Search

Simple Summary: This study looked at different ways to predict the risk of colorectal cancer using blood tests. Sixteen studies from 2015 to 2024 were reviewed, focusing on people with an average risk of cancer who were undergoing a colonoscopy for screening. The most common test was a complete blood count, which showed good accuracy. Other tests included tests of proteins, metabolites, enzymes, and markers related to insulin and anemia. The best results came from a test using a group of plasma metabolites. While these tests could make cancer screening more accurate, many studies did not show how these models could be used in real-life settings. More research is needed to understand how these models can be effectively used in current screening programs. Background/Objectives: Risk prediction models (RPMs) for colorectal cancer (CRC) could facilitate risk-based screening. Models incorporating biomarkers may improve the utility of current RPMs. We performed a systematic review of studies reporting RPMs for CRC that evaluated the impact of blood-based biomarkers on clinical outcome prediction at the time of screening colonoscopy in average-risk populations. Methods: We conducted a search of MEDLINE, Web of Science, and PubMed databases from inception through April 2024. Studies that developed or validated a model to predict risk of CRC or its precursors were included. Studies were limited to those including patients undergoing average-risk CRC screening. Results: Sixteen studies published between 2015 and 2024 were included. Outcomes included CRC (16 studies) and high-risk adenomas (1 study). Using a complete blood count was the most common biomarker and was able to achieve an AUC of 0.82 and a specificity of 0.88. Other blood-based biomarkers included were various serum proteins/metabolites/enzymes, plasma metabolites, insulin-related factors, and anemia markers. The highest-performing model, with an AUC of 0.99, involved the use of a plasma metabolite panel. Conclusions: The evidence base of RPMs for CRC screening is expanding and incorporating biomarkers, which remain a prominent aspect of model discovery. Most RPMs included a lack of internal/external validation or discussion as to how the model could be implemented clinically. As biomarkers improve the discriminatory potential of RPMs, more research is needed for the evaluation and implementation of RPMs within existing CRC screening frameworks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background & Aims: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)-related adverse events (AEs) are associated with morbidity, mortality, and health care expenditure. We aimed to assess incidences and comparisons of ERCP AEs., Methods: We included studies performed after 2000 reporting on ERCP AEs from database inception through March 12, 2024. Outcomes included pancreatitis, bleeding, cholangitis, cholecystitis, perforation, and death. DerSimonian and Laird random effects meta-analyses were performed to calculate incidences of AEs. Subgroup and pairwise meta-analyses were performed. Meta-regression was performed on median recruitment year to assess temporal trends in pancreatitis incidence., Results: A total of 380 studies were included. The incidence of death attributable to ERCP was 0.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.1%-0.3%; I 2 , 44%; n = 47,258) in all-comers. The overall incidence of pancreatitis was 4.6% (95% CI, 4.0%-5.1%; I 2 , 96%; n = 293,378) among all-comers and 6.5% (95% CI, 5.9%-7.1%, I 2 , 89%; n = 88,809) among first-time patients. Pancreatitis incidence remained stable between 2000 and 2023 (average annual percent change 0.06, 95% CI, -0.27 to 0.39). The overall incidences of the following AEs for all-comers were: bleeding (1.5%; 95% CI, 1.2%-1.7%; I 2 , 93%; n = 229,655), cholangitis (2.5%; 95% CI, 1.9%-3.3%; I 2 , 96%; n = 121,619), cholecystitis (0.8%; 95% CI, 0.5%-1.2%; I 2 , 39%; n = 7799), and perforation (0.5%; 95% CI, 0.4%-0.6%; I 2 , 90%; n = 306,378)., Conclusions: ERCP-associated AEs remain common. Incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis remained static despite improvements in techniques, prevention, and recognition. These results are important to patients, endoscopists, and policy makers to inform consent and to encourage implementation of available risk mitigation strategies., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)