Search

ObjectiveHigh-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.DesignWe retrieved data of all patients with low-risk adenomas (one or two tubular adenomas ResultsThe 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%).ConclusionThere 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 numberNCT02319928.

Background There is continued uncertainty regarding the risks of hepato-pancreato-biliary cancers in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) with or without concomitant primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC). Objective To give updated estimates on risk of hepato-pancreato-biliary cancers in patients with IBD, including pancreatic cancer, hepatocellular carcinoma, gall bladder cancer, and intra – and extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Methods In a population-based cohort study, we included all patients diagnosed with IBD in Norway and Sweden from 1987 to 2016. The cohort comprised of 141,960 patients, identified through hospital databases and the National Patient Register. Participants were followed through linkage to national cancer, cause of death, and population registries. We calculated absolute risk and standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) of hepato-pancreato-biliary cancers by PSC and other clinical characteristics. Results Of the 141,960 IBD patients, 3.2% were diagnosed with PSC. During a median follow-up of 10.0 years, we identified 443 biliary tract cancers (SIR 5.2, 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.8–5.7), 161 hepatocellular carcinomas (SIR 2.4, 95% CI 2.0–2.7) and 282 pancreatic cancers (SIR 1.3, 95% CI 1.2–1.5). The relative risks were considerably higher in PSC-IBD patients, with SIR of 140 (95% CI 123–159) for biliary tract, 38.6 (95% CI 29.2–50.0) for hepatocellular, and 9.0 (95% CI 6.3–12.6) for pancreatic cancer. The SIRs were still slightly increased in non-PSC-IBD patients, compared to the general population. For biliary tract cancer, the cumulative probability at 25 years was 15.6% in PSC-IBD patients, and 0.4% in non-PSC-IBD patients. Conclusions The dramatically increased risks of hepato-pancreato-biliary cancers in PSC-IBD patients support periodic surveillance for these malignancies. While much lower, the excess relative risks in non-PSC-IBD patients were not trivial compared to non-IBD related risk factors.

Background Endoscopic screening with polypectomy reduces the incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC). Incomplete polyp removal may attenuate the effect of screening. This randomized trial compared cold snare polypectomy (CSP) with hot snare polypectomy (HSP) in terms of complete polyp resection. Methods We included patients ≥ 40 years of age at eight hospitals in four countries who had at least one non-pedunculated polyp of 4–9 mm detected at colonoscopy. Patients were randomized 1:1 to CSP or HSP. Biopsies from the resection margins were obtained systematically after polypectomy in both groups. We hypothesized that CSP would be non-inferior to HSP, with a non-inferiority margin of 5 %. Logistic regression models were fitted to identify the factors explaining incomplete resection. Results 425 patients, with 601 polyps, randomized to either CSP or HSP were included in the analysis. Of 318 polyps removed by CSP and 283 polyps removed by HSP, 34 (10.7 %) and 21 (7.4 %) were incompletely resected, respectively, with an adjusted risk difference of 3.2 % (95 %CI −1.4 % to 7.8 %). There was no difference between the groups in terms of post-polypectomy bleeding, perforation, or abdominal pain. Independent risk factors for incomplete removal were serrated histology (odds ratio [OR] 3.96; 95 %CI 1.63 to 9.66) and hyperplastic histology (OR 2.52; 95 %CI 1.30 to 4.86) in adjusted analyses. Conclusion In this randomized trial, non-inferiority for CSP could not be demonstrated. Polyps with serrated histology are more prone to incomplete resection compared with adenomas. CSP can be used safely for small polyps in routine colonoscopy practice.

Background Women and men with colorectal adenomas are at increased risk of colorectal cancer and colonoscopic surveillance is recommended. However, the long-term cancer risk remains unknown. Aims To investigate colorectal cancer incidence and mortality after adenoma removal in women and men METHODS: We identified all individuals who had adenomas removed in Norway from 1993 to 2007, with follow-up through 2018. We calculated standardized incidence ratios (SIR) and incidence-based mortality ratios (SMR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for colorectal cancer in women and men using the female and male population for comparison. We defined high-risk adenomas as ≥2 adenomas, villous component, or high-grade dysplasia. Results The cohort comprised 40 293 individuals. During median follow-up of 13.0 years, 1079 women (5.5%) and 866 men (4.2%) developed colorectal cancer; 328 women (1.7%) and 275 men (1.3%) died of colorectal cancer. Colorectal cancer incidence was more increased in women (SIR 1.64, 95% CI 1.54-1.74) than in men (SIR 1.12, 95% CI 1.05-1.19). Colorectal cancer mortality was increased in women (SMR 1.13, 95% CI 1.02-1.26) and reduced in men (SMR 0.79, 95% CI 0.71-0.89). Women with high-risk adenomas had an increased risk of colorectal cancer death (SMR 1.37, 95% CI 1.19-1.57); women with low-risk adenomas (SMR 0.90, 95% CI 0.76-1.07) and men with high-risk adenomas had a similar risk (SMR 0.89, 95% CI 0.76-1.04), while men with low-risk adenomas had reduced risk (SMR 0.70, 95% CI 0.59-0.84). Conclusions After adenoma removal, women had an increased risk of colorectal cancer death, while men had reduced risk, compared to the general female and male populations. Sex-specific surveillance recommendations after adenoma removal should be considered.

ObjectiveTo estimate the risk of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL) and Hodgkin’s lymphoma (HL) in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).DesignWe undertook a two-country population cohort study with all patients diagnosed with IBD in Norway and Sweden from 1987 and 1993 through 2015 and 2016, respectively, and analysed the risk of NHL and HL. In Sweden, we also analysed prescriptions of thiopurines and anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-α therapy from 2005. We calculated standardised incidence ratios (SIRs) with 95% CIs using the general populations as reference.ResultsAmong 131 492 patients with IBD with a medium follow-up of 9.6 years, we identified 369 cases of NHL and 44 cases of HL. The SIR of NHL was 1.3 (95% CI 1.1 to 1.5) in ulcerative colitis and 1.4 (95% CI 1.2 to 1.7) in Crohn’s disease. We found no compelling heterogeneity in analyses stratified by patient characteristics. We found a similar pattern and magnitude of excess risks for HL. At 10 years, cumulative incidence was 0.26% (95% CI 0.23% to 0.30%) and 0.06% (95% CI 0.04% to 0.08%) for NHL and HL, respectively. Higher excess risks were found among patients with NHL with concomitant primary sclerosing cholangitis (SIR 3.4; 95% CI 2.1 to 5.2) and in those prescribed thiopurines alone (SIR 2.8; 95% CI 1.4 to 5.7) or with anti-TNF-α agents (SIR 5.7; 95% CI 2.7 to 11.9).ConclusionPatients with IBD have a statistically significant increased risk of malignant lymphomas compared with the general population, but the absolute risk remains low.

Artificial intelligence (AI) tools aimed at improving polyp detection have been shown to increase the adenoma detection rate during colonoscopy. However, it is unknown how increased polyp detection rates by AI affect the burden of patient surveillance after polyp removal.We conducted a pooled analysis of 9 randomized controlled trials (5 in China, 2 in Italy, 1 in Japan, and 1 in the United States) comparing colonoscopy with or without AI detection aids. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients recommended to undergo intensive surveillance (ie, 3-year interval). We analyzed intervals for AI and non-AI colonoscopies for the U.S. and European recommendations separately. We estimated proportions by calculating relative risks using the Mantel-Haenszel method.A total of 5796 patients (51% male, mean 53 years of age) were included; 2894 underwent AI-assisted colonoscopy and 2902 non-AI colonoscopy. When following U.S. guidelines, the proportion of patients recommended intensive surveillance increased from 8.4% (95% CI, 7.4%-9.5%) in the non-AI group to 11.3% (95% CI, 10.2%-12.6%) in the AI group (absolute difference, 2.9% [95% CI, 1.4%-4.4%]; risk ratio, 1.35 [95% CI, 1.16-1.57]). When following European guidelines, it increased from 6.1% (95% CI, 5.3%-7.0%) to 7.4% (95% CI, 6.5%-8.4%) (absolute difference, 1.3% [95% CI, 0.01%-2.6%]; risk ratio, 1.22 [95% CI, 1.01-1.47]).The use of AI during colonoscopy increased the proportion of patients requiring intensive colonoscopy surveillance by approximately 35% in the United States and 20% in Europe (absolute increases of 2.9% and 1.3%, respectively). While this may contribute to improved cancer prevention, it significantly adds patient burden and healthcare costs.

Background Artificial intelligence (AI) for polyp detection is being introduced to colonoscopy, but there is uncertainty how this affects endoscopists’ ability to detect polyps and neoplasms. We performed a video-based study to address whether AI improved the endoscopists’ performance to detect polyps. Methods We established a dataset of 200 colonoscopy videos (length 5 s; 100 without polyps and 100 with one polyp). About 33 early-career endoscopists (50–400 colonoscopies performed) from 10 European countries classified each video as either ‘polyp present’ or ‘polyp not present’. The video assessment was performed twice with a four-week interval. The first assessment was performed without any AI tool, whereas the second was performed with an AI tool for polyp detection. The primary endpoint was early-career endoscopists’ sensitivity to detect polyps. Gold standard for presence and histology of polyps were confirmed by two expert endoscopists and pathologists, respectively. McNemar’s test was used for statistical significance. Results There were 86 neoplastic and 14 non-neoplastic polyps (mean size 5.6 mm) in the 100 videos with polyps. Early-career endoscopists’ sensitivity to detect polyps increased from 86.3% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 85.1–87.5%) to 91.7% (95%CI: 90.7–92.6%) with the AI aid (p

Background Artificial intelligence (AI)-based polyp detection systems are used during colonoscopy with the aim of increasing lesion detection and improving colonoscopy quality. Patients and methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective trials to determine the value of AI-based polyp detection systems for detection of polyps and colorectal cancer. We performed systematic searches in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL. Independent reviewers screened studies and assessed eligibility, certainty of evidence, and risk of bias. We compared colonoscopy with and without AI by calculating relative and absolute risks and mean differences for detection of polyps, adenomas, and colorectal cancer. Results Five randomized trials were eligible for analysis. Colonoscopy with AI increased adenoma detection rates (ADRs) and polyp detection rates (PDRs) compared to colonoscopy without AI (values given with 95 %CI). ADR with AI was 29.6 % (22.2 % – 37.0 %) versus 19.3 % (12.7 % – 25.9 %) without AI; relative risk (RR] 1.52 (1.31 – 1.77), with high certainty. PDR was 45.4 % (41.1 % – 49.8 %) with AI versus 30.6 % (26.5 % – 34.6 %) without AI; RR 1.48 (1.37 – 1.60), with high certainty. There was no difference in detection of advanced adenomas (mean advanced adenomas per colonoscopy 0.03 for each group, high certainty). Mean adenomas detected per colonoscopy was higher for small adenomas (≤ 5 mm) for AI versus non-AI (mean difference 0.15 [0.12 – 0.18]), but not for larger adenomas (> 5 – ≤ 10 mm, mean difference 0.03 [0.01 – 0.05]; > 10 mm, mean difference 0.01 [0.00 – 0.02]; high certainty). Data on cancer are unavailable. Conclusions AI-based polyp detection systems during colonoscopy increase detection of small nonadvanced adenomas and polyps, but not of advanced adenomas.

Background Patients who have undergone Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) are at increased risk of biliary disease necessitating endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). The most widely used approaches to perform ERCP after RYGB are laparoscopy-assisted ERCP (LA-ERCP) and balloon enteroscopy-assisted ERCP (BEA-ERCP). There are few studies comparing these procedures. We aimed to compare the performance, benefits, and harms of LA-ERCP and BEA-ERCP in RYGB patients. Methods We identified all RYGB patients who underwent ERCP at two tertiary care endoscopy centers in Oslo, Norway between May 2013 and December 2017. One center performed BEA-ERCP, the other LA-ERCP. Procedure success was defined as fulfillment of the therapeutic or diagnostic aim, according to the procedure description. Adverse events were classified according to the Clavien–Dindo grading system. Results During the study period, 40 BEA-ERCP and 39 LA-ERCP procedures were performed in 68 patients. Procedure success rate was 72.5 % for BEA-ERCP and 87.2 % for LA-ERCP (P = 0.14). Adverse events occurred in 18 % of BEA-ERCP and 28 % of LA-ERCP (P = 0.23). Serious adverse events (Clavien–Dindo grade ≥ 3b) occurred in 2.5 % of BEA-ERCP and 7.7 % of LA-ERCP procedures (P = 0.36). Concomitant cholecystectomy was performed in 25 of the 39 LA-ERCP procedures. The median procedure times for LA-ERCP performed with and without concomitant cholecystectomy were 201 minutes and 140 minutes, respectively, and for BEA-ERCP was 125 minutes. Conclusions In experienced hands, both LA-ERCP and BEA-ERCP have high success rates after RYGB. The choice of approach should be individualized according to patient characteristics and available physician competence.

Introduction Because individuals with serrated polyps and adenomas are at increased risk of developing new polyps and colorectal cancer (CRC), surveillance after resection is justified. After adenoma resection, most international guidelines are consistent, but recommendations for surveillance after serrated polyp resection vary. The United States Multi-Society Taskforce on CRC (US-MSTF) base surveillance intervals on serrated polyp subtype (traditional serrated adenoma, sessile serrated polyp, hyperplastic polyps), while the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guidelines do not take serrated polyp subtype into account. We evaluated the implications of this difference in a primary colonoscopy screening cohort. Methods We included participants from a large colonoscopy screening trial. In a post-hoc simulation, assuming full protocol adherence, we determined the surveillance interval for each subject based on their polyp burden, using the most recent US-MSTF and ESGE guidelines. Results We included 5323 participants, of whom 1228 had one or more serrated polyps. In 5201 of all participants (98 %; Cohen’s kappa 0.90) and in 1106 of those with serrated polyps (90 %; Cohen’s kappa 0.80), both guidelines recommended identical surveillance intervals. Recommendations for a 3-year surveillance interval were identical between the two guidelines. All 122 subjects with discordant recommendations would receive a follow-up colonoscopy after 10 years using ESGE guidance and after 5 years using US-MSTF guidance. Conclusion Despite the different criteria used to determine surveillance after serrated polyp resection, most individuals are recommended identical colonoscopy surveillance intervals whether following the ESGE or US-MSTF guidelines. This suggests that surveillance recommendations do not need to consider the serrated polyp subtype.

Background and aims: Obesity with type-2 diabetes is a global challenge. Lifestyle interventions have limited effect for most patients. Bariatric surgery is highly effective, but resource-demanding, invasive and associated with serious complications. Recently, a new intragastric balloon was introduced, not requiring endoscopy for placement or removal (Elipse™, Allurion Inc., Natick, MA). The balloon is swallowed in a capsule and filled with water once in the stomach. The balloon self-deflates after 4 months and is naturally excreted. The present trial investigated balloon feasibility, safety and efficacy in patients with obesity and type-2 diabetes. Patients and methods: We treated 19 patients, with type-2 diabetes and body mass index (BMI) of 30.0-39.9 kg/m2 at two Norwegian centers with the Elipse balloon. Patient follow-up during balloon treatment mimicked real-world clinical practice, including dietary plan and outpatient visits. The primary efficacy endpoints were total body weight loss (TBWL) and HbA1c at weeks 16 and 52. Results: All patients underwent balloon insertion uneventfully as out-patients. Mean TBWL and HbA1c reduction after 16 and 52 weeks of balloon insertion was 3.9% (95%CI 2.1-5.7) and 0.8% (95%CI 1.9-3.5); and 7 (95%CI 4-10), and 1 (95%CI -6 to 9) mmol/mol, respectively. Adverse events occurred in two patients (10.5%): one developed gastric outlet obstruction, managed by endoscopic balloon removal; the other excessive vomiting and dehydration, managed conservatively. Conclusions: This first Scandinavian real-world clinical trial with a new minimally invasive intragastric balloon system demonstrated good feasibility, but did not confirm expected efficacy for weight loss and diabetes control.

Background Endoscopic screening with polypectomy has been shown to reduce colorectal cancer incidence in randomized trials. Incomplete polyp removal and subsequent development of post-colonoscopy cancers may attenuate the effect of screening. This study aimed to quantify the extent of incomplete polyp removal. Methods We included patients aged 50–75 years with nonpedunculated polyps ≥ 5 mm removed during colonoscopy at four hospitals in Norway. To evaluate completeness of polyp removal, biopsies from the resection margins were obtained after polypectomy. Logistic regression models were fitted to identify factors explaining incomplete resection. Results 246 patients with 339 polyps underwent polypectomy between January 2015 and June 2017. A total of 12 polyps were excluded due to biopsy electrocautery damage, and 327 polyps in 246 patients (mean age 67 years [range 42–83]; 52 % male) were included in the analysis. Overall, 54 polyps (15.9 %) in 54 patients were incompletely resected. Histological diagnosis of the polyp (sessile serrated lesions vs. adenoma, odds ratio [OR] 10.9, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 3.9–30.1) and polyp location (proximal vs. distal colon, OR 2.8, 95 %CI 1.0–7.7) were independent risk factors for incomplete removal of polyps 5–19 mm. Board-certified endoscopists were not associated with lower rates of incomplete resection compared with trainees (14.0 % vs. 14.2 %), OR 1.0 (95 %CI 0.5–2.1). Conclusion Incomplete polyp resection was frequent after polypectomy in routine clinical practice. Serrated histology and proximal location were independent risk factors for incomplete resection. The performance of board-certified gastroenterologists was not superior to that of trainees.

Colonoscopy surveillance after adenoma removal is an increasing burden in many countries. Surveillance recommendations consider characteristics of removed adenomas, but not colonoscopist performance. We investigated the impact of colonoscopist performance on colorectal cancer risk after adenoma removal.We compared colorectal cancer risk after removal of high-risk adenomas, low-risk adenomas, and after negative colonoscopy for all colonoscopies performed by colonoscopists with low vs high performance quality (adenoma detection rate20% vs ≥20%) in the Polish screening program between 2000 and 2011, with follow-up until 2017. Findings were validated in the Austrian colonoscopy screening program.A total of 173,288 Polish colonoscopies were included in the study. Of 262 colonoscopists, 160 (61.1%) were low performers, and 102 (38.9%) were high performers; 11.1% of individuals had low-risk and 6.6% had high-risk adenomas removed at screening; 82.2% had no adenomas. During 10 years of follow-up, 443 colorectal cancers were diagnosed. For low-risk adenoma individuals, colorectal cancer incidence was 0.55% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.40-0.75) with low-performing colonoscopists vs 0.22% (95% CI 0.14-0.34) with high-performing colonoscopists (hazard ratio [HR] 2.35; 95% CI 1.31-4.21; P = .004). For individuals with high-risk adenomas, colorectal cancer incidence was 1.14% (95% CI 0.87-1.48) with low-performing colonoscopists vs 0.43% (95% CI 0.27-0.69) with high-performing colonoscopists (HR 2.69; 95% CI 1.62-4.47; P.001). After negative colonoscopy, colorectal cancer incidence was 0.30% (95% CI 0.27-0.34) for individuals examined by low-performing colonoscopists, vs 0.15% (95% CI 0.11-0.20) for high-performing (HR 2.10; 95% CI 1.52-2.91; P.001). The observed trends were reproduced in the Austrian validation cohort.Our results suggest that endoscopist performance may be an important contributor in addition to polyp characteristics in determining colorectal cancer risk after colonoscopy screening.

Background: The risk of hepatobiliary and pancreatic cancer in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) with or without concomitant primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) has not been reliably quantified in large, prospective studies with long-term follow-up. Methods: We performed a population cohort study of all patients diagnosed with IBD in Norway and Sweden from 1987 to 2015. Participants were followed through linkage to national cancer, cause of death and population registers. We calculated standardized incidence ratios (SIR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and absolute risk of hepatobiliary and pancreatic cancer by PSC status and other clinical characteristics. Results: We identified 141,960 IBD patients, 4,548 (3.2%) of these with concomitant PSC. During a median follow-up time of 10.0 years, we identified 479 biliary tract cancers (SIR 5.2, 95% CI 4.7-5.7), 127 hepatocellular carcinomas (SIR 2.1, 95% CI 1.8-2.5) and 282 pancreatic cancers (SIR 1.3, 95% CI 1.2-1.5). The relative risks were considerably higher in patients with PSC, with SIRs of 142 (95% CI 125-160) for biliary tract, 27.7 (95% CI 19.4-38.5) for hepatocellular, and 9.0 (95% CI 6.3-12.6) for pancreatic cancer. For IBD patients without PSC, we found SIRs of 2.5 (95% CI 2.2-2.9), 1.5 (1.2-1.8), and 1.2 (1.1-1.4) for biliary tract cancer, hepatocellular carcinoma, and pancreatic cancer, respectively. Conclusion: Patients with IBD experience a substantially increased risk of biliary tract cancer. Although the risk is largely confined to patients with concomitant PSC, non-PSC patients also confer a moderate excess risk. Citation Format: Jingru Yu, Erle Refsum, Lise M. Helsingen, Trine Folseraas, Alexander Ploner, Paulina Wieszczy, Ishita Barua, Henriette C. Jodal, Espen Melum, Magnus Løberg, Johannes Blom, Michael Bretthauer, Hans-Olov Adami, Mette Kalager, Weimin Ye. Risk of hepatobiliary & pancreatic cancer in inflammatory bowel disease [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021; 2021 Apr 10-15 and May 17-21. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(13_Suppl):Abstract nr 841.

Improved understanding of the subsequent risk death from colorectal cancer (CRC) among individuals who had adenomas removed is needed. We aimed to quantify this risk using prospectively collected data from population-based cohorts.Using Norwegian and Swedish registries, a cohort of 90,864 individuals with colorectal adenomas removed between 1980 and 2013 was identified. Surveillance was only recommended for high-risk adenomas. The validity of the registry data did not allow classification into low- and high-risk adenomas. Virtually complete follow-up was achieved through linkage to nationwide registers. We calculated incidence-based standardised mortality ratios (SMRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).The median follow-up was 7.2 years; 48,058 individuals were followed for more than 10 years. We observed 819 deaths (0.9%) from CRC and expected 731 CRC deaths (0.8%), corresponding to an absolute excess risk of 88 cases (0.1%) and a relative risk of 12% (SMR 1.12; 95%CI 1.05-1.20). The relative risk of CRC death following adenoma removal was slightly higher in Sweden (SMR 1.22; 95%CI 1.11-1.34) than in Norway (SMR 1.03; 95%CI 0.93-1.14), and higher in women (SMR 1.24; 95%CI 1.12-1.36) than in men (SMR 1.02; 95%CI 0.93-1.13). Among individuals with more than 10 years of follow-up, the estimates were similar to the overall cohort, absolute excess risk 0.1% (SMR 1.15; 95%CI 1.06-1.24).The excess risk of CRC death following adenoma removal is small. Optimal surveillance recommendations should be tested in randomised trials.

SummaryBackground Both aspirin use and screening with flexible sigmoidoscopy or guaiac faecal occult blood testing (FOBT) may reduce mortality from colorectal cancer, but comparative effectiveness of these interventions is unknown. Aim To compare aspirin to guaiac FOBT screening with regard to incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer in a network meta-analysis. Methods We searched Medline, EMBASE and the COCHRANE central register (CENTRAL) for relevant randomised trials identified until 31 October 2015. Randomised trials in average-risk populations that reported colorectal cancer mortality, colorectal cancer incidence, or both, with a minimum follow-up of 2 years, and more than 100 randomised individuals were included. Three investigators independently extracted data. We calculated relative risks [RR with 95% predictive intervals (PrIs)] for the comparison of the interventions by frequentist network meta-analyses. Results The effect of aspirin on colorectal cancer mortality was similar to FOBT (RR 1.03; 95% PrI 0.76–1.39) and flexible sigmoidoscopy (RR 1.16; 95% PrI 0.84–1.60). Aspirin was more effective than FOBT (RR 0.36; 95% PrI 0.22–0.59) and flexible sigmoidoscopy (RR 0.37; 95% PrI 0.22–0.62) in preventing death from or cancer in the proximal colon. Aspirin was equally effective as screening in reducing colorectal cancer incidence, while flexible sigmoidoscopy was superior to FOBT (RR 0.84; 95% PrI 0.72–0.97). Conclusions Low-dose aspirin seems to be equally effective as flexible sigmoidoscopy or guaiac FOBT screening to reduce colorectal cancer incidence and mortality, and more effective for cancers in the proximal colon. A randomised comparative effectiveness trial of aspirin vs. screening is warranted.

Background & Aims Recommendation of surveillance colonoscopy should be based on risk of colorectal cancer and death after adenoma removal. We aimed to develop a risk classification system based on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality following adenoma removal. Methods We performed a multicenter population-based cohort study of 236,089 individuals (median patient age, 56 years; 37.8% male) undergoing screening colonoscopies with adequate bowel cleansing and cecum intubation at 132 centers in the Polish National Colorectal Cancer Screening Program, from 2000 through 2011. Subjects were followed for a median 7.1 years and information was collected on colorectal cancer development and death. We used recursive partitioning and multivariable Cox models to identify associations between colorectal cancer risk and patient and adenoma characteristics (diameter, growth pattern, grade of dysplasia, and number of adenomas). We developed a risk classification system based on standardized incidence ratios, using data from the Polish population for comparison. The primary endpoints were colorectal cancer incidence and colorectal cancer death. Results We identified 130 colorectal cancers in individuals who had adenomas removed at screening (46.5 per 100,000 person-years) vs 309 in individuals without adenomas (22.2 per 100,000 person-years). Compared with individuals without adenomas, adenomas ≥20 mm in diameter and high-grade dysplasia were associated with increased risk of colorectal cancer (adjusted hazard ratios 9.25; 95% confidence interval [CI] 6.39–13.39, and 3.58; 95% CI 1.96–6.54, respectively). Compared with the general population, colorectal cancer risk was higher or comparable only for individuals with adenomas ≥20 mm in diameter (standardized incidence ratio [SIR] 2.07; 95% CI 1.40–2.93) or with high-grade dysplasia (SIR 0.79; 95% CI 0.39–1.41), whereas for individuals with other adenoma characteristics the risk was lower (SIR 0.35; 95% CI 0.28–0.44). We developed a high-risk classification based on adenoma size ≥20 mm or high-grade dysplasia (instead of the current high-risk classification cutoff of ≥3 adenomas or any adenoma with villous growth pattern, high-grade dysplasia, or ≥10 mm in diameter). Our classification system would reduce the number of individuals classified as high-risk and requiring intensive surveillance from 15,242 (36.5%) to 3980 (9.5%), without increasing risk of colorectal cancer in patients with adenomas (risk difference per 100,000 person-years, 5.6; 95% CI –10.7 to 22.0). Conclusions Using data from the Polish National Colorectal Cancer Screening Program, we developed a risk classification system that would reduce the number of individuals classified as high risk and require intensive surveillance more than 3-fold, without increasing risk of colorectal cancer in patients with adenomas. This system could optimize the use of surveillance colonoscopy.

There is considerable variation in the quality of colonoscopy performance. The Norwegian quality assurance programme Gastronet registers outpatient colonoscopies performed in Norwegian endoscopy centres. The aim of Gastronet is long-term improvement of endoscopist and centre performance by annual feedback of performance data.The objective of this article is to perform an analysis of trends of quality indicators for colonoscopy in Gastronet.This prospective cohort study included 73,522 outpatient colonoscopies from 73 endoscopists at 25 endoscopy centres from 2003 to 2012. We used multivariate logistic regression with adjustment for relevant variables to determine annual trends of three performance indicators: caecum intubation rate, pain during the procedure, and detection rate of polyps ≥5 mm.The proportion of severely painful colonoscopies decreased from 14.8% to 9.2% (relative risk reduction of 38%; OR = 0.92 per year in Gastronet; 95% CI 0.86-1.00; p = 0.045). Caecal intubation (OR = 0.99; 95% CI 0.94-1.04; p = 0.6) and polyp detection (OR = 1.03; 95% CI 0.99-1.07; p = 0.15) remained unchanged during the study period.Pain at colonoscopy showed a significant decrease during years of Gastronet participation while caecal intubation and polyp detection remained unchanged - independent of the use of sedation and/or analgesics and level of endoscopist experience. This may be due to the Gastronet audit, but effects of improved endoscopy technology cannot be excluded.

Background: Current guidelines recommend surveillance colonoscopies after polyp removal depending on the number and characteristics of polyps, but there is a lack of evidence supporting the recommendations. This report outlines the rationale and design of two randomized trials and one observational study investigating evidence-based surveillance strategies following polyp removal. Study design and endpoints: The EPoS studies started to recruit patients in April 2015. EPoS study I randomizes 13 746 patients with low-risk adenomas (1-2 tubular adenomas size = 10mm in diameter, or adenoma with high-grade dysplasia, or >25% villous features) to surveillance after 3, 5, and 10 years, or 5 and 10 years only. EPoS study III offers surveillance after 5 and 10 years to patients with serrated polyps >= 10mm in diameter at any location, or serrated polyps >= 5mm in diameter proximal to the splenic flexure. All polyps are removed before patients enter the trials. The primary end point is colorectal cancer incidence after 10 years. We assume a colorectal cancer risk of 1% for patients in EPoS I, and 2% for patients in EPoS II. Using a noninferiority hypothesis with an equivalence interval of 0.5% for EPoS I and 0.7% for EPoS II, the trials are 90% powered to uncover differences larger than the equivalence intervals. For EPoS III, no power analyses have been performed. Conclusions: The present trials aim to develop evidence-based strategies for polyp surveillance, thereby maximizing effectiveness and minimizing resources.

Background & Aims Screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) with sigmoidoscopy reduces CRC incidence by detecting and removing adenomas. The number needed to screen is a measure of screening efficiency, but is not directly associated with adenoma removal. We propose the following 2 new metrics for quantifying the relationship between adenoma removal and CRC prevented: number of adenomas needed to remove (NNR) and adenoma dwell time avoided (DTA). Methods We collected data from 4 randomized trials of sigmoidoscopy screening (1 in the United States and 3 in Europe) to assess NNR and DTA. For each trial, NNR was computed as the number of adenomas removed from subjects in the intervention group, divided by the number of CRCs prevented. DTA was computed similarly but taking into account the timing of adenoma removal. Combined results across trials were assessed using standard meta-analytic techniques. Results The estimated NNR for the PLCO (Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian) trial was 74 (95% confidence interval [CI], 56–110), for the NORCCAP (Norwegian Colorectal Cancer Prevention) trial was 71 (95% CI, 44–174), for the SCORE (Screening for Colon Rectum) trial was 27 (95% CI, 14–135), and for the UKFSST (UK Flexible Sigmoidoscopy Screening Trial) was 36 (95% CI, 28–52). The combined estimate (meta-analysis) of NNR was 52 (95% CI, 36–93) assuming heterogeneity (P for heterogeneity = .014). DTA estimates among trials ranged from 278 to 730 years, with a combined estimate of 500 (95% CI, 344–833) years assuming heterogeneity (P for heterogeneity = .035), or 2 CRC cases prevented per 1000 adenoma dwell years avoided. The combined estimates of NNR and DTA restricted to advanced adenomas were 13 (95% CI, 9–22) and 122 (95% CI, 90–190) years, respectively. Conclusions We collected data from 4 randomized trials of sigmoidoscopy screening for CRC to develop metrics of endoscopic efficiency, NNR and DTA, which are directly linked to adenoma detection and removal. They can be used to compare screening among endoscopic modalities and to more precisely measure adenoma to carcinoma transition rates.

Background Colonoscopy performance varies between endoscopists, but little is known about the impact of endoscopy assistants on key performance indicators. We used a large prospective colonoscopy quality database to perform an exploratory study to evaluate differences in selected quality indicators between endoscopy assistants. Methods All colonoscopies reported to the Norwegian colonoscopy quality assurance register Gastronet can be used to trace individual endoscopy assistants. We analyzed key quality indicators (cecum intubation rate, polyp detection rate, colonoscopies rated as severely painful, colonoscopies with sedation or analgesia, and satisfaction with information) for colonoscopies performed between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2014. Differences between individual assistants were analyzed by fitting multivariable logistic regression models, with the best performing assistant at each participating hospital as reference. All models were adjusted for the endoscopist. Results 63 endoscopy assistants from 12 hospitals assisted in 15 365 colonoscopies. Compared with their top performing peers from the same hospital, one assistant was associated with cecum intubation failure, four with poor polyp detection, nine with painful colonoscopy, 16 with administration of sedation or analgesics during colonoscopy, and three with patient dissatisfaction about information given relating to the colonoscopy. The number of procedures during the study period or lifetime experience as an endoscopy assistant were not associated with any quality indicator. Conclusion In this exploratory study, there was little variation on important colonoscopy quality indicators between endoscopy assistants. However, there were differences among assistants that may be clinically important. Endoscopy assistants should be subject to quality surveillance similarly to endoscopists.

Objective There is uncertainty whether cancer screening affects participant incentives for favourable lifestyle. The present study investigates long-term effects of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening on lifestyle changes. Design In 1999–2001, men and women drawn from the population registry were randomised to screening for CRC by flexible sigmoidoscopy (‘invited-to-screening’ arm) or to no-screening (control arm) in the Norwegian Colorectal Cancer Prevention trial. A subgroup of 3043 individuals in the ‘invited-to-screening’ and 2819 in the control arm, aged 50–55 years, randomised during 2001 had their lifestyle assessed by a questionnaire at inclusion and after 11 years (42% of cohort). The outcome was 11-year changes in lifestyle factors (body weight, smoking status, physical exercise, selected dietary habits) and in total lifestyle score (0–4 points, translating to the number of lifestyle recommendations adhered to). We compared outcomes in the two randomisation arms and attendees with positive versus negative findings. Results Total lifestyle scores improved in both arms. The improvement was smaller in the ‘invited-to-screening’ arm (score 1.43 at inclusion; 1.58 after 11 years) compared with the control arm (score 1.49 at inclusion; 1.67 after 11 years); adjusted difference −0.05 (95% CI −0.09 to −0.01; p=0.03). The change in the score was less favourable in screening attendees with a positive compared with negative screening result; adjusted difference −0.16 (95% CI −0.25 to −0.08; p Conclusions The present study suggests that possible unfavourable lifestyle changes after CRC screening are modest. Lifestyle counselling may be considered as part of cancer screening programmes. Trial registration number NCT00119912.

Background & Aims Endoscopic screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) is performed at longer time intervals than the fecal occult blood test or screenings for breast or prostate cancer. This causes concerns about interval cancers, which have been proposed to progress more rapidly. We compared outcomes of patients with interval CRCs after sigmoidoscopy screening vs outcomes of patients with CRC who had not been screened. Methods We performed a secondary analysis of a randomized sigmoidoscopy screening trial in Norway with 98,684 participants (age range, 50–64 years) who were randomly assigned to groups that were (n = 20,552) or were not (n = 78,126) invited for sigmoidoscopy screening from 1999 through 2001; participants were followed up for a median 14.8 years. We compared CRC mortality and all-cause mortality between individuals who underwent screening and were diagnosed with CRC 30 days or longer after screening (interval cancer group, n = 163) and individuals diagnosed with CRC in the nonscreened group (controls, n = 1740). All CRCs in the control group were identified when they developed symptoms (clinically detected CRCs). Analyses were stratified by cancer site. We used Cox regression to estimate hazard ratio (HRs), adjusted for age and sex. Results Over the follow-up period, 43 individuals in the interval cancer group died from CRC; among controls, 525 died from CRC. CRC mortality (adjusted HR, 0.98; 95% confidence interval, 0.72–1.35; P = .92), rectosigmoid cancer mortality (adjusted HR, 1.10; 95% confidence interval, 0.63–1.92; P = .74), and all-cause mortality (adjusted HR, 0.99; 95% confidence interval, 0.76–1.27; P = .91) did not differ significantly between the interval cancer group and controls. Conclusions In this randomized sigmoidoscopy screening trial, mortality did not differ significantly between individuals with interval CRCs and unscreened patients with clinically detected CRCs. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00119912 .

Surveillance is recommended for various GI cancers, and substantial resources are invested. However, little is known about the effect of surveillance, neither for good, nor for bad. Most evidence stems from observational studies, but observational studies of surveillance can be subject to various biases that may severely influence the results. In this chapter we discuss challenges related to various research questions, study designs, choice of endpoints, and how to deal with different forms of bias. We hope this chapter will be helpful for researchers when performing high-quality studies of surveillance, and to enable physicians and policy-makers to understand the possibilities and limitations of current evidence.

Colonoscopes with gradual stiffness have recently been developed to enhance cecal intubation.We aimed to determine if the performance of gradual stiffness colonoscopes is noninferior to that of magnetic endoscopic imaging (MEI)-guided variable stiffness colonoscopes.Consecutive patients were randomized to screening colonoscopy with Fujifilm gradual stiffness or Olympus MEI-guided variable stiffness colonoscopes. The primary endpoint was cecal intubation rate (noninferiority limit 5%). Secondary endpoints included cecal intubation time. We estimated absolute risk differences with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).We enrolled 475 patients: 222 randomized to the gradual stiffness instrument, and 253 to the MEI-guided variable stiffness instrument. Cecal intubation rate was 91.7% in the gradual stiffness group versus 95.6% in the variable stiffness group. The adjusted absolute risk for cecal intubation failure was 4.3% higher in the gradual stiffness group than in the variable stiffness group (upper CI border 8.1%). Median cecal intubation time was 13 minutes in the gradual stiffness group and 10 minutes in the variable stiffness group (The study is inconclusive with regard to noninferiority because the 95% CI for the difference in cecal intubation rate between the groups crosses the noninferiority margin. (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01895504).

Background and study aims: Colonoscopy is frequently performed with opioid analgesia, but the impact of drug delivery timing has not been studied in detail. Low-dose opioids administered before the procedure may provide better pain control than on-demand administration when the patient experiences pain. Patients and methods: A total of 119 outpatients were randomized to receive 50 μg of fentanyl either before colonoscopy (routine group) or on demand if needed during the colonoscopy (on-demand group). Additional fentanyl or midazolam was allowed in both groups if required. The primary outcome was pain measured on both a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS; 0 = no pain, 100 = worst possible pain) and a four-point Likert scale (no, slight, moderate, or severe pain) immediately after the procedure. Results: A total of 61 patients in the routine group and 58 patients in the on-demand group were included in the study. Mean VAS pain scores were 27.4 mm in the routine group and 30.5 mm in the on-demand group (mean difference – 3.2 mm; 95 % confidence interval – 11.9 to 5.5; P = 0.5). On the Likert scale, moderate or severe pain was experienced by 25.0 % and 31.5 % of patients in the routine and on-demand groups, respectively (p = 0.5). Cecal intubation rate and time to reach the cecum were similar between the groups. More patients in the on-demand group (81.0 %) than in the routine group (62.3 %) were able to leave the clinic without the need for recovery time (P = 0.03). Conclusion: Routine administration of fentanyl did not provide better analgesia during colonoscopy than on-demand fentanyl, and more patients needed time for recovery. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01786434).

Although colonoscopic surveillance of patients after removal of adenomas is widely promoted, little is known about colorectal-cancer mortality among these patients.Using the linkage of the Cancer Registry and the Cause of Death Registry of Norway, we estimated colorectal-cancer mortality among patients who had undergone removal of colorectal adenomas during the period from 1993 through 2007. Patients were followed through 2011. We calculated standardized incidence-based mortality ratios (SMRs) using rates for the Norwegian population at large for comparison. Norwegian guidelines recommended colonoscopy after 10 years for patients with high-risk adenomas (adenomas with high-grade dysplasia, a villous component, or a size ≥10 mm) and after 5 years for patients with three or more adenomas; no surveillance was recommended for patients with low-risk adenomas. Polyp size and exact number were not available in the registry. We defined high-risk adenomas as multiple adenomas and adenomas with a villous component or high-grade dysplasia.We identified 40,826 patients who had had colorectal adenomas removed. During a median follow-up of 7.7 years (maximum, 19.0), 1273 patients were given a diagnosis of colorectal cancer. A total of 398 deaths from colorectal cancer were expected and 383 were observed, for an SMR of 0.96 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.87 to 1.06) among patients who had had adenomas removed. Colorectal-cancer mortality was increased among patients with high-risk adenomas (expected deaths, 209; observed deaths, 242; SMR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.31), but it was reduced among patients with low-risk adenomas (expected deaths, 189; observed deaths, 141; SMR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.63 to 0.88).After a median of 7.7 years of follow-up, colorectal-cancer mortality was lower among patients who had had low-risk adenomas removed and moderately higher among those who had had high-risk adenomas removed, as compared with the general population. (Funded by the Norwegian Cancer Society and others.).

Objective Although serrated polyps may be precursors of colorectal cancer (CRC), prospective data on the long-term CRC risk in individuals with serrated polyps are lacking. Design In a population-based randomised trial, 12 955 individuals aged 50–64 years were screened with flexible sigmoidoscopy, while 78 220 individuals comprised the control arm. We used Cox models to estimate HRs with 95% CIs for CRC among individuals with ≥1 large serrated polyp (≥10 mm in diameter), compared with individuals with adenomas at screening, and to population controls, and multivariate logistic regression to assess polyp risk factors for CRC. Results A total of 103 individuals had large serrated polyps, of which 81 were included in the analyses. Non-advanced adenomas were found in 1488 individuals, advanced adenomas in 701. Median follow-up was 10.9 years. Compared with the control arm, the HR for CRC was 2.5 (95% CI 0.8 to 7.8) in individuals with large serrated polyps, 2.0 (95% CI 1.3 to 2.9) in individuals with advanced adenomas and 0.6 (95% CI 0.4 to 1.1) in individuals with non-advanced adenomas. A large serrated polyp was an independent risk factor for CRC, adjusted for histology, size and multiplicity of concomitant adenomas (OR 3.3; 95% CI 1.3 to 8.6). Twenty-three large serrated polyps found at screening were left in situ for a median of 11.0 years. None developed into a malignant tumour. Conclusions Individuals with large serrated polyps have an increased risk of CRC, comparable with individuals with advanced adenomas. However, this risk may not be related to malignant growth of the serrated polyp. Trial registration number The Norwegian Colorectal Cancer Screening trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT00119912).

Screening colonoscopy for colorectal cancer (CRC) is recommended in several countries, but uptake rates are often low. Fear of pain and also time-consuming costly sedation are barriers for colonoscopy, and thus development of colonoscopy equipment that decreases patient discomfort is worthwhile. This randomized controlled trial investigated the performance of an ultrathin colonoscope in CRC screening.Consecutive participants in a colonoscopy screening trial were randomized to examination with an ultrathin prototype colonoscope or a standard colonoscope. The main outcome measure was pain during the examination. Participants rated pain (no, slight, moderate, severe) using a validated questionnaire.From 187 enrolled participants (80 women [43 %]), 162 (87 %) responded to the questionnaire. The study groups were similar regarding baseline characteristics. Pain scores were significantly lower in the prototype instrument group compared with the standard group (78 % vs. 29 % of patients with no pain in prototype and standard groups, respectively; odds ratio [OR] 0.11; 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.06 - 0.23; P0.001). Cecal intubation rate was 98 % in the prototype group and 92 % in the standard group (P = 0.085). Sedation was used in 2 % and 7 % in the prototype and standard groups respectively (P = 0.12). Adenoma detection rate was 13 % in the prototype group vs. 24 % in the standard group (P = 0.052).The new ultrathin Olympus colonoscope decreases patient pain during screening colonoscopy. This feature may improve uptake and patient satisfaction in screening colonoscopy. Further study is needed to evaluate the lower adenoma detection rate.

Background Colonoscopy is associated with pain and discomfort, and intravenous analgesics and sedatives are widely used. There are several disadvantages regarding this practice, including risk of complications, resources demanded, and amnesia after sedation. In spite of promising results in previous studies, nitrous oxide is rarely used at endoscopy centers around the world. Objective To investigate the efficiency of nitrous oxide versus placebo as an analgesic during colonoscopy without sedation. Design A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Setting The endoscopy unit at Oslo University Hospital Rikshospitalet, Oslo, Norway, between June 2006 and May 2008. Patients This study involved patients undergoing elective colonoscopy. Intervention Patients inhaled nitrous oxide or placebo on demand. Main Outcome Measurements The participants filled in a questionnaire regarding their experiences with the examination. Pain was graded from 1 (no pain) to 4 (severe pain). Results We recruited 199 patients. We randomized 97 patients to the nitrous oxide group and 102 to the control group. The groups were comparable regarding demographic factors. Median patient-reported pain was 2 in both the nitrous oxide group and the control group (interquartile range 2-3 in both groups). Additional sedatives and analgesics were given equally often and in similar doses in both groups. No side effects related to administration of nitrous oxide were reported. Limitations The questionnaire was returned by 76% of the patients. The study gas was given on demand, not continuously. Conclusion Nitrous oxide given intermittently is not an effective substitution for intravenous on-demand sedation and analgesics in the setting of colonoscopy without sedation. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT00318825.)