Search

Obesity is a growing global public health problem. More than half the European and North American population is overweight or obese. Colon and rectum cancers are still the second leading cause of cancer death worldwide, and epidemiological data support an association between obesity and colorectal cancers (CRCs).To review the literature on CRC epidemiology in obese subjects, assessing the effects of obesity, including childhood or maternal obesity, on CRC, diagnosis, management, and prognosis, and discussing targeted prophylactic measures.We searched PubMed for obesity/overweight/metabolic syndrome and CRC. Other key words included 'staging', 'screening', 'treatment', 'weight loss', 'bariatric surgery' and 'chemotherapy'.In Europe, about 11% of CRCs are attributed to overweight and obesity. Epidemiological data suggest that obesity is associated with a 30%-70% increased risk of colon cancer in men, the association being less consistent in women. Visceral fat or abdominal obesity seems to be of greater concern than subcutaneous fat obesity, and any 1 kg/mDespite a growing body of evidence linking obesity to CRC, many questions remain unanswered, including whether we should screen patients with obesity earlier or propose prophylactic bariatric surgery for certain patients with obesity.

Background The risk of advanced pathology increases with polyp size, as does the potential for mismanagement when optical diagnosis is used. This study aimed to evaluate the proportion of patients who would be assigned inadequate surveillance intervals when different size cutoffs are adopted for use of optical diagnosis. Methods In a post hoc analysis of three prospective studies, the use of optical diagnosis was evaluated for three polyp size groups: 1–3, 1–5, and 1–10 mm. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients in whom advanced adenomas were found and optical diagnosis resulted in delayed surveillance. Secondary outcomes included agreements between surveillance intervals based on high confidence optical diagnosis and pathology outcomes, reduction in histopathological examinations, and proportion of patients who could receive an immediate surveillance recommendation. Results We included 3374 patients (7291 polyps ≤ 10 mm) undergoing complete colonoscopies (median age 66.0 years, 75.2 % male, 29.6 % for screening). The percentage of patients with advanced adenomas and either 2- or 7-year delayed surveillance intervals (n = 79) was 3.8 %, 15.2 %, and 25.3 % for size cutoffs of 1–3, 1–5, and 1–10 mm polyps, respectively (P Conclusion A 3-mm cutoff for clinical implementation of optical diagnosis resulted in a very low risk of delayed management of advanced neoplasia while showing high surveillance interval agreement with pathology and a one-third reduction in overall requirement for pathology examinations.

The aim of this study was to compare high-volume polyethylene glycol (PEG) with low-volume PEG with bisacodyl split-dosing regimens.Adult outpatients in 10 Canadian tertiary hospitals were randomized, stratified by morning or afternoon colonoscopy, to high-volume split-dose PEG (2 L + 2 L) (High-SD) or low volume (1 L + 1 L) + bisacodyl (15 mg) PEG (Low-SD), with a second randomization to liquid or low-residue diets. The primary end point, using noninferiority hypothesis testing, was adequate bowel cleansing (Boston Bowel Preparation Scale total score of ≥6, with each of 3 colonic segments subscores ≥2). Secondary objectives were willingness to repeat the preparation, withdrawal time, cecal intubation, and polyp detection rates.Over 29 months, 2314 subjects were randomized to High-SD (N = 1157) or Low-SD (N = 1157) (mean age, 56.2 ± 13.4 y; 52.1% women). Colonoscopy indications were 38.2% diagnostic, 36.8% screening, and 25.0% surveillance, with no between-group imbalances in patient characteristics. Low-SD satisfied noninferiority criteria vs High-SD for adequate bowel cleanliness with only marginally inferior results (90.1% vs 88.1%; P = .02; difference, 2.0%; 95% CI [0.0%; 4.5%]). High-SD was associated with lower willingness to repeat (66.9% vs 91.9%; P.01), was less well tolerated (7.3 ± 2.3 vs 8.1 ± 1.9; P.01), causing more symptoms. No differences in procedural outcomes were noted except for more frequent cecal intubation rates after High-SD (97.4% vs 95.6%; P = .02). Among the High-SD group, adequate bowel preparation was greater after a clear liquid diet (93.6% vs 87.9%; P.01), a finding not seen in the Low-SD group.Low-SD is noninferior to High-SD in providing adequate bowel preparation. Low-SD results in fewer symptoms, with greater willingness to repeat and tolerability. The overall impact of diet was modest.The study was approved by the research ethic boards from all sites and was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02547571).

Hemorrhaging is the main cause of death among combat and civilian injuries and has significant clinical and economic consequences. Despite their vital roles in bleeding management, an optimal topical hemostatic agent (HA) has yet to be developed for a particular scenario. This is partly due to a lack of an overarching quantitative testing technology to characterize the various classes of HAs in vitro. Herein, the feasibility of a novel, contactless, and nondestructive technique to quantitatively measure the shear storage modulus (

Background Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is the standard in the diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions, in particular when combined with rapid onsite evaluation of cytopathology (ROSE). More recently, a fork-tip needle for core biopsy (FNB) has been shown to be associated with excellent diagnostic yield. EUS-FNB alone has however not been compared with EUS-FNA + ROSE in a large clinical trial. Our aim was to compare EUS-FNB alone to EUS-FNA + ROSE in solid pancreatic lesions. Methods A multicenter, non-inferiority, randomized controlled trial involving seven centers was performed. Solid pancreatic lesions referred for EUS were considered for inclusion. The primary end point was diagnostic accuracy. Secondary end points included sensitivity/specificity, mean number of needle passes, and cost. Results 235 patients were randomized: 115 EUS-FNB alone and 120 EUS-FNA + ROSE. Overall, 217 patients had malignant histology. The diagnostic accuracy for malignancy of EUS-FNB alone was non-inferior to EUS-FNA + ROSE at 92.2 % (95 %CI 86.6 %–96.9 %) and 93.3 % (95 %CI 88.8 %–97.9 %), respectively (P = 0.72). Diagnostic sensitivity for malignancy was 92.5 % (95 %CI 85.7 %–96.7 %) for EUS-FNB alone vs. 96.5 % (93.0 %–98.6 %) for EUS-FNA + ROSE (P = 0.46), while specificity was 100 % in both. Adequate histological yield was obtained in 87.5 % of the EUS-FNB samples. The mean (SD) number of needle passes and procedure time favored EUS-FNB alone (2.3 [0.6] passes vs. 3.0 [1.1] passes [P Conclusion EUS-FNB alone is non-inferior to EUS-FNA + ROSE and is associated with fewer needle passes, shorter procedure time, and excellent histological yield at comparable cost.

ObjectiveTo determine whether proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are associated with an increased risk of colorectal cancer, compared with histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs).DesignThe United Kingdom Clinical Practice Research Datalink was used to identify initiators of PPIs and H2RA from 1990 to 2018, with follow-up until 2019. Cox proportional hazards models were fit to estimate marginal HRs and 95% CIs of colorectal cancer. The models were weighted using standardised mortality ratio weights using calendar time-specific propensity scores. Prespecified secondary analyses assessed associations with cumulative duration, cumulative dose and time since treatment initiation. The number needed to harm was calculated at five and 10 years of follow-up.ResultsThe cohort included 1 293 749 and 292 387 initiators of PPIs and H2RAs, respectively, followed for a median duration of 4.9 years. While the use of PPIs was not associated with an overall increased risk of colorectal cancer (HR: 1.02, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.14), HRs increased with cumulative duration of PPI use (ConclusionWhile any use of PPIs was not associated with an increased risk of colorectal cancer compared with H2RAs, prolonged use may be associated with a modest increased risk of this malignancy.

The overprescription of opioids to surgical patients is recognized as an important factor contributing to the opioid crisis. However, the value of prescribing opioid analgesia (OA) vs opioid-free analgesia (OFA) after postoperative discharge remains uncertain.To investigate the feasibility of conducting a full-scale randomized clinical trial (RCT) to assess the comparative effectiveness of OA vs OFA after outpatient general surgery.This parallel, 2-group, assessor-blind, pragmatic pilot RCT was conducted from January 29 to September 3, 2020 (last follow-up on October 2, 2020). at 2 university-affiliated hospitals in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Participants were adult patients (aged ≥18 years) undergoing outpatient abdominal (ie, cholecystectomy, appendectomy, or hernia repair) or breast (ie, partial or total mastectomy) general surgical procedures. Exclusion criteria were contraindications to drugs used in the trial, preoperative opioid use, conditions that could affect assessment of outcomes, and intraoperative or early complications requiring hospitalization.Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive OA (around-the-clock nonopioids and opioids for breakthrough pain) or OFA (around-the-clock nonopioids with increasing doses and/or addition of nonopioid medications for breakthrough pain) after postoperative discharge.Main outcomes were a priori RCT feasibility criteria (ie, rates of surgeon agreement, patient eligibility, patient consent, treatment adherence, loss to follow-up, and missing follow-up data). Secondary outcomes included pain intensity and interference, analgesic intake, 30-day unplanned health care use, and adverse events. Between-group comparison of outcomes followed the intention-to-treat principle.A total of 15 surgeons were approached; all (100%; 95% CI, 78%-100%) agreed to have patients recruited and adhered to the study procedures. Rates of patient eligibility and consent were 73% (95% CI, 66%-78%) and 57% (95% CI, 49%-65%), respectively. Seventy-six patients were randomized (39 [51%] to OA and 37 [49%] to OFA) and included in the intention-to-treat analysis (mean [SD] age, 55.5 [14.5] years; 50 [66%] female); 40 (53%) underwent abdominal surgery, and 36 (47%) underwent breast surgery. Seventy-five patients (99%; 95% CI, 93%-100%) adhered to the allocated treatment; 1 patient randomly assigned to OFA received an opioid prescription. Seventeen patients (44%) randomly assigned to OA consumed opioids after discharge. Seventy-three patients (96%; 95% CI, 89%-99%) completed the 30-day follow-up. The rate of missing questionnaires was 37 of 3724 (1%; 95% CI, 0.7%-1.4%). All the a priori RCT feasibility criteria were fulfilled.The findings of this pilot RCT support the feasibility of conducting a robust, full-scale RCT to inform evidence-based prescribing of analgesia after outpatient general surgery.ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04254679.

High-quality evidence guiding optimal transfusion and other supportive therapies to reduce bleeding is needed to improve outcomes for patients with either severe bleeding or hemostatic disorders that are associated with poor outcomes. Alongside challenges in performing high-quality clinical trials in patient populations who are at risk of bleeding or who are actively bleeding, the interpretation of research evaluating hemostatic agents has been limited by inconsistency in the choice of primary trial outcomes. This lack of standardization of primary endpoints or outcomes decreases the ability of clinicians to assess the validity of endpoints and compare research results across studies, impairs meta-analytic efforts, and, ultimately, delays the translation of research results into clinical practice. To address this challenge, an international panel of experts was convened by the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute and the US Department of Defense on September 23 and 24, 2019, to develop expert opinion, consensus-based recommendations for primary clinical trial outcomes for pivotal trials in pediatric and adult patients with six categories in various clinical settings. This publication documents the conference proceedings from the workshop funded by the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute and the US Department of Defense that consolidated expert opinion regarding clinically meaningful outcomes across a wide range of disciplines to provide guidance for outcomes of future trials of hemostatic products and agents for patients with active bleeding.

Background Major prevention trials for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) are now focusing on multidomain lifestyle interventions. However, the exact combination of behavioral factors related to AD pathology remains unclear. In 2 cohorts of cognitively unimpaired individuals at risk of AD, we examined which combinations of personality traits, neuropsychiatric symptoms, and cognitive lifestyle (years of education or lifetime cognitive activity) related to the pathological hallmarks of AD, amyloid-β, and tau deposits. Methods A total of 115 older adults with a parental or multiple-sibling family history of sporadic AD (PREVENT-AD [PRe-symptomatic EValuation of Experimental or Novel Treatments for AD] cohort) underwent amyloid and tau positron emission tomography and answered several questionnaires related to behavioral attributes. Separately, we studied 117 mutation carriers from the DIAN (Dominant Inherited Alzheimer Network) study group cohort with amyloid positron emission tomography and behavioral data. Using partial least squares analysis, we identified latent variables relating amyloid or tau pathology with combinations of personality traits, neuropsychiatric symptoms, and cognitive lifestyle. Results In PREVENT-AD, lower neuroticism, neuropsychiatric burden, and higher education were associated with less amyloid deposition (p = .014). Lower neuroticism and neuropsychiatric features, along with higher measures of openness and extraversion, were related to less tau deposition (p = .006). In DIAN, lower neuropsychiatric burden and higher education were also associated with less amyloid (p = .005). The combination of these factors accounted for up to 14% of AD pathology. Conclusions In the preclinical phase of both sporadic and autosomal dominant AD, multiple behavioral features were associated with AD pathology. These results may suggest potential pathways by which multidomain interventions might help delay AD onset or progression.

Background Despite the existing evidence, the omission of antibiotics in the management of acute uncomplicated diverticulitis has not gained widespread acceptance. Objective This study aims to incorporate the input of both patients and physicians on the omission of antibiotics in uncomplicated diverticulitis to generate noninferiority margins for 3 outcomes. Design This was a mixed-methods study, including in-person interviews with patients and a Delphi process with physicians. Settings North American patients and physicians participated. Patients Consecutive patients undergoing colonoscopy, 40% of whom had a previous history of diverticulitis, were selected. Interventions Informational video (for patients) and evidence summaries (for physicians) regarding antibiotics in diverticulitis were reviewed. Main outcomes measures Noninferiority margins were generated for time to reach full recovery, persistent diverticulitis, and progression to complicated diverticulitis in the context of a nonantibiotic strategy. Consensus was defined as an interquartile range Results Fifty patients participated in this study. To avoid antibiotics, patients were willing to accept up to 5.0 (3.0-7.0) days longer to reach full recovery, up to an absolute increase of 4.0% (4.0-6.0) in the risk of developing persistent diverticulitis, and up to an absolute increase of 2.0% (0-3.8) in the risk of progressing to complicated diverticulitis. A total of 55 physicians participated in the Delphi (round 1 response rate = 94.8%; round 2 response rate = 100%). Consensus noninferiority margins were generated for persistent diverticulitis (4.0%, 4.0-5.0) and progression to complicated diverticulitis (3.0%, 2.0-3.0), but could not be generated for time to reach full recovery (5.0 days, 3.5-7.0). Limitations Patients were recruited from a single institution, and Delphi participants were invited and not randomly selected. Conclusion Noninferiority margins were generated for 3 important outcomes after the treatment of acute uncomplicated diverticulitis in the context of a nonantibiotic strategy.

Performance of endoscopic procedures is associated with a risk of infection from COVID-19. This risk can be reduced by the use of personal protective equipment (PPE). However, shortage of PPE has emerged as an important issue in managing the pandemic in both traditionally high and low-resource areas. A group of clinicians and researchers from thirteen countries representing low, middle, and high-income areas has developed recommendations for optimal utilization of PPE before, during, and after gastrointestinal endoscopy with particular reference to low-resource situations. We determined that there is limited flexibility with regard to the utilization of PPE between ideal and low-resource settings. Some compromises are possible, especially with regard to PPE use, during endoscopic procedures. We have, therefore, also stressed the need to prevent transmission of COVID-19 by measures other than PPE and to conserve PPE by reduction of patient volume, limiting procedures to urgent or emergent, and reducing the number of staff and trainees involved in procedures. This guidance aims to optimize utilization of PPE and protection of health care providers.

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a very common worldwide condition, affecting about 15-20% of the whole population, and representing a major burden for health-care systems. Because of its frequency, health physicians - family doctors as well as specialists - should be aware of the different pharmacotherapeutic approaches in managing GERD, according to disease severity.Authors summarize the pharmacological management of GERD in adults, present the different pharmaceutical classes, and review the evidence on efficacy for each treatment according to the most common clinical scenarios: non-erosive gastroesophageal reflux disease (NERD), erosive esophagitis (EE), and proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) refractory GERD. They also provide an overview of treatments under development.To date, PPIs remain the most effective treatment option for both NERD and EE. However, Potassium-Competitive Acid blockers (PCAB) may be considered, with at least similar efficacy in Asian populations. Preliminary data suggest that PCABs could be superior to classic PPIs in patients with severe EE, and may also be of particular interest in the management of PPI-refractory GERD patients. Their definitive role in GERD management, however, still remains to be determined based on properly designed and conducted randomized clinical trials.

INTRODUCTION Bowel cleanliness has been shown to be superior with split-dose vs nonsplit preparations; we aimed to directly assess the poorly characterized comparative efficacies of split-dose vs same-day polyethylene glycol (PEG) regimens. METHODS In this study, one of a series of randomized trials performed across 10 Canadian endoscopy units, patients undergoing colonoscopies between 10:30 and 16:30 were allocated to PEG low-volume same-day (15 mg bisacodyl the day before, 2 L the morning of the procedure), low-volume split-dose (15 mg bisacodyl the day before, 1 L + 1 L), or high-volume split-dose (2 L + 2 L). Coprimary endpoints were adequate bowel cleansing based on the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale using in turn different threshold cutoffs. RESULTS Overall, 1,750 subjects were randomized equally across the 3 groups, with no differences in adequate bowel cleanliness rates (low-volume same-day, 90.5%; high-volume split-dose, 92.2%; P = 0.34; and low-volume split-dose, 87.9%; P = 0.17) for the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale ≥6 and 2 for each segment. Willingness to repeat the preparation was not significantly different between low-volume same-day (91.0%) and low-volume split-dose (92.5%; P = 0.40) but was greater than the high-volume split-dose (68.9%; P < 0.01). No significant differences were noted for withdrawal time, cecal intubation, or polyp detection rates. DISCUSSION In this large randomized trial of PEG regimens, low-volume same-day resulted in similar bowel cleanliness compared with high-volume or low-volume split-dosing. Willingness to repeat and tolerability were superior with low-volume same-day compared with high-volume split-dose and similar to low-volume split-dose.

Introduction There are conflicting reports on the effects of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) on acute pancreatitis incidence. Objective The aim was to determine whether use of ACE inhibitors and ARBs is associated with the incidence of acute pancreatitis, compared with use of dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers (dCCBs). Methods We assembled two population-based, new-user, active comparator cohorts using the United Kingdom Clinical Practice Research Datalink linked to the Hospital Episode Statistics repository and Office for National Statistics from 1998 to 2018, with follow-up until 2019. The first cohort included 304,083 ACE inhibitor initiators and 194,431 dCCB initiators. The second cohort included 29,160 ARB initiators and 203,610 dCCB initiators. Cox proportional hazards models were fit to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of acute pancreatitis, comparing ACE inhibitors and ARBs, separately, with dCCBs. Models were weighted using standardized mortality ratio weights generated from calendar time-specific propensity scores. Results ACE inhibitors were associated with an increased risk of acute pancreatitis, compared with dCCBs (64.3 vs 45.2 per 100,000 person-years, respectively; HR 1.45, 95% CI 1.15-1.83). The number needed to harm after 2 and 5 years of use was 2438 and 1019, respectively. In contrast, ARBs were not associated with an increased risk of acute pancreatitis, compared with dCCBs (40.1 vs 47.6 per 100,000 person-years, respectively; HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.60-1.31). Conclusions ACE inhibitors were associated with a modest increased risk of acute pancreatitis compared with dCCBs. This association should be balanced with the known clinical benefits of ACE inhibitors in hypertension management. In contrast, no association was observed with ARBs.

Background and aimsPatients infected with the SARS-CoV-2 usually report fever and respiratory symptoms. However, multiple gastrointestinal (GI) manifestations such as diarrhoea and abdominal pain have been described. The aim of this study was to evaluate the prevalence of GI symptoms, elevated liver enzymes and mortality of patients with COVID-19.MethodsA systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies that included a cohort of patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 were performed from 1 December 2019 to 15 December 2020. Data were collected by conducting a literature search using PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We analysed pooled data on the prevalence of individual GI symptoms and elevated liver enzymes and performed subanalyses to investigate the relationship between GI symptoms/elevated liver enzymes, geographical location, mortality, and intensive care unit (ICU) admission.ResultsThe available data of 78 798 patients positive for SARS-CoV-2 from 158 studies were included in our analysis. The most frequent manifestations were diarrhoea (16.5%, 95% CI 14.2% to 18.4%), nausea (9.7%, 95% CI 9.0% to 13.2%) and elevated liver enzymes (5.6%, 95% CI 4.2% to 9.1%). The overall mortality and GI mortality were 23.5% (95% CI 21.2% to 26.1%) and 3.5% (95% CI 3.1% to 6.2%), respectively. Subgroup analysis showed non-statistically significant associations between GI symptoms/elevated liver enzymes and ICU admissions (OR=1.01, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.83). The GI mortality was 0.9% (95% CI 0.5% to 2.2%) in China and 10.8% (95% CI 7.8% to 11.3%) in the USA.ConclusionGI symptoms/elevated liver enzymes are common in patients with COVID-19. Our subanalyses showed that the presence of GI symptoms/elevated liver enzymes does not appear to affect mortality or ICU admission rate. Furthermore, the proportion of GI mortality among patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 varied based on geographical location.

Background & Aims Primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) has a variable, often progressive, course. Magnetic resonance cholangiography (MRC) is used in the diagnosis of PSC. Magnetic resonance risk scoring systems, called Anali without and with gadolinium, are used to predict disease progression, determined by radiologic factors. We aimed to assess the prognostic value of Anali scores in patients with PSC and validate our findings in a separate cohort. Methods We performed a retrospective study of patients with large-duct PSC (internal cohort, 119 patients in France; external cohort, 119 patients in Canada, Italy, and the United Kingdom). All the first-available MRC results were reviewed by 2 radiologists and the Anali scores were calculated as follows: Anali without gadolinium = (1× dilatation of intrahepatic bile ducts) + (2× dysmorphy) + (1× portal hypertension); Anali with gadolinium = (1× dysmorphy) + (1× parenchymal enhancement heterogeneity). The primary end point was survival without liver transplantation or cirrhosis decompensation. The prognostic value of Anali scores was assessed by Cox regression modeling. Results During a total of 549 patient-years for the internal cohort and 497 patient-years for the external cohort, we recorded 2 and 8 liver transplantations, 4 and 3 liver-related deaths, and 26 and 25 cirrhosis decompensations, respectively. In the univariate analysis, factors associated with survival without liver transplantation or cirrhosis decompensation in the internal cohort were as follows: serum levels of bilirubin, aspartate aminotransferase, alanine aminotransferase, γ-glutamyl transferase, alkaline phosphatase, albumin, and Anali scores. Anali scores without and with gadolinium identified patients' survival without liver transplantation or cirrhosis decompensation with a c-statistic of 0.89 (95% CI, 0.84–0.95) and 0.75 (95% CI, 0.64–0.87), respectively. Independent prognostic factors identified by multivariate analysis were Anali scores and bilirubinemia. The prognostic value of Anali scores was confirmed in the external cohort. Conclusions In internal and external cohorts, we found that Anali scores, determined from MRC, were associated with outcomes of patients with PSC. These scores might be used as prognostic factors.

Background & aims Endoscopic ultrasound guided-biliary drainage (EUS-BD) is a promising alternative to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP); however, its growth has been limited by a lack of multicenter randomized controlled trials (RCT) and dedicated devices. A dedicated EUS-BD lumen- apposing metal stent (LAMS) has recently been developed with the potential to greatly facilitate the technique and safety of the procedure. We aim to compare a first intent approach with EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy with a dedicated biliary LAMS vs. standard ERCP in the management of malignant distal biliary obstruction. Methods The ELEMENT trial is a multicenter single-blinded RCT involving 130 patients in nine Canadian centers. Patients with unresectable, locally advanced, or borderline resectable malignant distal biliary obstruction meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria will be randomized to EUS-choledochoduodenostomy using a LAMS or ERCP with traditional metal stent insertion in a 1:1 proportion in blocks of four. Patients with hilar obstruction, resectable cancer, or benign disease are excluded. The primary endpoint is the rate of stent dysfunction needing re-intervention. Secondary outcomes include technical and clinical success, interruptions in chemotherapy, rate of surgical resection, time to stent dysfunction, and adverse events. Discussion The ELEMENT trial is designed to assess whether EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy using a dedicated LAMS is superior to conventional ERCP as a first-line endoscopic drainage approach in malignant distal biliary obstruction, which is an important and timely question that has not been addressed using an RCT study design. Trial registration Registry name: ClinicalTrials.gov. Registration number: NCT03870386. Date of registration: 03/12/2019.

BackgroundTraditional medical genetics models are unable to meet the growing demand for germline genetic testing (GT) in patients with exocrine pancreatic cancer (PC). This study investigates the impact of an ambulatory oncology clinic-based GT model.MethodsFrom 2012 to 2021, patients with PC were prospectively enrolled and considered for GT. Two chronological cohorts were compared: (1) the preuniversal genetic testing (pre-UGT) cohort, which received GT based on clinical criteria or family history; and (2) the post-UGT cohort, where an 86-gene panel was offered to all patients with PC.ResultsOf 847 eligible patients, 735 (86.8%) were enrolled (pre-UGT, n=579; post-UGT, n=156). A higher proportion of the post-UGT cohort received prospective GT (97.4% vs 58.5%, pConclusionA point-of-care GT model is feasible and expedites access to GT for patients with PC. Strategies to increase the uptake of cascade testing are needed to maximise the clinical impact of an oncology clinic-based GT model.

Background Blood loss and transfusion remain a significant concern in liver resection (LR). Patient blood management (PBM) programs reduce use of transfusions and improve outcomes and costs, but are not standardized for LR. This study sought to create an expert consensus statement on PBM for LR using modified Delphi methodology. Methods An expert panel representing hepato-biliary surgery, anesthesiology, and transfusion medicine was invited to participate. 28 statements addressing the 3 pillars of PBM were created. Panelists were asked to rate statements on a 7-point Likert scale. Three-rounds of iterative rating and feedback were completed anonymously, followed by an in-person meeting. Consensus was reached with at least 70% agreement. Results The 35 experts panel recommended routine pre-operative transfusion risk assessment, and investigation and management of anemia with iron supplementation. Intra-operatively, restrictive fluid administration without routine central line insertion was recommended, along with intermittent hepatic pedicle occlusion and surgical techniques considerations. Specific criteria for restrictive intra-operative and post-operative transfusion strategy were recommended. Conclusions PBM for LR included medical and technical interventions throughout the perioperative continuum, addressing specificities of LR. Diffusion and adoption of these recommendations can standardize PBM for LR to improve patient outcomes and resource utilization.

BACKGROUND Restrictive red blood cell (RBC) transfusion reduces mortality and rebleeding after upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB). However, there is no evidence to guide transfusion strategies in lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB). AIM To assess the association between RBC transfusion strategies and outcomes in patients with LGIB METHODS: This was a post hoc analysis of the UK National Comparative Audit of LGIB and the Use of Blood. The relationships between liberal RBC transfusion and clinical outcomes of rebleeding, mortality and a composite outcome for safe discharge were examined. Transfusion strategy was dichotomised and defined as "liberal" when transfusion was administered for haemoglobin (Hb) ≥80 g/L (or ≥90 g/L in patients with acute coronary syndrome) or major haemorrhage, and "restrictive" otherwise. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to assess the independent association between liberal RBC transfusion and outcomes. RESULTS Of 2528 consecutive patients enrolled from 143 hospitals in the original study, 666 (26.3%) received RBC transfusion (mean age 73.3 ± 16 years, 49% female, initial mean haemoglobin 90 ± 24 g/L, 2.3% had haemodynamic instability). The rebleeding rate in transfused patients was 42.3%. After adjusting for potential confounders, there was no difference between liberal and restrictive RBC transfusion strategies for the odds of rebleeding (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.6-1.22), in-hospital mortality (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.3-1.1) or of achieving the composite outcome (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.5-1.1). CONCLUSION Although these results could be due to residual confounding, they provide an important foundation for the design of randomised trials to evaluate transfusion strategies for LGIB.

Background and Aims: The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of Hemospray (Cook Medical, Winston-Salem, NC, USA), a hemostatic powder, as monotherapy for active peptic ulcer bleeding. Methods: In this prospective, multicenter, single-arm study, patients with Forrest Ia or Ib peptic ulcers underwent endoscopic application of Hemospray as treatment of first intent. Effectiveness endpoints were successful hemostasis at the end of the index endoscopy, recurrent bleeding within 72 hours and from 72 hours to 30 days, adverse events requiring reintervention or resulting in morbidity or mortality, and 30-day mortality. Results: Hemospray was successfully administered in 98.5% of patients (66/67). Hemostasis was achieved at the index endoscopy in 90.9% of patients (60/66) with Hemospray alone and in an additional 4 patients treated with additional modalities, yielding an overall hemostasis rate of 97.0% (64/66). Rebleeding occurred in 13.3% of patients (8/60), 5 within 72 hours and 3 between 72 hours and 30 days. Two cases of perforation and 2 patient deaths occurred during the study, but none of these cases or any other adverse events were attributed to the use of Hemospray. The rate of early rebleeding was significantly higher in patients with Forrest Ia ulcers compared with patients with Forrest Ib ulcers. Higher rates of early bleeding in patients with Forrest Ia ulcers is consistent with results from studies where Hemospray was used as rescue after failure of conventional methods. Conclusions: Hemospray is an effective initial treatment for patients with active peptic ulcer bleeding, but care should be taken to monitor for recurrent bleeding. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT01306864.) (Gastrointest Endosc 2022;96:28-35.) Published version The following authors disclosed financial relationships: J. J. Y. Sung: Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology. K. Ragunath: Educational and research grants from Cook Medical; associate editor for Digestive Endoscopy Journal. D. Wagner: Employee of Cook Medical. K. Sanborn: Employee of Cook Research Incorporated and Cook Group Company. All other authors disclosed no financial relationships. Research support for this study was provided by Cook Medical.

Background & Aims Failed bowel preparation for colonoscopy occurs commonly, but the optimal regimen for the subsequent attempt is unknown. High-volume preparations often are used but are not well studied. The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of 2 regimens for use after failed bowel preparation. Methods A multicenter, endoscopist-blinded randomized controlled trial was conducted in patients who previously failed bowel preparation despite adequate compliance. Patients were randomized to 1 of 2 split polyethylene glycol (PEG) regimens, preceded by 15 mg bisacodyl: PEG 2 L the evening before and 2 L the day of colonoscopy (PEG 2+2L+bisacodyl), or 4 L and 2 L (PEG 4+2L+bisacodyl). All patients followed a low-fiber diet on both the third and second day before the procedure, followed by a clear fluid diet the day before and the morning of the colonoscopy. The primary outcome was adequate bowel preparation, defined as a Boston Bowel Preparation Scale total score of 6 or higher, with all segment scores of 2 or higher. Secondary outcomes included adenoma detection rate, advanced adenoma detection rate, sessile serrated lesion detection, cecal intubation rate, tolerability, and adverse events. Results A total of 196 subjects were randomized at 4 academic centers in Canada (mean age, 60.7 y; SD, 11.4 y; 44.9% were women). There were no significant differences between the PEG 2+2L+bisacodyl and the PEG 4+2L+bisacodyl groups in achieving adequate bowel preparation (91.2% vs 87.6%; P = .44). There were no significant differences with regard to mean adenoma detection rate (37.4% vs 31.5%; P = .41), advanced adenoma detection rate (18.7% vs 11.2%; P = .16), sessile serrated lesion detection (8.8% vs 5.6%; P = .41), and cecal intubation rate (96.7% vs 92.1%; P = .19). The 2 regimens were similarly well tolerated, but PEG 2+2L+bisacodyl was associated with a higher willingness to repeat the bowel preparation (91.2% vs 66.2%; P Conclusions Split-dose 4 L-PEG with 15 mg bisacodyl, along with dietary restrictions, has similar efficacy as a higher-volume preparation, and should be considered for patients who previously failed bowel preparation ( ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02976805 ).

Background Acute gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) remains a common cause of hospitalisation. However, interpretation and comparisons of published studies in GIB have been hampered by disparate study methodology. Aims To make recommendations about outcome measures to be used in future randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of patients with acute bleeding from any GI source (nonvariceal UGI, variceal, small bowel, or colon) and suggest new RCTs in acute GIB for future peer-reviewed funding. Methods As part of a National Institutes of Health conference entitled "Hemostatic Outcomes in Clinical Trials", a group of GIB experts performed targeted critical reviews of available evidence with the goal of proposing a bleeding outcome that could potentially be applied to different disciplines. In addition, the panel sought to develop a clinically meaningful primary endpoint specifically for acute GIB, potentially allowing a more contemporary regrouping of clinically relevant outcomes. Results The primary endpoint proposed was a composite outcome of further bleeding within 30 days after randomisation leading to red blood cell transfusion, urgent intervention (repeat endoscopy; interventional radiology or surgery), or death. Secondary outcomes may include the individual components of the primary outcome, length of hospitalisation, serious adverse events, and health care resource utilisation. Conclusion The proposed endpoint may help move the GIB field forward by focusing on the most clinically relevant outcomes for patients with acute GIB of all types and informing study design and importance of sample size determination for future RCTs in GIB.

ObjectiveTo determine whether new users of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are at an increased risk of gastric cancer compared with new users of histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs).DesignUsing the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink, we conducted a population-based cohort study using a new-user active comparator design. From 1 January 1990 to 30 April 2018, we identified 973 281 new users of PPIs and 193 306 new users of H2RAs. Cox proportional hazards models were fit to estimate HRs and 95% CIs of gastric cancer, and the number needed to harm was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. The models were weighted using standardised mortality ratio weights using calendar time-specific propensity scores. Secondary analyses assessed duration and dose–response associations.ResultsAfter a median follow-up of 5.0 years, the use of PPIs was associated with a 45% increased risk of gastric cancer compared with the use of H2RAs (HR 1.45, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.98). The number needed to harm was 2121 and 1191 for five and 10 years after treatment initiation, respectively. The HRs increased with cumulative duration, cumulative omeprazole equivalents and time since treatment initiation. The results were consistent across several sensitivity analyses.ConclusionThe findings of this large population-based cohort study indicate that the use of PPIs is associated with an increased risk of gastric cancer compared with the use of H2RAs, although the absolute risk remains low.

Guidelines from national and international professional societies on upper gastrointestinal bleeding highlight the important clinical issues but do not always identify specific management strategies pertaining to individual patients. Optimal treatment should consider the personal needs of an individual patient and the pertinent resources and experience available at the point of care. This article integrates international guidelines and consensus into three stages of management: pre-endoscopic assessment and treatment, endoscopic evaluation and haemostasis and postendoscopic management. We emphasise the need for personalised management strategies based on patient characteristics, nature of bleeding lesions and the clinical setting including available resources.

We thank Lawrence and colleagues1 for their interest in our work,2 about which they raised some comments as the need of expressing results in absolute rather than relative risks. As they appropriately mentioned in their correspondence, absolute risk is an important parameter for the estimation of the effect of an intervention and must sometimes be preferred to relative risk. However, when discussing with health professionals and policymakers, using absolute risk reductions, expressed as percentages, may incorrectly lead to an intervention being considered unnecessary. As example, what would be the point of reducing by 30% the occurrence of an event affecting 2% of the population? This is exactly what we were confronted to with the COVID-19 pandemic, when policymakers were criticised for putting in place measures to reduce individual freedoms, which were considered excessive in relation to the …

Introduction We recently developed a double-balloon device, using widely available existing technology, to facilitate endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE). Our aim is to assess the feasibility of this modified approach to EUS-guided double-balloon-occluded gastroenterostomy bypass (M-EPASS). Methods This was a single-center retrospective study of consecutive patients undergoing M-EPASS from January 2019 to August 2020. The double-balloon device consists of two vascular balloons that optimize the distension of a targeted small-bowel segment for EUS-guided stent insertion. The primary end point was the rate of technical success. Results 11 patients (45 % women; mean [standard deviation (SD)] age 64.9 [8.6]) with malignant gastric outlet obstruction were included. Technical and clinical success (ability to tolerate an oral diet) were achieved in 91 % (10/11) and 80 % (8/10) of patients, respectively. There was one adverse event (9 %) due to stent migration. Two patients (18 %) required re-intervention for stent obstruction secondary to food impaction. The mean (SD) time to a low residue diet was 3.5 (2.4) days. Conclusion M-EPASS appears to facilitate the technique of EUS-GE, potentially enhancing its safety and clinical adoption. Larger studies are needed to validate this innovative approach to gastric outlet obstruction.

We performed systematic reviews addressing predefined clinical questions to develop recommendations with the GRADE approach regarding management of patients with overt upper gastrointestinal bleeding. We suggest risk assessment in the emergency department to identify very-low-risk patients (e.g., Glasgow-Blatchford score = 0-1) who may be discharged with outpatient follow-up. For patients hospitalized with upper gastrointestinal bleeding, we suggest red blood cell transfusion at a threshold of 7 g/dL. Erythromycin infusion is suggested before endoscopy, and endoscopy is suggested within 24 hours after presentation. Endoscopic therapy is recommended for ulcers with active spurting or oozing and for nonbleeding visible vessels. Endoscopic therapy with bipolar electrocoagulation, heater probe, and absolute ethanol injection is recommended, and low- to very-low-quality evidence also supports clips, argon plasma coagulation, and soft monopolar electrocoagulation; hemostatic powder spray TC-325 is suggested for actively bleeding ulcers and over-the-scope clips for recurrent ulcer bleeding after previous successful hemostasis. After endoscopic hemostasis, high-dose proton pump inhibitor therapy is recommended continuously or intermittently for 3 days, followed by twice-daily oral proton pump inhibitor for the first 2 weeks of therapy after endoscopy. Repeat endoscopy is suggested for recurrent bleeding, and if endoscopic therapy fails, transcatheter embolization is suggested.

Background & Aims Colonoscopy is required following a positive fecal screening test for colorectal cancer (CRC). It remains unclear to what extent time to colonoscopy is associated with CRC-related outcomes. We performed a systematic review to elucidate this relationship. Methods An electronic search was performed through April 2020 for studies reporting associations between time from positive fecal testing to colonoscopy and outcomes including CRC incidence (primary outcome), CRC stage at diagnosis, and/or CRC-specific mortality. Our primary objective was to quantify these relationships following positive fecal immunochemical testing (FIT). Two authors independently performed screening, abstraction, and risk of bias assessments. Results From 1,612 initial studies, 8 were included in the systematic review, with 5 reporting outcomes for FIT. Although meta-analysis was not possible, consistent trends between longer time delays and worse outcomes were apparent in all studies. Colonoscopy performed beyond 9 months from positive FIT compared to within 1 month was significantly associated with a higher incidence of CRC, with adjusted odds ratios (AORs) of 1.75 and 1.48 in the two largest studies. These studies also reported significant associations between colonoscopy performed beyond 9 months and higher incidence of advanced stage CRC (stage III or IV) at diagnosis, with AORs of 2.79 and 1.55, respectively. Conclusions Colonoscopy for positive FIT should not be delayed beyond 9 months. Given the additional time required for urgent referrals and surgical planning for CRC, colonoscopy should ideally be performed well in advance of 9 months following a positive FIT.

We aimed to define the appropriateness of interventions for the prevention of postoperative pancreatic fistulas (POPF) after pancreatectomy, given the lack of consistent data on this topic.Using the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method, we assembled an expert panel to rate clinical scenarios for interventions to prevent POPF after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) and distal pancreatectomy (DP).The following interventions were rated appropriate: individualized risk prediction for all patients; perioperative pasireotide administration for patients undergoing PD who have a soft pancreatic gland and a pancreatic duct size of less 3 mm and for patients undergoing DP; pancreaticogastrostomy for patients undergoing PD who have a soft pancreatic gland and pancreaticojejunostomy for PD for patients with a pancreatic duct size of 6 mm or greater regardless of pancreatic gland texture; duct-to-mucosa anastomosis for all patients undergoing PD and dunking anastomosis for patients undergoing PD who have a pancreatic duct size of less than 3 mm with a firm pancreatic gland; simple stapled and reinforced stapled transection for all DP; surgical drains for PD and DP in patients with a soft pancreatic gland; and open and minimally invasive surgery for DP and open surgery for PD. The following were rated inappropriate: gastrointestinal anastomosis for stump closure in all DP and omission of surgical drain in PD for patients with a pancreatic duct diameter less than 3 mm and a soft pancreatic gland.The expert panel identified appropriate and inappropriate scenarios for POPF prevention following pancreatectomy, to provide guidance to clinicians. However, the appropriateness of the interventions in the majority of the clinical scenarios was rated as uncertain, demonstrating equipoise.

Background The optimal timing of colonoscopy in acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB) remains controversial. Aim To characterise the utility of early colonoscopy (within 24 hours) in managing acute LGIB. Methods A systematic literature search to October 2019 identified fully published articles and abstracts of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies with control groups assessing early colonoscopy in acute LGIB. The primary outcome was rebleeding. Secondary outcomes included mortality, surgery, length of stay (LOS), definite cause of bleeding and adverse events. Odds ratios (ORs) and mean differences (MD) were calculated. Results Of 1116 citations, 4 RCTs (466 patients) and 13 observational studies with elective colonoscopy (>24 hours) as control group (1 061 281 patients) were included. No differences in rebleeding were noted between early and elective colonoscopy groups among RCTs alone (OR = 1.70; 0.79; 3.64), or observational studies alone (OR = 1.20; 0.69; 2.09). No other significant between-group differences in outcomes were found when restricting the analysis to RCTs. Among observational studies only, early colonoscopy was associated with lower rates of all-cause mortality (OR = 0.86; 0.75; 0.98), surgery (OR = 0.52; 0.42; 0.64), blood transfusion (OR = 0.81; 0.75; 0.87), units of blood transfusion (MD = -4.30; -6.24; -2.36) and shorter LOS (MD = -1.70; -1.70; -1.70 days). Conclusion In contradistinction to observational studies, data from RCTs do not support a role for early colonoscopy in the routine management of acute LGIB with regards to the most important clinical outcomes. Further research is needed to better identify patients with high-risk LGIB who may benefit from early colonoscopy.

Background and study aims: In recent years, cold snare polypectomy (CSP) has been recommended as the preferred approach for removal of small and diminutive colorectal polyps. We conducted an intern...

Background Determining the likelihood of a variceal versus nonvariceal source of upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) guides ED therapy, but can be difficult to determine on clinical grounds. A simple decision rule, using only platelet and international normalized ratio (INR) values, was previously derived in a single center and had high sensitivity (97%). We sought to validate this decision rule using multi-center data. Materials and methods We performed this decision rule validation using data collected from 21 Canadian hospitals, comprising 2020 patients. The parent study enrolled patients aged ≥18 years at participating hospitals with nonvariceal or variceal UGIB from January 2004 through May 2005. To validate the existing decision rule, we computed the test characteristics of the rule on this study population. The existing decision rule, in order to predict patients at low risk for variceal hemorrhage, is designed to be highly sensitive for variceal UGIB. In the previously derived rule, patients are not low risk if either is present: INR ≥1.3 or platelet count ≤200 × 109/L. We additionally added a third common-sense criterion to the decision rule in a separate analysis: whether the patient has previously had variceal hemorrhage. Results 2001 patients were eligible for analysis, including 214 (10.7%) with a variceal source of gastrointestinal hemorrhage. Median age was 69 (IQR 55–79), and 764 (38%) were women. The two-step rule correctly identified 204 of the 214 (95.3%) patients with variceal hemorrhage; adding prior variceal hemorrhage as a variable identified 5 more patients (209/214 [97.7%]). Of the 2001 patients, 953 (47%) would have been classified as low risk for variceal hemorrhage; of these patients, 5 (0.5%) experienced variceal hemorrhage. The sensitivity of the rule in this validation cohort was 95.3% (95% CI 91.6–97.7%), with a negative likelihood ratio of 0.09 (95% CI 0.05–0.16). Adding prior variceal hemorrhage increased sensitivity to 97.7% (95% CI 94.6–99.2%), with a negative likelihood ratio of 0.04 (95% CI 0.02–0.11). Conclusion We have validated a simple decision rule to identify patients at low risk for variceal UGIB. This two-step (three-step if prior history of variceal hemorrhage is known) rule is simple to use, and may enable safe deferment of unnecessary or harmful therapies.

Create practice guidelines for the appropriate use of red blood cell transfusions in hepatectomy.Hepatectomy is associated with a high prevalence of transfusions. A transfusion can be life-saving, but can be associated with important adverse effects. Given the prevalence, the potential for benefit and harm, and the difficulty in conducting clinical trials, transfusion in hepatectomy is well-suited for a study of appropriateness.Using the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method, an international, multidisciplinary expert panel in hepatobiliary surgery, anesthesia, transfusion medicine, and critical care rated a series of 468 perioperative scenarios for transfusion appropriateness. Scenarios were rated individually, and again during an inperson group moderated session. Median scores and level of agreement were calculated to classify each scenario as appropriate, inappropriate, or uncertain.Approximately, 47.4% of scenarios were rated as appropriate for transfusion, 28.2% were inappropriate, and 24.4% were uncertain. The key recommendations for intraoperative transfusion were (i) it is never inappropriate to transfuse for significant bleeding or ST segment changes; (ii) it is never inappropriate to transfuse for an intraoperative hemoglobin ≤75 g/L; and (iii) in the absence of significant bleeding or ST changes, transfusion for hemoglobin of ≥95 g/L is inappropriate, and transfusion for hemoglobin of ≥85 g/L requires strong justification. The key recommendations for postoperative transfusions were: (i) in a stable, asymptomatic patient, an appropriate transfusion trigger is 70 g/L (without coronary artery disease) or 80 g/L (with coronary artery disease) and (ii) it is appropriate to transfuse any patient for a hemoglobin of ≤75 g/L either immediately post-operative, or with a significant decrease from the previous day (15 g/L).Based on best available evidence and expert opinion, criteria for appropriate perioperative red blood cell transfusions in hepatectomy were determined.

Background and Aims Endoscopic hemostatic techniques remain poorly effective for GI tumor bleeding. We assessed Tc-325 (Hemospray, Cook Medical, Bloomington, Ind, USA) for this indication and determined possible predictors of decreased recurrent bleeding and improved 6-month survival in affected patients. Methods This retrospective study identified 99 patients with active malignant GI bleeding (primary or metastatic) treated with Tc-325. Eleven patients were excluded because of incomplete data. Data on patient characteristics and possible predictive factors of early (72-hour) and delayed (7-, 14-, and 30-day) recurrent bleeding, as well as 6-month survival, were collected. Results Overall, 70.5% were male (age, 65 ± 14 years). Half had a high Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) score (3 or 4). An upper GI cancer was found in 56.8%, and 72.7% cancers were stage 4. Of those affected, 51.6% received at least 1 non-endoscopic additional definitive hemostatic treatment after Tc-325. Immediate hemostasis with Tc-325 was 97.7%, with recurrent bleeding noted in 15% (early) and 17% (delayed). Six-month survival was 53.4%. On multivariable analysis, no predictive factor for recurrent bleeding was identified, whereas ECOG score 0 to 2 ( P = .001; hazard ratio [HR], 0.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.04-0.47), cancer stage 1 to 3 ( P = .04; HR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.10-0.96), and receiving definite hemostatic treatment alone or in any combination with surgery, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or radiologic embolization ( P = .002; HR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.09-0.59) were significant prognosticators of 6-month survival after adjusting for comorbidity, type of cancer bleeding, and presence of a coagulopathy. Conclusion Before definitive therapy can be offered, Tc-325 provides effective initial hemostasis of tumoral GI bleeding. Good performance status, non-end-stage cancer, and receiving definite hemostatic treatment are independent predictors of 6-month survival. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03066700.)

Background A large trial of postmenopausal women with breast cancer reported an imbalance in colorectal cancer events with aromatase inhibitors (AIs), compared with tamoxifen in the adjuvant setting. This unexpected signal was observed within 3 years of randomization. To date, no observational studies have examined this important safety question in the natural setting of clinical practice. Thus, the objective of this study was to determine whether AIs, when compared with tamoxifen, are associated with increased risk of colorectal cancer in postmenopausal women with breast cancer. Patients and methods Using the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink, we identified women, at least 55 years of age, with breast cancer newly treated with either AIs or tamoxifen between 1 January 1996 and 30 September 2015, with follow-up until 30 September 2016. High-dimensional propensity score-adjusted Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of incident colorectal cancer associated with AIs when compared with tamoxifen overall, by cumulative duration of use, and time since initiation. All exposures were lagged by 1 year for latency considerations. Results A total of 9701 and 8893 patients initiated AIs and tamoxifen as first-line hormonal therapy (median follow-up of 2.4 and 2.9 years, respectively). Compared with tamoxifen, AIs were not associated with an increased risk of colorectal cancer (incidence rates of 150 per 100 000 person-years in both groups; adjusted HR: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.53–1.52). Similarly, there was no evidence of an association with cumulative duration of use (P-heterogeneity = 0.54), and time since initiation (P-heterogeneity = 0.66). Conclusions In this first population-based study, the use of AIs was not associated with an increased risk of colorectal cancer. These findings should provide reassurance to the concerned stakeholders.

AIM To summarize and compare worldwide colorectal cancer (CRC) screening recommendations in order to identify similarities and disparities. METHODS A systematic literature search was performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, CENTRAL and ISI Web of knowledge identifying all average-risk CRC screening guideline publications within the last ten years and/or position statements published in the last 2 years. In addition, a hand-search of the webpages of National Gastroenterology Society websites, the National Guideline Clearinghouse, the BMJ Clinical Evidence website, Google and Google Scholar was performed. RESULTS Fifteen guidelines were identified. Six guidelines were published in North America, four in Europe, four in Asia and one from the World Gastroenterology Organization. The majority of guidelines recommend screening average-risk individuals between ages 50 and 75 using colonoscopy (every 10 years), or flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS, every 5 years) or fecal occult blood test (FOBT, mainly the Fecal Immunochemical Test, annually or biennially). Disparities throughout the different guidelines are found relating to the use of colonoscopy, rank order between test, screening intervals and optimal age ranges for screening. CONCLUSION Average risk individuals between 50 and 75 years should undergo CRC screening. Recommendations for optimal surveillance intervals, preferred tests/test cascade as well as the optimal timing when to start and stop screening differ regionally and should be considered for clinical decision making. Furthermore, local resource availability and patient preferences are important to increase CRC screening uptake, as any screening is better than none.

Background and study aims Recommendations on adjuvant use with bowel preparations remain disparate. We performed a meta-analysis determining the clinical impact of adding an adjuvant to polyethylene glycol (PEG), sodium phosphate, picosulfate (PICO), or oral sulfate solutions (OSS)-based regimens. Methods Systematic searches were made of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, CENTRAL and ISI Web of knowledge for randomized trials from January 1980 to April 2016 that assessed preparations with or without adjuvants, given in split and non-split dosing, and PEG high- (> 3 L) or low-dose (≤ 2 L) regimens. Bowel cleansing efficacy was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included patient willingness to repeat the procedure, and polyp and adenoma detection rates. Results Of 3093 citations, 77 trials fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Overall, addition of an adjuvant compared with no adjuvant, irrespective of the type of preparation and mode of administration, yielded improvements in bowel cleanliness (odds ratio [OR] 1.23 [1.01 – 1.51]) without greater willingness to repeat (OR 1.40 [0.91 – 2.15]). Adjuvants combined with high-dose PEG significantly improved colon cleansing (OR 1.96 [1.32 – 2.94]). The odds for achieving adequate preparation with low-dose PEG with an adjuvant were not different to high-dose PEG alone (OR 0.95 [0.73 – 1.22]), but yielded improved tolerance (OR 3.22 [1.85 – 5.55]). However, split high-dose PEG yielded superior cleanliness to low-dose PEG with adjuvants (OR 2.53 [1.25 – 5.13]). No differences were noted for OSS and PICO comparisons, or for any products regarding polyp or adenoma detection rates. Conclusions Critical heterogeneity precludes firm conclusion on the impact of adjuvants with existing bowel preparations. Additional research is required to better characterize the methods of administration and resulting roles of adjuvants in an era of split-dosing.

Background Liver resection is associated with a high proportion of red blood cell transfusions. There is a proposed association between perioperative transfusions and increased risk of complications and tumor recurrence. This study reviews the evidence of this association in the literature. Methods The Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched for clinical trials or observational studies of patients undergoing liver resection that compared patients who did and did not receive a perioperative red blood cell transfusion. Outcomes were mortality, complications, and cancer survival. Results Twenty-two studies involving 6832 patients were included. All studies were retrospective, with no clinical trials. No studies were scored as low risk of bias. The overall proportion of patients transfused was 38.3%. After multivariate analysis, 1 of 5 studies demonstrated an association between transfusion and increased mortality; 5 of 6 demonstrated an association between transfusion and increased complications; and 10 of 18 demonstrated an association between transfusion and decreased cancer survival. Conclusion This review supports the evidence linking perioperative blood transfusions to negative outcomes. The most convincing association was with post-operative complications, some association with long-term cancer outcomes, and no convincing association with mortality. These findings support the initiation, and further study, of restrictive transfusion protocols.