 2012. Survey data were analyzed from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2017., Main Outcomes and Measures: Response to the question, "If you personally had serious health problems that were likely to shorten your life and your doctor did not think screening would be of much benefit based on the calculator, how comfortable would you be with not getting any more screening colonoscopies?", Results: Of the 1500 surveys mailed, 85 were returned to sender, leaving 1415 potential respondents; 1054 of these respondents (median age range, 60-69 years; 884 [85.9%] white and 965 [94.2%] male) completed the survey (response rate, 74.5%). A total of 300 (28.7%) were not at all comfortable with cessation of low-value CRC screening, and 509 (49.3%) thought that age should never be used to decide when to stop screening. In addition, 332 (31.7%) thought it was not at all reasonable to use life expectancy calculators, and 255 (24.3%) thought it was not at all reasonable to use CRC risk calculators to guide these decisions. In ordered logistic regression analysis, factors associated with more comfort with screening cessation were (1) higher trust in physician (odds ratio [OR], 1.19; 95% CI, 1.07-1.32), (2) higher perceived health status (OR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.23-1.61), and (3) higher barriers to screening (OR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.11-1.30). Factors that were associated with less comfort with screening cessation included (1) greater perceived effectiveness of screening (OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.80-0.94) and (2) greater perceived threat of CRC (OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.73-0.89)., Conclusions and Relevance: The findings suggest that many veterans have strong preferences against screening cessation even when given detailed information about why the benefit may be low. Efforts to tailor screening recommendations may be met by resistance unless they are accompanied by efforts to address underlying perceptions about the benefit of screening.

Background: Adenoma detection rate (ADR) and sessile serrated polyp detection rate (SSPDR) data in surveillance colonoscopy are limited., Aims: Our aim was to determine surveillance ADR and SSPDR and identify associated predictors., Methods: A retrospective review of subjects who underwent surveillance colonoscopy for adenoma and/or SSP at an academic center was performed. The following exclusion criteria were applied: prior colonoscopy ≤ 3 years, incomplete examination, or another indication for colonoscopy. Patient, endoscopist, and procedure characteristics were collected. Predictors were identified using multivariable logistic regression., Results: Of 3807 colonoscopies, 2416 met inclusion criteria. Surveillance ADR was 49% and, SSPDR was 8%. Higher ADR was associated with: age per year (OR 1.03; 95% CI 1.02-1.04), male gender (OR 1.55; 95% CI 1.29-1.88), BMI per kg/m 2 (OR 1.02; 95% CI 1.01-1.04), withdrawal time per minute (OR 1.09; 95% CI 1.07-1.10), and endoscopists' screening ADR (OR 1.01; 95% CI 1.00-1.03). Years since training (OR 0.99; 95% CI 0.98-0.99) was associated with lower ADR. Family history of CRC (OR 1.58; 95% CI 1.02-2.27) and endoscopists' screening ADR (OR 1.40; 95% CI 1.15-1.74) were associated with higher SSPDR. African-American race (OR 0.36; 95% CI 0.10-0.75) and diabetes (OR 0.41; 95% CI 0.21-0.76) were associated with lower SSPDR., Conclusions: For surveillance colonoscopy, nearly half of patients had an adenoma and one in twelve had an SSP. In addition to established factors, BMI, endoscopists' screening ADR, and years since training were associated with ADR, whereas African-American race and diabetes were inversely associated with SSPDR. Further studies are needed prior to integrating surveillance ADR and SSPDR into quality metrics.

Our approach to colorectal cancer screening is undergoing a much-needed paradigm shift. The evidence that screening "works" and is of high value is indisputable, yet screening remains underused at a population level. In contrast, other data suggest overuse of screening. Traditional population-oriented efforts to promote screening utilization have not only failed to adequately address underuse, they have simultaneously promoted overuse of screening in selected groups of patients. Clearly, new approaches are needed if we are to deliver the right care to the right patients at the right time. By shifting our focus from populations to patients, we can aim to achieve the goal set by Healthy People 2020 of ensuring that 70% of the appropriate US population is up-to-date with colorectal cancer screening.