Search

The effectiveness of screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) by sex and age in randomized trials is uncertain.To evaluate the 15-year effect of sigmoidoscopy screening on CRC incidence and mortality.Pooled analysis of 4 large-scale randomized trials of sigmoidoscopy screening.Norway, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Italy.Women and men aged 55 to 64 years at enrollment.Sigmoidoscopy screening.Primary end points were cumulative incidence rate ratio (IRR) and mortality rate ratio (MRR) and rate differences after 15 years of follow-up comparing screening versus usual care in intention-to-treat analyses. Stratified analyses were done by sex, cancer site, and age at screening.Analyses comprised 274 952 persons (50.7% women), 137 493 in the screening and 137 459 in the usual care group. Screening attendance was 58% to 84%. After 15 years, the rate difference for CRC incidence was 0.51 cases (95% CI, 0.40 to 0.63 cases) per 100 persons and the IRR was 0.79 (CI, 0.75 to 0.83). The rate difference for CRC mortality was 0.13 deaths (CI, 0.07 to 0.19 deaths) per 100 persons, and the MRR was 0.80 (CI, 0.72 to 0.88). Women had less benefit from screening than men for CRC incidence (IRR for women, 0.84 [CI, 0.77 to 0.91]; IRR for men, 0.75 [CI, 0.70 to 0.81];Data from the U.K. trial were less granular because of privacy regulations.This pooled analysis of all large randomized trials of sigmoidoscopy screening demonstrates a significant and sustained effect of sigmoidoscopy on CRC incidence and mortality for 15 years.Health Fund of South-East Norway.

ObjectiveHigh-quality colonoscopy (adequate bowel preparation, whole-colon visualisation and removal of all neoplastic polyps) is a prerequisite to start polyp surveillance, and is ideally achieved in one colonoscopy. In a large multinational polyp surveillance trial, we aimed to investigate clinical practice variation in number of colonoscopies needed to enrol patients with low-risk and high-risk adenomas in polyp surveillance.DesignWe retrieved data of all patients with low-risk adenomas (one or two tubular adenomas ResultsThe study comprised 15 581 patients from 38 endoscopy centres in five European countries; 6794 patients had low-risk and 8787 had high-risk adenomas. 961 patients (6.2%, 95% CI 5.8% to 6.6%) underwent two or more colonoscopies before surveillance began; 101 (1.5%, 95% CI 1.2% to 1.8%) in the low-risk group and 860 (9.8%, 95% CI 9.2% to 10.4%) in the high-risk group. Main reasons were poor bowel preparation (21.3%) or incomplete colonoscopy/polypectomy (14.4%) or planned second procedure (27.8%). Need of repeat colonoscopy varied between study centres ranging from 0% to 11.8% in low-risk adenoma patients and from 0% to 63.9% in high-risk adenoma patients. On the second colonoscopy, the two most common reasons for a repeat (third) colonoscopy were piecemeal resection (26.5%) and unspecified reason (23.9%).ConclusionThere is considerable practice variation in the number of colonoscopies performed to achieve complete polyp removal, indicating need for targeted quality improvement to reduce patient burden.Trial registration numberNCT02319928.

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

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

Objectives: This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (prognosis). The objectives are as follows:. Primary objectives The primary objectives are to identify, describe, and appraise all prognostic models developed to predict colorectal cancer incidence or mortality in patients with IBD, at any time point after the clinical diagnosis of IBD, and if possible meta-analyse their predictive performances. Investigation of sources of heterogeneity between studies Sources of heterogeneity to be investigated comprise differences in the definition of colorectal dysplasia, colorectal cancer and IBD, the type of IBD investigated, study design, time point for prognostication after the clinical diagnosis of IBD, time horizon for outcome measurements, length of follow-up, and statistical analysis applied (Debray 2017).

In a mission that aims to improve cancer control throughout Europe, the European Academy of Cancer Sciences has defined two key indicators of progress: within one to two decades, overall cancer‐specific 10‐year survival should reach 75%, and in each country, overall cancer mortality rates should be convincingly declining. To lay the ground for assessment of progress and to promote cancer outcomes research in general, we have reviewed the most common population‐based measures of the cancer burden. We emphasize the complexities and complementary approaches to measure cancer survival and the novel opportunities for improved assessment of quality of life. We propose that: incidence and mortality rates are standardized to the European population; net survival is used as the measure of prognosis but with proper adjustments for confounding when temporal trends in overall cancer survival are assessed; and cancer‐specific quality of life is measured by a combination of existing questionnaires and utilizes emerging communication technologies. We conclude that all measures are important and that a meaningful interpretation also requires a deep understanding of the larger clinical and public health context., This review defines the many measures used to quantify the burden of cancer, their pros, cons, and utility for different purposes. Recommendations are provided for the most informative measures and the methodologic challenges that need accommodation in assessing the Academy's goals. The needs and opportunities for development of and standardization of cancer‐specific quality of life assessments is also emphasized.

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

Background: Although colonoscopy is widely used as a screening test to detect colorectal cancer, its effect on the risks of colorectal cancer and related death is unclear. Methods: We performed a pragmatic, randomized trial involving presumptively healthy men and women 55 to 64 years of age drawn from population registries in Poland, Norway, Sweden, and the Netherlands between 2009 and 2014. The participants were randomly assigned in a 1:2 ratio to either receive an invitation to undergo a single screening colonoscopy (the invited group) or to receive no invitation or screening (the usual-care group). The primary end points were the risks of colorectal cancer and related death, and the secondary end point was death from any cause. Results: Follow-up data were available for 84,585 participants in Poland, Norway, and Sweden - 28,220 in the invited group, 11,843 of whom (42.0%) underwent screening, and 56,365 in the usual-care group. A total of 15 participants had major bleeding after polyp removal. No perforations or screening-related deaths occurred within 30 days after colonoscopy. During a median follow-up of 10 years, 259 cases of colorectal cancer were diagnosed in the invited group as compared with 622 cases in the usual-care group. In intention-to-screen analyses, the risk of colorectal cancer at 10 years was 0.98% in the invited group and 1.20% in the usual-care group, a risk reduction of 18% (risk ratio, 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.70 to 0.93). The risk of death from colorectal cancer was 0.28% in the invited group and 0.31% in the usual-care group (risk ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.64 to 1.16). The number needed to invite to undergo screening to prevent one case of colorectal cancer was 455 (95% CI, 270 to 1429). The risk of death from any cause was 11.03% in the invited group and 11.04% in the usual-care group (risk ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.04). Conclusions: In this randomized trial, the risk of colorectal cancer at 10 years was lower among participants who were invited to undergo screening colonoscopy than among those who were assigned to no screening. (Funded by the Research Council of Norway and others; NordICC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00883792.).

Repeated rounds of faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) for occult blood is a common method for screening for colorectal cancer (CRC). However, the time interval between FIT rounds is not thoroughly investigated. In a CRC screening trial in South-Eastern Norway, individuals were invited for biennial FIT between 2012 and 2019. The positivity threshold was15 mcg haemoglobin/g faeces (mcg/g). Due to organizational challenges, the interval between screening rounds randomly varied between 1.5 and 3.5 years, forming a natural experiment. We investigated the detection rate of CRC and advanced neoplasia (AN: CRC or advanced adenoma) at the subsequent round (FIT

Main RecommendationsThe following recommendations for post-polypectomy colonoscopic surveillance apply to all patients who had one or more polyps that were completely removed during a high quality baseline colonoscopy. 1 ESGE recommends that patients with complete removal of 1 – 4 Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.If organized screening is not available, repetition of colonoscopy 10 years after the index procedure is recommended.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 2 ESGE recommends surveillance colonoscopy after 3 years for patients with complete removal of at least 1 adenoma ≥ 10 mm or with high grade dysplasia, or ≥ 5 adenomas, or any serrated polyp ≥ 10 mm or with dysplasia. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 3 ESGE recommends a 3 – 6-month early repeat colonoscopy following piecemeal endoscopic resection of polyps ≥ 20 mm.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. A first surveillance colonoscopy 12 months after the repeat colonoscopy is recommended to detect late recurrence.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 4 If no polyps requiring surveillance are detected at the first surveillance colonoscopy, ESGE suggests to perform a second surveillance colonoscopy after 5 years. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.After that, if no polyps requiring surveillance are detected, patients can be returned to screening. 5 ESGE suggests that, if polyps requiring surveillance are detected at first or subsequent surveillance examinations, surveillance colonoscopy may be performed at 3 years. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.A flowchart showing the recommended surveillance intervals is provided (Fig. 1).

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

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

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

Background: During the first wave of the Covid-19 epidemic, a national lockdown was established in Norway, and inhabitants were asked to contact healthcare only if absolutely necessary. We investigated hospital admissions and mortality due to non-Covid-19 disease during the lockdown compared to previous years. Methods: We compared the number of emergency admissions and in-hospital fatality for diagnoses probably unaffected (acute myocardial infarction, acute abdominal conditions, cerebrovascular diseases) and affected by the lockdown (infections, injuries) in the South-Eastern Health Region of Norway during weeks 12–22, 2020, compared to the mean of the same period in the years 2017–2019. We also compared population mortality March–May 2020, to the mean of the same period in years 2017–2019. Results: A total of 280,043 emergency admissions were observed; 20,911 admissions probably unaffected, and 30,905 admissions probably affected by the lockdown. Admissions due to diagnoses probably unaffected was reduced by 12% (95% confidence interval (CI) 9–15%), compared to 2017–2019. Admissions for diagnoses probably affected was reduced by 30% (95% CI 28–32%). There was a 34% reduction in in-hospital fatality due to acute myocardial infarction (95% CI 4–56%), 19% due to infections (95% CI 1–33%), and no change for the other diagnoses, compared to 2017–2019. The risk of in-hospital mortality to total mortality was lower for acute myocardial infarction (relative risk 0.85, 95% CI 0.73–0.99) and injuries (relative risk 0.83, 95% CI 0.70–0.98). Conclusions: Even though fewer patients were admitted to hospital, there was no increase in in-hospital fatality or population mortality, indicating that those who were most in need still received adequate care.

Background Since March 2020, 440 million people worldwide have been diagnosed with COVID-19, but the true number of infections with SARS-CoV-2 is higher. SARS-CoV-2 antibody seroprevalence can add crucial epidemiological information about population infection dynamics. Aim To provide a large population-based SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence survey from Norway; we estimated SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence before introduction of vaccines and described its distribution across demographic groups. Methods In this population-based cross-sectional study, a total of 110,000 people aged 16 years or older were randomly selected during November–December 2020 and invited to complete a questionnaire and provide a dried blood spot (DBS) sample. Results The response rate was 30% (31,458/104,637); compliance rate for return of DBS samples was 88% (27,700/31,458). National weighted and adjusted seroprevalence was 0.9% (95% CI (confidence interval): 0.7–1.0). Seroprevalence was highest among those aged 16–19 years (1.9%; 95% CI: 0.9–2.9), those born outside the Nordic countries 1.4% (95% CI: 1.0–1.9), and in the counties of Oslo 1.7% (95% CI: 1.2–2.2) and Vestland 1.4% (95% CI: 0.9–1.8). The ratio of SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence (0.9%) to cumulative incidence of virologically detected cases by mid-December 2020 (0.8%) was slightly above one. SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence was low before introduction of vaccines in Norway and was comparable to virologically detected cases, indicating that most cases in the first 10 months of the pandemic were detected. Conclusion Findings suggest that preventive measures including contact tracing have been effective, people complied with physical distancing recommendations, and local efforts to contain outbreaks have been essential.

Mammography screening may save women from dying of breast cancer, although it has not been shown to reduce all-cause mortality. Screening also leads to overdiagnosis and many false positive mammograms aggravating women's quality-of-life. Quality adjusted life years (QALY) analyses of mammography screening have so far, calculated life years gained assuming that all prevented breast cancer deaths translate into a reduction in all-cause mortality. We calculated net QALYs in two hypothesized cohorts of 100,000 Norwegian women; one screened biennially from age 50 to 69 years and one not screened. We followed both cohorts to age 85 years. We used EQ-5D and an alternative equity weighted QALY instrument to estimate utility losses. In the screening cohort, we assumed 20% false positive tests during screening, different levels of overdiagnosis (20-75%) and different levels of breast cancer mortality reduction (10-30%). We assumed that reductions in breast cancer mortality only to a limited extent (20, 50 or 80%), resulted in reductions in all-cause mortality. We calculated both undiscounted and discounted (4%) QALYs. Assuming that 50% of the reduction in breast cancer mortality translated to a reduction in all-cause mortality and using estimated levels of benefits and harms in modern screening programs (50-75% overdiagnosis and 10% reduction in breast cancer mortality), undiscounted equity weighted QALY loss varied from 437 to 875 per 100,000 women. Using the levels of benefit and harms as reported in 30-40 years old randomized trials (30% overdiagnosis and 15% reduction in breast cancer mortality), undiscounted equity weighted QALY gain was 535 per 100,000. Net QALY in modern mammography screening in Norway is negative. Results could also be representative for Sweden, Denmark, UK and the US.

Introduction: In colorectal cancer (CRC) surveillance, adenoma characteristics such as size, number of adenomas, dysplasia, and villous components, are used as indicators for risk of developing metachronous cancer and guide the surveillance interval. The current risk groups (e.g., advanced adenomas) cannot optimally distinguish high risk from low risk, which may result in suboptimal surveillance strategies. Specific DNA copy number aberrations are associated with risk of colorectal adenoma-to-carcinoma progression, but these aberrations are present in only a subset of advanced adenomas. Therefore, we hypothesize that specific DNA copy number aberrations may better predict the risk of CRC than advanced adenoma. Aim: To evaluate whether a molecularly-defined high-risk adenoma is a better risk factor for CRC than the presently used advanced adenoma. Materials and methods: DNA copy number profiles were determined, by means of low-coverage whole genome sequencing, on a series of 529 adenomas, selected from a Norwegian adenoma cohort. We retrieved detailed information on adenoma characteristics and whether adenoma patients were subsequently diagnosed with CRC or not. By univariate and multivariate regression analysis we estimated the odds ratio for association between the development of CRC and baseline presence of advanced adenoma versus presence of a molecularly-defined high-risk adenoma, respectively. Results: Molecular high-risk features were observed in 85/267 (32%) of advanced adenomas and in 27/262 (10%) of non-advanced adenomas. The odds ratio for developing metachronous CRC was 3.58 (p=2.84E-8) and 1.90 (p=0.012), when an advanced adenoma or molecular high-risk adenoma was detected at the baseline colonoscopy, respectively. In the multivariate regression analysis only advanced adenoma was as a significant risk factor for CRC. Conclusion: Molecularly-defined high-risk adenomas are associated with an increased risk of CRC. However, the advanced adenoma is a stronger predictor for risk of CRC. Citation Format: Henriette C. Jodal, Eddymurphy U. Akwiwu, Leticia G. Leon, Margriet Lemmens, Pien Delis-van Diemen, Dagmar Klotz, Meike de Wit, Remond Fijneman, Monique van Leerdam, Evelien Dekker, Manon C. W. Spaander, Gerrit A. Meijer, Michael Bretthauer, Magnus Løberg, Veerle M. H. Coupé, Mette Kalager, Beatriz Carvalho. Molecular adenoma features to predict metachronous colorectal cancer risk: A nested-case control study [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference on Colorectal Cancer; 2022 Oct 1-4; Portland, OR. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(23 Suppl_1):Abstract nr A004.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the need for rapid legal interventions to protect public health has challenged standards of evidence generation and implementation. Investigators have generated high-quality evidence for drugs and vaccines at remarkable speed, but COVID-19 mitigation measures enforced by laws and regulations remain guided by the precautionary principle rather than by empirical evidence. This article discusses new concepts for embedded evidence generation for legal public health interventions in times of crisis.

Since early 2020, over 123 million people worldwide have been diagnosed with coronavirus disease (Covid-19), but the true number of infections with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is undoubtedly higher. The seroprevalence of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 can provide crucial epidemiological information about the extent of infections independent of virologically detected case numbers. There is no large population-based SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence survey from Norway; thus we estimated SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in Norway before the introduction of vaccines and described its distribution across demographic groups. In November-December 2020, a total of 110,000 people aged 16 years or older were randomly selected from the National Population Register and invited to complete a questionnaire and provide a dried blood spot (DBS) sample. The response rate was 30%; compliance rate for return of DBS samples was 88%. The national weighted and adjusted seroprevalence was 0.9% (confidence interval 0.7-1.0).Seroprevalence was highest among those aged 16-19 years (1.9%, 0.9-2.9), those born outside the Nordic countries 1.4% (1.0-1.9), and in the counties of Oslo 1.7 % (1.2-2.2) and Vestland 1.4% (0.9-1.8). The ratio of SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence (0.9) to the cumulative incidence of virologically detected cases by mid-December 2020 (0.8%) was slightly above one. SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence was low before the introduction of vaccines in Norway and was comparable to virologically detected cases, indicating that most cases in the first 10 months of the pandemic were detected. Preventive measures including contact tracing have been effective, people are complying with social distancing recommendations, and local efforts to contain outbreaks have been essential.

Background: Norway and Sweden are similar countries in terms of socioeconomics and health care. Norway implemented extensive COVID-19 measures, such as school closures and lockdowns, whereas Sweden did not. Aims: To compare mortality in Norway and Sweden, two similar countries with very different mitigation measures against COVID-19. Methods: Using real-world data from national registries, we compared all-cause and COVID-19-related mortality rates with 95% confidence intervals (CI) per 100,000 person-weeks and mortality rate ratios (MRR) comparing the five preceding years (2015–2019) with the pandemic year (2020) in Norway and Sweden. Results: In Norway, all-cause mortality was stable from 2015 to 2019 (mortality rate 14.6–15.1 per 100,000 person-weeks; mean mortality rate 14.9) and was lower in 2020 than from 2015 to 2019 (mortality rate 14.4; MRR 0.97; 95% CI 0.96–0.98). In Sweden, all-cause mortality was stable from 2015 to 2018 (mortality rate 17.0–17.8; mean mortality rate 17.1) and similar to that in 2020 (mortality rate 17.6), but lower in 2019 (mortality rate 16.2). Compared with the years 2015–2019, all-cause mortality in the pandemic year was 3% higher due to the lower rate in 2019 (MRR 1.03; 95% CI 1.02–1.04). Excess mortality was confined to people aged ⩾70 years in Sweden compared with previous years. The COVID-19-associated mortality rates per 100,000 person-weeks during the first wave of the pandemic were 0.3 in Norway and 2.9 in Sweden. Conclusions: All-cause mortality in 2020 decreased in Norway and increased in Sweden compared with previous years. The observed excess deaths in Sweden during the pandemic may, in part, be explained by mortality displacement due to the low all-cause mortality in the previous year.

Background: Observational studies are increasingly used to estimate the effectiveness of cancer screening. However, the validity of such studies remains uncertain. Methods: 98,678 individuals were included in the Norwegian Colorectal Cancer Prevention trial, a randomized sigmoidoscopy screening trial. We used the trial data and designed case-control studies nested among individuals randomized to sigmoidoscopy and compared the results with those from intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses to test the validity of the case-control design to estimate screening effect on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality, and all-cause mortality. We analyzed the case-control studies with the following methodologies: The logistic regression method, where we adjusted for self-selection in multivariable regression models including age, sex, comorbidity, socioeconomics and ethnicity; and the self-selection method where we adjusted for self-selection by different unscreened groups: regional - and national reference population. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00119912. Findings: In intention-to-treat analysis of the randomized trial, sigmoidoscopy screening reduced colorectal cancer mortality by 19% (relative risk (RR) 0.81; 95% CI 0.67-0.99). When the same data were analyzed with a case-control design, the reductions varied between 44% (RR 0.56; 95% CI 0.33-0.97) and 67% (odds ratio (OR) 0.33; 95% CI 0.22-0.51) depending on the method used. While the intention-to-treat analysis showed no screening benefit on all-cause mortality (RR 1.00; 95% CI 0.97-1.03), the case-control studies suggested a benefit between 22% (RR 0.78; 95% CI 0.71-0.85) and 57% (OR 0.42; 95% CI 0.39-0.45) depending on the method used. Interpretation: Observational studies may overestimate the benefits of cancer screening and should therefore not guide screening policies. Clinical Trials: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00119912 Funding: The study received intramural funding from the University of Oslo and Oslo University Hospital. No external funding was provided. Declaration of Interest: None to declare. Ethical Approval: The NORCCAP trial was approved by the Ethics Committee of South-East Norway (project ID S-98052) and the Norwegian Data Protection Authority (Project ID 98/1408). The current study was approved by the NORCCAP steering committee.

Background Closed fitness centers during the Covid-19 pandemic may negatively impact health and wellbeing. We assessed whether training at fitness centers increases the risk of SARS-CoV-2 virus infection. Methods In a two-group parallel randomized controlled trial, fitness center members aged 18 to 64 without Covid-19-relevant comorbidities, were randomized to access to training at a fitness center or no-access. Fitness centers applied physical distancing (1 m for floor exercise, 2 m for high-intensity classes) and enhanced hand and surface hygiene. Primary outcomes were SARS-CoV-2 RNA status by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) after 14 days, hospital admission after 21 days. The secondary endpoint was SARS-CoV-2 antibody status after 1 month. Results 3764 individuals were randomized; 1896 to the training arm and 1868 to the no-training arm. In the training arm, 81.8% trained at least once, and 38.5% trained ≥six times. Of 3016 individuals who returned the SARS-CoV-2 RNA tests (80.5%), there was one positive test in the training arm, and none in the no-training arm (risk difference 0.053%; 95% CI − 0.050 to 0.156%; p = 0.32). Eleven individuals in the training arm (0.8% of tested) and 27 in the no-training arm (2.4% of tested) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies (risk difference − 0.87%; 95%CI − 1.52% to − 0.23%; p = 0.001). No outpatient visits or hospital admissions due to Covid-19 occurred in either arm. Conclusion Provided good hygiene and physical distancing measures and low population prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection, there was no increased infection risk of SARS-CoV-2 in fitness centers in Oslo, Norway for individuals without Covid-19-relevant comorbidities. Trial registration The trial was prospectively registered in ClinicalTrials.gov on May 13, 2020. Due to administrative issues it was first posted on the register website on May 29, 2020: NCT04406909.

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

ObjectivesNorway and Sweden are similar countries regarding ethnicity, socioeconomics and health care. To combat Covid-19, Norway implemented extensive measures such as school closures and lock-downs, while Sweden has been criticised for relaxed measures against Covid-19. We compared the effect of the different national strategies on all-cause and Covid-19 associated mortality.DesignRetrospective cohort.SettingThe countries Norway and Sweden.ParticipantsAll inhabitants.Main outcome measuresWe calculated weekly mortality rates (MR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) per 100,000 individuals as well as mortality rate ratios (MRR) comparing the epidemic year (29th July, 2019 to 26th July, 2020) to the four preceding years (July 2015 to July 2019). We also compared Covid-19 associated deaths and mortality rates for the weeks of the epidemic in Norway and Sweden (16th March to 26th July, 2020).ResultsIn Norway, mortality rates were stable during the first three 12-month periods of 2015/16; 2016/17 and 2017/18 (MR 14.8 to 15.1 per 100,000), and slightly lower in the two most recent periods including during epidemic period (2018/19 and 2019/20; 14.5 per 100,000). In Sweden, all-cause mortality was stable during the first three 12-month periods of 2015/16; 2016/17 and 2017/18 (MR 17.2 to 17.5 per 100,000), but lower in the year 2018/19 immediately preceding the epidemic (16.2 per 100,000). Covid-19 associated mortality rates were 0.2 per 100,000 (95%CI 0.1 to 0.4) in Norway and 2.9 (95%CI 1.9 to 3.9) in Sweden. The increase in mortality was confined to individuals in 70 years or older.ConclusionsAll-cause mortality remained unaltered in Norway. In Sweden, the observed increase in all-cause mortality during Covid-19 was partly due to a lower than expected mortality preceding the epidemic and the observed excess mortality, was followed by a lower than expected mortality after the first Covid-19 wave. This may suggest mortality displacement.Strengths and limitations of this studyCompares two similar contries in all aspects but the handling of the Covid-19 epidemicEvaluates the mortality for several years before and during the epidemicProvides a possible explanation of the observed mortality changesDiscusses the socioeconomic effects of the different strategies in the two countriesDoes not evaluate cause-specific mortality

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

Whilst the benefit of detecting and removing cancer precursors in the cervix and the large bowel is unequivocally documented, the balance between benefit and harm due to screening for early detection of breast and prostate cancer remains uncertain after 30-50 years of randomized control trials (RCTs). Concomitantly, traditional RCTs become increasingly unfeasible due to low compliance, contamination of control groups, difficulties to enroll screening naive individuals, and prohibitively high costs. Therefore, we have systematically reviewed pros and cons with alternative study designs to quantify screening effectiveness. Whilst traditional RCTs should remain gold standard whenever feasible, observational cohort and case-control studies are unlikely to provide the valid evidence needed for health policy decisions. Instead, we advocate two methodological approaches that are novel in assessment of cancer screening effectiveness. One-the difference-in-difference design, well established in health policy and public health research-has a sophisticated ecologic design which unfortunately is feasible only in few countries. Another implies that sequential RCTs become embedded whenever population-based screening programs are implemented.

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

Background There is concern but no solid evidence that morcellation during laparoscopic or vaginal hysterectomy may cause abdominal spread and thereby impaired prognosis of incidental uterine sarcomas. Objective Our purpose was to compare survival among patients with uterine sarcomas who underwent hysterectomy with or without morcellation to test the hypothesis that morcellation impairs prognosis. Study design We identified all women in Norway diagnosed with uterine sarcoma between 1953 and 2012 through national registries and retrieved data on surgical technique and morcellation by evaluation of patient files. Patients were categorised into abdominal, laparoscopic or vaginal hysterectomy with or without morcellation. Vaginal and laparoscopic hysterectomies were introduced in 1991; our main comparison is from 1991 to 2012. We compared age-adjusted disease-specific survival of sarcoma patients treated with or without morcellation and calculated age-adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and subdistribution HR (accounting for competing risk) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results Among 1367 patients with uterine sarcoma between 1953 and 2012 in Norway, 653 were diagnosed after 1991, and 23 of these patients (3.5%) underwent morcellation. Uterine sarcoma prevalence was 3.6 per 1000 laparoscopic hysterectomies. Mean follow-up was 6.0 years in the morcellated group and 6.9 years in the non-morcellated group. The risk of dying from uterine sarcoma after morcellation was 1.5 per 1000 procedures. Sarcoma mortality was higher in the morcellated group than in the non-morcellated group (age-adjusted HR 1.90, CI 1.05–3.44; multivariate HR, 2.50, 95% CI 0.57–10.9). Age-adjusted 10-year uterine sarcoma survival was 32.2% for women treated with morcellation compared with 57.2% for non-morcellated group (difference 25.5%; CI −55.7 to 18.1). All-cause 10-year survival was 32.2% in the morcellated group and 44.1% in the non-morcellated group (difference 11.9%; CI −40.9 to 32.7). Conclusion Our results strengthen the evidence that morcellation during hysterectomy in patients with incidental uterine sarcoma may cause impaired survival. These results can guide shared decision-making in clinical practice.