Search

Background A significant proportion of upper gastrointestinal cancers (UGICs) remain undetected during esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). We investigated the characteristics and risk factors of UGICs missed during endoscopy. Methods In this nationwide registry-based study, we analyzed two large Polish datasets (National Health Fund and National Cancer Registry) to identify individuals who underwent EGD and were subsequently diagnosed with UGIC. Cancers diagnosed Results We included 4 105 399 patients (mean age 56.0 years [SD 17.4]; 57.5 % female) who underwent 5 877 674 EGDs in 2012–2018. Within this cohort, 33 241 UGICs were diagnosed, of which 1993 (6.0 %) were missed. Within esophageal neoplasms, adenocarcinomas were more frequently missed than squamous cell cancers (6.1 % vs. 4.2 %), with a relative risk of 1.4 (95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.1–1.8, P = 0.01). Most gastric cancers were adenocarcinomas, of which 5.7 % were classified as missed. Overall, a higher proportion of missed UGICs than prevalent cancers presented at an advanced stage (42.2 % vs. 36.2 %, P Conclusions Among UGICs, esophageal adenocarcinomas were missed most frequently. Missed cancers occur more frequently within the primary care sector and are found more often in women and individuals with multiple comorbidities.

In the era of populational screening programs for colorectal cancer, evaluation of their quality and efficacy becomes an important issue. One of the main criteria taken into account when assessing the quality of a screening program is related to the risk of colorectal cancer developing in the period between the screening colonoscopy and the control examination. The objective of this article consists in presenting the results of the doctoral research carried out by dr. Paulina Wieszcza, a beneficient of the Polpharma Scientific Foundation scholarship. The objective of the doctoral dissertation was to investigate and discuss the relationship between the definition of risk groups as well as the quality of the study and the risk of colorectal cancer developing after the screening colonoscopy. The risk of colorectal cancer developing following adenomas being removed during the screening colonoscopy procedure was assessed using data obtained from the Colorectal Cancer Screening Program and the National Cancer Registry databases. The quality of the study was assessed on the basis of literature evidence regarding the adenoma detection rates (ADR). A total of 236.089 patients were included in colorectal cancer risk analyses, with at least one adenoma being detected in a screening study in 17.7% of cases. Over the follow-up period (median of 7 years, maximum duration of 14 years), colorectal cancer was detected in 439 patients. It was demonstrated that when the high-risk group was defined as patients presenting with adenomas ≥ 20 mm in diameter or high grade dysplasia rather than patients with ≥ 3 adenomas or adenomas ≥10 mm in diameter with high grade dysplasia or villous component (current definition), the number of patients requiring intensive surveillance can be reduced by 74% without any impact on the risk in the low-risk group. The literature review revealed a total of three studies which clearly showed that the risk of colorectal cancer significantly decreased with the increase in the endoscopist’s ADR. Restricting the high-risk group to patients with adenomas ≥ 20 mm in diameter or high-grade dysplasia facilitates optimized care being delivered to patients with a significantly increased risk of colorectal cancer. Scientific evidence is available for the important role of endoscopist’s ADR as the key parameter of the quality of colonoscopic examination.

Risk factors of cervical cancer (CC) development are well investigated, however, those influencing the risk of a potential false negative cytology preceding diagnosis of an invasive CC are not. We have aimed to explore these factors according to the data from Organised Cervical Cancer Screening Programme (OCCSP) in Poland. A total of 2.36 million of Pap tests sampled in 2010–2012 within OCCSP were merged with the Polish National Cancer Registry to identify CC cases after abnormal cytology and after normal cytology within 3 years of screening. Of 1460 invasive CCs, 1025 were preceded by abnormal and 399 by normal cytology result. Multivariate logistic analysis indicated that the presence of microorganisms in the Pap (OR = 2.18, 95% CI 1.65–2.87), evaluation by smaller (below 9000 slides processed per year) laboratories (OR = 1.60, 95% CI 1.22–2.09) and non‐squamous histology of cancer increased the odds for a potential false negative result (OR = 3.39, 95% CI 2.37–4.85 for adenocarcinoma, OR = 1.99, 95% CI 1.11–3.55 for other types of carcinoma), whereas cervical ectropion, other macroscopic changes on the cervix and smoking decrease the odds for a potential false negative Pap test result preceding CC (OR = 0.61, 95% CI 0.45–0.82, OR = 0.41, 95% CI 0.25–0.67, OR = 0.60, 95% CI 0.46–0.78, respectively). Proper triage of women with microscopic signs of microorganisms in the Pap smear should be reconsidered and cytology should be assessed in laboratories processing over 9000 slides annually to decrease the odds for negative Pap test result in 2 years before CC diagnosis. Information on macroscopic changes on the cervix provided to cytomorphologist may reduce the risk of a potential false negative cytology result., Although aetiology of cervical cancer is well established, risk factors for missing advanced cervical neoplasia in screening vary. In our study, on over 2.36 million of Pap tests higher risk of a potential false negative smear was associated with a low laboratory workload, and thus, we propose a minimum benchmark. Additional risk factors of a negative cytology result before cervical cancer diagnosis were presence of microorganisms in the smear and non‐squamous histology of cancer. Ectropion, other macroscopic changes of the cervix and smoking decreased the risk.

ObjectiveDespite regular colonoscopy surveillance, colorectal cancers still occur in patients with Lynch syndrome. Thus, detection of all relevant precancerous lesions remains very important. The present study investigates Linked Colour imaging (LCI), an image-enhancing technique, as compared with high-definition white light endoscopy (HD-WLE) for the detection of polyps in this patient group.DesignThis prospective, randomised controlled trial was performed by 22 experienced endoscopists from eight centres in six countries. Consecutive Lynch syndrome patients ≥18 years undergoing surveillance colonoscopy were randomised (1:1) and stratified by centre for inspection with either LCI or HD-WLE. Primary outcome was the polyp detection rate (PDR).ResultsBetween January 2018 and March 2020, 357 patients were randomised and 332 patients analysed (160 LCI, 172 HD-WLE; 6 excluded due to incomplete colonoscopies and 19 due to insufficient bowel cleanliness). No significant difference was observed in PDR with LCI (44.4%; 95% CI 36.5% to 52.4%) compared with HD-WLE (36.0%; 95% CI 28.9% to 43.7%) (p=0.12). Of the secondary outcome parameters, more adenomas were found on a patient (adenoma detection rate 36.3%; vs 25.6%; p=0.04) and a colonoscopy basis (mean adenomas per colonoscopy 0.65 vs 0.42; p=0.04). The median withdrawal time was not statistically different between LCI and HD-WLE (12 vs 11 min; p=0.16).ConclusionLCI did not improve the PDR compared with HD-WLE in patients with Lynch syndrome undergoing surveillance. The relevance of findings more adenomas by LCI has to be examined further.Trial registration numberNCT03344289.

Main recommendations1. ESGE/ESGAR recommend computed tomographic colonography (CTC) as the radiological examination of choice for the diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. ESGE/ESGAR do not recommend barium enema in this setting. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.2. ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC, preferably the same or next day, if colonoscopy is incomplete. The timing depends on an interdisciplinary decision including endoscopic and radiological factors. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. ESGE/ESGAR suggests that, in centers with expertise in and availability of colon capsule endoscopy (CCE), CCE preferably the same or the next day may be considered if colonoscopy is incomplete. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.3. When colonoscopy is contraindicated or not possible, ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an acceptable and equally sensitive alternative for patients with alarm symptoms. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. Because of lack of direct evidence, ESGE/ESGAR do not recommend CCE in this situation. Very low quality evidence. ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an acceptable alternative to colonoscopy for patients with non-alarm symptoms. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. In centers with availability, ESGE/ESGAR suggests that CCE may be considered in patients with non-alarm symptoms. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.4. Where there is no organized fecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based population colorectal screening program, ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an option for colorectal cancer screening, providing the screenee is adequately informed about test characteristics, benefits, and risks, and depending on local service- and patient-related factors. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. ESGE/ESGAR do not suggest CCE as a first-line screening test for colorectal cancer. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.5. ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC in the case of a positive fecal occult blood test (FOBT) or FIT with incomplete or unfeasible colonoscopy, within organized population screening programs. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. ESGE/ESGAR also suggest the use of CCE in this setting based on availability. Weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence.6. ESGE/ESGAR suggest CTC with intravenous contrast medium injection for surveillance after curative-intent resection of colorectal cancer only in patients in whom colonoscopy is contraindicated or unfeasible. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. There is insufficient evidence to recommend CCE in this setting. Very low quality evidence.7. ESGE/ESGAR suggest CTC in patients with high risk polyps undergoing surveillance after polypectomy only when colonoscopy is unfeasible. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. There is insufficient evidence to recommend CCE in post-polypectomy surveillance. Very low quality evidence.8. ESGE/ESGAR recommend against CTC in patients with acute colonic inflammation and in those who have recently undergone colorectal surgery, pending a multidisciplinary evaluation. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 9. ESGE/ESGAR recommend referral for endoscopic polypectomy in patients with at least one polyp >= 6 mm detected at CTC or CCE. Follow-up CTC may be clinically considered for 6-9-mm CTC-detected lesions if patients do not undergo polypectomy because of patient choice, comorbidity, and/or low risk profile for advanced neoplasia. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.Source and scopeThis is an update of the 2014-15 Guideline of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and the European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR). It addresses the clinical indications for the use of imaging alternatives to standard colonoscopy. A targeted literature search was performed to evaluate the evidence supporting the use of computed tomographic colonography (CTC) or colon capsule endoscopy (CCE). The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system was adopted to define the strength of recommendations and the quality of evidence.

Current guidelines recommend a 10-year interval between screening colonoscopies, but evidence is limited.To assess the long-term risk for colorectal cancer (CRC) and death from CRC after a high- and low-quality single negative screening colonoscopy.Observational study.Polish Colonoscopy Screening Program.Average-risk individuals aged 50 to 66 years who had a single negative colonoscopy (no neoplastic findings).Standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) and standardized mortality ratios (SMRs) of CRC after high- and low-quality single negative screening colonoscopy. High-quality colonoscopy included a complete examination, with adequate bowel preparation, performed by endoscopists with an adenoma detection rate of 20% or greater.Among 165 887 individuals followed for up to 17.4 years, CRC incidence (0.28 [95% CI, 0.25 to 0.30]) and mortality (0.19 [CI, 0.16 to 0.21]) were 72% and 81% lower, respectively, than in the general population. High-quality examination resulted in 2-fold lower CRC incidence (SIR, 0.16 [CI, 0.13 to 0.20]) and mortality (SMR, 0.10 [CI, 0.06 to 0.14]) than low-quality examination (SIR, 0.32 [CI, 0.29 to 0.35]; SMR, 0.22 [CI, 0.18 to 0.25]). In multivariable analysis, the hazard ratios for CRC incidence after high-quality versus low-quality colonoscopy were 0.55 (CI, 0.35 to 0.86) for 0 to 5 years, 0.54 (CI, 0.38 to 0.77) for 5.1 to 10 years, and 0.46 (CI, 0.25 to 0.86) for 10 to 17.4 years. Only after high-quality colonoscopy did the SIR and SMR for 10.1 to 17.4 years of follow-up not differ compared with earlier observation periods.The general population was used as the comparison group.A single negative screening colonoscopy was associated with reduced CRC incidence and mortality for up to 17.4 years. Only high-quality colonoscopy yielded profound and stable reductions in CRC incidence and mortality throughout the entire follow-up.Polish Ministry of Health.

In Poland, cervical cancer incidence and mortality still remain considerably higher than in Western European countries or North America. Recent data indicate decreasing trends in women younger than 60 years and stable trends in older women. In this article, we identified obstacles in primary and secondary prevention of cervical cancer in Poland. We analysed local legislation, management structure and organization of cervical cancer prevention in Poland and reviewed solutions available and implemented in other European countries. The main weaknesses include: (i) very low coverage of organized screening; concurrent unregistered opportunistic screening with unknown coverage and high test consumption (ii) suboptimal quality assurance in organized screening and no external quality assurance in opportunistic screening (iii) very low coverage of human papillomavirus vaccination that is not centrally reimbursed (iv) absence of pilot evaluation of (a) interventions that may improve population coverage and (b) performance of new preventive strategies. The proposed solutions are multifaceted and involve: (i) legislative and organizational regulation of cervical cancer screening aimed at comprehensive registration of procedures, data access and quality assurance (ii) pilot testing and implementation of new ways to increase coverage of cervical cancer screening, in particular among older women (iii) pilot evaluation with possible introduction of human papillomavirus-based screening and (iv) inclusion of human papillomavirus vaccination into the reimbursed national immunization program.

Main RecommendationsESGE recommends that individuals with hereditary gastrointestinal polyposis syndromes should be surveilled in dedicated units that provide monitoring of compliance and endoscopic performance measures. Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence, level of agreement 90 %.ESGE recommends performing esophagogastroduodenoscopy, small-bowel examination, and/or colonoscopy earlier than the planned surveillance procedure if a patient is symptomatic. Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence, level of agreement 100 %.

BACKGROUND: Obesity is a known risk factor of colorectal cancer (CRC). However, precise interconnections between excessive body fat and CRC are still vague. Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess whether stage of CRC detected in overweight and obese individuals differs from individuals with normal body mass index (BMI). A secondary aim of this study was to elucidate whether overweight and obesity influence the overall survival in CRC. METHODS: This study was a cross-sectional analysis of 163,129 individuals who underwent screening colonoscopy performed on data from a prospectively maintained database of the Polish Colonoscopy Screening Program. RESULTS: Overweight and obese individuals present with a less advanced CRC in screening setting (p = 0.014). This trend is the most pronounced in males (p = 0.001). Univariable and multivariable analyses revealed that obesity was a negative predictor of detection of advanced CRC with odds ratio 0.72 (95% confidence interval 0.52–1.00; p = 0.047). Furthermore, overweight and obesity were not statistically significant predictors of risk of death (p = 0.614 and p = 0.446, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Obese screenees present with a less advanced disease in comparison to non-obese. Moreover, survival stratified by clinical stage seems to not be influenced by BMI category. Therefore, a higher proportion of early diagnosed cancers can potentially create a survival benefit in this group.

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) together with the United European Gastroenterology (UEG) recently developed a short list of performance measures for small-bowel endoscopy (i.e. small-bowel capsule endoscopy and device-assisted enteroscopy) with the final goal of providing endoscopy services across Europe with a tool for quality improvement. Six key performance measures both for small-bowel capsule endoscopy and for device-assisted enteroscopy were selected for inclusion, with the intention being that practice at both a service and endoscopist level should be evaluated against them. Other performance measures were considered to be less relevant, based on an assessment of their overall importance, scientific acceptability, and feasibility. Unlike lower and upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, for which performance measures had already been identified, this is the first time small-bowel endoscopy quality measures have been proposed. ispartof: UNITED EUROPEAN GASTROENTEROLOGY JOURNAL vol:7 issue:5 pages:614-641 ispartof: location:England status: published

Background and Aims Inflammatory bowel disease is associated with an increased risk of colorectal cancer, with estimates ranging 2–18%, depending on the duration of colitis. The management of neoplasia in colitis remains controversial. Current guidelines recommend endoscopic resection if the lesion is clearly visible with distinct margins. Colectomy is recommended if complete endoscopic resection is not guaranteed. We aimed to assess the outcomes of all neoplastic endoscopic resections in inflammatory bowel disease. Methods This was a multicentre retrospective cohort study of 119 lesions of visible dysplasia in 93 patients, resected endoscopically in inflammatory bowel disease. Results A total of 6/65 [9.2%] lesions 20 mm in size were treated by EMR vs 35/51 [68.6%] by ESD. Almost all patients [97%] without fibrosis were treated by EMR, and patients with fibrosis were treated by ESD [87%], p < 0.001. In all, 49/78 [63%] lesions treated by EMR were resected en-bloc and 27/41 [65.9%] of the ESD/KAR [knife-assisted resection] cases were resected en-bloc, compared with 15/41 [36.6%] resected piecemeal. Seven recurrences occurred in the cohort. Seven complications occurred in the cohort; six were managed endoscopically and one patient with a delayed perforation underwent surgery. Conclusions Larger lesions with fibrosis are best treated by ESD, whereas smaller lesions without fibrosis are best managed by EMR. Both EMR and ESD are feasible in the management of endoscopic resections in colitis.

Background and study aims European guidelines (ESGE) recommend measuring patient experience and 30-day complication rate after colonoscopy. We compared digital and paper-based feedback on patients’ experience and 30-day complications after screening colonoscopy. Patients and methods Screenees attending for primary screening colonoscopies in two centers from September 2015 to December 2016 were randomized (1:1) to an intervention arm (choice of feedback method) or control arm (routine paper-based feedback). Participants in the intervention arm could choose preferred feedback method (paper-based, automated telephone or online survey) and were contacted by automated telephone 30 days after colonoscopy to assess complications. Control group participants self-reported complications. Primary and secondary endpoints were response rates to feedback and complications questionnaire, respectively. Results There were 1,281 and 1,260 participants in the intervention and control arms, respectively. There was no significant difference in response rate between study groups (64.8 % vs 61.5 %; P = 0.08). Free choice of feedback improved response for participants identified as poor responders: younger than 60 years (60.8 % vs 54.7 %; P = 0.031), male (64.0 % vs 58.6 %; P = 0.045) and in small non-public center (56.2 % vs 42.5 %; P = 0.043).In the intervention arm, 1,168 participants (91.2 %) answered the phone call concerning complications. A total of 79 participants (6.2 %) reported complications, of which two (0.2 %) were verified by telephone as clinically relevant. No complications were self-reported in the control group. Conclusion The overall response rate was not significantly improved with digital feedback, yet the technology yielded significant improvement in participants defined as poor responders. Our study demonstrated feasibility and efficacy of digital patient feedback about complications after colonoscopy.

Background The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of low-volume vs. standard-volume bowel preparation on participation in screening colonoscopy, bowel preparation quality, and lesion detection rates. Methods This was a multicenter, randomized, health services study within the population-based primary colonoscopy screening program in Poland. Individuals aged 55 – 62 years were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to bowel preparation with a low-volume (0.3 L sodium picosulfate with magnesium citrate) or standard-volume (4 L polyethylene glycol) regimen and then invited to participate in screening colonoscopy. The primary outcome measure was the rate of participation in screening colonoscopy. Compliance with the assigned bowel preparation, bowel preparation quality, and lesion detection rates were also evaluated. Results A total of 13 621 individuals were randomized and 13 497 were analyzed (6752 in the low-volume group and 6745 in the standard-volume group). The participation rate (16.6 % vs. 15.5 %; P = 0.08) and compliance rate (93.3 % vs. 94.1 %; P = 0.39) did not differ significantly between the groups. In the low-volume group, fewer participants had adequate bowel preparation compared with the standard-volume group (whole colon 79.0 % vs. 86.4 %, P Conclusion When compared with a standard-volume bowel preparation with polyethylene glycol, low-volume bowel preparation with sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate did not improve participation rate or lesion detection rates, and negatively affected bowel preparation quality.

Main RecommendationsESGE recommends that individuals with Lynch syndrome should be followed in dedicated units that practice monitoring of compliance and endoscopic performance measures.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence, level of agreement 100 %.ESGE recommends starting colonoscopy surveillance at the age of 25 years for MLH1 and MSH2 mutation carriers and at the age of 35 years for MSH6 and PMS2 mutation carriers.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence, level of agreement 100 %. ESGE recommends the routine use of high-definition endoscopy systems in individuals with Lynch syndrome. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence, level of agreement 100 %. ESGE suggests the use of chromoendoscopy may be of benefit in individuals with Lynch syndrome undergoing colonoscopy; however routine use must be balanced against costs, training, and practical considerations.Weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence, level of agreement 89 %.ESGE recommends definition of familial risk of colorectal cancer as the presence of at least two first-degree relatives with colorectal cancer or at least one first-degree relative with colorectal cancer before the age of 50 years.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence, level of agreement 92 %.ESGE recommends colonoscopy surveillance in first-degree relatives of colorectal cancer patients in families that fulfill the definition of familial risk of colorectal cancer.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence, level of agreement 100 %.

ObjectiveThe incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) declines among subjects aged 50 years and above. An opposite trend appears among younger adults. In Europe, data on CRC incidence among younger adults are lacking. We therefore aimed to analyse European trends in CRC incidence and mortality in subjects younger than 50 years.DesignData on age-related CRC incidence and mortality between 1990 and 2016 were retrieved from national and regional cancer registries. Trends were analysed by Joinpoint regression and expressed as annual percent change.ResultsWe retrieved data on 143.7 million people aged 20–49 years from 20 European countries. Of them, 187 918 (0.13%) were diagnosed with CRC. On average, CRC incidence increased with 7.9% per year among subjects aged 20–29 years from 2004 to 2016. The increase in the age group of 30–39 years was 4.9% per year from 2005 to 2016, the increase in the age group of 40–49 years was 1.6% per year from 2004 to 2016. This increase started earliest in subjects aged 20–29 years, and 10–20 years later in those aged 30–39 and 40–49 years. This is consistent with an age-cohort phenomenon. Although in most European countries the CRC incidence had risen, some heterogeneity was found between countries. CRC mortality did not significantly change among the youngest adults, but decreased with 1.1%per year between 1990 and 2016 and 2.4% per year between 1990 and 2009 among those aged 30–39 years and 40–49 years, respectively.ConclusionCRC incidence rises among young adults in Europe. The cause for this trend needs to be elucidated. Clinicians should be aware of this trend. If the trend continues, screening guidelines may need to be reconsidered.

Introduction Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a serious health problem, and various screening programs to reduce CRC have been introduced worldwide. However, the cost‑effectiveness of a program based on once‑in‑a‑lifetime colonoscopy in Poland is unknown. Objectives The main aim of this study was to assess the cost‑effectiveness of Polish Colonoscopy Screening Platform (PCSP), the colonoscopy screening program in Poland. Patients and methods A Markov model was constructed to compare the strategy of colonoscopy screening as compared with no screening in 100 000 subjects. The model was based on data collected from the nationwide Polish CRC screening program whenever possible. The incremental cost‑effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated and compared with the willingness‑to‑pay thresholds. A sensitivity analysis was also performed using the Monte Carlo simulation. Results Colonoscopy screening within PCSP resulted in a 18.9% reduction in CRC incidence and 19.8% reduction in CRC mortality. The strategy allowed a gain of 2317 life‑years saved (1959 after discount‑ ing). The cost of colonoscopy screening per participant examined was estimated at 267.70 USD (95% CI, 263.08-272.32 USD). The ICER was less than 6500 USD, which was much lower than the accepted willingness‑to‑pay thresholds, indicating that the screening was cost‑effective. Conclusions Colonoscopy screening within the PCSP is cost‑effective and may have a substantial impact on the Polish society due to life‑years saved. The results have good informative value not only for health policy makers and medical practitioners, but also for health technology assessment.

Background: Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) is an emerging technique in the treatment of Zenker&rsquo, s diverticulum (ZD). This study aimed to analyze the feasibility of Zenker&rsquo, s POEM (Z-POEM) in a multicenter setting and assess its performance using a validated Kothari-Haber Scoring System newly developed for symptom measurement in ZD. Materials and methods: This was a multicenter retrospective study involving three Polish tertiary referral endoscopic units. The data of consecutive patients with symptomatic ZD treated with Z-POEM in Poland between May 2019 and August 2020 were retrieved and analyzed. Primary outcome measures were technical success and clinical success rate (&lt, 3 points in Kothari-Haber Score at 2&ndash, 3 months follow-up). Secondary outcome measures included procedures&rsquo, duration, length of hospital stay, and adverse events. Results: 22 patients with symptomatic ZD were included. The mean age was 67.6 (&plusmn, 10.7) years, and 14 (63.6%) were male. All but two patients were treatment na&iuml, ve. The average size of the ZD was 30 mm (IQR, 24&ndash, 40 mm). Technical success was achieved in all patients (100%), whereas clinical success was 90.9%. The average Kothari-Haber Score was 6.35 before treatment and has dropped to 0.65 after the treatment (p &lt, 0.0001). The mean procedure time was 48.8 (&plusmn, 19.3) minutes, and the median length of hospital stay was 2 days (IQR, 2&ndash, 3). Three patients (13.6%) had post-procedural emphysema, of which two were mild and self-resolving (9.1%), and one was moderate (4.5%) and complicated with laryngeal edema and prolonged intubation. Conclusions: This feasibility study suggests that Z-POEM is a highly effective and safe treatment for ZD, particularly among treatment-na&iuml, ve patients. Comparative studies with other treatment modalities over longer follow-up are warranted.

Primary colonoscopy and fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) are considered first-tier tests for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Although colonoscopy is considered the most efficacious test, FIT might achieve higher participation rates. It is uncertain what the best strategy is for offering population-wide CRC screening.This was a multicenter randomized health services study performed within the framework of the Polish Colonoscopy Screening Program between January 2019 and March 2020 on screening-naïve individuals. Eligible candidates were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to participate in 1 of 3 competing invitation strategies: control (invitation to screening colonoscopy only); sequential (invitation to primary colonoscopy and invitation for FIT for initial nonresponders); or choice (invitation offering a choice of colonoscopy or FIT). The primary outcome was participation in CRC screening within 18 weeks after enrollment into the study. The secondary outcome was diagnostic yield for advanced neoplasia.Overall, 12,485 individuals were randomized into the 3 study groups. The participation rate in the control group (17.5%) was significantly lower compared with the sequential (25.8%) and choice strategy (26.5%) groups (P.001 for both comparisons). The colonoscopy rates for participants with positive FITs were 70.0% for the sequential group and 73.3% for the choice group, despite active call-recall efforts. In the intention-to-screen analysis, advanced neoplasia detection rates were comparable among the control (1.1%), sequential (1.0%), and choice groups (1.1%).Offering a combination of FIT and colonoscopy as a sequential or active choice strategy increases participation in CRC screening. Increased participation in strategies with FIT do not translate into higher detection of advanced neoplasia. ClinicalTrials.gov, Number NCT03790475.

Upper gastrointestinal (UGI) endoscopy contributes a major clinical service with consistently growing demand around the world. Its utility corresponds to varying epidemiological issues throughout the globe, with cancer screening and surveillance being of the utmost priority. Despite high accuracy in neoplasia detection, UGI endoscopy remains a highly operator-dependent procedure, characterized by a substantial rate of missed pathology. Despite an overall lack of high-quality performance measures, there is an increased level of awareness about the need for quality control of this procedure, which is reflected in several guidelines and position statements published in recent years. It is widely recognized that quality assessment should go beyond mere technical aspects of the examination, and include both pre- and post-procedural factors. By this means, quality control encompasses the entire patient experience with the health care provider, from appropriate indication and physical assessment, through high-quality endoscopy service, to appropriate follow up and patient satisfaction. This article aims to review the available and emerging quality metrics for UGI endoscopy, taken mostly from Western endoscopy societies, with references to Asian recommendations where appropriate. The paper is limited solely to diagnostic UGI endoscopy and does not include performance measures for therapeutic procedures.

Background & Aims The risk of metachronous colorectal cancer (CRC) among patients with no adenomas, low-risk adenomas (LRAs), or high-risk adenomas (HRAs), detected at index colonoscopy, is unclear. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare incidence rates of metachronous CRC and CRC-related mortality after a baseline colonoscopy for each group. Methods We searched the PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, and Cochrane databases for studies that reported the incidence of CRC and adenoma characteristics after colonoscopy. The primary outcome was odds of metachronous CRC and CRC-related mortality per 10,000 person-years of follow-up after baseline colonoscopy for all the groups. Results Our final analysis included 12 studies with 510,019 patients (mean age, 59.2 ± 2.6 years; 55% male; mean duration of follow up, 8.5 ± 3.3 years). The incidence of CRC per 10,000 person-years was marginally higher for patients with LRAs compared to those with no adenomas (4.5 vs 3.4; odds ratio [OR], 1.26; 95% CI, 1.06–1.51; I2=0), but significantly higher for patients with HRAs compared to those with no adenoma ( 13.8 vs 3.4; odds ratio [OR], 2.92; 95% CI, 2.31–3.69; I2=0 ) and patients with HRAs compared to LRAs (13.81 vs 4.5; OR, 2.35; 95% CI, 1.72–3.20; I2=55%). However, the CRC-related mortality per 10,000 person-years did not differ significantly for patients with LRAs compared to no adenomas (OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.76–1.74; I2=0) but was significantly higher in persons with HRAs compared with LRAs (OR, 2.48; 95% CI, 1.30–4.75; I2=38%) and no adenomas (OR, 2.69; 95% CI, 1.87–3.87; I2=0). Conclusions The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrate that the risk of metachronous CRC and mortality is significantly higher for patients with HRAs, but this risk is very low in patients with LRAs, comparable to patients with no adenomas. Follow-up of patients with LRAs detected at index colonoscopy should be the same as for persons with no adenomas.

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

Contains fulltext : 225257.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access)

Introduction. The Cervical Cancer (CC) Prevention Programme includes 3 phases: basic (Pap smear collection), diagnostic (Pap smear evaluation) and in-depth (colposcopy/biopsy in case of abnormal smear test findings). The Programme service providers are subject to an external audit and this publication’s objective is to analyse its results from 2016 and the first half of 2017. Materials and methods. The audit of the Programme performance in the period 01.01.2016–30.06.2017 was carried out by external auditors by way of personal visits to the offices of the service providers and by way of direct data retrieval. The audit covered 12% (198) of the basic phase, 100% (66) of the diagnostic phase and 100% (62) of the in-depth phase facilities. The Polish National Health Fund (NHF) did not make available the routinely collected data for the purpose of audit. Audit data collected in the developed protocols were analysed. Results. The number of Pap smears (2,028,988) and the number of colposcopies (13,636) outside the Programme was, respectively, more than two and three times higher than in the Programme (cytology — 801,640, colposcopy — 3929). The performance of the procedures (Programme vs outside the Programme) was highly variable depending on the provider. The percentage of Pap smears unsuitable for evaluation did not differ significantly between gynaecologists and midwives. All audited cytological laboratories carried out rescreening of samples. Biopsy was not performed in 11% (2016) and 15% (2017) of colposcopy laboratories. Inaccuracies were found in 19% (61) of the audit protocols. Discussion. Significantly higher number of procedures performed outside the Programme results from lower renu­meration of procedures within the Programme. Variable provider's preferences in the mode of procedures execution indicates that with the use of appropriate organisational solutions it would be possible to reduce opportunistic screening, which is of unknown quality. The quality of Pap smear sample collection in the case of gynaecologists and midwives is the same, but the number of primary care provider (PCP) facilities where midwives collect smears is very limited. The inaccuracies noted in the audit protocols indicate that the lack of access to data collected by the National Health Fund decreased the quality of the audit carried out and the reliability of the data obtained. Conclusions. Restoring full access to data collected by the NHF is crucial for the Programme audit quality. Measures should be implemented to reduce opportunistic screening and shift the stream of tests to the Programme (both at the basic and at the in-depth phase), and to increase the availability of tests in PCP facilities through training for midwives.

Background Despite progress in diagnostic procedures, clinical diagnosis is not always confirmed by an autopsy. An autopsy is a valuable tool in evaluating diagnostic accuracy. Objectives The aim of the study was to compare clinical diagnoses of immediate causes of death with autopsy findings in patients with hematological malignancies or aplastic anemia. Material and methods In this study, the results of 154 autopsies (1993-2004) of patients with hematological diseases were reviewed and compared with clinical data. The most probable causes of death in the case of particular hematological diseases as well as the discordances between clinical and autopsy diagnoses and their relation to the clinical characteristic were identified in the studied cohort, which primarily included patients whose death at that particular time was not explained by the clinical course, and in 50% of cases was sudden. Results Although various combined infections have been found to be responsible for the largest number of deaths (26.6%), the most common single cause was myocardial infarction (29 patients, 18.8%). The discordance between clinical and post-mortem diagnoses of immediate causes of death was found in 55 patients (35.7%; 95% CI 28.2-42.8%), with 50.9% of cases considered class I discrepancies according to Goldman's criteria. The myocardial infarction was found to be clinically undiagnosed in 69% of cases. In 41% of cases, it was a class I discrepant diagnosis. Conclusions This data suggests that hematological patients require special attention and probably preventive measures concerning coronary heart disease, particularly during the initiation of antineoplastic therapy.

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and United European Gastroenterology present a short list of key performance measures for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). We recommend that endoscopy services across Europe adopt the following seven key and one minor performance measures for EUS and ERCP, for measurement and evaluation in daily practice at center and endoscopist level: 1 Adequate antibiotic prophylaxis before ERCP (key performance measure, at least 90 %); 2 Antibiotic prophylaxis before EUS-guided puncture of cystic lesions (key performance measure, at least 95 %); 3 Bile duct cannulation rate (key performance measure, at least 90 %); 4 Tissue sampling during EUS (key performance measure, at least 85 %); 5 Appropriate stent placement in patients with biliary obstruction below the hilum (key performance measure, at least 95 %); 6 Bile duct stone extraction (key performance measure, at least 90 %); 7 Post-ERCP pancreatitis (key performance measure, less than 10 %). 8 Adequate documentation of EUS landmarks (minor performance measure, at least 90 %).This present list of quality performance measures for ERCP and EUS recommended by ESGE should not be considered to be exhaustive: it might be extended in future to address further clinical and scientific issues.

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and United European Gastroenterology present a short list of key performance measures for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). We recommend that endoscopy services across Europe adopt the following seven key and one minor performance measures for EUS and ERCP, for measurement and evaluation in daily practice at centre and endoscopist level: 1 Adequate antibiotic prophylaxis before ERCP (key performance measure, at least 90%); 2 antibiotic prophylaxis before EUS-guided puncture of cystic lesions (key performance measure, at least 95%); 3 bile duct cannulation rate (key performance measure, at least 90%); 4 tissue sampling during EUS (key performance measure, at least 85%); 5 appropriate stent placement in patients with biliary obstruction below the hilum (key performance measure, at least 95%); 6 bile duct stone extraction (key performance measure, at least 90%); 7 post-ERCP pancreatitis (key performance measure, less than 10%); and 8 adequate documentation of EUS landmarks (minor performance measure, at least 90%). This present list of quality performance measures for ERCP and EUS recommended by the ESGE should not be considered to be exhaustive; it might be extended in future to address further clinical and scientific issues. ispartof: UNITED EUROPEAN GASTROENTEROLOGY JOURNAL vol:6 issue:10 pages:1448-1460 ispartof: location:England status: published

Background & Aims The quality of endoscopists' colonoscopy performance is measured by adenoma detection rate (ADR). Although ADR is associated inversely with interval colorectal cancer and colorectal cancer death, the effects of an increasing ADR have not been shown. We investigated whether increasing ADRs from individual endoscopists is associated with reduced risks of interval colorectal cancer and subsequent death. Methods We performed a prospective cohort study of individuals who underwent a screening colonoscopy within the National Colorectal Cancer Screening Program in Poland, from January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2008. We collected data from 146,860 colonoscopies performed by 294 endoscopists, with each endoscopist having participated at least twice in annual editions of primary colonoscopy screening. We used annual feedback and quality benchmark indicators to improve colonoscopy performance. We used ADR quintiles in the whole data set to categorize the annual ADRs for each endoscopist. An increased ADR was defined as an increase by at least 1 quintile category, or the maintenance of the highest category in subsequent screening years. Multivariate frailty models were used to evaluate the effects of increased ADR on the risk of interval colorectal cancer and death. Results Throughout the enrollment period, 219 endoscopists (74.5%) increased their annual ADR category. During 895,916 person-years of follow-up evaluation through the National Cancer Registry, we identified 168 interval colorectal cancers and 44 interval cancer deaths. An increased ADR was associated with an adjusted hazard ratio for interval colorectal cancer of 0.63 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.45–0.88; P = .006), and for cancer death of 0.50 (95% CI, 0.27–0.95; P = .035). Compared with no increase in ADR, reaching or maintaining the highest quintile ADR category (such as an ADR > 24.56%) decreased the adjusted hazard ratios for interval colorectal cancer to 0.27 (95% CI, 0.12–0.63; P = .003), and 0.18 (95% CI, 0.06–0.56; P = .003), respectively. Conclusions In a prospective study of individuals who underwent screening colonoscopy within a National Colorectal Cancer Screening Program, we associated increased ADR with a reduced risk of interval colorectal cancer and death.

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and United European Gastroenterology present a short list of key performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy. We recommend that endoscopy services across Europe adopt the following seven key performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy for measurement and evaluation in daily practice at a center and endoscopist level: 1 Rate of adequate bowel preparation (minimum standard 90 %); 2 Cecal intubation rate (minimum standard 90%); 3 Adenoma de-tection rate (minimum standard 25%); 4 Appropriate polypectomy technique (minimum standard 80%); 5 Complication rate (minimum standard not set); 6 Patient experience (minimum standard not set); 7 Appropriate post-polypectomy surveillance recommendations (minimum standard not set). Other identified performance measures have been listed as less relevant based on an assessment of their importance, scientific acceptability, feasibility, usability, and comparison to competing measures.

Currently curative treatment for esophageal squamous cell cancer (ESCC) is possible only in patients with early-stage, usually asymptomatic disease. In Western countries, where the incidence of ESCC is relatively low, a screening of asymptomatic, average-risk population is untenable. In order to detect early-stage ESCC or its precursor lesions it is important to identify high-risk patients and consider endoscopic surveillance in these groups. These high-risk groups include patients after curative treatment for head and neck cancer, previous endoscopic resection of ESCC, caustic injury, and patients with tylosis or achalasia. This paper discuss the evidence and proposed method of endoscopy surveillance of these high-risk patients.

Background The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) has published guidelines on key performance measures for colonoscopy. We analyzed whether those standards were met in the Polish Colonoscopy Screening Program (PCSP) and whether the monitoring was feasible. Methods We analyzed database records for 43 277 PCSP participants (25 PCSP centers) for the years 2014 – 2015. We used the guideline definitions to calculate values for all key performance measures and compared these with the proposed standards at individual, center, and program level. All data were acquired from the PCSP database, apart from complication data which was assessed from external registries. Results At the program level, four of five minimum standards and one of two target standards (no set minimum standard) were met. Adequate bowel preparation rate was 91.3 % for the whole program (range among individual centers 79.2 % – 99.2 %). Cecal intubation rate was 97.4 % (93.4 % – 99.4 %). Adenoma detection rate was 29.8 % (19.1 % – 39.1 %). An appropriate polypectomy technique was applied in 62.7 % of cases (0.4 % – 97.8 %). Regarding complications, 7-day hospitalization rate after screening colonoscopy was 0.3 % (n = 127), and 30-day all-cause mortality was 0.02 % (n = 9). Patient feedback was assessed in 66.2 % of colonoscopies (7.6 % – 81.8 %). Appropriate post-polypectomy surveillance was proposed in 95.4 % of cases (range 84.9 % – -99.7 %). It was easy to monitor 6 of 7 key performance measures within the PCSP database, but monitoring complications required the additional effort of data extraction from external registries. Conclusions The PCSP meets most proposed minimum standards at program level. Some centers need additional interventions to meet the complete set of quality standards. Use of ESGE performance measures for monitoring colonoscopy is generally feasible in the setting of the colonoscopy screening program.

Main RecommendationsESGE recommends a low fiber diet on the day preceding colonoscopy.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE recommends the use of enhanced instructions for bowel preparation.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE suggests adding oral simethicone to bowel preparation.Weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE recommends split-dose bowel preparation for elective colonoscopy.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.ESGE recommends, for patients undergoing afternoon colonoscopy, a same-day bowel preparation as an acceptable alternative to split dosing.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.ESGE recommends to start the last dose of bowel preparation within 5 hours of colonoscopy, and to complete it at least 2 hours before the beginning of the procedure.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE recommends the use of high volume or low volume PEG-based regimens as well as that of non-PEG-based agents that have been clinically validated for routine bowel preparation. In patients at risk for hydroelectrolyte disturbances, the choice of laxative should be individualized.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The diagnosis of gastric premalignant conditions (GPCs) relies on endoscopy with mucosal sampling. We hypothesized that the endoscopist biopsy rate (EBR) might constitute a quality indicator for EGD, and we have analyzed its association with GPC detection and the rate of missed gastric cancers (GCs). METHODS: We analyzed EGD databases from 2 high-volume outpatient units. EBR values, defined as the proportion of EGDs with ≥1 biopsy to all examinations were calculated for each endoscopist in Unit A (derivation cohort) and divided by the quartile values into 4 groups. Detection of GPC was calculated for each group and compared using multivariate clustered logistic regression models. Unit B database was used for validation. All patients were followed in the Cancer Registry for missed GCs diagnosed between 1 month and 3 years after EGDs with negative results. RESULTS: Sixteen endoscopists in Unit A performed 17,490 EGDs of which 15,340 (87.7%) were analyzed. EBR quartile values were 22.4% to 36.7% (low EBR), 36.8% to 43.7% (moderate), 43.8% to 51.6% (high), and 51.7% and 65.8% (very-high); median value 43.8%. The odds ratios for the moderate, high, and very-high EBR groups of detecting GPC were 1.6 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.3-1.9), 2.0 (95% CI, 1.7-2.4), and 2.5 (95% CI, 2.1-2.9), respectively, compared with the low EBR group (P < .001). This association was confirmed with the same thresholds in the validation cohort. Endoscopists with higher EBR (≥43.8%) had a lower risk of missed cancer compared with those in the lower EBR group (odds ratio, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.20-1.00; P = .049). CONCLUSIONS: The EBR parameter is highly variable among endoscopists and is associated with efficacy in GPC detection and the rate of missed GCs.

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.

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.

Background & Aims With advances in endoscopic imaging, it is possible to differentiate adenomatous from hyperplastic diminutive (1–5 mm) polyps during endoscopy. With the optical Resect-and-Discard strategy, these polyps are then removed and discarded without histopathology assessment. However, failure to recognize adenomas (vs hyperplastic polyps), or discarding a polyp with advanced histologic features, could result in a patient being considered at low risk for metachronous advanced neoplasia, resulting in an inappropriately long surveillance interval. We collected data from international cohorts of patients undergoing colonoscopy to determine what proportion of patients are high risk because of diminutive polyps advanced histologic features and their risk for metachronous advanced neoplasia. Methods We collected data from 12 cohorts (in the United States or Europe) of patients undergoing colonoscopy after a positive result from a fecal immunochemical test (FIT cohort, n = 34,221) or undergoing colonoscopies for screening, surveillance, or evaluation of symptoms (colonoscopy cohort, n = 30,123). Patients at high risk for metachronous advanced neoplasia were defined as patients with polyps that had advanced histologic features (cancer, high-grade dysplasia, ≥25% villous features), 3 or more diminutive or small (6–9 mm) nonadvanced adenomas, or an adenoma or sessile serrated lesion ≥10 mm. Using an inverse variance random effects model, we calculated the proportion of diminutive polyps with advanced histologic features; the proportion of patients classified as high risk because their diminutive polyps had advanced histologic features; and the risk of these patients for metachronous advanced neoplasia. Results In 51,510 diminutive polyps, advanced histologic features were observed in 7.1% of polyps from the FIT cohort and 1.5% polyps from the colonoscopy cohort (P = .044); however, this difference in prevalence did not produce a significant difference in the proportions of patients assigned to high-risk status (0.8% of patients in the FIT cohort and 0.4% of patients in the colonoscopy cohort) (P = .25). The proportions of high-risk patients because of diminutive polyps with advanced histologic features who were found to have metachronous advanced neoplasia (17.6%) did not differ significantly from the proportion of low-risk patients with metachronous advanced neoplasia (14.6%) (relative risk for high-risk categorization, 1.13; 95% confidence interval 0.79–1.61). Conclusion In a pooled analysis of data from 12 international cohorts of patients undergoing colonoscopy for screening, surveillance, or evaluation of symptoms, we found that diminutive polyps with advanced histologic features do not increase risk for metachronous advanced neoplasia.

ObjectiveTo estimate overdiagnosis of colorectal cancer (CRC) for screening with sigmoidoscopy and faecal occult blood testing (FOBT).DesignSimulation study using data from randomised trials.SettingPrimary screening, UK, NorwayParticipants152 850 individuals from the Nottingham trial and 98 678 individuals from the Norwegian Colorectal Cancer Prevention (NORCCAP) trial.InterventionCRC screening.Outcome measureWe estimated overdiagnosis using long-term data from two randomised trials: the Nottingham trial comparing FOBT screening every other year to no-screening, and the NORCCAP trial comparing once-only sigmoidoscopy screening to no-screening. To estimate the natural growth of adenomas to CRC, we used the following microsimulation models: (i) the Microsimulation Screening Analysis; (ii) the CRC Simulated Population model for Incidence and Natural history; (iii) the Simulation Model of Colorectal Cancer; (iv) a model derived by the German Cancer Research Center. We defined overdiagnosed cancers as the difference between the observed number of CRCs in the no-screening arm and the expected number of cancers in screening arm (sum of observed and prevented by adenoma removal). The amount of overdiagnosis is defined as the number of overdiagnosed cancers over the number of cancers observed in the no-screening arm.ResultsOverdiagnosis estimates were highly dependent on model assumptions. For FOBT screening with 2354 cancers observed in control arm, four out of five models predicted overdiagnosis, range 2.0% (2400 cancers expected in screening) to 7.6% (2533 cancers expected in screening). For sigmoidoscopy screening with 452 cancers observed in control arm, all models predicted overdiagnosis, range 25.2% (566 cancers expected in screening) to 128.1% (1031 cancers expected in screening).ConclusionsThe amount of overdiagnosis estimated based on the microsimulation models varied substantially. Microsimulation models may not give reliable estimates of the preventive effect of adenoma removal, and should be used with caution to inform guidelines.

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and United European Gastroenterology (UEG) have identified quality of endoscopy as a major priority and we described our rationale for this in a first manuscript that also addressed the methodology of the quality initiative process.1 The identification of upper gastrointestinal (UGI) performance measures presents a considerable challenge, in contrast to the situation with colonoscopy for instance, where several performance measures (inspection time, adenoma detection rate, and interval cancers, among others) have been identified over the last decade.2,3 Following the Quality in UGI Endoscopy meeting held in Lisbon in 2013, it was clear that there was a need to identify performance measures for the UGI tract, and that quality standards could be identified although there is a paucity of evidence. This lack of evidence helps however to identify research priorities for the development of clinical trials that will further validate and substantiate the implementation of performance measures. The aim therefore of the UGI working group was twofold: (a) to identify performance measures for UGI endoscopy; (b) to identify the evidence or absence of evidence that would develop the research priorities in this field. We used an innovative methodology to facilitate the quality initiative process, which combined a thorough search and standardized evaluation of the available evidence for each clinical question, followed by a Delphi process (http://is.njit.edu/pubs/delphibook/delphibook.pdf) using an online platform.4,5 This online platform permitted iterative rounds of modification and comment by all members of the UGI working group until agreement was reached on the performance measure. We now report these newly identified performance measures.

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).

Objective The role of serrated polyps (SPs) as colorectal cancer precursor is increasingly recognised. However, the true prevalence SPs is largely unknown. We aimed to evaluate the detection rate of SPs subtypes as well as serrated polyposis syndrome (SPS) among European screening cohorts. Methods Prospectively collected screening cohorts of ≥1000 individuals were eligible for inclusion. Colonoscopies performed before 2009 and/or in individuals aged below 50 were excluded. Rate of SPs was assessed, categorised for histology, location and size. Age–sex–standardised number needed to screen (NNS) to detect SPs were calculated. Rate of SPS was assessed in cohorts with known colonoscopy follow-up data. Clinically relevant SPs (regarded as a separate entity) were defined as SPs ≥10 mm and/or SPs >5 mm in the proximal colon. Results Three faecal occult blood test (FOBT) screening cohorts and two primary colonoscopy screening cohorts (range 1.426–205.949 individuals) were included. Rate of SPs ranged between 15.1% and 27.2% (median 19.5%), of sessile serrated polyps between 2.2% and 4.8% (median 3.3%) and of clinically relevant SPs between 2.1% and 7.8% (median 4.6%). Rate of SPs was similar in FOBT-based cohorts as in colonoscopy screening cohorts. No apparent association between the rate of SP and gender or age was shown. Rate of SPS ranged from 0% to 0.5%, which increased to 0.4% to 0.8% after follow-up colonoscopy. Conclusions The detection rate of SPs is variable among screening cohorts, and standards for reporting, detection and histopathological assessment should be established. The median rate, as found in this study, may contribute to define uniform minimum standards for males and females between 50 and 75 years of age.

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.