Search

Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is rising in young adults between ages 20 to 49 years. CRC screening is endorsed for average-risk individuals beginning at ages 45 to 49 years. Targeting screening for individuals <45 years may be warranted if risk factors for advanced neoplasia can be identified., Aim: To identify factors associated with advanced colorectal neoplasia in adults aged <45 years., Method: Individuals ages 18 to 44 years who underwent colonoscopy at Cleveland Clinic between 2011 and 2021 with ≥1 advanced neoplasm (AN) were included. Patients with inflammatory bowel disease or inherited CRC syndromes were excluded. Demographics, comorbidities, family history of CRC, and colonoscopy indication were obtained. Patients with a normal colonoscopy constituted the control group. A multivariable logistic regression model was used to investigate the relationship between clinical variables and the presence of advanced colorectal neoplasia., Results: In all, 13,006 patients were included, of which 651 (5%) patients had AN: 404 (62%) with tubular adenoma ≥10 mm, 29 (4.5%) tubular adenoma with high-grade dysplasia, 210 (32%) tubulovillous adenomas, 27 (4%) traditional serrated adenomas, 82 (13%) sessile serrated lesions ≥10 mm, 7(2%) sessile serrated lesions with dysplasia, and 29 (4.4%) patients had a CRC. Factors associated with AN were older age (means 38.5 vs. 36.6 y), history of smoking, diabetes, non-White race, higher body mass index (29.9 vs. 28.5 kg/m 2 ), and lower vitamin D (27.6 vs. 32.2 ng/dl), all P <0.001. In the reduced multivariable model, factors associated with AN included tobacco use (OR 2.026 (current vs. never, P <0.0001), age (OR increase by 1.06 per year, P <0.0001), male gender (OR 1.476, P <0.0001), family history of CRC (OR 3.91, P <0.0001), aspirin use (1.31, P =0.035), and diabetes (OR 2.106, P 0.001)., Conclusion: Increasing age, male gender, exposure to tobacco, family history of CRC, diabetes, and aspirin use were independently associated with advanced neoplasia in adults younger than 45. Targeted early screening to young adults with these risk factors may be justified. Large collaborative prospective studies are needed to validate our findings., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Aims: High-risk adenomas predict metachronous advanced adenomatous neoplasia. Limited data exist on predictors of metachronous advanced serrated lesions (mASLs). We analyzed clinical and endoscopic predictors of mASLs., Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, adults with >1 outpatient colonoscopy between 2008 and 2019 at a tertiary center were included. Serrated lesions (SLs) included sessile SLs (SSLs), traditional serrated adenomas (TSAs), and hyperplastic polyps (HPs). Patient and endoscopic characteristics were obtained using electronic medical records. Five-year cumulative incidence of mASL (HP ≥10 mm, SSL ≥10 mm or with dysplasia, any TSA) and factors associated with mASL were evaluated using Kaplan-Meier estimates and Cox proportional hazards models., Results: A total of 4990 patients were included and 45.4% were women. Mean age was 60.9 ± 9.2 years and median follow-up time was 3.7 years. Female sex and active smoking were associated with mASL. Endoscopically, any SSL and TSA were associated with mASL. The 5-year cumulative incidence for mASL was 26% (95% confidence interval [CI], 18%-32%) for SSL ≥10 mm, 17% (95% CI, 3.5%-29%) for HP ≥10 mm, 21% (95% CI, 0%-42%) for 3-4 SSLs <10 mm, 18% (95% CI, 0%-38%) for TSA, and 27% (95% CI, 3.6%-45%) for SSL with low-grade dysplasia. Baseline synchronous nonadvanced SL and nonadvanced adenoma were not associated with mASL., Conclusions: Our data support current recommendations for a 3-year surveillance interval in patients with baseline SSL ≥10 mm, SSL with dysplasia, and TSA. A 3-year interval may be more appropriate than 3-5 years for patients with baseline HP ≥10 mm or 3-4 SSLs <10 mm. Patients with synchronous nonadvanced SLs and adenomas do not appear to be at increased risk of mASL., (Copyright © 2024 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Aims: Colonoscopy quality affects colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality. The U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer strongly recommends photodocumentation (PD) of lesions ≥10 mm in size (ie, large polyps [LPs]) pre-resection and suggests PD postresection to enhance the quality of colonoscopy. No studies have assessed the frequency of LP PD. We evaluated the frequency of and factors associated with PD of LPs., Methods: Reports from endoscopists performing ≥50 colonoscopies with LP resection between 2016 and 2021 were reviewed. The frequency of LP PD pre-resection and post-resection and factors associated with PD were collected. A composite score of 2 quality metrics (PD of completeness of examination and bowel preparation quality) was created. Endoscopists were divided into 2 tiers based on the frequency of the score on all included examinations: Tier 1, ≥95% of examinations; and Tier 2, <95% of examinations. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to assess factors associated with PD., Results: A total of 1322 colonoscopies, 1693 LPs, and 25 endoscopists were included in this study. PD of LPs occurred in 1392 (82%) pre-resection and in 878 (52%) post-resection. Factors associated with pre-resection PD include endoscopist subspecialty (colorectal surgery vs gastroenterology: odds ratio [OR], .12; 95% confidence interval [CI], .04-.42); >1 LP on examination (2 vs 1 LP: OR, .41 [95% CI, .27-.61]; and ≥3 vs 1 LP: OR, .41 [95% CI, .24-.70]), and longer withdrawal time (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.01-1.04)., Conclusions: We provide the first data on PD of LP pre-resection and post-resection, which can inform future benchmarking in this area. The implications of PD on metachronous advanced neoplasia need to be studied., (Copyright © 2023 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Importance: The benefits from colorectal cancer (CRC) screening may take 10 to 15 years to accrue. Therefore, screening is recommended for older adults who are in good health., Objective: To determine the number of screening colonoscopies done in patients older than 75 years with a life expectancy of fewer than 10 years, diagnostic yield, and associated adverse events within 10 days and 30 days of the procedure., Design: This cross-sectional study with a nested cohort between January 2009 and January 2022 in an integrated health system assessed asymptomatic patients older than 75 years who underwent screening colonoscopy in the outpatient setting. Reports with incomplete data, any indication other than screening, patients who had a colonoscopy within the previous 5 years, and patients with a personal history of inflammatory bowel disease or CRC were excluded., Exposures: Life expectancy based on a prediction model from previous literature., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the percentage of screened patients who had limited (<10 years) life expectancy. Other outcomes included colonoscopy findings and adverse events that developed within 10 days and 30 days of the procedure., Results: A total of 7067 patients older than 75 years were included. The median (IQR) age was 78 (77-79) years, 3967 (56%) were women, and 5431 (77%) were White with an average of 2 comorbidities (taken from a select group of comorbidities). The proportion of colonoscopies performed on patients with a life expectancy of fewer than 10 years aged 76 to 80 years was 30% in both sexes and increased with age-82% of men and 61% of women aged 81 to 85 years (71% total), and 100% of patients beyond the age of 85 years. Adverse events requiring hospitalizations were common at 10 days (13.58 per 1000) and increased with age, particularly among patients older than 85 years. The detection of advanced neoplasia varied from 5.4% among patients aged 76 to 80 years to 6.2% in those aged 81 to 85 years and 9.5% among patients older than 85 years (P = .02). Of the total population, 15 patients (0.2%) had invasive adenocarcinoma; among patients with a life expectancy of fewer than 10 years, 1 of 9 was treated, whereas 4 of 6 patients with a life expectancy of greater than or equal to 10 years were treated., Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study with a nested cohort, most screening colonoscopies performed in patients older than 75 years were in patients with limited life expectancy and associated with increased risk of complications. Colorectal cancer was exceedingly rare.

This document is a focused update to the 2017 colorectal cancer (CRC) screening recommendations from the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, which represents the American College of Gastroenterology, the American Gastroenterological Association, and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. This update is restricted to addressing the age to start and stop CRC screening in average-risk individuals and the recommended screening modalities. Although there is no literature demonstrating that CRC screening in individuals under age 50 improves health outcomes such as CRC incidence or CRC-related mortality, sufficient data support the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force to suggest average-risk CRC screening begin at age 45. This recommendation is based on the increasing disease burden among individuals under age 50, emerging data that the prevalence of advanced colorectal neoplasia in individuals ages 45 to 49 approaches rates in individuals 50 to 59, and modeling studies that demonstrate the benefits of screening outweigh the potential harms and costs. For individuals ages 76 to 85, the decision to start or continue screening should be individualized and based on prior screening history, life expectancy, CRC risk, and personal preference. Screening is not recommended after age 85., (Copyright © 2022 AGA Institute, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, and American College of Gastroenterology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

This document is a focused update to the 2017 colorectal cancer (CRC) screening recommendations from the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, which represents the American College of Gastroenterology, the American Gastroenterological Association, and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. This update is restricted to addressing the age to start and stop CRC screening in average-risk individuals and the recommended screening modalities. Although there is no literature demonstrating that CRC screening in individuals under age 50 improves health outcomes such as CRC incidence or CRC-related mortality, sufficient data support the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force to suggest average-risk CRC screening begin at age 45. This recommendation is based on the increasing disease burden among individuals under age 50, emerging data that the prevalence of advanced colorectal neoplasia in individuals ages 45 to 49 approaches rates in individuals 50 to 59, and modeling studies that demonstrate the benefits of screening outweigh the potential harms and costs. For individuals ages 76 to 85, the decision to start or continue screening should be individualized and based on prior screening history, life expectancy, CRC risk, and personal preference. Screening is not recommended after age 85., (Copyright © 2021 by The American College of Gastroenterology, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, and the AGA Institute.)

Background: Hereditary colorectal cancer (HCRC) syndromes account for 10% of colorectal cancers but remain underdiagnosed. This feasibility project tested the utility of an artificial intelligence-based chatbot deployed to patients scheduled for colonoscopy to identify HCRC risk factors, educate participants about HCRC and obtain consent to genetic testing as an extension of genetic counselling of appropriate subjects. Genetic counsellor (GC) and genetic counselling assistant (GCA) time spent per subject was also measured., Methods: Patients scheduled for colonoscopy at Cleveland Clinic were invited via electronic medical record patient portal or letter prior to colonoscopy with a link to a chatbot administering the Colon Cancer Risk Assessment Tool (CCRAT) to screen for HCRC syndromes. Those with ≥1 positive response to a CCRAT question received chatbot-deployed genetic education and the option to receive genetic testing. An order for a 55-gene pan-cancer panel was placed for those consenting, and the subject had blood drawn on the day of colonoscopy. Results were disclosed by a GC or GCA by telephone. Subject demographics, progression through the chat, responses to CCRAT, personal and family history, genetic test results and communication with the subject were recorded. Descriptive statistics and two-tailed unpaired t-test and Fisher's exact test were used., Results: 506/4254 (11.9%) initiated and 487 (96.2%) completed the chat with the chatbot. 215 (44.1%) answered 'yes' to ≥1 CCRAT question and all completed pretest education. 129/181 (71.3%) subjects who consented completed testing, and 12 (9.3%) were found to have a germline pathogenic variant. Per subject, the GC spent a mean of 14.3 (SD 7.3) and the GCA a mean of 19.2 (SD 9.8) minutes., Conclusion: The use of a chatbot in this setting was a novel and feasible method, with the potential of increasing genetic screening and testing in individuals at risk of HCRC syndromes., Competing Interests: Competing interests: BH is on the advisory board for Invitae; CE is (pro bono) chief medical officer of Family Care Path, Inc, and of Covariance LLC/PlexSeq Diagnostics., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Inadequate bowel preparation (IBP) is associated with reduced adenoma detection. However, limited research has examined the impact of different commercial bowel preparations (CBPs) on IBP and adenoma detection. We aim to determine whether type of CBP used is associated with IBP or adenoma detection., Methods: We retrospectively evaluated outpatient, screening or surveillance colonoscopies performed in the Cleveland Clinic health system between January 2011 and June 2017. IBP was defined by the Aronchick scale. Multilevel mixed-effects logistic regression was performed to assess the association between CBP type and IBP and adenoma detection. Fixed effects were defined as demographics, comorbidities, medication use, and colonoscopy factors. Random effect of individual endoscopist was considered., Results: Of 153,639 colonoscopies, 75,874 records met inclusion criteria. Median age was 54; 50% were female; 17.7% had IBP, and adenoma detection rate was 32.6%. In adjusted analyses, compared to GoLYTELY, only NuLYTELY [OR 0.66 (95% CI 0.60, 0.72)] and SuPREP [OR 0.53 (95% CI 0.40, 0.69)] were associated with reduced IBP. Adenoma detection did not vary based on the type of bowel preparation used., Conclusions: Among patients referred for screening or surveillance colonoscopy, choice of CBP was not associated with adenoma detection. Decisions about CBP should be based on other factors, such as tolerability, cost, or safety.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer in men and women in the United States. CRC screening efforts are directed toward removal of adenomas and sessile serrated lesions and detection of early-stage CRC. The purpose of this article is to update the 2009 American College of Gastroenterology CRC screening guidelines. The guideline is framed around several key questions. We conducted a comprehensive literature search to include studies through October 2020. The inclusion criteria were studies of any design with men and women age 40 years and older. Detailed recommendations for CRC screening in average-risk individuals and those with a family history of CRC are discussed. We also provide recommendations on the role of aspirin for chemoprevention, quality indicators for colonoscopy, approaches to organized CRC screening and improving adherence to CRC screening. CRC screening must be optimized to allow effective and sustained reduction of CRC incidence and mortality. This can be accomplished by achieving high rates of adherence, quality monitoring and improvement, following evidence-based guidelines, and removing barriers through the spectrum of care from noninvasive screening tests to screening and diagnostic colonoscopy. The development of cost-effective, highly accurate, noninvasive modalities associated with improved overall adherence to the screening process is also a desirable goal., (Copyright © 2021 by The American College of Gastroenterology.)

Background and Aims: Physician adherence to published colonoscopy surveillance guidelines varies. We aimed to develop and validate an automated clinical decision support algorithm that can extract procedure and pathology data from the electronic medical record (EMR) and generate surveillance intervals congruent with guidelines, which might increase physician adherence., Methods: We constructed a clinical decision support (CDS) algorithm based on guidelines from the United States Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. We used a randomly generated validation dataset of 300 outpatient colonoscopies performed at the Cleveland Clinic from 2012 through 2016 to evaluate the accuracy of extracting data from reports stored in the EMR using natural language processing (NLP). We compared colonoscopy follow-up recommendations from the CDS algorithm, endoscopists, and task force guidelines. Using a testing dataset of 2439 colonoscopies, we compared endoscopist recommendations with those of the algorithm., Results: Manual review of the validation dataset confirmed the NLP program accurately extracted procedure and pathology data for all cases. Recommendations made by endoscopists and the CDS algorithm were guideline-concordant in 62% and 99% of cases, respectively. Discrepant recommendations by endoscopists were earlier than recommended in 94% of the cases. In the testing dataset, 69% of endoscopist and NLP-CDS algorithm recommendations were concordant. Discrepant recommendations by endoscopists were earlier than guidelines in 91% of cases., Conclusions: We constructed and tested an automated CDS algorithm that can use NLP-extracted data from the EMR to generate follow-up colonoscopy surveillance recommendations based on published guidelines., (Copyright © 2020 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Colonoscopic decompression is performed in inpatients for management of acute colonic pseudo-obstruction. Evidence for its efficacy is limited to small descriptive studies published before the use of neostigmine for acute colonic pseudo-obstruction. Furthermore, therapeutic end points were not defined., Objective: The aim was to compare the effectiveness of colonic decompression with standard medical therapy (supportive and pharmacologic therapy) to standard medical therapy alone., Design: This is a retrospective, propensity-matched study., Setting: The study was conducted at a tertiary care center., Patients: Inpatients with first diagnosis of acute colonic pseudo-obstruction between 2000 and 2016 were selected., Interventions: The intervention group received colonic decompression as well as supportive and/or pharmacologic therapy. The control group did not receive colonic decompression., Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was the resolution of overall colonic dilation on imaging 48 hours following colonic decompression or the initiation of standard medical therapy alone. Secondary outcomes included symptom improvement, colonic segment diameter percentage change, perforation, 30-day readmission, and all-cause mortality., Results: The standard medical therapy and colonic decompression groups included 61 and 83 patients. Of the patients who underwent colonic decompression, 47.7% had complete resolution of acute colonic pseudo-obstruction versus 19.9% of patients who underwent standard medical therapy (p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in mid or distal colon diameter reduction between groups. The 30-day readmission rate was 15.7% in the colonic decompression group versus 26.2% in the standard medical therapy group. No immediate adverse events were noted in either group. Thirty-day all-cause mortality was 8.4% for the colonic decompression group and 14.8% in the standard medical therapy group., Limitations: The study was a retrospective review on a highly comorbid population., Conclusions: Colonic decompression is effective compared to standard medical therapy alone for proximal colonic dilation or symptoms associated with acute colonic pseudo-obstruction. On segmental analysis, colonic decompression does not provide any additional benefit over standard medical therapy in improving transverse or distal colonic dilation. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B32. LA DESCOMPRESIÓN COLÓNICA REDUCE LA PSEUDOOBSTRUCCIÓN COLÓNICA AGUDA PROXIMAL Y LOS SÍNTOMAS RELACIONADOS.: La descompresión colonica se realiza en pacientes hospitalizados para el tratamiento de la pseudoobstrucción colónica aguda. La evidencia de su eficacia se limita a pequeños estudios descriptivos antes del uso de neostigmina para la pseudoobstrucción colónica aguda. Además, los puntos finales terapéuticos no se definieron.El objetivo fue comparar la efectividad de la descompresión colónica mas el tratamiento médico estándar (tratamiento de apoyo y farmacológico) contra el tratamiento médico estándar solamente.Este es un estudio retrospectivo de propensión coincidente.El estudio se realizó en un centro de atención de tercer nivel.Pacientes hospitalizados con diagnóstico de pseudoobstrucción colónica aguda entre 2000 y 2016.El grupo de intervención recibió descompresión colónica, así como tratamiento de apoyo o farmacológica. El grupo control no recibió descompresión colónica.La medida de resultado primaria fue la resolución de la dilatación colónica general en la imagen 48 horas después de la descompresión colónica o el inicio del tratamiento médico estándar solo. Los resultados secundarios incluyeron mejoría de los síntomas, cambio porcentual en el diámetro del segmento colónico, perforación, reingreso a los 30 días y mortalidad por cualquier causa.La terapia médica estándar y los grupos de descompresión colónica incluyeron 61 y 83 pacientes, respectivamente. El 47,7% de los pacientes con descompresión colónica tuvieron una resolución completa de la pseudoobstrucción colónica aguda frente al 19,9% de los pacientes con terapia médica estándar (p < 0,001). No hubo diferencias significativas en la reducción del diámetro del colon medio o distal entre los grupos. La tasa de reingreso a los 30 días fue del 15,7% en el grupo de descompresión colónica frente al 26,2% en el grupo de tratamiento médico estándar. No se observaron eventos adversos inmediatos en ninguno de los dos grupos. La mortalidad por cualquier causa a los 30 días fue del 8.4% para la descompresión del colon y del 14.8% en los grupos de terapia médica estándar.El estudio fue una revisión retrospectiva en una población altamente comórbida.La descompresión colónica es efectiva en comparación con el tratamiento médico estándar solo para la dilatación del colon proximal o los síntomas asociados con la pseudoobstrucción colónica aguda. En el análisis segmentario, la descompresión colónica no proporciona ningún beneficio adicional sobre el tratamiento médica estándar para mejorar la dilatación colónica transversal o distal. Vea el resumen del video en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B32.

Background and Aim: We identified patients without medical record evidence of up-to-date colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and sent an invitation letter to self-schedule a colonoscopy without requiring prior primary care or gastroenterologist consultation. The aim of the study was to evaluate the response rate to the letter and factors associated with colonoscopy completion., Methods: A computer algorithm invited patients not up to date with CRC screening, with an INR < 1.5, and living within 300 miles of the Cleveland Clinic main campus through a letter. Patients scheduled a colonoscopy through a dedicated phone line without any prior physician consultation. Clinical, demographic, and socioeconomic variables were extracted from the EMR through natural language algorithms. We analyzed the percentage of patients who completed a colonoscopy within 6 months of sending the letter and factors associated with colonoscopy completion., Results: A total of 145,717 letters were sent. 1451 patients were deceased and excluded from analysis. 3.8% (5442) of letter recipients completed a colonoscopy. The strongest factors associated with colonoscopy completion on multivariate analysis included family history of polyps (OR 3.1, 95% CI 2.3, 4.2) or CRC (OR 2.1, 95% CI 1.7, 2.5). Other factors included younger age, male gender, married status, closer distance to endoscopy center, number of visits in the year prior, statin use, and diabetes. There were no immediate procedural complications., Conclusions: Patient-initiated colonoscopy in response to letter invitation for CRC screening is effective and safe with safeguards established a priori. Consultation with a gastroenterologist or primary care physician is not necessary prior to colonoscopy. To our knowledge, this is the first study to evaluate patient-initiated colonoscopy for CRC cancer screening.

Importance: Research demonstrates adenoma detection rate (ADR) and proximal sessile serrated polyp detection rate (pSSPDR) are associated with endoscopist characteristics including sex, specialty, and years in practice. However, many studies have not adjusted for other risk factors associated with colonic neoplasia., Objective: To assess the association between endoscopist characteristics and polyp detection after adjusting the factors included in previous studies as well as other factors., Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study was conducted in the Cleveland Clinic health system with data from individuals undergoing screening colonoscopies between January 2015 and June 2017. The study analyzed data using methods from previous studies that have demonstrated significant associations between endoscopist characteristics and ADR or pSSPDR. Multilevel mixed-effects logistic regression was performed to examine 7 endoscopist characteristics associated with ADRs and pSSPDRs after controlling for patient demographic, clinical, and colonoscopy-associated factors., Exposures: Seven characteristics of endoscopists performing colonoscopy., Main Outcomes and Measures: The ADR and pSSPDR, with a hypothesis created after data collection began., Results: A total of 16 089 colonoscopies were performed in 16 089 patients by 56 clinicians. Of these, 8339 patients were male (51.8%), and the median (range) age of the cohort was 59 (52-66) years. Analyzing the data by the methods used in 4 previous studies yielded an association between endoscopist and polyp detection; surgeons (OR, 0.49 [95% CI, 0.28-0.83]) and nongastroenterologists (OR, 0.50 [95% CI 0.29-0.85]) had reduced odds of pSSPDR, which was similar to results in previous studies. In a multilevel mixed-effects logistic regression analysis, ADR was not significantly associated with any endoscopist characteristic, and pSSPDR was only associated with years in practice (odds ratio, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.83-0.89] per increment of 10 years; P < .001) and number of annual colonoscopies performed (odds ratio, 1.05 [95% CI, 1.01-1.09] per 50 colonoscopies/year; P = .02)., Conclusions and Relevance: The differences in ADRs that were associated with 7 of 7 endoscopist characteristics and differences in pSSPDRs that were associated with 5 of 7 endoscopist characteristics in previous studies may have been associated with residual confounding, because they were not replicated in this analysis. Therefore, these characteristics should not influence the choice of endoscopist for colorectal cancer screening. However, clinicians further from their training and those with lower colonoscopy volumes have lower adjusted pSSPDRs and may need additional training to help increase pSSPDRs.

Colorectal cancer, the second most common type of cancer and cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States, can largely be prevented by screening. The 2 most used methods in the United States are colonoscopy and fecal immunochemical testing (FIT). FIT is noninvasive but must be done yearly for optimal performance and, if positive, must be followed by colonoscopy. Colonoscopy is invasive, operator-dependent, and more expensive, but it can detect and remove polyps during the same procedure. The choice of test depends on patient preference, family history, and the likelihood of compliance., (Copyright © 2019 Cleveland Clinic.)

Introduction: Inadequate bowel preparation (IBP) is a common problem in hospitalized patients; however, little is known about how to prevent IBP. In a large, multihospital system, we evaluated the association between modifiable factors and IBP rate., Methods: We reviewed data from adult (≥18 years) inpatients undergoing colonoscopy between January 2011 and June 2017. Colonoscopies performed in the intensive care unit or lacking descriptions of bowel preparation quality were excluded. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with IBP. A counterfactual analysis was performed to assess the potential contribution of modifiable factors to IBP., Results: Of 8,819 patients that were included (median age of 64 years; 50.5% female), 51% had IBP. Patients with IBP stayed in the hospital one day longer than those with adequate bowel preparation (P < .001). Modifiable factors associated with IBP include opiate use within three days of colonoscopy (OR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.18, 1.45), colonoscopy performed after 12:00 pm (OR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.1, 1.41), and solid diet the day before colonoscopy (OR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.18, 1.59). In the counterfactual analysis, if all patients avoided these three conditions, adjusted IBP rates were reduced by 5.6%., Conclusions: Among hospitalized patients undergoing colonoscopy, IBP rates are high and associated with an increased length of stay. Avoiding opiates before colonoscopy, performing colonoscopy before noon, and maintaining patients on a liquid diet or nil per os might significantly reduce IBP rates.

Background and Aims: The incidence of colorectal cancer in the United States has decreased substantially in individuals aged 50 and older. In contrast, it is increasing in young adults. The polyp characteristics on baseline and follow-up colonoscopy in young adults are not well characterized. We describe the polyp characteristics on baseline and follow-up colonoscopy in adults <40 years and determined factors associated with the occurrence of metachronous, advanced neoplasia or high-risk (HR) polyp features. We compared the occurrence of metachronous advanced neoplasia in young adults with those 50 years and older to assess whether postpolypectomy surveillance guidelines seem appropriate for polyp-bearing adults less than age 40 years., Methods: Patients <40 years of age with >1 polyp removed on colonoscopy followed by a postpolypectomy colonoscopy were eligible. The primary outcome was the occurrence of advanced neoplasia or HR polyp features on follow-up colonoscopy. Secondary endpoints included factors associated with metachronous advanced neoplasia in young adults. The occurrence of metachronous advanced neoplasia in young adults was compared with a cohort of patients aged 50 years and older., Results: Included were 128 patients with a mean age of 34.9 years; 124 patients (97%) had adenomas and 7% had sessile serrated polyps (SSPs). Advanced neoplasia was seen in 35% of patients at baseline. The median follow-up time was 33.6 months. Metachronous advanced neoplasia was identified in 7% of patients on follow-up colonoscopy. Baseline factors associated with metachronous advanced neoplasia included the presence of an SSP (hazard ratio, 7.8; 95% CI, 1.09-56.3; P = .041) with a trend in those with advanced neoplasia (hazard ratio, 3.4; 95% confidence interval, .89-12.8; P = .072). The occurrence of metachronous advanced neoplasia did not differ between the young and older cohorts (7% vs 12.2%, P = .58); however, young adults were less likely to have HR polyp features on follow-up (8.6% vs 20.3%, P = .008)., Conclusions: More than 1 in 3 adults <40 years old undergoing colonoscopy had advanced neoplasia on baseline colonoscopy. The occurrence of metachronous advanced neoplasia in young adults is similar to older adults and appears to be associated with the size, pathology, and number of baseline polyps. Our data suggest young polyp-bearing adults may undergo postpolypectomy colonoscopy at intervals currently recommended by national guidelines. Confirmation in larger studies is warranted., (Copyright © 2018 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background & Aims: Endoscopists do not routinely follow guidelines to survey individuals with low-risk adenomas (LRAs; 1-2 small tubular adenomas, < 1 cm) every 5-10 years for colorectal cancer; many recommend shorter surveillance intervals for these individuals. We aimed to identify the reasons that endoscopists recommend shorter surveillance intervals for some individuals with LRAs and determine whether timing affects outcomes at follow-up examinations., Methods: We collected data from 1560 individuals (45-75 years old) who participated in a prospective chemoprevention trial (of vitamin D and calcium) from 2004 through 2008. Participants in the trial had at least 1 adenoma, detected at their index colonoscopy, and were recommended to receive follow-up colonoscopy examinations at 3 or 5 years after adenoma identification, as recommended by the endoscopist. For this analysis we collected data from only participants with LRAs. These data included characteristics of participants and endoscopists and findings from index and follow-up colonoscopies. Primary endpoints were frequency of recommending shorter (3-year) vs longer (5-year) surveillance intervals, factors associated with these recommendations, and effect on outcome, determined at the follow-up colonoscopy., Results: A 3-year surveillance interval was recommended for 594 of the subjects (38.1%). Factors most significantly associated with recommendation of 3-year vs a 5-year surveillance interval included African American race (relative risk [RR] to white, 1.41; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.14-1.75), Asian/Pacific Islander ethnicity (RR to white, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.22-2.43), detection of 2 adenomas at the index examination (RR vs 1 adenoma, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.27-1.71), more than 3 serrated polyps at the index examination (RR=2.16, 95% CI, 1.59-2.93), or index examination with fair or poor quality bowel preparation (RR vs excellent quality, 2.16; 95% CI, 1.66-2.83). Other factors that had a significant association with recommendation for a 3-year surveillance interval included family history of colorectal cancer and detection of 1-2 serrated polyps at the index examination. In comparisons of outcomes, we found no significant differences between the 3-year vs 5-year recommendation groups in proportions of subjects found to have 1 or more adenomas (38.8% vs 41.7% respectively; P = .27), advanced adenomas (7.7% vs 8.2%; P = .73) or clinically significant serrated polyps (10.0% vs 10.3%; P = .82) at the follow-up colonoscopy., Conclusions: Possibly influenced by patients' family history, race, quality of bowel preparation, or number or size of polyps, endoscopists frequently recommend 3-year surveillance intervals instead of guideline-recommended intervals of 5 years or longer for individuals with LRAs. However, at the follow-up colonoscopy, similar proportions of participants have 1 or more adenomas, advanced adenomas, or serrated polyps. These findings support the current guideline recommendations of performing follow-up examinations of individuals with LRAs at least 5 years after the index colonoscopy., (Copyright © 2017 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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

Background: Adenoma detection rates (ADRs) are established as quality targets in average-risk (AR) individuals undergoing colorectal cancer (CRC) screening colonoscopy. Little is known about the ADR in high-risk (HR) individuals undergoing index or surveillance colonoscopy., Objective: To determine and compare ADR in HR versus AR individuals undergoing colonoscopy., Design and Setting: Retrospective study, tertiary care center., Patients and Intervention: We reviewed records of 7357 patients who underwent colonoscopy by 66 multispecialty endoscopists at our institution during the period 2008 to 2009. Both screening and surveillance colonoscopies in AR and HR patients for CRC were studied. HR patients were further divided into 3 subgroups: those with a (1) personal history of polyps (PHP), (2) family history of polyps (FHP), and (3) family history of CRC (FHCRC). Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate differences in ADR between the groups after adjusting for possible confounders., Main Outcome Measurements: ADR in HR patients., Results: The study included 4141 patients, of whom 2170 were AR and 1971 were HR. Patients in the HR group were older (64.5 ± 9.1 years vs 59.1 ± 7.9 years, P < .001). HR patients were more likely to have adenomas (30.7% vs 25.6%, P < .001). Adenomas were detected more often in the proximal colon than in the distal colon (29.3% vs 21.0%, P < .001 and 22.8% vs 15.8%, P < .001, respectively). Patients with a PHP had the highest ADR (33.1%, P < .001). However, after adjusting for confounders, HR status was not found to be associated with ADR (odds ratio [OR] 1.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.93-1.6; P = .15 for females and 0.93; 95% CI, 0.70-1.2; P = .61 for males). HR females were found to have a 40% greater likelihood of having proximal adenomas than AR females (1.4; 95% CI, 1.01-2; P = .04)., Limitations: Retrospective design, single tertiary center., Conclusions: Patients with a PHP have a significantly higher ADR compared with AR patients. Defining a minimum target ADR for individuals with a PHP undergoing surveillance colonoscopy is important., (Copyright © 2016 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Unlabelled: Colonic configuration during insertion phase (IP) and withdrawal phase (WP) is different and some polyps seen during IP are difficult to find during WP and vice versa. To determine if polypectomy performed during both IP and WP of colonoscopy (study arm) increases adenoma detection rate (ADR) compared to WP only (control arm). In this prospective randomized controlled trial, adults undergoing out-patient colonoscopy were enrolled. The primary outcome was mean number of adenomas detected per patient. Secondary outcomes were ADR, defined as the proportion of colonoscopies with at least one adenoma, polyp detection rates (PDR), number of patients classified as high-risk group (presence of ≥3 adenomas of any size, any adenoma ≥1 cm in size, or adenoma with villous component, or high grade dysplasia), procedural times, patients discomfort, and ease of procedure. Among 772 patients enrolled, 610 were included (329 in study arm and 281 in control arm). In both arms, mean number of adenomas detected per patient were similar, 0.78 ± 1.4 vs. 0.74 ± 1.5, P = 0.75. Also, ADR (39.2 vs. 38.1 %, P = 0.77) and PDR (57.1 and 54.1 %, P = 0.45) were similar. Mean insertion time was significantly higher in study arm (10.2 ± 5.8 vs. 9.3 ± 5.6 min, p = 0.046). Proportion of patients identified as high-risk group were significantly higher in study arm (18.8 vs. 11.7 %, P = 0.016)., Conclusions: Polypectomy performed during both IP and WP compared to the WP only, did not improve ADR or mean number of adenomas detected per patient., Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov, #NCT01025960.

Background: Adenoma detection rate is an important quality indicator. High adenoma detection rate is related to fewer interval cancers. Interval cancers arise from sessile serrated polyps, often in the proximal colon. The detection of adenomas and sessile serrated polyps by location may enhance colonoscopy efficacy., Objective: The aim of this study was to determine entire colon and segmental adenoma and sessile serrated polyp detection rates and to assess the impact of endoscopist specialty on polyp detection., Design: Colonoscopies performed by 65 multispecialty endoscopists were studied., Setting: This study was conducted at an academic medical center., Patients: Average-risk outpatients undergoing screening colonoscopy were selected., Main Outcome Measures: Polyp detection rates were determined by sex, colon segment, and each endoscopist., Results: Included were 2167 patients. Adenoma and sessile serrated polyp detection rates were 25% and 2% and not significantly different by specialty of the endoscopist. The adenoma detection rate was higher in men (31%) than in women (20%), including each segment in the colon. It was higher proximally (20%) than distally (16%) (p = 0.027) in men, but no different in proximal (11%) and distal colon (11%) (p = 0.66) in women. Sessile serrated polyp detection was the same in men and women at 2% (p = 0.84) and 3-fold higher in the proximal than in the distal colon (1.4% vs 0.5%), but only significantly so in women (p = 0.041). We found a poor correlation between adenoma and sessile serrated polyp detection rates (r = 0.35)., Limitations: This study was limited by its retrospective nature., Conclusions: Prevalent adenomas are detected more often in men than in women, including overall and by colon segment. The proximal adenoma detection rate is significantly higher than the distal adenoma detection rate in men, but segmental rates are similar in women. Sessile serrated polyp detection rates are low, albeit 3-fold higher in the proximal colon, and are found as frequently in men and women. High-quality colonoscopy, as evidenced by adenoma detection rate, varies by endoscopist but is independent of colonoscopist subspecialty.

Aim: There is controversy over whether constipation as the only symptom should be an indication for routine diagnostic colonoscopy. The study was carried out to assess the prevalence of abnormal pathology on colonoscopy and to assess the risk factors for colonic neoplasia in patients with constipation but without 'high risk symptoms'., Method: A cross-sectional, single-centre study was conducted on individuals who underwent colonoscopy for constipation as the sole indication between 2005 and 2008. Standardized endoscopic and pathology reports were reviewed. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed., Results: A total of 786 patients (595 women, 75.7%; mean age, 57.4±13.5 years) underwent diagnostic colonoscopy for constipation. Forty-three (5.5%) had polyps, of whom 19 (2.4%) had hyperplastic polyps and 19 (2.4%) adenomas. No cancers were found. In patients with adenoma, the detection rate was 2.9% for patients below age 40 years and 1.7% for patients below age 50 years. Older age was associated with a polyp in both univariate and multivariate analysis. Gender, ethnicity and smoking were not associated with polyp or adenoma., Conclusion: Colonoscopy for patients with constipation as the sole indication had a lower yield of neoplastic lesions than that for patients undergoing routine screening colonoscopy. Colonoscopy in constipation may only be warranted in patients who are over 50 years of age., (© 2011 The Authors. Colorectal Disease © 2011 The Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland.)

Background: High-resolution, high-definition colonoscopes (HD) with 170 degrees angle of view providing brighter images, sharper resolution, and a 30 degrees wider field of view than conventional colonoscopes (CC) are available. The impact of these innovations on enhancing the detection of clinically important colonic lesions or over detection of clinically insignificant colonic lesions is not well established., Objectives: To compare the difference in the detection of individuals with polyps, adenomas, or high-risk adenoma features between HD and CC. We also compared the difference in detection of individuals with clinically insignificant colonic lesions, >or=2, <6-mm hyperplastic polyps between HD and CC., Methods: Endoscopic findings from 426 individuals who underwent HD were compared to a cohort of 426 individuals who underwent CC after matching by gender, age (+/-5 years), and indication for colonoscopy based on propensity score. Conditional logistic regression was used to assess for differences in polyp detection rates and risk classification between the two groups., Results: HD affords no increase over CC in the detection of individuals with polyps, 39.9 vs. 36.9% (P = 0.34) or adenomas, 24.7 vs. 21.9% (P = 0.36). The proportion of subjects classified as high risk did not differ between the groups, 5.7% in the HD group and 4.5% in the CC group (P = 0.43) and 5.6% of each cohort was found to have >or=2, <6-mm hyperplastic polyps (P = 0.99)., Conclusions: HD colonoscopy does not increase the detection of individuals with polyps, adenomas, or high-risk adenoma features. HD does not increase the detection of individuals with clinically insignificant colonic lesions.

Background: Suggested intervals for postpolypectomy surveillance colonoscopy are currently based on the adenoma findings from the most recent examination., Objective: To determine the risk for clinically significant adenoma recurrence on the basis of the results of 2 previous colonoscopies., Design: Prospective cohort study., Setting: Academic and private centers in North America., Patients: Participants in an adenoma chemoprevention trial in which all participants had 1 or more adenoma found on complete colonoscopy at entry. For this analysis, only participants whose qualifying adenoma was their first were included. All participants then underwent second and third study colonoscopies at roughly 3-year intervals., Measurements: Proportion of patients with high-risk findings at the third study colonoscopy--either at least 1 advanced (> or = 1 cm or advanced histology) adenoma or multiple (> or = 3) adenomas., Results: Fifty-eight of 564 participants (10.3%) had high-risk findings at the third study examination. If the second examination showed high-risk findings, then results from the first examination added no significant information about the probability of high-risk findings on the third examination (18.2% for high-risk findings on the first examination vs. 20.0% for low-risk findings on the first examination; P = 0.78). If the second examination showed no adenomas, then the results from the first examination added significant information about the probability of high-risk findings on the third examination (12.3% if the first examination had high-risk findings vs. 4.9% if the first examination had low-risk findings; P = 0.015)., Limitation: This observational study cannot specifically examine adenoma recurrence risk at intervals suggested for patients with low-risk adenomas (for example, 5 years vs. 10 years)., Conclusion: Information from 2 previous examinations may help identify low-risk populations that benefit little from intense surveillance. Surveillance guidelines might be tailored in selected patients to use information from 2 previous examinations, not just the most recent one., Primary Funding Source: National Institutes of Health.

Objectives: The effectiveness of colonoscopy in preventing colon cancer depends on adenoma detection and removal. Adequacy of bowel preparation, careful mucosal visualization, and adequate withdrawal time are known to affect adenoma detection rate (ADR). Physician fatigue, which usually increases as the day progresses, might impair ADR. The aim of this study is to assess the effect of timing of colonoscopy, morning vs. afternoon, on ADR., Methods: Medical records of 9,063 colonoscopies performed in 2006 were reviewed for patient demographics, indications, timing, and findings of colonoscopy. Asymptomatic outpatients who had adequate bowel preparation and complete colonoscopy were included. Morning colonoscopies were defined as those that started before 12 noon and afternoon colonoscopies as those that started after 12 noon. ADR is defined as the detection of at least one adenoma per colonoscopy., Results: A total of 3,619 colonoscopies were included, of which 1,748 (48.3%) were done in the morning and 1,871 (51.7%) were done in the afternoon. ADR was 29.3% in the morning group compared with 25.3% in the afternoon group (P=0.008). There was a trend toward declining ADR for each subsequent hour of the day (P=0.01). In multivariable analysis, colonoscopy in the morning was significantly associated with increased ADR (odds ratio (OR) 1.2 (1.06, 1.4) P=0.006)., Conclusions: Time of performance of colonoscopy seems to be an independent predictor for adenoma detection. ADR was significantly higher in morning colonoscopies than in afternoon colonoscopies. The reasons and implications of this finding should be studied further.

After a polyp or polyps are discovered on colonoscopy, many patients are being told to come back for repeat colonoscopy unnecessarily soon, thus diverting a scarce resource away from patients who may derive the most benefit--those with high-risk polyps and those who have never been screened.

Background & Aims: Colonoscopic polypectomy is considered effective for preventing colorectal cancer (CRC), but the incidence of cancer in patients under colonoscopic surveillance has rarely been investigated. We determined the incidence of CRC in patients under colonoscopic surveillance and examined the circumstances and risk factors for CRC and adenoma with high-grade dysplasia., Methods: Patients were drawn from 3 adenoma chemoprevention trials. All underwent baseline colonoscopy with removal of at least one adenoma and were deemed free of remaining lesions. We identified patients subsequently diagnosed with invasive cancer or adenoma with high-grade dysplasia. The timing, location, and outcome of all cases of cancer and high-grade dysplasia identified are described and risks associated with their development explored., Results: CRC was diagnosed in 19 of the 2915 patients over a mean follow-up of 3.7 years (incidence, 1.74 cancers/1000 person-years). The cancers were located in all regions of the colon; 10 were at or proximal to the hepatic flexure. Although most of the cancers (84%) were of early stage, 2 participants died of CRC. Seven patients were diagnosed with adenoma with high-grade dysplasia during follow-up. Older patients and those with a history of more adenomas were at higher risk of being diagnosed with invasive cancer or adenoma with high-grade dysplasia., Conclusions: CRC is diagnosed in a clinically important proportion of patients following complete colonoscopy and polypectomy. More precise and representative estimates of CRC incidence and death among patients undergoing surveillance examinations are needed.

Objectives: The age to begin colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is based on the risk of neoplasia and is published in screening guidelines. The age to stop screening is unknown but should be based, in part, on the same principle. The purpose of this study was to establish whether the prevalence of neoplasia detected by colonoscopy diminished with advancing age, to warrant ceasing colonoscopic screening., Methods: The endoscopic and pathology reports of all asymptomatic subjects undergoing colonoscopy for the purpose of CRC screening or an evaluation of abdominal pain or change in bowel habits between 1997 and 2000 were reviewed. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to assess the effect of age, gender, and indication for examination on the prevalence of neoplasia, as well as on having more than two adenomas, advanced adenomas (tubulovillous, villous, severe dysplasia, or size > or = 1 cm), and invasive cancers., Results: A total of 915 patients were included. Of these, 50% were male, with a mean age of 65 yr (range 50-100). Neoplasia peaked in the seventh decade, with a fall thereafter (p = 0.009). Numerous adenomas, advanced adenomas, and invasive cancers increased with age. The yield for overall neoplasia, advanced adenomas, and more than two adenomas was higher in the screening group than in the symptomatic group. More invasive cancers were found in the symptomatic group compared with the asymptomatic group, but this did not achieve statistical significance (4 vs 1, p = 0.44)., Conclusions: The prevalence of advanced neoplasia continues to increase with age. Subjects undergoing colonoscopy for screening had a greater risk for neoplasia than did subjects with symptoms. There is no decline in yield of advanced neoplasia to justify stopping screening colonoscopy in the elderly.