Search

Artificial intelligence (AI) holds significant potential for enhancing quality of gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy, but the adoption of AI in clinical practice is hampered by the lack of rigorous standardisation and development methodology ensuring generalisability. The aim of the Quality Assessment of pre-clinical AI studies in Diagnostic Endoscopy (QUAIDE) Explanation and Checklist was to develop recommendations for standardised design and reporting of preclinical AI studies in GI endoscopy.The recommendations were developed based on a formal consensus approach with an international multidisciplinary panel of 32 experts among endoscopists and computer scientists. The Delphi methodology was employed to achieve consensus on statements, with a predetermined threshold of 80% agreement. A maximum three rounds of voting were permitted.Consensus was reached on 18 key recommendations, covering 6 key domains: data acquisition and annotation (6 statements), outcome reporting (3 statements), experimental setup and algorithm architecture (4 statements) and result presentation and interpretation (5 statements). QUAIDE provides recommendations on how to properly design (1. Methods, statements 1-14), present results (2. Results, statements 15-16) and integrate and interpret the obtained results (3. Discussion, statements 17-18).The QUAIDE framework offers practical guidance for authors, readers, editors and reviewers involved in AI preclinical studies in GI endoscopy, aiming at improving design and reporting, thereby promoting research standardisation and accelerating the translation of AI innovations into clinical practice., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: New screening tests for colorectal cancer (CRC) are rapidly emerging. Conducting trials with mortality reduction as the end point supporting their adoption is challenging. We re-examined the principles underlying evaluation of new non-invasive tests in view of technological developments and identification of new biomarkers., Design: A formal consensus approach involving a multidisciplinary expert panel revised eight previously established principles., Results: Twelve newly stated principles emerged. Effectiveness of a new test can be evaluated by comparison with a proven comparator non-invasive test. The faecal immunochemical test is now considered the appropriate comparator, while colonoscopy remains the diagnostic standard. For a new test to be able to meet differing screening goals and regulatory requirements, flexibility to adjust its positivity threshold is desirable. A rigorous and efficient four-phased approach is proposed, commencing with small studies assessing the test's ability to discriminate between CRC and non-cancer states ( phase I ), followed by prospective estimation of accuracy across the continuum of neoplastic lesions in neoplasia-enriched populations ( phase II ). If these show promise, a provisional test positivity threshold is set before evaluation in typical screening populations. Phase III prospective studies determine single round intention-to-screen programme outcomes and confirm the test positivity threshold. Phase IV studies involve evaluation over repeated screening rounds with monitoring for missed lesions. Phases III and IV findings will provide the real-world data required to model test impact on CRC mortality and incidence., Conclusion: New non-invasive tests can be efficiently evaluated by a rigorous phased comparative approach, generating data from unbiased populations that inform predictions of their health impact., Competing Interests: Competing interests: Board membership: TRL, RES, LG, FM, CS, RS, H-MC, ED, AK, HS, GAM, SI. Consultancy: LG, UL, GPY, FM, JM, SG, ED, AK, HS, SI. Expert testimony: FM. Grants or contract research: RSB, TRL, RES, FM, RS, FM, ED, ML, GAM, LC. Lectures/Other education events: LG, FM, H-MC, ED, AK. Patents: GPY, RSB, BC, AK, GAM. Receipt of equipment or supplies: LG, RES, ED, ML, GAM. Stock/Stock options: GPY, UL, JM, SG, ED, AK, GAM. Other professional relationships: GPY, SG., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: To assess the impact of delayed invitation on screen-detected and interval colorectal cancers (CRC) within a faecal immunochemical testing (FIT)-based CRC screening programme., Design: All individuals that participated in 2017 and 2018 with a negative FIT and were eligible for CRC screening in 2019 and 2020 were included using individual-level data. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to assess the association between either the different time periods (ie, ' before ', ' during ' and ' after ' the first COVID-19 wave) or the invitation interval on screen-detected and interval CRCs., Results: Positive predictive value for advanced neoplasia (AN) was slightly lower during (OR=0.91) and after (OR=0.95) the first COVID-19 wave, but no significant difference was observed for the different invitation intervals. Out of all individuals that previously tested negative, 84 (0.004%) had an interval CRC beyond the 24 months since their last invitation. The time period of invitation as well as the extended invitation interval was not associated with detection rates for AN and interval CRC rate., Conclusion: The impact of the first COVID-19 wave on screening yield was modest. A very small proportion of the FIT negatives had an interval CRC possibly due to an extended interval, which potentially could have been prevented if they had received the invitation earlier. Nonetheless, no increase in interval CRC rate was observed, indicating that an extended invitation interval up to 30 months had no negative impact on the performance of the CRC screening programme and a modest extension of the invitation interval seems an appropriate intervention., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: High-quality colonoscopy (adequate bowel preparation, whole-colon visualisation and removal of all neoplastic polyps) is a prerequisite to start polyp surveillance, and is ideally achieved in one colonoscopy. In a large multinational polyp surveillance trial, we aimed to investigate clinical practice variation in number of colonoscopies needed to enrol patients with low-risk and high-risk adenomas in polyp surveillance., Design: We retrieved data of all patients with low-risk adenomas (one or two tubular adenomas <10 mm with low-grade dysplasia) and high-risk adenomas (3-10 adenomas, ≥1 adenoma ≥10 mm, high-grade dysplasia or villous components) in the European Polyp Surveillance trials fulfilling certain logistic and methodologic criteria. We analysed variations in number of colonoscopies needed to achieve high-quality colonoscopy and enter polyp surveillance by endoscopy centre, and by endoscopists who enrolled ≥30 patients., Results: The study comprised 15 581 patients from 38 endoscopy centres in five European countries; 6794 patients had low-risk and 8787 had high-risk adenomas. 961 patients (6.2%, 95% CI 5.8% to 6.6%) underwent two or more colonoscopies before surveillance began; 101 (1.5%, 95% CI 1.2% to 1.8%) in the low-risk group and 860 (9.8%, 95% CI 9.2% to 10.4%) in the high-risk group. Main reasons were poor bowel preparation (21.3%) or incomplete colonoscopy/polypectomy (14.4%) or planned second procedure (27.8%). Need of repeat colonoscopy varied between study centres ranging from 0% to 11.8% in low-risk adenoma patients and from 0% to 63.9% in high-risk adenoma patients. On the second colonoscopy, the two most common reasons for a repeat (third) colonoscopy were piecemeal resection (26.5%) and unspecified reason (23.9%)., Conclusion: There is considerable practice variation in the number of colonoscopies performed to achieve complete polyp removal, indicating need for targeted quality improvement to reduce patient burden., Trial Registration Number: NCT02319928., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: To examine the prognostic potential of repeated faecal haemoglobin (F-Hb) concentration measurements in faecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based screening for colorectal cancer (CRC)., Design: Prognostic model., Setting: Dutch biennial FIT-based screening programme during 2014-2018., Participants: 265 881 participants completing three rounds of FIT, with negative test results (F-Hb <47 µg Hb/g faeces) in rounds 1 and 2., Interventions: Colonoscopy follow-up in participants with a positive FIT (F-Hb ≥47 µg Hb/g faeces)., Main Outcomes: We evaluated prognostic models for detecting advanced neoplasia (AN) and CRC in round 3, with as predictors, participant age, sex, F-Hb in rounds 1 and 2, and categories/combinations/non-linear transformations of F-Hb. Primary evaluation criteria included: risk prediction accuracy (calibration), discrimination of participants with versus without AN or CRC (optimism-adjusted C-statistics, range 0.5-1.0), the degree of risk stratification and C-statistics in external validation., Results: Among study participants, 8806 (3.3%) had a positive FIT result, 3254 (1.2%) had AN detected and 557 (0.2%) had cancer. F-Hb concentrations in rounds 1 and 2 were the strongest outcome predictors, with adjusted ORs of up to 9.4 (95% CI 7.5 to 11.7) for the highest F-Hb category. Risk predictions matched the observed risk for most participants (calibration intercept -0.008 to -0.099; slope 0.982-0.998), and discriminated participants with versus without AN or CRC with C-statistics of 0.78 (95% CI 0.77 to 0.79) and 0.73 (95% CI 0.71 to 0.75), respectively. The predicted risk ranged from 0.4% to 36.7% for AN and from 0.0% to 5.5% for CRC across participants. In external validation, the model retained similar discrimination accuracy for AN (C-statistic 0.77, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.87) and CRC (C-statistic 0.78, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.91)., Conclusion: Participants at lower versus higher risk of future AN or CRC can be accurately identified based on their age, sex and particularly, prior F-Hb concentrations. Risk stratification should be considered based on this information., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background and Aims: Adenoma detection rate (ADR) has been shown to correlate with interval cancers after screening colonoscopy and is commonly used as surrogate parameter for its outcome quality. ADR improvements by various techniques have been studied in randomised trials using either parallel or tandem methodololgy., Methods: A systematic literature search was done on randomised trials (full papers, English language) on tandem or parallel studies using either adenoma miss rates (AMR) or ADR as main outcome to test different novel technologies on imaging (new endoscope generation, narrow band imaging, iScan, Fujinon intelligent chromoendoscopy/blue laser imaging and wide angle scopes) and mechanical devices (transparent caps, endocuff, endorings and balloons). Available meta analyses were also screened for randomised studies., Results: Overall, 24 randomised tandem trials with AMR (variable definitions and methodology) and 42 parallel studies using ADR (homogeneous methodology) as primary outcome were included. Significant differences in favour of the new method were found in 66.7% of tandem studies (8222 patients) but in only 23.8% of parallel studies (28 059 patients), with higher rates of positive studies for mechanical devices than for imaging methods. In a random-effects model, small absolute risk differences were found, but these were double in magnitude for tandem as compared with parallel studies (imaging: tandem 0.04 (0.01, 0.07), parallel 0.02 (0.00, 0.04); mechanical devices: tandem 0.08 (0.00, 0.15), parallel 0.04 (0.01, 0.07)). Nevertheless, 94.2% of missed adenomas in the tandem studies were small (<1 cm) and/or non-advanced., Conclusions: A tandem study is more likely to yield positive results than a simple parallel trial; this may be due to the use of different parameters, variable definitions and methodology, and perhaps also a higher likelihood of bias. Therefore, we suggest to accept positive results of tandem studies only if accompanied by positive results from parallel trials., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: Serrated polyps (SPs) are an important cause of postcolonoscopy colorectal cancers (PCCRCs), which is likely the result of suboptimal SP detection during colonoscopy. We assessed the long-term effect of a simple educational intervention focusing on optimising SP detection., Design: An educational intervention, consisting of two 45 min training sessions (held 3 years apart) on serrated polyp detection, was given to endoscopists from 9 Dutch hospitals. Hundred randomly selected and untrained endoscopists from other hospitals were selected as control group. Our primary outcome measure was the proximal SP detection rate (PSPDR) in trained versus untrained endoscopists who participated in our faecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based population screening programme., Results: Seventeen trained and 100 untrained endoscopists were included, who performed 11 305 and 51 039 colonoscopies, respectively. At baseline, PSPDR was equal between the groups (9.3% vs 9.3%). After training, the PSPDR of trained endoscopists gradually increased to 15.6% in 2018. This was significantly higher than the PSPDR of untrained endoscopists, which remained stable around 10% (p=0.018). All below-average (ie, PSPDR ≤6%) endoscopists at baseline improved their PSPDR after training session 1, as did 57% of endoscopists with average PSPDR (6%-12%) at baseline. The second training session further improved the PSPDR in 44% of endoscopists with average PSPDR after the first training., Conclusion: A simple educational intervention was associated with substantial long-term improvement of PSPDR in a prospective controlled trial within FIT-based population screening. Widespread implementation of such interventions might be an easy way to improve SP detection, which may ultimately result in fewer PCCRCs., Trial Registration Number: NCT03902899., Competing Interests: Competing interests: ED: took endoscopic equipment on loan of Olympus and FujiFilm, received a research grant from FujiFilm, received a honorarium for consultancy from FujiFilm, Tillots, Olympus, JEGI Supply and Cancer Prevention Pharmaceuticals and a speakers' fee from Olympus, Roche and JEGI Supply. EJS: received consultancy and speakers honorarium for FujiFilm., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Competing Interests: Competing interests: ED and PF received equipment on loan from Olympus and Fujifilm. ED received a research grant from Fujifilm and a consulting fee for medical advice from Tillotts, Olympus, Fujifilm and GI Supply. PF received personal fees for consulting from Medtronic, Fujifilm, Cook, Ethicon Endo-Surgery and Olympus. The other authors have no relevant disclosures to report.

Background and Aims: Serrated polyposis syndrome (SPS) is associated with an increased risk of colorectal cancer (CRC). International guidelines recommend surveillance intervals of 1-2 years. However, yearly surveillance likely leads to overtreatment for many. We prospectively assessed a surveillance protocol aiming to safely reduce the burden of colonoscopies., Methods: Between 2013 and 2018, we enrolled SPS patients from nine Dutch and Spanish hospitals. Patients were surveilled using a protocol appointing either a 1-year or 2-year interval after each surveillance colonoscopy, based on polyp burden. Primary endpoint was the 5-year cumulative incidence of CRC and advanced neoplasia (AN) during surveillance., Results: We followed 271 SPS patients for a median of 3.6 years. During surveillance, two patients developed CRC (cumulative 5-year incidence 1.3%[95% CI 0% to 3.2%]). The 5-year AN incidence was 44% (95% CI 37% to 52%), and was lower for patients with SPS type III (26%) than for patients diagnosed with type I (53%) or type I and III (59%, p<0.001). Most patients were recommended a 2-year interval, and those recommended a 2-year interval were not at increased risk of AN: AN incidence after a 2-year recommendation was 15.6% compared with 24.4% after a 1-year recommendation (OR 0.57, p=0.08)., Conclusion: Risk stratification substantially reduced colonoscopy burden while achieving CRC incidence similar to previous studies. AN incidence is considerable in SPS patients, but extension of surveillance intervals was not associated with increased AN in those identified as low-risk by the protocol. We identified SPS type III patients as low-risk group that might benefit from even less frequent surveillance., Trial Registration Number: The study was registered on http://www.trialregister.nl; trial-ID NTR4609., Competing Interests: Competing interests: ED: I have endoscopic equipment on loan of Olympus and Fujifilm, and received a research grant from Fujifilm. I have also received an honorarium for consultancy from Fujifilm, Tillotts and Olympus and a speaker’s fee from Olympus and Roche. FB: I have endoscopic equipment on loan of Fujifilm, and received an honorarium for consultancy from Sysmex and a speaker’s fee from Norgine. MP: I have received a research grant from Fujifilm, consultancy fee from Norgine and speaker’s fee from Olympus, Norgine, Casen Recordati and Janssen., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Competing Interests: Competing interests: ED receives research support and equipment on loan from fujifilm and olympus.

Colonoscopy is a widely performed procedure with procedural volumes increasing annually throughout the world. Many procedures are now performed as part of colorectal cancer screening programmes. Colonoscopy should be of high quality and measures of this quality should be evidence based. New UK key performance indicators and quality assurance standards have been developed by a working group with consensus agreement on each standard reached. This paper reviews the scientific basis for each of the quality measures published in the UK standards., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: None declared., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.)

Objective: Accurate endoscopic differentiation would enable to resect and discard small and diminutive colonic lesions, thereby increasing cost-efficiency. Current classification systems based on narrow band imaging (NBI), however, do not include neoplastic sessile serrated adenomas/polyps (SSA/Ps). We aimed to develop and validate a new classification system for endoscopic differentiation of adenomas, hyperplastic polyps and SSA/Ps <10 mm., Design: We developed the Workgroup serrAted polypS and Polyposis (WASP) classification, combining the NBI International Colorectal Endoscopic classification and criteria for differentiation of SSA/Ps in a stepwise approach. Ten consultant gastroenterologists predicted polyp histology, including levels of confidence, based on the endoscopic aspect of 45 polyps, before and after participation in training in the WASP classification. After 6 months, the same endoscopists predicted polyp histology of a new set of 50 polyps, with a ratio of lesions comparable to daily practice., Results: The accuracy of optical diagnosis was 0.63 (95% CI 0.54 to 0.71) at baseline, which improved to 0.79 (95% CI 0.72 to 0.86, p<0.001) after training. For polyps diagnosed with high confidence the accuracy was 0.73 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.82), which improved to 0.87 (95% CI 0.80 to 0.95, p<0.01). The accuracy of optical diagnosis after 6 months was 0.76 (95% CI 0.72 to 0.80), increasing to 0.84 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.88) considering high confidence diagnosis. The combined negative predictive value with high confidence of diminutive neoplastic lesions (adenomas and SSA/Ps together) was 0.91 (95% CI 0.83 to 0.96)., Conclusions: We developed and validated the first integrative classification method for endoscopic differentiation of small and diminutive adenomas, hyperplastic polyps and SSA/Ps. In a still image evaluation setting, introduction of the WASP classification significantly improved the accuracy of optical diagnosis overall as well as SSA/P in particular, which proved to be sustainable after 6 months., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/)

Objective: The aim was to determine the prevalence of small-bowel neoplasia in asymptomatic patients with Lynch syndrome (LS) by video capsule endoscopy (VCE)., Design: After obtaining informed consent, asymptomatic proven gene mutation carriers aged 35-70 years were included in this prospective multicentre study in the Netherlands. Patients with previous small-bowel surgery were excluded. After bowel preparation, VCE was performed. The videos were read by two independent investigators. If significant lesions were detected, an endoscopic procedure was subsequently performed to obtain histology and, if possible, remove the lesion., Results: In total, 200 patients (mean age 50 years (range 35-69), M/F 88/112), with proven mutations were included. These concerned MLH1 (n = 50), MSH2 (n = 68), MSH6 (n = 76), PMS2 (n = 3) and Epcam (n = 3) mutation carriers. In 95% of the procedures, caecal visualisation was achieved. Small-bowel neoplasia was detected in two patients: one adenocarcinoma (TisN0Mx) and one adenoma, both located in the duodenum. In another patient, a duodenal cancer (T2N0Mx) was diagnosed 7 months after a negative VCE. This was considered a lesion missed by VCE. All three neoplastic lesions were within reach of a conventional gastroduodenoscope. All patients with neoplasia were men, over 50 years of age and without a family history of small-bowel cancer., Conclusions: The prevalence of small-bowel neoplasia in asymptomatic patients with LS was 1.5%. All neoplastic lesions were located in the duodenum and within reach of conventional gastroduodenoscopy. Although VCE has the potential to detect these neoplastic lesions, small-bowel neoplasia may be missed., Trial Registration Number: NCT00898768., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)

Objective: To determine adherence to recommended surveillance intervals in clinical practice., Design: 2997 successive patients with a first adenoma diagnosis (57% male, mean age 59 years) from 10 hospitals, who underwent colonoscopy between 1998 and 2002, were identified via Pathologisch Anatomisch Landelijk Geautomatiseerd Archief: Dutch Pathology Registry. Their medical records were reviewed until 1 December 2008. Time to and findings at first surveillance colonoscopy were assessed. A surveillance colonoscopy occurring within ± 3 months of a 1-year recommended interval and ± 6 months of a recommended interval of 2 years or longer was considered appropriate. The analysis was stratified by period per change in guideline (before 2002: 2-3 years for patients with 1 adenoma, annually otherwise; in 2002: 6 years for 1-2 adenomas, 3 years otherwise). We also assessed differences in adenoma and colorectal cancer recurrence rates by surveillance timing., Results: Surveillance was inappropriate in 76% and 89% of patients diagnosed before 2002 and in 2002, respectively. Patients eligible under the pre-2002 guideline mainly received surveillance too late or were absent (57% of cases). For patients eligible under the 2002 guideline surveillance occurred mainly too early (48%). The rate of advanced neoplasia at surveillance was higher in patients with delayed surveillance compared with those with too early or appropriate timed surveillance (8% vs 4-5%, p<0.01)., Conclusions: There is much room for improving surveillance practice. Less than 25% of patients with adenoma receive appropriate surveillance. Such practice seriously hampers the effectiveness and efficiency of surveillance, as too early surveillance poses a considerable burden on available resources while delayed surveillance is associated with an increased rate of advanced adenoma and especially colorectal cancer., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)

Objective: Faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) is increasingly used in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening but has a less than perfect sensitivity. Combining risk stratification, based on established risk factors for advanced neoplasia, with the FIT result for allocating screenees to colonoscopy could increase the sensitivity and diagnostic yield of FIT-based screening. We explored the use of a risk prediction model in CRC screening., Design: We collected data in the colonoscopy arm of the Colonoscopy or Colonography for Screening study, a multicentre screening trial. For this study 6600 randomly selected, asymptomatic men and women between 50 years and 75 years of age were invited to undergo colonoscopy. Screening participants were asked for one sample FIT (OC-sensor) and to complete a risk questionnaire prior to colonoscopy. Based on the questionnaire data and the FIT results, we developed a multivariable risk model with the following factors: total calcium intake, family history, age and FIT result. We evaluated goodness-of-fit, calibration and discrimination, and compared it with a model based on primary screening with FIT only., Results: Of the 1426 screening participants, 1112 (78%) completed the questionnaire and FIT. Of these, 101 (9.1%) had advanced neoplasia. The risk based model significantly increased the goodness-of-fit compared with a model based on FIT only (p<0.001). Discrimination improved significantly with the risk-based model (area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve: from 0.69 to 0.76, (p=0.02)). Calibration was good (Hosmer-Lemeshow test; p=0.94). By offering colonoscopy to the 102 patients at highest risk, rather than to the 102 cases with a FIT result >50 ng/mL, 5 more cases of advanced neoplasia would be detected (net reclassification improvement 0.054, p=0.073)., Conclusions: Adding risk based stratification increases the accuracy FIT-based CRC screening and could be used in preselection for colonoscopy in CRC screening programmes.

Objective: CT-colonography has been suggested to be less burdensome for primary colorectal cancer (CRC) screening than colonoscopy. To compare the expected and perceived burden of both in a randomised trial., Design: 8844 Dutch citizens aged 50-74 years were randomly invited for CRC screening with colonoscopy (n=5924) or CT-colonography (n=2920). Colonoscopy was performed after full colon lavage, or CT-colonography after limited bowel preparation (non-cathartic). All invitees were asked to complete the expected burden questionnaire before the procedure. All participants were invited to complete the perceived burden questionnaire 14 days later. Mean scores were calculated on 5-point scales., Results: Expected burden: 2111 (36%) colonoscopy and 1199 (41%) CT-colonography invitees completed the expected burden questionnaire. Colonoscopy invitees expected the bowel preparation and screening procedure to be more burdensome than CT-colonography invitees: mean scores 3.0±1.1 vs 2.3±0.9 (p<0.001) and 3.1±1.1 vs 2.2±0.9 (p<0.001). Perceived burden: 1009/1276 (79%) colonoscopy and 801/982 (82%) CT-colonography participants completed the perceived burden questionnaire. The full screening procedure was reported as more burdensome in CT-colonography than in colonoscopy: 1.8±0.9 vs 2.0±0.9 (p<0.001). Drinking the bowel preparation resulted in a higher burden score in colonoscopy (3.0±1.3 vs 1.7±1.0, p<0.001) while related bowel movements were scored more burdensome in CT-colonography (2.0±1.0 vs 2.2±1.1, p<0.001). Most participants would probably or definitely take part in a next screening round: 96% for colonoscopy and 93% for CT-colonography (p=0.99)., Conclusion: In a CRC screening programme, colonoscopy invitees expected the screening procedure and bowel preparation to be more burdensome than CT-colonography invitees. In participants, CT-colonography was scored as more burdensome than colonoscopy. Intended participation in a next screening round was comparable.

Objective: Conventional colonoscopy (CC) is considered the reference standard for detection of colorectal neoplasia, but it can still miss a substantial number of adenomas. The use of a transparent plastic cap may improve colonic visualisation. Cap-assisted colonoscopy (CAC) was compared with CC for adenoma detection. Secondary outcomes were caecal intubation time, caecal intubation rate and the degree of discomfort of colonoscopy., Design: This is a parallel, randomised, controlled trial at two centres. Asymptomatic participants (aged 50-75 years) in a primary colonoscopy screening programme were consecutively invited. Consenting subjects were 1:1 randomised to either CAC or CC. All colonoscopies were performed by experienced endoscopists (≥ 1000 colonoscopies) who were trained in CAC. Colonoscopy quality indicators were prospectively recorded., Results: A total of 1380 participants were randomly allocated to CC (N=694) or CAC (N=686). Caecal intubation rate was comparable in the two groups (98% vs 99%; p=0.29). Caecal intubation time was significantly lower in the CAC group: 7.7 ± 5.0 min with CAC vs 8.9 ± 6.2 min with CC (p<0.001) (values mean ± SD). Adenoma detection rates of all endoscopists were ≥ 20%. The proportion of subjects with at least one adenoma was similar in the two groups (28% vs 28%; RR 0.98; 95% CI 0.82 to 1.16), as well as the mean number of adenomas per subject (0.49 ± 1.05 vs 0.50 ± 1.03; p=0.91). Detection of small size, flat and proximally located adenomas was comparable. CAC participants had lower Gloucester Comfort Scores during colonoscopy (2.2 ± 1.0 vs 2.0 ± 1.0; p=0.03)., Conclusion: CAC does not improve adenoma detection, but does reduce caecal intubation time by more than 1 min and does lessen the degree of discomfort during colonoscopy.

Background and Aims: Patients with hyperplastic polyposis syndrome (HPS) receive endoscopic surveillance to prevent malignant progression of polyps. However, the optimal treatment and surveillance protocol for these patients is unknown. The aim of this study was to describe the clinical and pathological features of a large HPS cohort during multiple years of endoscopic surveillance., Methods: Databases were searched for patients with HPS, who were analysed retrospectively. Endoscopy reports and histopathology reports were collected to evaluate frequency of endoscopic surveillance and to obtain information regarding polyp and the presence of colorectal cancer (CRC)., Results: In 77 patients with HPS, 1984 polyps were identified during a mean follow-up period of 5.6 years (range: 0.5-26.6). In 27 (35%) patients CRC was detected of which 22 (28.5%) at initial endoscopy. CRC was detected during surveillance in five patients (cumulative incidence: 6.5%) after a median follow-up time of 1.3 years and a median interval of 11 months. Of these interval CRCs, 4/5 were detected in diminutive serrated polyps (range: 4-16 mm). The cumulative risk of CRC under surveillance was 7% at 5 years. At multivariate logistic regression, an increasing number of hyperplastic polyps (OR 1.05, p=0.013) and serrated adenomas (OR 1.09, p=0.048) was significantly associated with CRC presence., Conclusions: HPS patients undergoing endoscopic surveillance have an increased CRC risk. The number of serrated polyps is positively correlated with the presence of CRC in HPS, thus supporting a 'serrated pathway' to CRC. To prevent malignant progression, adequate detection and removal of all polyps seems advisable. If this is not feasible, surgical resection should be considered.