Search

It is difficult to quantify adverse events related to screening colonoscopy due to lack of valid and adequately powered comparison groups. We compared mortality and rate of unplanned hospitalizations among subjects who underwent screening colonoscopies within the Polish Colonoscopy Screening Program (PCSP) vs unscreened matched controls in Poland.Persons 55-64 years old living in the area covered by the PCSP from 2012 through 2015 were assigned in a (1:1) to a group invited for screening colonoscopy (n = 338,477) or a matched group that would be invited 5 years later (controls, n = 338,557). All subjects in the screening group were assigned proposed screening colonoscopy dates (actual dates when invitees confirmed or rescheduled colonoscopy) and those in the control group were assigned virtual dates corresponding to the matched individuals from the screening group. In the screening group, 55,390 subjects (16.4%) underwent screening colonoscopy. Mortality and hospitalization data were obtained from National Registries. We compared mortality and rate of hospitalization between the groups for defined intervals before and after colonoscopy date. Hospitalizations were divided into related and unrelated to colonoscopy based on ICD codes by 3 specialists. Our primary aim was to compare mortality and hospitalization 6 weeks before and 30 days following the actual or virtual date of colonoscopy in the screening or control group.In the intent to treat analysis, overall there were no significant differences in mortality between the colonoscopy group and control group (0.22% vs 0.22%; risk difference less than .01%; 95% CI, decrease of 0.02% to 0.02%; P = .913). The overall rate of unplanned hospitalization was significantly higher for the colonoscopy group (2.39% vs 2.31% for the control group; risk difference, 0.08%; 95% CI, 0.01%-0.15%; P=.026) for the entire observation period. This was due to the higher rate of hospitalizations after screening (1.10% vs 1.01% for the control group; risk difference, 0.09%; 95% CI, 0.04%-0.14%; P.001) including higher proportion of hospitalizations that were assessed as related to colonoscopy (0.24% vs 0.22% for the control group; risk difference, 0.02%; 95% CI, 0.00%-0.05%; P = .046). In the per-protocol analysis, the overall rate of hospitalizations did not differ significantly between control and screening colonoscopy groups (1.87% vs 1.90%; P=.709). However, screening colonoscopy did increase rates of related hospitalizations after the date of screening (from 0.14% to 0.31%; P.001).In an analysis of data from the PCSP, we found high-quality evidence that colonoscopy as a screening intervention does not increase mortality before or after colonoscopy. However, it may be associated with a small but significant increase in unplanned hospitalizations, especially after the colonoscopy is completed.

Perirectal fistulas in the course of Crohn’s disease (ChL-C) constitute an important problem in this group of patients. They are observed in a vast majority of patients with involvement through colorectal inflammation. Perirectal fistulas in ChL-C present a great diagnostic and therapeutic challenge due to the intensified clinical symptoms and worse prognosis than in the case of crypt originating fistulas. The condition for implementation of effective treatment of perirectal fistulas in the course of CHL-C is correct diagnosis, defining the anatomy of fistulas, presence of potential stenoses and inflammation in the gastrointestinal tract. Treatment of these fistulas is difficult and requires close cooperation between the colorectal surgeon and the gastroenterologist. The combination of surgical and pharmacological treatment has higher efficacy compared to surgical treatment or pharmacotherapy alone. In conservative treatment, aminosalicylates and steroids are of minor importance, while chemotherapeutics, antibiotics, and thiopurines find application in daily clinical practice. TNF-α neutralizing antibodies such as infliximab (IFX), adalimumab (ADA) or certolizumab (CER) prove to be the most effective. Surgical treatment may be provided as ad hoc; in this case drainage procedures are recommended, usually with leaving a loose seton. Planned procedures consist in the excision of fistulas (simple fistulas) or performing more complex procedures, such as advancement flaps or ligation of the intersphincteric fistula tract Surgical measures can be complemented by the use of video technology (video-assisted anal fistula treatment VAAFT) or vacuum therapy. In extreme cases, it may be necessary to exteriorize the stoma. Treatment of perirectal fistulas includes adhesives or so-called plugs. High hopes may be associated with the introduction of stem cells into clinical practice, which is the administration of non-hematopoietic multipotent cells to the fistulas to induce the phenomenon of immunomodulation and tissue healing.

Main Recommendations 1 We recommend post-surgery endoscopic surveillance for CRC patients after intent-to-cure surgery and appropriate oncological treatment for both local and distant disease.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 2 We recommend a high quality perioperative colonoscopy before surgery for CRC or within 6 months following surgery.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 3 We recommend performing surveillance colonoscopy 1 year after CRC surgery.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 4 We do not recommend an intensive endoscopic surveillance strategy, e. g. annual colonoscopy, because of a lack of proven benefit.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 5 After the first surveillance colonoscopy following CRC surgery, we suggest the second colonoscopy should be performed 3 years later, and the third 5 years after the second. If additional high risk neoplastic lesions are detected, subsequent surveillance examinations at shorter intervals may be considered.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 6 After the initial surveillance colonoscopy, we suggest halting post-surgery endoscopic surveillance at the age of 80 years, or earlier if life-expectancy is thought to be limited by comorbidities.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 7 In patients with a low risk pT1 CRC treated by endoscopy with an R0 resection, we suggest the same endoscopic surveillance schedule as for any CRC.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.

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.

In this session diverse critical issues in diverticular disease were considered, including “In or outpatient management of uncomplicated diverticulitis?”, “Segmental colitis associated with diverticulosis: what is it?”and “Diverticular inflammation is a risk factor for colorectal cancer?”. The conclusions drawn are outlined in the statements but in summary, outpatient management is safe in selected patients, as long as correct diagnosis and stage are assured, and this can allow a cost effective treatment. Non-antibiotic management is also safe but should be confined as an outpatient treatment in carefully selected patients. Segmental colitis associated with diverticulosis (SCAD) is a defined pathological entity (only diagnosed on biopsy) characterized by an inflammatory bowel disease-like pathology, occurring principally in the sigmoid colon, with rectal and right colon sparing. The pathogenesis is unclear but may include a genetic predisposition, microbiome alteration and ischaemia. Treatment can last months, and depends on severity, options include antibiotics, 5 ASA and probiotics for mild cases. Severe disease needs systemic steroids or even anti TNFα treatment. Whether diverticular inflammation is a risk factor for colorectal cancer was debated and the conclusion that within the first eighteen months of diagnosis of diverticular disease associations with cancer are found, likely due to similar symptoms and misclassification of disease. After that time, diverticular disease does not increase the risk of colorectal cancer. Therefore, this is recommended to exclude cancer with imaging and colonoscopy after healing of the first episode of diverticulitis.

Background: Biologic therapies are widely used in patients with ulcerative colitis. Head-to-head trials of these therapies in patients with inflammatory bowel disease are lacking. Methods: In a phase 3b, double-blind, double-dummy, randomized trial conducted at 245 centers in 34 countries, we compared vedolizumab with adalimumab in adults with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis to determine whether vedolizumab was superior. Previous exposure to a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor other than adalimumab was allowed in up to 25% of patients. The patients were assigned to receive infusions of 300 mg of vedolizumab on day 1 and at weeks 2, 6, 14, 22, 30, 38, and 46 (plus injections of placebo) or subcutaneous injections of 40 mg of adalimumab, with a total dose of 160 mg at week 1, 80 mg at week 2, and 40 mg every 2 weeks thereafter until week 50 (plus infusions of placebo). Dose escalation was not permitted in either group. The primary outcome was clinical remission at week 52 (defined as a total score of ≤2 on the Mayo scale [range, 0 to 12, with higher scores indicating more severe disease] and no subscore >1 [range, 0 to 3] on any of the four Mayo scale components). To control for type I error, efficacy outcomes were analyzed with a hierarchical testing procedure, with the variables in the following order: clinical remission, endoscopic improvement (subscore of 0 to 1 on the Mayo endoscopic component), and corticosteroid- free remission at week 52. Results: A total of 769 patients underwent randomization and received at least one dose of vedolizumab (383 patients) or adalimumab (386 patients). At week 52, clinical remission was observed in a higher percentage of patients in the vedolizumab group than in the adalimumab group (31.3% vs. 22.5% ; difference, 8.8 percentage points ; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.5 to 15.0 ; P = 0.006), as was endoscopic improvement (39.7% vs. 27.7% ; difference, 11.9 percentage points ; 95% CI, 5.3 to 18.5 ; P

The statements produced by the Chairmen and Speakers of the 3rd International Symposium on Diverticular Disease, held in Madrid on April 11th-13th 2019, are reported. Topics such as current and evolving concepts on the pathogenesis, the course of the disease, the news in diagnosing, hot topics in medical and surgical treatments, and finally, critical issues on the disease were reviewed by the Chairmen who proposed 39 statements graded according to level of evidence and strength of recommendation. Each topic was explored focusing on the more relevant clinical questions. The vote was conducted on a 6-point scale and consensus was defined a priori as 67% agreement of the participants. The voting group consisted of 124 physicians from 18 countries, and agreement with all statements was provided. Comments were added explaining some controversial areas.

Background & Aims Most patients with Crohn's disease (CD) eventually require an intestinal resection. However, CD frequently recurs after resection. We performed a randomized trial to compare the ability of infliximab vs placebo to prevent CD recurrence. Methods We evaluated the efficacy of infliximab in preventing postoperative recurrence of CD in 297 patients at 104 sites worldwide from November 2010 through May 2012. All study patients had undergone ileocolonic resection within 45 days before randomization. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to groups given infliximab (5 mg/kg) or placebo every 8 weeks for 200 weeks. The primary end point was clinical recurrence, defined as a composite outcome consisting of a CD Activity Index score >200 and a ≥70-point increase from baseline, and endoscopic recurrence (Rutgeerts score ≥i2, determined by a central reader) or development of a new or re-draining fistula or abscess, before or at week 76. Endoscopic recurrence was a major secondary end point. Results A smaller proportion of patients in the infliximab group had a clinical recurrence before or at week 76 compared with the placebo group, but this difference was not statistically significant (12.9% vs 20.0%; absolute risk reduction [ARR] with infliximab, 7.1%; 95% confidence interval: -1.3% to 15.5%; P =.097). A significantly smaller proportion of patients in the infliximab group had endoscopic recurrence compared with the placebo group (30.6% vs 60.0%; ARR with infliximab, 29.4%; 95% confidence interval: 18.6% to 40.2%; P

The response rate to initial invitation to population-based primary screening colonoscopy within the NordICC trial (NCT 00883792) in Poland is around 50%. The aim of this study was to compare the effect of a reinvitation letter and invitation to an educational intervention on participation in screening colonoscopy in nonresponders to initial invitation.Within the NordICC trial framework, individuals living in the region of Warsaw, who were drawn from Population Registries and assigned randomly to the screening group, received an invitation letter and a reminder with a prespecified screening colonoscopy appointment date. One thousand individuals, aged 55 to 64 years, who did not respond to both the invitation and the reminding letter were assigned randomly in a 1:1 ratio to the reinvitation group (REI) and the educational meeting group (MEET). The REI group was sent a reinvitation letter and reminder 6 and 3 weeks before the new colonoscopy appointment date, respectively. The MEET group was sent an invitation 6 weeks before an educational meeting date. Outcome measures were participation in screening colonoscopy within 6 months and response rate within 3 months from the date of reinvitation or invitation to an educational meeting.The response rate and the participation rate in colonoscopy were statistically significantly higher in the REI group compared with the MEET group (16.5 vs. 4.3%; P0.001 and 5.2 vs. 2.1%; P=0.008, respectively).A simple reinvitation letter results in a higher response rate and participation rate to screening colonoscopy than invitation to tailored educational meeting in nonresponders to previous invitations. (NCT01183156).

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.

Obesity is associated with an increased incidence of and mortality from colorectal cancer (CRC). Screening colonoscopy seems particularly important for individuals with obesity. The aim of this study is to analyse the characteristics of screening colonoscopy in individuals with obesity.We performed a cross-sectional analysis of records of 75,278 patients from a national colonoscopy screening programme in Poland. The database contained demographic data, colonoscopy results, self-reported data on weight and height, a standardized screenees' experience questionnaire and colorectal findings.Adenoma detection rate and advanced neoplasia detection rate increased significantly in groups of increasing body mass index (BMI). In subjects with morbid obesity, odds ratios for proximal adenoma and proximal advanced neoplasia were 1.69 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.28-2.21) and 1.66 (95% CI 1.01-2.72), respectively, despite the fact that with BMI increasing over 30 the preparation for colonoscopy was worse. Moreover, caecal intubation increased with increasing BMI. Tolerance of colonoscopy was better and preparation for colonoscopy was less inconvenient in individuals with obesity.Obesity and morbid obesity are associated with increased detection of colorectal precursor lesions and better performance of screening colonoscopy. Participation in screening colonoscopy should be emphasized among individuals with obesity, taking into account the burden of CRC in this population.

INTRODUCTION Surgery is recommended following endoscopic polypectomy for malignant adenoma (MA) in the large bowel in patients with risk factors for tumor recurrence or distant metastasis are present. OBJECTIVES We present long‑term outcomes of a prospective study in patients with endoscopically removed MAs. PATIENTS AND METHODS A total of 128 patients who underwent endoscopic polypectomy were followed up for a median of 70.4 months. The criteria for adequate polypectomy included endoscopically and histologically (margin ≥2 mm) complete excision, lack of angioinvasion, and good tumor differentiation (G1 or G2). Sixty‑seven patients did not meet 1 or more of the criteria (high‑risk group) and 61 met all of the criteria (low‑risk group). Unfavorable outcomes were residual disease, lymph node metastasis, recurrent disease, distant metastasis, or death due to colorectal cancer. Histological samples from 85 patients were reassessed to determine the effect of a margin width of 1 mm or more and tumor budding on the outcomes. RESULTS Surgery was performed in 36 patients (28.1%), of whom 32 (47.7%) were high‑risk and 4 (6.5%) were low‑risk. Unfavorable outcome was observed in 10 patients (7.8%; all high‑risk; 10 of 67 patients, 14.9%). Favorable outcome was observed in 61 of 128 patients who had a 2‑mm free margin, and in 44 of 85 patients who fulfilled the modified criterion of 1‑mm free margin. Tumor budding was detected in 17 of 85 patients (20.9%). Unfavorable outcome was observed in 2 of these patients (11.7%) and in 5 patients (7.3%) without tumor budding (P >0.05). DISCUSSION Long‑term outcomes of an endoscopic resection of MAs are good. Bowel resection does not prevent unfavorable outcomes, while a reduction of the tumor‑free margin would not deteriorate the results (STROBE 1B).

Goals The aim of this paper was to discuss association between adenoma detection rate (ADR) and interval colorectal cancer risk. Background Adenoma detection rate is being used as a benchmark quality measure for colonoscopy. There are three studies showing inverse association between ADR and interval colorectal cancer risk. One recent study reports significant impact of increased ADR on decreasing interval colorectal cancer risk. Study We discussed evidence for using ADR as a quality measures in colonoscopy and flexible sigmoidoscopy. We revised three studies (Kaminski et al., N Engl J Med 2010; Corley et al., N Engl J Med 2014 and Rogal et al., Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2013) analyzing association between ADR and interval colorectal cancer. We collated strengths and weaknesses of these studies with the perspective of clinical impact of their results. Results Kaminski et al. and Corley et al. reported inverse association between ADR at colonoscopy and interval colorectal cancer. Kaminski et al. showed that patients examined by endoscopists with ADR of less than 20% had over 10 times greater risk of interval colorectal cancer during the follow-up time than those examined by endoscopists with ADR ≥20%. Additionally, Corley et al. showed that ADR ≥28% resulted in a significantly lower risk of colorectal cancer death than ADR of less than 19%. In parallel, Rogal et al. reported similar association for flexible sigmoidoscopy, with 2.4 higher odds of interval colorectal cancer diagnosis during follow-up time in patients examined by endoscopists with distal ADR Apart from inevitable clinical importance of the studies, they are not without disadvantages. In Kaminski et al. study cohort and study endpoint are well defined, but there is lack of statistical power to provide more robust results. In Rogal et al. study cohort is well defined, but approximation of the study endpoint was used. Finally, Corley et al. study has both poorly defined study cohort and study endpoint, but has the highest statistical power of all three to detect the differences for both interval colorectal cancer and colorectal cancer death. Conclusion Both, inverse relationship between ADR and ADR improvement and colorectal cancer risk and death reaffirm ADR as a crucial quality control parameter.

ObjectivePain associated with colonoscopy is a major burden for patients. We investigated modifiable factors associated with patient-reported pain during and after colonoscopy.DesignThis cross-sectional analysis included database records from 23 centres participating in a population-based colonoscopy screening programme in Poland. Colonoscopies were performed under three sedation modalities: none, benzodiazepine-opioid sedation or propofol sedation. We used Gastronet (a validated tool) to assess patients’ pain during and after colonoscopy; pain was scored on a four-point scale (no, little, moderate or severe pain), with moderate to severe defined as painful. We used multivariate logistic regression models to estimate ORs for painful colonoscopy and calculated risk-adjusted ratios of painful colonoscopies per endoscopist and compared it to the mean rate.ResultsOf 35 216 screening colonoscopies in 2014 and 2015 included in our study, 22 725 (64.5%) patients returned valid Gastronet questionnaires. The proportion of examinations described as causing pain during (after) the procedure was 22.5% (14.2%) for unsedated, 19.9% (13.5%) for benzodiazepine-opioid sedation and 2.5% (7.5%) for propofol sedation. Propofol sedation, higher case volume of endoscopists, newest endoscope generation and adequate bowel preparation were significantly associated with lower odds of painful colonoscopy. Pain scores after colonoscopy showed similar associations. Adjusted pain rates during and after colonoscopy varied 11 and over 23-fold, respectively, between endoscopists.ConclusionWe identified several independent, modifiable factors associated with pain during and after colonoscopy, of which individual endoscopist was the most important. Dedicated training should be considered to decrease variability among endoscopists.

Anaemia is a common complication associated with inflammatory bowel diseases (Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis). It substantially impairs quality of life, makes therapy more complicated, and increases costs of treatment. It seems that anaemia therapy is suboptimal in this group of patients in the Polish population. The recommendations presented below provide iron deficiency anaemia management clues in patients with inflammatory bowel disease.

INTRODUCTION The aim of the study was to evaluate the impact of sex, age, family history and distal findings on the risk of proximal advanced neoplasia (cancer or advanced adenoma) in the large bowel. MATERIAL AND METHODS Records for 10 111 asymptomatic participants of the Colonoscopy Screening Program (CSP), recruited from the Warsaw region between 2000 and 2004, were analyzed. A multivariate logistic regression model was used to estimate the impact of sex, age, family history and most advanced distal lesions on the occurrence of proximal advanced neoplasia. To enhance comparability of the study two definitions of the proximal colon were applied - either the splenic flexure (1(st)) or the bend between the descending and sigmoid colon (2(nd) definition) represented the boundary. RESULTS One hundred and thirty-three (1(st)) and 167 patients (2(nd) definition) were found to have at least one advanced neoplastic lesion in the proximal part, respectively. Eleven and 14 patients were found to have carcinoma, while in 130 and 163 patients at least one proximal advanced adenoma appeared. Men were at twice as high risk of having advanced neoplasia in the proximal colon than women (OR = 1.94, 95% CI: 1.31-2.87, p = 0.001 or OR = 1.69, 95% CI: 1.20-2.40, p = 0.003, respectively). The presence of distal advanced neoplastic lesions was associated with 3.5 times higher risk of proximal advanced neoplasia (OR = 3.58, 95% CI: 2.00-6.43, p < 0.0001 or OR = 3.41, 95% CI: 1.95-5.96, p < 0.0001), respectively. CONCLUSIONS The results may confirm some limitation of flexible sigmoidoscopy in the screening settings in comparison with colonoscopy, at least in men and people with distal advanced neoplasia.

Aim Chronic radiation proctitis is a long-term complication of radiation therapy for pelvic malignancy. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of two treatment regimens, sucralfate or placebo, following argon plasma coagulation (APC) for chronic haemorrhagic radiation proctitis. Method A single-centre, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study was performed on patients with haemorrhagic chronic radiation proctitis after irradiation for prostate, uterine, cervical, rectal or vaginal cancer. All patients received APC, and were then randomized to oral sucralfate (6 g twice a day) or placebo treatment for 4 weeks. APC was repeated every 8 weeks if necessary after the first session. Patients were graded clinically and endoscopically according to the Chutkan and Gilinski scales before and at 8 and 16 weeks after initial APC treatment (1.5–2 l/min, 25–40 W) and after 52 weeks (clinical only). Results Of 122 patients, 117 completed the entire protocol, with 57/60 in the sucralfate group and 60/62 in the placebo group. At baseline there were no significant differences between the sucralfate and placebo groups. At 1 year, a significant improvement in the clinical scale in both groups occurred compared with baseline. After 16 weeks, the median overall clinical severity scores fell from 4 to 2 points and the median bleeding score from 2 to 0 in both groups. Conclusion APC is safe and effective for the management of chronic radiation proctitis. Additional sucralfate treatment did not influence the clinical or endoscopic outcome.

Associations between diverticular disease of the colon and the colorectal cancer has been studied for >60 years. Observational, cross-sectional, and case-control studies as well as large population-based studies gave conflicting results and association was not fully proven. Obtaining the proof was difficult because both diseases share similar clinical characteristics, both increase with age, and both involve similar dietary factors. Long-term observations are difficult as diagnostic methods changed over time from barium enema 50 to 60 years ago, through endoscopy, up to CT and MR in recent years. Cancer or adenomas may be missed within diverticular segment; diverticula may be underreported in patients with colon cancer diagnosis. Most recent 2 large cohort studies have solved the dilemma. These studies have clearly shown that diverticular disease does not increase the risk of colon cancer after the first year of diagnosis. Within the first year of diagnosis the association is strong, most probably due to difficulties with differential diagnosis and misclassifications and shared symptoms. Findings of these studies have led to the conclusion that colon cancer has to be excluded using modern techniques after the first episode of suspected diverticulitis.

Barrett's Oesophagus (BO) is a complication of chronic gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD) and is a major risk factor for oesophageal adenocarcinoma. Current guidelines are based on data showing a 0.5% annual malignancy progression rate. The Polish Barrett's Oesophagus Registry (POBOR) was established to characterize Polish patients with BO and estimate the risk of malignant progression. POBOR was established in 1999 after a dedicated training of endoscopists and histopathologists. Physicians registered patients using a dedicated registry form. After excluding patients known to have endoscopic treatment for BO, follow-up1 year and adenocarcinoma found at index endoscopy we have linked patients personal identification numbers (PESEL) with the National Cancer Registry to identify those with a diagnosis of oesophageal or gastric cardia adenocarcinoma. In total, 843 patients were registered [609 men (72.2%), male to female ratio 2.6:1] with median age at diagnosis of 56 years (IQR:47-67). Long segment BE was found at index endoscopy in 294 patients (39.4%) whereas low grade dysplasia in 147 (17.4%). 112 patients (13.3%) fulfilled the exclusion criteria and the remaining 731 were followed for a median of 9.8 years (IQR: 9.3-10.0). After 6779 patient-years, 6 adenocarcinomas were diagnosed yielding an incidence rate of 0.89 per 1000 patients-years (95% confidence interval [CI 0.40-1.97]) which corresponds to annual malignancy progression rate of less than 0.1%. The malignancy rate in patients with low grade dysplasia was 3.70 per 1000 patient-years (95% CI 1.39-9.85). In Polish BO patients the risk of malignant progression was lower than previously reported. It was notably higher in patients with low grade dysplasia than in those with no dysplasia at index endoscopy, which may warrant strict surveillance in these patients.

Summary Barrett's Oesophagus (BO) is a complication of chronic gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD) and is a major risk factor for oesophageal adenocarcinoma. Current guidelines are based on data showing a 0.5% annual malignancy progression rate. The Polish Barrett's Oesophagus Registry (POBOR) was established to characterize Polish patients with BO and estimate the risk of malignant progression. POBOR was established in 1999 after a dedicated training of endoscopists and histopathologists. Physicians registered patients using a dedicated registry form. After excluding patients known to have endoscopic treatment for BO, follow-up

Colonoscopy is a widely performed procedure with procedural volumes increasing annually throughout the world. Many procedures are now performed as part of colorectal cancer screening programmes. Colonoscopy should be of high quality and measures of this quality should be evidence based. New UK key performance indicators and quality assurance standards have been developed by a working group with consensus agreement on each standard reached. This paper reviews the scientific basis for each of the quality measures published in the UK standards.

Objective Suboptimal adenoma detection rate (ADR) at colonoscopy is associated with increased risk of interval colorectal cancer. It is uncertain how ADR might be improved. We compared the effect of leadership training versus feedback only on colonoscopy quality in a countrywide randomised trial. Design 40 colonoscopy screening centres with suboptimal performance in the Polish screening programme (centre leader ADR ≤25% during preintervention phase January to December 2011) were randomised to either a Train-Colonoscopy-Leaders (TCLs) programme (assessment, hands-on training, post-training feedback) or feedback only (individual quality measures). Colonoscopies performed June to December 2012 (early postintervention) and January to December 2013 (late postintervention) were used to calculate changes in quality measures. Primary outcome was change in leaders’ ADR. Mixed effect models using ORs and 95% CIs were computed. Results The study included 24 582 colonoscopies performed by 38 leaders and 56 617 colonoscopies performed by 138 endoscopists at the participating centres. The absolute difference between the TCL and feedback groups in mean ADR improvement of leaders was 7.1% and 4.2% in early and late postintervention phases, respectively. The TCL group had larger improvement in ADR in early (OR 1.61; 95% CI 1.29 to 2.01; p

IMPORTANCE Although some countries have implemented widespread colonoscopy screening, most European countries have not introduced it because of uncertainty regarding participation rates, procedure-related pain and discomfort, endoscopist performance, and effectiveness. To our knowledge, no randomized trials on colonoscopy screening currently exist. OBJECTIVE To investigate participation rate, adenoma yield, performance, and adverse events of population-based colonoscopy screening in several European countries. DESIGN, SETTING, AND POPULATION A population-based randomized clinical trial was conducted among 94959 men and women aged 55 to 64 years of average risk for colon cancer in Poland, Norway, the Netherlands, and Sweden from June 8, 2009, to June 23, 2014. INTERVENTIONS Colonoscopy screening or no screening. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Participation in colonoscopy screening, cancer and adenoma yield, and participant experience. Study outcomes were compared by country and endoscopist. RESULTS Of 31 420 eligible participants randomized to the colonoscopy group, 12 574 (40.0%) underwent screening. Participation rates were 60.7% in Norway (5354 of 8816), 39.8% in Sweden (486 of 1222), 33.0% in Poland (6004 of 18 188), and 22.9% in the Netherlands (730 of 3194) (P < .001). The cecum intubation rate was 97.2%(12 217 of 12 574), with 9726 participants (77.4%) not receiving sedation. Of the 12 574 participants undergoing colonoscopy screening, we observed 1 perforation (0.01%), 2 postpolypectomy serosal burns (0.02%), and 18 cases of bleeding owing to polypectomy (0.14%). Sixty-two individuals (0.5%) were diagnosed with colorectal cancer and 3861 (30.7%) had adenomas, of which 1304 (10.4%) were high-risk adenomas. Detection rates were similar in the proximal and distal colon. Performance differed significantly between endoscopists; recommended benchmarks for cecal intubation (95%) and adenoma detection (25%) were not met by 6 (17.1%) and 10 of 35 endoscopists (28.6%), respectively. Moderate or severe abdominal pain after colonoscopy was reported by 601 of 3611 participants (16.7%) examined with standard air insufflation vs 214 of 5144 participants (4.2%) examined with carbon dioxide (CO2) insufflation (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Colonoscopy screening entails high detection rates in the proximal and distal colon. Participation rates and endoscopist performance vary significantly. Postprocedure abdominal pain is common with standard air insufflation and can be significantly reduced by using CO2.

Background and study aim: Gastrointestinal endoscopy is a rapidly evolving research field. The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) plays a key role in shaping opinion and endoscopy activity throughout Europe and further afield. Establishing key unanswered questions within the field of encloscopy and prioritizing those that are important enables researchers and funders to appropriately allocate resources. Methods: Over 2 years, the ESGE Research Committee gathered information on research priorities and refined them through a modified Delphi approach. Consultations were held with the ESGE Governing Board and Quality Improvement Committee to identify important unanswered questions. Research workshops were held at the 21st United European Gastroenterology Week. Research questions were refilled by the ESGE Research Committee and Governing Board, compiled into an online survey, and distributed to all ESGE members, who were invited to rank each question by priority. Results: The final questionnaire yielded 291 responses from over 60 countries. The three countries with the highest response rates were Spain, Italy, and United Kingdom. Most responders were from teaching hospitals (62%) and were specialist endoscopists (51%). Responses were analyzed with weighted rankings, resulting in prioritization of 26 key unanswered questions. The top ranked generic questions were: 1) How do we define the correct surveillance interval following endoscopic diagnosis? 2) How do we correctly utilize advanced endoscopic imaging? 3) What are the best markers of endoscopy quality? Conclusion: Following this comprehensive process, the ESGE has identified and ranked the key unanswered questions within the field of gastrointestinal endoscopy. Researchers, funders, and journals should prioritize studies that seek to answer these important questions.

Background and study aim: While colonoscopy screening is widely used in several European countries and the United States, there are no randomized trials to quantify its benefits. The Nordic-European Initiative on Colorectal Cancer (NordICC) is a multinational, randomized controlled trial aiming at investigating the effect of colonoscopy screening on colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality. This paper describes the rationale and design of the NordICC trial. Study design: Men and women aged 55 to 64 years are drawn from the population registries in the participating countries and randomly assigned to either once-only colonoscopy screening with removal of all detected lesions, or no screening (standard of care in the trial regions). All individuals are followed for 15 years after inclusion using dedicated national registries. The primary end points of the trial are cumulative CRC-specific death and CRC incidence during 15 years of follow-up. Power analysis: We hypothesize a 50 % CRC mortality-reducing efficacy of the colonoscopy intervention and predict 50 % compliance, yielding a 25 % mortality reduction among those invited to screening. For 90 % power and a two-sided alpha level of 0.05, using a 2:1 randomization, 45 600 individuals will be randomized to control, and 22 800 individuals to the colonoscopy group. Interim analyses of the effect of colonoscopy on CRC incidence and mortality will be performed at 10-year follow-up. Conclusions: The aim of the NordICC trial is to quantify the effectiveness of population-based colonoscopy screening. This will allow development of evidence-based guidelines for CRC screening in the general population. Trial registration: NCT 00883792.

Colorectal cancer screening guidelines are identical for men and women despite reported differences in epidemiology, endoscopy performance, screening preferences, and screening uptake. High-quality research is needed to determine whether gender aspects may in real world increase acceptance and overcome screening barriers, which may lead to better use of limited resources allocated for public health.

Randomized Comparison of Three Palliative Regimens Including Brachytherapy, Photodynamic Therapy, and APC in Patients With Malignant Dysphagia (CONSORT 1a) (Revised II)

In light of the huge population at risk for colorectal cancer (CRC) and limited screening resources, shifting the use of screening tests from low-risk to high-risk groups is a valid option. This study reviews the gender of potential screenees as a factor influencing CRC screening yield and overall results. The higher risk of advanced neoplasia, better endoscopy performance, and greater endoscopy screening uptake in men should be taken into consideration when planning an optimized CRC screening program.

Sedation for endoscopy provides comfort for the patient and better examination conditions for the endoscopist. The high costs of providing anaesthesia by specialists and the relative lack of specialist personnel in many countries have led to the wider introduction of sedation delivered by non-anaesthesiologists. Such sedation should be targeted for moderate levels of sedation; however, personnel should be able to avoid - and rescue patients from - deeper sedation levels. Several conditions have to be fulfilled to provide proper and safe non-anaesthesiologist sedation for endoscopy, especially when propofol is to be used. These conditions include formal training, supervision by anaesthesiology staff, and definition of standard operating procedures on the national as well as local levels.

Gastroesophageal reflux disease is regarded as a spectrum of diseases: non-erosive reflux disease (NERD), erosive reflux disease (ERD), and the far end of the spectrum represented by patients with Barrett's esophagus. Among predisposing factors, both risk and protective polymorphic variants of several genes may influence the clinical outcomes of reflux disease. Consequently, different molecular mechanisms are likely to underlie the development of clinical variants of reflux disease. Ninety six patients with reflux disease were screened for polymorphisms of CARD15, SLC22A4 (OCTN1), SLC22A5 (OCTN2), DLG5, ATG16L1 and IL23R genes which had previously been found to associate with immune-mediated chronic inflammatory disorders. While none of the polymorphisms were associated with NERD or ERD, the 1142G/A variant of the IL23R gene was found to be a risk variant in Barrett's esophagus patients. The IL23/IL23R pathway may modulate STAT3 transcriptional activity which is an essential regulator not only of immune-mediated inflammation, but also of inflammatory-associated apoptosis resistance. Although the mechanisms of metaplastic transition of inflamed squamous epithelium are undetermined as yet, our findings suggest potential involvement of alternations in the IL23/IL23R pathway as a molecular background of Barrett's esophagus development.

This article summarizes the most important recent articles on colonoscopy as a screening tool for colorectal cancer, presenting screening outcomes and quality issues. We also refer to the first published results of CT colonography screening in the United States and cost-effectiveness analyses of this method. Also discussed are recent progress in fecal DNA testing and studies of the impact of screening on mortality and lifestyle.

Barrett's esophagus represents a well-defined precursor lesion of esophageal adenocarcinoma, although only a subset of patients with these lesions advances to invasive cancer. Currently, reliable markers predicting neoplastic progression in Barrett's esophagus are lacking. The only clinically useful risk factor is the presence of dysplasia in Barrett's epithelium, but its use as a prognostic marker of disease progression has several significant limitations. Thus, identification of biomarkers of potential prognostic value in dysplasia development in Barrett's esophagus is highly important. The aim of the study was to determine if expression levels of selected genes support histologic diagnosis of dysplastic changes in Barrett's esophagus. Upon rigorous sampling and independent histopathologic examination of endoscopic specimens by two experienced gastrointestinal pathologists, 56 patients with Barrett's esophagus (16 negative for dysplasia, 15 with indefinite, 21 with low-grade, and 4 with high-grade dysplasia) were selected for molecular analysis. The relative mRNA levels of ten selected genes were estimated by quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) analysis. Although expression of nine genes showed trends toward down- or upregulation during progression from Barrett's esophagus without dysplasia to Barrett's esophagus with high-grade dysplasia, only a decrease in S100A2 mRNA levels was statistically significant (P

Barrett's esophagus is characterized by the replacement of squamous epithelium with specialized intestinal metaplastic mucosa. The exact mechanisms of initiation and development of Barrett's metaplasia remain unknown, but a hypothesis of "successful adaptation" against noxious reflux components has been proposed. To search for the repertoire of adaptation mechanisms of Barrett's metaplasia, we employed high-throughput functional genomic and proteomic methods that defined the molecular background of metaplastic mucosa resistance to reflux. Transcriptional profiling was established for 23 pairs of esophageal squamous epithelium and Barrett's metaplasia tissue samples using Affymetrix U133A 2.0 GeneChips and validated by quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction. Differences in protein composition were assessed by electrophoretic and mass-spectrometry-based methods. Among 2,822 genes differentially expressed between Barrett's metaplasia and squamous epithelium, we observed significantly overexpressed metaplastic mucosa genes that encode cytokines and growth factors, constituents of extracellular matrix, basement membrane and tight junctions, and proteins involved in prostaglandin and phosphoinositol metabolism, nitric oxide production, and bioenergetics. Their expression likely reflects defense and repair responses of metaplastic mucosa, whereas overexpression of genes encoding heat shock proteins and several protein kinases in squamous epithelium may reflect lower resistance of normal esophageal epithelium than Barrett's metaplasia to reflux components. Despite the methodological and interpretative difficulties in data analyses discussed in this paper, our studies confirm that Barrett's metaplasia may be regarded as a specific microevolution allowing for accumulation of mucosal morphological and physiological changes that better protect against reflux injury.