Search

Background: Post-colonoscopy colorectal cancers (PCCRCs) decrease the effect of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs. To enable PCCRC incidence reduction in the long-term, we classified PCCRCs diagnosed after colonoscopies performed in a fecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based screening program., Methods: PCCRCs diagnosed after colonoscopies performed between 2014-2016 for a positive FIT in the Dutch CRC screening program were included. PCCRCs were categorized according to the World Endoscopy Organization consensus statement into (a) interval PCCRC (diagnosed before the recommended surveillance); (b) non-interval type A (diagnosed at the recommended surveillance interval); (c) non-interval type B (diagnosed after the recommended surveillance interval); or (d) non-interval type C (diagnosed after the intended recommended surveillance interval, with surveillance not implemented owing to co-morbidity). The most probable etiology was determined by root-cause analysis. Tumor stage distributions were compared between categories., Results: 116362 colonoscopies were performed after a positive FIT with 9978 screen-detected CRCs. During follow-up, 432 PCCRCs were diagnosed. The 3-year PCCRC rate was 2.7%. PCCRCs were categorized as interval (53.5%), non-interval type A (14.6%), non-interval type B (30.6%), and non-interval type C (1.4%). The most common etiology for interval PCCRCs was possible missed lesion with adequate examination (73.6%); they were more often diagnosed at an advanced stage (stage III/IV; 53.2%) compared with non-interval type A (15.9%; P <0.001) and non-interval type B (40.9%; P =0.03) PCCRCs., Conclusions: The 3-year PCCRC rate was low in this FIT-based CRC screening program. Approximately half of PCCRCs were interval PCCRCs. These were mostly caused by missed lesions and were diagnosed at a more advanced stage. This emphasizes the importance of high quality colonoscopy with optimal polyp detection., Competing Interests: P. Wisse has received consulting fees from the National Institute for Public Health and Environment for the evaluation of biobank development for the storage of samples of participants of the Dutch colorectal cancer screening program. G.A. Meijer is co-founder and a board member (CSO) of CRCbioscreen BV; he has a research collaboration with CZ Health Insurances (cash matching to ZonMW grant) and research collaborations with Exact Sciences, Sysmex, Sentinel Ch. SpA, Personal Genome Diagnostics (PGDX), DELFi, and Hartwig Medical Foundation; these companies provide materials, equipment and/or sample/genomic analyses. E. Dekker has endoscopic equipment on loan from Olympus and Fujifilm, and has received a research grant from Fujifilm; she has received honorarium for consultancy from Fujifilm, Tillots, Olympus, GI Supply, Cancer Prevention Pharmaceuticals, PAION, and Ambu, and speakers’ fees from Olympus, Roche, GI Supply, Norgine, IPSEN, PAION, and Fujifilm. M.C.W. Spaander has received research support from Sentinel, Sysmex, Norgine, and Medtronic. S.Y. de Boer, M. Oudkerk Pool, J.S. Terhaar sive Droste, and C. Verveer declare that they have no conflicts of interest., (The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).)

Improving patient education focusing on bowel preparation before a colonoscopy leads to cleaner colons. Endoscopy units must obtain informed consent and perform a risk assessment for sedative use prior to a colonoscopy. The current practice in the Netherlands to achieve these goals is nurse counseling in an outpatient setting. This is costly and has disadvantages in terms of uniformity and time consumption for both the patient and the hospital. The hypothesis is that computer-based education with use of video and 3D animations may replace nurse counseling in most cases, without losing quality of bowel cleanliness during colonoscopy. This multicenter, randomized, endoscopist blinded clinical trial evaluates a primary outcome measure (bowel preparation) during colonoscopy. Secondary outcome measures are sickness absence, patient anxiety after instruction and prior to colonoscopy, patient satisfaction and information re-call. The study will be performed in four endoscopy units of different levels (rural, urban, and tertiary). Inclusion criteria are adult age and referral for complete colonoscopy. Exclusion criteria are Dutch illiteracy, audiovisual handicaps or mental disabilities and no (peers with) internet access. This trial aims to establish online computer-based education as tool for patient education prior to a colonoscopy. By choosing a direct comparison with the standard of care (nurse counseling), both endoscopic quality measures and patient related outcome measures can be evaluated.

Background & Aims: Risk stratification for adverse events, such as metastasis to lymph nodes, is based only on histologic features of tumors. We aimed to compare adverse outcomes of pedunculated vs nonpedunculated T1 colorectal cancers (CRC)., Methods: We performed a retrospective study of 1656 patients diagnosed with T1CRC from 2000 through 2014 at 14 hospitals in The Netherlands. The median follow-up time of patients was 42.5 months (interquartile range, 18.5-77.5 mo). We evaluated the association between tumor morphology and the primary composite end point, adverse outcome, adjusted for clinical variables, histologic variables, resection margins, and treatment approach. Adverse outcome was defined as metastasis to lymph nodes, distant metastases, local recurrence, or residual tissue. Secondary end points were tumor metastasis, recurrence, and incomplete resection., Results: Adverse outcome occurred in 67 of 723 patients (9.3%) with pedunculated T1CRCs vs 155 of 933 patients (16.6%) with nonpedunculated T1CRCs. Pedunculated morphology was independently associated with decreased risk of adverse outcome (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.59; 95% CI, 0.42-0.83; P = .003). Metastasis, incomplete resection, and recurrence were observed in 5.8%, 4.6%, and 3.9% of pedunculated T1CRCs vs 10.6%, 8.0%, and 6.6% of nonpedunculated T1CRCs, respectively. Pedunculated morphology was independently associated with a reduced risk of metastasis (adjusted OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.41-0.94; P = .03), incomplete resection (adjusted OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.36-0.91; P = .02), and recurrence (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.32-0.85; P = .009). Metastasis, incomplete resection, and recurrence did not differ significantly between low-risk pedunculated vs nonpedunculated T1CRCs (0.8% vs 2.9%, P = .38; 1.5% vs 0%, P = .99; 1.5% vs 0%; P = .99). However, incomplete resection and recurrence were significantly lower for high-risk pedunculated vs nonpedunculated T1CRCs (6.5% vs 12.5%; P = .007; 4.4% vs 8.6%; P = .03)., Conclusions: In a retrospective study of patients with T1CRC, we found pedunculated morphology to be associated independently with a decreased risk of adverse outcome in a T1CRC population at high risk of adverse outcome. Incorporating morphologic features of tumors in risk assessment could help predict outcomes of patients with T1CRC and help identify the best candidates for surgery., (Copyright © 2019 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Given the increasing burden on colonoscopy capacity, it has been suggested that faecal immunochemical test (FIT) results could guide surveillance colonoscopy intervals. Against this background, we have evaluated the test accuracy of single and double FIT sampling to detect colorectal cancer (CRC) and/or advanced adenomas in an asymptomatic colonoscopy-controlled high-risk population., Methods: Cohort study of asymptomatic high-risk patients (personal history of adenomas/CRC or family history of CRC), who provided one or two FITs before elective colonoscopy. Test accuracy of FIT for detection of CRC and advanced adenomas was determined (cut-off level 50 ng/ml)., Results: 1,041 patients provided a FIT (516 personal history of adenomas, 172 personal history of CRC and 353 family history of CRC). Five CRCs (0.5%) and 101 advanced adenomas (9.7%) were detected by colonoscopy. Single FIT sampling resulted in a sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV for CRC of 80%, 89%, 3% and 99.9%, respectively, and for advanced adenoma of 28%, 91%, 24% and 92%, respectively. Double FIT sampling did not result in a significantly higher sensitivity for advanced neoplasia. Simulation of multiple screening rounds indicated that sensitivity of FIT for advanced adenoma could reach 81% after 5 screening rounds., Conclusions: In once-only FIT sampling before surveillance colonoscopy, 70% of advanced neoplasia were missed. A simulation approach indicates that multiple screening rounds may be more promising in detecting advanced neoplasia and could potentially alleviate endoscopic burden.

Background: A single sampled faecal immunochemical test (FIT) has moderate sensitivity for colorectal cancer and advanced adenomas. Repeated FIT sampling could improve test sensitivity. The aim of the present study is to determine whether any of three different strategies of double FIT sampling has a better combination of sensitivity and specificity than single FIT sampling., Methods: Test performance of single FIT sampling in subjects scheduled for colonoscopy was compared to double FIT sampling intra-individually. Test positivity of double FIT sampling was evaluated in three different ways: 1) "one of two FITs+" when at least one out of two measurements exceeded the cut-off value, 2) "two of two FITs+" when both measurements exceeded the cut-off value, 3) "mean of two FITs+" when the geometric mean of two FITs exceeded the cut-off value. Receiver operator curves were calculated and sensitivity of single and the three strategies of double FIT sampling were compared at a fixed level of specificity., Results: In 124 of 1096 subjects, screen relevant neoplasia (SRN) were found (i.e. early stage CRC or advanced adenomas). At any cut-off, "two of two FITs+" resulted in the lowest and "one of two FITs+" in the highest sensitivity for SRN (range 35-44% and 42%-54% respectively). ROC's of double FIT sampling were similar to single FIT sampling. At specificities of 85/90/95%, sensitivity of any double FIT sampling strategy did not differ significantly from single FIT (p-values 0.07-1)., Conclusion: At any cut off, "one of two FITs+" is the most sensitive double FIT sampling strategy. However, at a given specificity level, sensitivity of any double FIT sampling strategy for SRN is comparable to single FIT sampling at a different cut-off value. None of the double FIT strategies has a superior combination of sensitivity and specificity over single FIT., (© 2011 Oort et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.)

Background and Study Aims: Cecal intubation is not achieved in 2 - 23 % of colonoscopies. The efforts made by physicians to visualize the remaining colon and the number of missed significant lesions are unknown. This study evaluates 1) the reasons for incomplete colonoscopy, 2) the rates of complete colonic evaluation after incomplete colonoscopy, and 3) the number of (pre-) malignant lesions missed by incomplete colonoscopy., Patients and Methods: In this population-based cohort study index colonoscopies were performed between September and December 2005. Prospectively collected data from consecutive patients with an incomplete colonoscopy were analyzed. For up to 18 months after the index colonoscopy, any further examinations performed in these patients were identified retrospectively. These secondary examinations included: repeat colonoscopy, computed tomography (CT) colonography, barium enema, abdominal CT scan, and surgery involving the colorectum., Results: Of 5278 colonoscopies, 511 were incomplete (9.7 %). The most frequent causes of incomplete colonoscopy were looping of the scope (20.4 %), patient discomfort (15.3 %), and obstructing tumor (13.9 %). Secondary examination was performed in 278 patients (54.4 %) after incomplete colonoscopy. Patients undergoing surveillance after colorectal cancer (CRC) (78.9 %) and those with anemia (73.1 %) most frequently received a secondary examination. Incomplete colonoscopies due to stenosis (78.9 %), severe inflammation (77.8 %) or an obstructing tumor (74.6 %) were most frequently followed by a secondary examination. In all of the follow-up examinations, CRC was diagnosed in 18 patients (3.5 %) and advanced adenoma in four patients (0.8 %)., Conclusions: In 4.3 % of the patients, advanced neoplasia was missed by incomplete colonoscopy. Our data therefore suggest that additional imaging is obligatory to visualize the remaining colon adequately., (Copyright Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart . New York.)

Aim: To assess the prevalence and location of advanced neoplasia in patients undergoing colonoscopy, and to compare the yield per indication., Methods: In a multicenter colonoscopy survey (n = 18 hospitals) in the Amsterdam area (Northern Holland), data of all colonoscopies performed during a three month period in 2005 were analyzed. The location and the histological features of all colonic neoplasia were recorded. The prevalence and the distribution of advanced colorectal neoplasia and differences in yield between indication clusters were evaluated. Advanced neoplasm was defined as adenoma > 10 mm in size, with > 25% villous features or with high-grade dysplasia or cancer., Results: A total of 4623 eligible patients underwent a total colonoscopy. The prevalence of advanced neoplasia was 13%, with 281 (6%) adenocarcinomas and 342 (7%) advanced adenomas. Sixty-seven percent and 33% of advanced neoplasia were located in the distal and proximal colon, respectively. Of all patients with right-sided advanced neoplasia (n = 228), 51% had a normal distal colon, whereas 27% had a synchronous distal adenoma. Ten percent of all colonoscopies were performed in asymptomatic patients, 7% of whom had advanced neoplasia. In the respective procedure indication clusters, the prevalence of right-sided advanced neoplasia ranged from 11%-57%., Conclusion: One out of every 7-8 colonoscopies yielded an advanced colorectal neoplasm. Colonoscopy is warranted for the evaluation of both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients.

Objective: To map the locations of advanced colorectal neoplasia in patients referred for colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy and to compare the yield of advanced neoplasia and the distribution of advanced neoplasia per indication for endoscopy., Design: Observational., Method: In a multicentre survey in North Holland, the Netherlands (n = 18 hospitals), data on all colonoscopies and sigmoidoscopies performed during a three-month period in 2005 were analyzed. The locations and the histological features of all colonic neoplasia and the indications for endoscopy were recorded. Advanced neoplasm was defined as adenoma >or=10 mm in size, an adenoma with any villous features, or high-grade dysplasia or adenocarcinoma., Results: A total of 4623 patients underwent a total colonoscopy and 3004 patients underwent sigmoidoscopy. The prevalence of advanced neoplasia was 13% on colonoscopy and 6% on sigmoidoscopy. Of the advanced neoplasia found on colonoscopy, 67% were located in the distal colon and 33% in the proximal colon. Of the patients with advanced neoplasia in the proximal colon (n = 228), 51% had no abnormalities in the distal colon. The percentage of advanced neoplasia in the proximal colon varied from 23% in patients younger than 50 years to 41% in patients aged 80 years and older. Depending on the indication for endoscopy, the prevalence of advanced neoplasia in the proximal colon varied from 11-57%., Conclusion: Of the advanced colorectal neoplasms 33% were located in the proximal colon. With increasing age, a shift in tumour localization occurs from distal to proximal in the colon. Colonoscopy is the preferred method for the endoscopic diagnosing of colorectal neoplasia.

Background and Aims: There are conflicting data concerning the association between diverticular disease and colorectal carcinoma (CRC). This study was performed to determine the prevalence and association of diverticulosis, diverticulitis, polyps, and CRC., Materials and Methods: In a cross-sectional, retrospective study, we analyzed the colonoscopy reports of complete colonoscopies and patho-histological results of all patients referred for colonoscopy in a period of 3 months in 18 hospitals in The Netherlands. Diverticulosis was defined as three or more diverticula present and diverticulitis as diverticulosis with inflammation. Polyps were also coded according to localization and size. Advanced neoplastic lesions were defined as polyps >or=10 mm in diameter and/or villous architecture and/or adenomas with high grade dysplasia and/or invasive cancer. Actual and previous described CRC were registered., Results: A total of 4,241 patients were included in the study [1,996 (47%) male], mean age of 59 and range 18-95. Diverticula, diverticulitis, and polyps were seen in 1,052 (25%), 75 (2%), and 1,282 (30%) patients, respectively. No association was found between patients with polyps and those with and without diverticulosis (p=0.478). Invasive adenocarcinoma and adenomas >or=10 mm were most frequently observed. CRC was present in 372 (9%) patients. Negative relation between diverticulosis and CRC and invasive adenocarcinoma was observed. No association was found between polyps and CRC and patients with diverticulitis and CRC. In conclusion, there is no relation between patients with diverticulosis and higher incidence of polyps or CRC when using age-stratified analysis. No increased risk for polyps or CRC was found in patients with diverticulitis.