Search

In the latest meeting of the American Gastroenterological Association, several clinical studies were presented that aimed to evaluate the various colorectal cancer screening strategies, although most assessed the various aspects of faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) and colonoscopy. Data were presented from consecutive FIT-based screening rounds, confirming the importance of adherence to consecutive screening rounds, achieving a similar or superior diagnostic yield to endoscopic studies. There was confirmation of the importance of not delaying endoscopic study after a positive result. Participants with a negative FIT (score of 0) had a low risk for colorectal cancer. Several studies seemed to confirm the importance of high-quality colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening programmes. The implementation of high-quality colonoscopies has reduced mortality from proximal lesions and reduced interval cancers in various studies. Finally, participants with a normal colonoscopy result or with a small adenoma are at low risk for developing advanced neoplasms during follow-up.

espanolIntroduccion: las guias internacionales recomiendan la colonoscopia de rutina tras un episodio de diverticulitis aguda para descartar la presencia de neoplasia avanzada. Sin embargo, tras la incorporacion en los ultimos anos de la tomografia axial computarizada dicha recomendacion ha quedado en entredicho, sobre todo en lo que se refiere a la diverticulitis no complicada. Por otro lado, la colonoscopia es una tecnica que comporta riesgos y costes adicionales. Objetivo: conocer la rentabilidad diagnostica, calidad y seguridad de la colonoscopia en la diverticulitis aguda. Metodos: estudio retrospectivo de todos los pacientes diagnosticados de diverticulitis aguda por tomografia computarizada (TC) entre los anos 2005 y 2013, a los que posteriormente se les realizo una colonoscopia. Resultados: doscientos dieciseis pacientes diagnosticados de diverticulitis aguda por TC (58 diverticulitis complicada [27%] y 158 diverticulitis no complicada [73%]) fueron incluidos. Se detecto neoplasia avanzada en 12 pacientes (5,6% [complicada/no complicada 11,7/3,2%, p = 0,02]). No se observaron complicaciones mayores. La calidad fue baja (completa: 88%; preparacion eficaz: 75%; reseccion de polipos EnglishIntroduction: international guidelines recommend a routine colonoscopy to rule out advanced neoplasm after an acute diverticulitis event. However, in recent years, this recommendation has been called into question following the advent of computerized tomography (CT), particularly with regard to uncomplicated diverticulitis. Furthermore, colonoscopy is associated with a risk and additional costs. Objective: to understand the diagnostic yield, quality and safety of colonoscopy in the setting of acute diverticulitis. Methods: this was a retrospective study of all patients diagnosed with acute diverticulitis via CT between 2005 and 2013, who subsequently underwent a colonoscopy. Results: two hundred and sixteen patients diagnosed with acute diverticulitis via CT were enrolled. These included 58 cases with complicated diverticulitis (27%) and 158 with uncomplicated diverticulitis (73%). An advanced neoplasm was found in 12 patients (5.6%); 11.7% were complicated and 3.2% were uncomplicated (p = 0.02). No major complications were identified. The quality was low but improved over time; the complete procedure rate was 88%, an effective preparation was achieved in 75% and excision of polyps

Resumen Fundamento y objetivo El Programa de Deteccion Precoz del Cancer de Colon y Recto de Barcelona se puso en marcha en diciembre de 2009 y cuenta con las oficinas de farmacia para la distribucion y recogida del test de cribado. En este articulo se describen los principales indicadores de la primera ronda del Programa (2010-2011) segun los propuestos por la Union Europea. Material y metodos El Programa de Deteccion Precoz del Cancer de Colon y Recto de Barcelona se dirige a varones y mujeres de 50 a 69 anos residentes en las areas de referencia del Hospital Clinic y del Hospital del Mar, tiene periodicidad bienal, y utiliza el test inmunologico de deteccion de sangre oculta en heces y posterior confirmacion diagnostica mediante colonoscopia. Resultados La poblacion diana fue de 197.795 personas. La tasa de participacion fue del 43,6%, siendo mayor en mujeres y en mayores de 59 anos. Un 2,1% de la poblacion invitada declaro un cribado externo al Programa. La tasa de positividad fue del 6,2%, mayor en varones y con amplia variabilidad entre areas basicas de salud. Las tasas de deteccion de adenoma de bajo y alto riesgo, y de cancer invasivo fueron, respectivamente, del 9,1‰, del 21,7‰, y del 3,1‰. El 48,2% de los tumores fueron estadio i . Conclusiones Los resultados obtenidos se consideran satisfactorios y acordes con los de otros programas y estandares europeos, aunque se han identificado aspectos de mejora. La elevada participacion puede atribuirse, al menos parcialmente, al test empleado y a la implicacion de la red de oficinas de farmacia comunitaria.

Background Colorectal cancers (CRCs) that have microsatellite instability (MSI) and mutL homolog 1 (MLH1) immunoloss are observed in 3 clinical scenarios: Lynch syndrome (LS), sporadic MSI CRC, and Lynch-like syndrome (LLS). v-Raf murine sarcoma viral oncogene homolog B1 (BRAF) mutational analysis is used to differentiate LS from sporadic MSI CRC. The role of MLH1 promoter methylation status for the differential diagnosis of these clinical forms is not well established. The objectives of this study were: 1) to analyze MLH1 promoter methylation in MLH1-deficient CRCs by pyrosequencing, and 2) to assess its role in the differential diagnosis of MLH1-deficient CRCs. Methods In total, 165 CRCs were analyzed, including LS (n = 19), MSI BRAF-mutated CRC (n = 37), MSI BRAF wild-type CRC (n = 60), and a control group of CRCs without MSI (microsatellite stable [MSS] CRC; n = 49). MLH1 promoter methylation status was analyzed by pyrosequencing, and the ability of different strategies to identify LS was assessed. Results The average ± standard deviation methylation in LS (9% ± 7%) was significantly lower than that in MSI BRAF-mutated CRC (42% ± 17%; P < .001) and in MSI BRAF wild-type CRC (25% ± 19%; P = .002). Somatic MLH1 hypermethylation was detected in 3 patients (15.8%) with LS, in 34 patients (91.9%) with MSI BRAF-mutated CRC, and in 37 patients (61.7%) with MSI BRAF wild-type tumors. Patients with MSI BRAF wild-type, unmethylated tumors (ie, LLS) had a stronger family history of CRC than those who had tumors with MLH1 methylation (P < .05). The sensitivity for ruling out LS was 100% for BRAF analysis, 84.2% for MLH1 methylation analysis, and 84.2% for the combination of both analyses. Conclusion Somatic MLH1 promoter methylation occurs in up to 15% of LS CRCs. Somatic BRAF analysis is the most sensitive strategy for ruling out LS. Patients who have CRCs with loss of MLH1 protein expression and neither BRAF mutation nor MLH1 methylation resemble patients with LS.

Colonoscopies play a vital role in population screening programs, either for initial examinations or as a test carried out after a positive result from a fecal occult blood test or sigmoidoscopy. Colonoscopies, and ancillary techniques such as polipectomies, must comply with basic quality criteria that must be reflected in the quality standards of screening programs. A quality colonoscopy is absolutely vital to avoid the occurrence of interval cancers. It is extremely important to detect any proximal lesions during a colonoscopy, especially those which are serrated, because they are difficult to identify and due to the increased risk of colorectal cancer. Regarding follow-up programs for resected colorectal polyps, current evidence of the relationship between the risk of neoplasia and certain variables (age, sex, smoker, BMI, diabetes, etc.) must allow for individualized risk and algorithms for screening and follow-up frequency to be developed for these patients. However, initial endoscopic exploration in a screening colonoscopy is essential to establishing the optimum interval and ensuring follow-up. Despite poor adherence to follow-up programs, mostly due to their overuse, follow-up colonoscopies 3 years after resection of all polypoid lesions detect clinically significant lesions as effectively as colonoscopies at one year.

The adenoma detection rate (ADR) is the main quality indicator of colonoscopy. The ADR recommended in fecal immunochemical testing (FIT)-based colorectal cancer screening programs is unknown.Using the COLONPREV (NCT00906997) study dataset, we performed a post-hoc analysis to determine if there was a correlation between the ADR in primary and work-up colonoscopy, and the equivalent figure to the minimal 20% ADR recommended. Colonoscopy was performed in 5722 individuals: 5059 as primary strategy and 663 after a positive FIT result (OC-Sensor™; cut-off level 15 µg/g of feces). We developed a predictive model based on a multivariable lineal regression analysis including confounding variables.The median ADR was 31% (range, 14%-51%) in the colonoscopy group and 55% (range, 21%-83%) in the FIT group. There was a positive correlation in the ADR between primary and work-up colonoscopy (Pearson's coefficient 0.716;ADR in primary and work-up colonoscopy of a FIT-positive result are positively and significantly correlated.

Background and study aim: Several factors have been shown to be related to colonoscopy quality; however, little is known about the effects of endoscopist factors. This study analyzed the influence of endoscopist-related characteristics on quality indicators for colonoscopy. Patients and methods: The study included 48 endoscopists who each performed at least 20 colonoscopies in the colonoscopy arm of a randomized controlled trial comparing fecal immuno-chemical test vs. colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening. These endoscopists performed a total of 3838 procedures in the trial. The following were calculated for each endoscopist: adenoma detection rate (ADR), advanced ADR, proximal ADR, distal ADR, and adenoma per colonoscopy rate (APCR). The characteristics of endoscopists were assessed with regard to colonoscopy quality using multivariate regression analysis. Endoscopist characteristics included age, sex, exclusive endoscopy practice, years as a physician, years as a specialist, specialty, total (life-long) number of colonoscopies performed, annual colonoscopy volume, number of hours/week dedicated to endoscopy and number of educational activities in the previous year. Results: Factors associated with ADR were age of the endoscopist (odds ratio [OR] 1.11, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01-1.21; P = 0.01) and lifelong number of colonoscopies (OR 1.06, 95% CI 1.01-1.11; P = 0.01). Only exclusive dedication to endoscopy practice was found to be independently related to proximal ADR (OR 1.71, 95% CI 1.15-2.74; P = 0.001). Life-long number of colonoscopies was independently related to detection of distal adenomas (OR 1.07, 95% CI 1.01-1.13; P = 0.01). None of the analyzed endoscopist characteristics was associated with advanced ADR or APCR. Conclusions: This study found that the experience of the endoscopist and exclusive dedication to endoscopy practice, but not annual colonoscopy volume, were associated with better colonoscopy quality.

Background: Recent guidelines recommend the Lynch Syndrome prediction models MMRPredict, MMRPro, and PREMM1,2,6 for the identification of MMR gene mutation carriers. We compared the predictive performance and clinical usefulness of these prediction models to identify mutation carriers. Methods: Pedigree data from CRC patients in 11 North American, European, and Australian cohorts (6 clinic- and 5 population-based sites) were used to calculate predicted probabilities of pathogenic MLH1, MSH2, or MSH6 gene mutations by each model and gene-specific predictions by MMRPro and PREMM1,2,6. We examined discrimination with area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), calibration with observed to expected (O/E) ratio, and clinical usefulness using decision curve analysis to select patients for further evaluation. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results: Mutations were detected in 539 of 2304 (23%) individuals from the clinic- based cohorts (237 MLH1, 251 MSH2, 51 MSH6) and 150 of 3451 (4.4%) individuals from the population-based cohorts (47 MLH1, 71 MSH2, 32 MSH6). Discrimination was similar for clinic- and population-based cohorts: AUCs of 0.76 vs 0.77 for MMRPredict, 0.82 vs 0.85 for MMRPro, and 0.85 vs 0.88 for PREMM1,2,6. For clinic- and population-based cohorts, O/E deviated from 1 for MMRPredict (0.38 and 0.31, respectively) and MMRPro (0.62 and 0.36) but were more satisfactory for PREMM1,2,6 (1.0 and 0.70). MMRPro or PREMM1,2,6 predictions were clinically useful at thresholds of 5% or greater and in particular at greater than 15%. Conclusions: MMRPro and PREMM1,2,6 can well be used to select CRC patients from genetics clinics or population-based settings for tumor and/or germline testing at a 5% or higher risk. If no MMR deficiency is detected and risk exceeds 15%, we suggest considering additional genetic etiologies for the cause of cancer in the family.

The study was partially funded by the “Accion Transversal del Cancer”, approved on the Spanish Ministry Council on the 11th October 2007, by the Instituto de Salud Carlos III-FEDER (PI08/1770, PI08/0533, PI08/1359, PS09/00773, PS09/01286,PS09/01903, PS09/02078, PS09/01662, PI11/01403, PI11/01889,PI11/00226, PI11/01810, PI11/02213, PI12/00488, PI12/00265,PI12/01270, PI12/00715, PI12/00150), Castaño-Vinyals, G., Aragonés, N., Pérez-Gómez, B., Martín, V., Llorca, J., Moreno, V., Altzibar, J.M., Ardanaz, E., de Sanjosé, S., Jiménez-Moleón, J.J., Tardón, A., Alguacil, J., Peiró, R., Marcos-Gragera, R., Navarro, C., Pollán, M., Kogevinas, M., Alonso, M.T., Amiano, P., Arias, C., Azpiri, M., Benavente, Y., Boldo, E., Bueno, A., Bustamante, M., Caballero, F.J., Campo, E., Cantón, R., Capelo, R., Carmona, C., Casabonne, D., Chirlaque, M.D., Cirac, J., Clofent, J., Colado, E., Costas, L., Crous, M., Del Campo, R., Santos, M.D., Dierssen-Sotos, T., Ederra, M., Espinosa, A., Cabrera, M.F., Somoano, A.F., Villa, T.F., García-Esquinas, E.G., Martín, P.G., Gómez-Acebo, I., Puga, C.G., Gràcia, E., Eslava, M.G., Guinó, E., Huerta, J.M., Lope, V., López-Abente, G., Lopez-Otín, C., Argüelles, B.M., Salas, S.M., Pozo, B.M., de la Torre, A.J., Moreno, E., Iribas, C.M., Olea, N., Gelis, G.O., Paré, L., Porta, M., Puig, M., Del Fresno, M.R., Robles, C., Suarez, M.M., Romero, B., Castillo, A.I., Serra, M.S., Trejo, D.S., Santaballa, A., Santibáñez, M., Sierra, Á., Souto, A., Villanueva, C.M., Carrasco, E., Sabaté, Y., Persavento, C., García, M., Carrasco, G., Expósito, A., Andreu, M., Bessa, X., Piracés, M., Lorente, J.A., Tusquets, I., Collet, I., Bory, F., Pera, M., Abella, E., Garcia, F., Salar, A., Piñol, M., Fernandez-Llamazares, J., Martín, M.V., Garsot, E., Servio, L.I., Arzoz-Fabregas, M., Suarez, L., Ruiz, J.M., Castells, A., Serradesanferm, A., Bosch, A., Muñoz, M., Fontanillas, M., Alcaraz, A., Mengual, L., Duran, E., Izard, C., López, C., Benítez, J.M., Massanes, A.B., Ferrer, O.G., Almeda, J., Sarret, S., Rodriguez, M.A., Valmaseda, A.B., Liceran, M., Petitbó, D., Nolla, J.I., Pérez, S., Martínez, S., Vilaseca, J.M., Sebastián, L., Quesada, P., Sequera, G., Barca, E.G., Domingo-Domenech, E., Oliveira, A., Alonso, E., de la Banda, E., Sabater, Y., Vergara, M., Exposito, A., Alonso, T., Padrol, I., Klaustermeier, J., Florencia, Y., Camon, V., Esteban, A., Aymerich, M., Lopez-Otin, C., Muñoz, A., Torralba, Y., Dot, D., Mercadal, S., Sarra, J., Medina, P., Atienza, C., Biondo, S., de Oca, J., Ferran, L., Rodriguez-Moranta, F., Soriano, A., Guardiola, J., Urruticoechea, A., Galan, M., Banda, J.M., Zumel, Á., Saez, A., Garrido, J.A., Lacasaña, M., Ariza, J.L., García, T., García, M.Á., Hidalgo, M.Á., Asuero, M., Bayo, J., Vázquez, V.C., Franco, F., Gurucelain, J.L., Frías, M.J., Van de Haar, R., Viñas, J., Jiménez, H., Aguayo, M., Pereira, A., Gutiérrez, S.P., Rada, R., Candón, J., Domínguez, J., Ramos, M., Pedraza, G., Braulio, J., Salas, J., Labrero, D., Muñoz, D., Barrero, F., Delgado, S., Galisteo, L., Camacho, A., Elena, H., Caballero, J., Muñoz, M.J., Arredondo, F., Linares, R., Tejada, A., Tinto, H., Alés, J.D., Coronado, M.V., Bernal, M.L., Ortiz, J.L., Ocaña, M.N., Cavanillas, A.B., Miguel, Mejías, E.J., Abril, O.M., Requena, R.O., Morata, J.L., Echezarreta, E.G., López, L.M., Martínez, M.M., Sedano, P.P., de la Pedraja Pavón, A., López-Rojo, C., Mendiola, J., Pellicer, E., Caparrós, J.M., Oltra, E.G., Martínez, J.M., Molina, A., Villanueva, V., Miranda, M.J., Abril, C., Martinez, J., Salas, D., Ruiz, J.L., Ponce, M., Noos, P., Cervera, J., Del Val, A., Segura, A., Jiménez, N., Bellmunt, E., Aznar, I., Ramos, D., Montón, T., Solera, M.C., Mora, E.M., Estañ, N., Camarasa, N., Solanas, J.V., Ripoll, J., Cantero, J., Díaz, C.A., García, A.S., Avellón, S.M., Neumann, M., González, M.J., Suárez, M.M., Fernández, G., Fresno, M.R., Gómez, A., Garín, U., de Gros, A., Tamayo, E., Rua, M., Lasarte, C.S., Jauregi, M., Recio, J., Fernández, M., Múgica, M., Ciria, J.P., Guimón, E., Adúriz, C., Lacasta, A., Francisco, J.S., Alvarez, I., Enriquez-Navascués, J.M., Ruiz, I., Michelena, M., Alberro, J.A., Almansa, A.M., Goñi, L.M., Elizagaray, M.I., Técnico, M.O., Pérez, R.B., De Miguel Medina, M.C., Repáraz Romero, M., de Azúa Ciria, A.Y., Díaz, M.M., Lizárraga, M.S., Jiménez, Y.L., López, C.E., Legaz, S.O., Lezaun, R.A., Hurtado, H.O., De Miguel Velasco, M., Rubio, P.A., Cunchillos, F.D., de Liaño Arguelles, Á.D., Peñuela, J.M., Dorronsoro, M.L., Celaya, F.B., García, D.R., de la Higuera Carnicer, B.G., Tricas, J.M., Rivera, E.M., García, F.V., Noain, J.J., Erdozain, E.A., Ulibarrena, C.I., Lopeandía, J.G., Caden, M.A., Moraza, F.A., Domench, J.J., Arteaga, A.A., Navarro, K.A., Del Burgo Tajadura, M.A., Irastorza, F.C., Urrisarri, M.J., Zubicoa, B.F., Lorente, P.G., Sevilla, P.H., Echamendi, M.L., Díaz, Á.M., Salaverri, J.M., Gorricho, F.J., Del Valle, M.P., de Prado Marcilla, J., Garcésducar, M., Herce, P.A., Barasoain, J.E., Campos, I.A., Vergara, E.A., Beraza, B.C., Blasco, L.F., Díaz, L.G., Larrañeta, J.G., Ruiz, N.G., García, J.G., Orduna, M.S., Larena, D.I., Fernández, M.P., de Ciriza Pejenaute, F.J., Escuin, R., Puertas, I.R., Samper, I.A., Sesma, M.E., López, M.J., Apestegui, C.Z., Linares, C., Cervantes, M., Ferreras, E., García-Pérez, J., Fernández-Navarro, P., Pastor, R., Ramis, R., González, Á., Ruiz, T., Muñoz, V., Delgado, R., Lanza, M., Marín, M., Posada, M., Cosmen, J., Villanueva, A., Castaño, A., Jiménez, J.A., Rin, A., Díaz, G., Herreros, M., Pedraza, V., López, P., de la Fuente, M., de Castro, M.F., Sobrino, J., Calvo, R., Carrascal, I., Bernal, R., Mateo, A., García-Olmo, D., Zarazaga, A., Gombau, M.Á., Díaz, J., Gómez, T., Sánchez, T., de la Quintana, P., Ordás, J., Cuevas, P., Sánchez-Pastor, M., de la Peña, J.J., Tabernero, Á., Cámara, N., Hardisson, D., Suárez, A., Burgos, E., Alves, J., Miguel, M., Feliú, J., Belda, C., Zamora, P., Sánchez, A., Hernández, A., Beato, T., Arroba, A., Ballesteros, A., Canora, S., García, C., Romero, M., José, T.S., Espinel, M., Mañas, A., Sánchez, M., Ramón, H., Morillo, J.L., Cuchí, M., García, M.J., Ramos, J.M., Rojo, R., Sanjuanbenito, A., Villanueva, A.G., Gras, M., Cabañas, J.L., Collado, V., Arano, I., Capela, I., Mojarrieta, C., Peñas, B., Rodríguez, M., Ramos, A., Sancho, S., Hervás, A., Moreno, P., Sánchez, C., DoloresRubio, Montoya, L., Sancho, P., Rodríguez, L., Durán, E., Morel, S., Burgos, J., García, R., Del Cañizo, C.G., Díaz, A., González, F., Cristóbal, E., Barahona, C., Vázquez, S., Esteban, V., Pedrera, M., Martínez, J., Carrato, A., Ponce, C.G., Santos-Olmo, A., Barrientos, R.R., López, G., Fernández, A., García, A.B., Noriega, A., Campo, M., Varona, E., López, F., Montero, M., Gómez, M.T., Bartibas, P., Sanz, R., Montes, T., Salinero, M.Á., Herrero, M., Igea, M., Calvo, C., Pérez-Pellón, C., Maestre, M., Agora, M.A., Martín, M.G., Velázquez, D., Fernández, B., Castro, M., Ayuso, E., Masa, R., Antelo, C., García, S., Herrero, S., Delgado, A., Vilardell, L., Puig-Vives, M., Osca-Gelis, G., Buxo, M., Izquierdo, A., Carmona-Garcia, M.C., Romanos, R.R., Galindo, C.T., Bargalló, P.M., Sanchez, E.R., Saez, M., Roncero, J.M., Gallardo, D., Coll, R., Blanco, I., Ruano, L.M., Castaño, E.A., Rusiñol, J.M., Perez, R.J., Pujol, I.M., Tuero, G.C., de Barrio Lera, J.P., Carral, J.M., Pérez, C.A., Puente, M.E., Balbuena, S.P., Presa, J.M., Ramírez, J.A., Martínez, A.Á., de Francisco, T.G., Elosua, T.G., Teso, E.P., Fueyo, J.F., Guadarrama, O.A., Turienzo Frade Mdel, A., De la Hoz Riesco, M., Fernández, J.J., Fernández, V.S., Fernández, R.C., Santamaría, M.V., Simón, J.A., Ganso, A.M., Pacho, A.V., Alegre, S.V., Plaza, F.J., Cuenllas, B.Á., Franco, E.H., Martín, M.H., Ariño, M.T., Tascón, C.D., Palomo, J.A., Castañón López Mdel, C., Lorenzo, M.P., González, I.A., Rivero, F.G., Román, C.H., Fernández, E.Á., Bayón, T.R., Fernández, A.G., Municio, F., de Celis, M.G., Ingelmo, L.Á., Herrero, J.G., Carbajo, M.J., Esteras, T.R., Baz, B.V., Baticón, C.H., Baza, E.Á., Urdiales, A.U., Gil, J.I., López, M.A., Ule, E.C., Diez, C.B., Marín, A.I., Bernabeu, M.Á., de Abajo Olea, S., Rojo, C.V., Fernández, M.Á., González, F.G., Martínez, L.G., Del Huertotrancón Moratiel, M., Ramos, N.C., Fidalgo, S.P., Coque, P.R., González, Á.G., Díez, A.B.

Resumen UNA de las principales novedades presentadas en la Digestive Disease Week (DDW) de 2006 fue la presentacion de las guias clinicas de seguimiento de los adenomas colorrectales. Esta nueva guia persigue un doble objetivo: la identificacion de los factores de riesgo de recurrencia y diferenciar a 2 grupos de pacientes, los de bajo y los de alto riesgo de recurrencia. Esta division ha de permitir optimizar un recurso escaso, la colonoscopia, evitando colonoscopias innecesarias, y destinar este recurso escaso al cribado. Se dedico especial atencion, ademas, a recalcar la importancia critica de una excelente colonoscopia inicial en toda pauta de seguimiento de pacientes con adenoma colorrectal, no unicamente en relacion con el requerimiento de una excelente preparacion sino tambien con la importancia del tiempo de duracion de la exploracion durante la retirada del endoscopio. Finalmente, se presentaron diferentes estudios de seguridad y eficacia de farmacos con potencial efecto quimiopreventivo en el desarrollo de adenomas.

Colonoscopies play a vital role in population screening programs, either for initial examinations or as a test carried out after a positive result from a fecal occult blood test or sigmoidoscopy. Colonoscopies, and ancillary techniques such as polipectomies, must comply with basic quality criteria that must be reflected in the quality standards of screening programs. A quality colonoscopy is absolutely vital to avoid the occurrence of interval cancers. It is extremely important to detect any proximal lesions during a colonoscopy, especially those which are serrated, because they are difficult to identify and due to the increased risk of colorectal cancer. Regarding follow-up programs for resected colorectal polyps, current evidence of the relationship between the risk of neoplasia and certain variables (age, sex, smoker, BMI, diabetes, etc.) must allow for individualized risk and algorithms for screening and follow-up frequency to be developed for these patients. However, initial endoscopic exploration in a screening colonoscopy is essential to establishing the optimum interval and ensuring follow-up. Despite poor adherence to follow-up programs, mostly due to their overuse, follow-up colonoscopies 3 years after resection of all polypoid lesions detect clinically significant lesions as effectively as colonoscopies at one year.

Background: We aimed to evaluate whether oral anticoagulants (OACs) alter faecal immunochemical test (FIT) performance in average-risk colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Methods: Individuals aged 50–69 years were invited to receive one FIT sample (cutoff 75¿ng¿ml–1) between November 2008 and June 2011. Results: Faecal immunochemical test was positive in 9.3% (21 out of 224) of users of OAC and 6.2% (365 out of 5821) of non-users (P-trend=0.07). The positive predictive value (PPV) for advanced neoplasia (AN) in non-users was 50.4% vs 47.6% in users (odds ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.3–1.8; P=0.5). The PPV for AN in OAC more antiplatelets (aspirin or clopidogrel) was 75% (odds ratio, 2; 95% CI, 0.4–10.8; P=0.4). Conclusions: Oral anticoagulant did not significantly modify the PPV for AN in this population-based colorectal screening program. The detection rate of advanced adenoma was higher in the combination OAC more antiplatelets.

Background: Several models have recently been developed to predict mismatch repair (MMR) gene mutations. Their comparative performance with clinical criteria or universal molecular screening in a population based colorectal cancer (CRC) cohort has not been assessed. Methods: All 1222 CRC from the EPICOLON cohort underwent tumour MMR testing with immunohistochemistry and microsatellite instability, and those with MMR deficiency (n= 91) underwent MLH1/ MSH2 germline testing. Sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value (PPV) of the PREMM1,2 and the Barnetson models for identification of MLH1/ MSH2 mutation carriers were evaluated and compared with the revised Bethesda guidelines (RBG), Amsterdam II criteria, and tumour analysis for MMR deficiency. Overall discriminative ability was quantified by the area under the ROC curve (AUC), and calibration was assessed by comparing the average predictions versus the observed prevalence. Results: Both models had similar AUC (0.93 and 0.92, respectively). Sensitivity of the RBG and a PREMM1,2 score > 5% was 100% (95% CI 71% to 100%); a Barnetson score.0.5% missed one mutation carrier (sensitivity 87%, 95% CI 51% to 99%). PPVs of all three strategies were 2 - 3%. Presence of MMR deficiency increased specificity and PPV of predictive scores ( 97% and 21% for PREMM1,2 score > 5%, and 98% and 21% for Barnetson > 0.5%, respectively). Conclusions: The PREMM1,2 and the Barnetson models offer a quantitative systematic approach to select CRC patients for identification of MLH1/MSH2 mutation carriers with a similar performance to the RBG.

The members of the Gastrointestinal Oncology Group of the Spanish Gastroenterological Association are: Hospital 12 de Octubre, Madrid: Juan Diego Morillas (local coordinator), Raquel Muñoz, Marisa Manzano, Francisco Colina, Jose Díaz, Carolina Ibarrola, Guadalupe López, Alberto Ibáñez; Hospital Clínic, Barcelona: Antoni Castells (local coordinator), Virgínia Piñol, Sergi Castellví-Bel, Francesc Balaguer, Victoria Gonzalo, Teresa Ocaña, María Dolores Giráldez, Maria Pellisé, Anna Serradesanferm, Leticia Moreira, Miriam Cuatrecasas, Josep M. Piqué; Hospital Clínico Universitario, Zaragoza: Ángel Lanas (local coordinator), Javier Alcedo, Javier Ortego; Hospital Cristal-Piñor, Complexo Hospitalario de Ourense: Joaquin Cubiella (local coordinator), Ma Soledad Díez, Mercedes Salgado, Eloy Sánchez, Mariano Vega; Hospital del Mar, Barcelona: Montserrat Andreu (local coordinator), Anna Abuli, Xavier Bessa, Mar Iglesias, Agustín Seoane, Felipe Bory, Gemma Navarro, Beatriz Bellosillo, Josep Ma Dedeu, Cristina Álvarez, Begoña Gonzalez; Hospital San Eloy, Baracaldo and Hospital Donostia, CIBERehd, University of Country Basque, San Sebastián: Luis Bujanda (local coordinator) Ángel Cosme, Inés Gil, Mikel Larzabal, Carlos Placer, María del Mar Ramírez, Elisabeth Hijona, Jose M. Enríquez-Navascués, Jose L. Elosegui; Hospital General Universitario de Alicante: Artemio Payá (EPICOLON I local coordinator), Rodrigo Jover (EPICOLON II local coordinator), Cristina Alenda, Laura Sempere, Nuria Acame, Estefanía Rojas, Lucía Pérez-Carbonell; Hospital General de Granollers: Joaquim Rigau (local coordinator), Ángel Serrano, Anna Giménez; Hospital General de Vic: Joan Saló (local coordinator), Eduard Batiste-Alentorn, Josefina Autonell, Ramon Barniol; Hospital General Universitario de Guadalajara and Fundación para la Formación e Investigación Sanitarias Murcia: Ana María García (local coordinator), Fernando Carballo, Antonio Bienvenido, Eduardo Sanz, Fernando González, Jaime Sánchez, Akiko Ono; Hospital General Universitario de Valencia: Mercedes Latorre (local coordinator), Enrique Medina, Jaime Cuquerella, Pilar Canelles, Miguel Martorell, José Ángel García, Francisco Quiles, Elisa Orti; CHUVI-Hospital Meixoeiro, Vigo: EPICOLON I: Juan Clofent (local coordinator), Jaime Seoane, Antoni Tardío, Eugenia Sanchez; EPICOLON II: Ma Luisa de Castro (local coordinator), Antoni Tardío, Juan Clofent, Vicent Hernández; Hospital Universitari Germans Trias i Pujol, Badalona and Section of Digestive Diseases and Nutrition, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL: Xavier Llor (local coordinator), Rosa M. Xicola, Marta Piñol, Mercè Rosinach, Anna Roca, Elisenda Pons, José M. Hernández, Miquel A. Gassull; Hospital Universitari Mútua de Terrassa: Fernando Fernández-Bañares (local coordinator), Josep M. Viver, Antonio Salas, Jorge Espinós, Montserrat Forné, Maria Esteve; Hospital Universitari Arnau de Vilanova, Lleida: Josep M. Reñé (local coordinator), Carmen Piñol, Juan Buenestado, Joan Viñas; Hospital Universitario de Canarias: Enrique Quintero (local coordinator), David Nicolás, Adolfo Parra, Antonio Martín; Hospital Universitario La Fe, Valencia: Lidia Argüello (local coordinator), Vicente Pons, Virginia Pertejo, Teresa Sala; Hospital Sant Pau, Barcelona: Dolors Gonzalez (local coordinator), Eva Roman, Teresa Ramon, Maria Poca, Ma Mar Concepción, Marta Martin, Lourdes Pétriz; Hospital Xeral Cies, Vigo: Daniel Martinez (local coordinator); Fundacion Publica Galega de Medicina Xenomica (FPGMX), CIBERER, Genomic Medicine Group-University of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Galicia, Spain: Ángel Carracedo (local coordinator), Clara Ruiz-Ponte, Ceres Fernández-Rozadilla, Ma Magdalena Castro; Hospital Universitario Central de Asturias: Sabino Riestra (local coordinator), Luis Rodrigo; Hospital de Galdácano, Vizcaya: Javier Fernández (local coordinator), Jose Luis Cabriada; Fundación Hospital de Calahorra (La Rioja) La Rioja: Luis Carreño (local coordinator), Susana Oquiñena, Federico Bolado; Hospital Royo Villanova, Zaragoza: Elena Peña (local coordinator), José Manuel Blas, Gloria Ceña, Juan José Sebastián; Hospital Universitario Reina Sofía, Córdoba: Antonio Naranjo (local coordinator). Epigenetics are thought to play a major role in the carcinogenesis of multiple sporadic colorectal cancers (CRC). Previous studies have suggested concordant DNA hypermethylation between tumor pairs. However, only a few methylation markers have been analyzed. This study was aimed at describing the epigenetic signature of multiple CRC using a genome-scale DNA methylation profiling. We analyzed 12 patients with synchronous CRC and 29 age-, sex-, and tumor location-paired patients with solitary tumors from the EPICOLON II cohort. DNA methylation profiling was performed using the Illumina Infinium HM27 DNA methylation assay. The most significant results were validated by Methylight. Tumors samples were also analyzed for the CpG Island Methylator Phenotype (CIMP); KRAS and BRAF mutations and mismatch repair deficiency status. Functional annotation clustering was performed. We identified 102 CpG sites that showed significant DNA hypermethylation in multiple tumors with respect to the solitary counterparts (difference in β value ≥0.1). Methylight assays validated the results for 4 selected genes (p = 0.0002). Eight out of 12(66.6%) multiple tumors were classified as CIMP-high, as compared to 5 out of 29(17.2%) solitary tumors (p = 0.004). Interestingly, 76 out of the 102 (74.5%) hypermethylated CpG sites found in multiple tumors were also seen in CIMP-high tumors. Functional analysis of hypermethylated genes found in multiple tumors showed enrichment of genes involved in different tumorigenic functions. In conclusion, multiple CRC are associated with a distinct methylation phenotype, with a close association between tumor multiplicity and CIMP-high. Our results may be important to unravel the underlying mechanism of tumor multiplicity. This work was supported by grants from the Hospital Clínic of Barcelona (Josep Font grant), Ministerio de Economí­a y Competitividad (SAF 2007-64873 and SAF2010-19273), Fundación Científica de la Asociación Española contra el Cáncer, and Instituto de Salud Carlos III (PI10/00384). “Cofinanciado por el Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional (FEDER). Unión Europea. Una manera de hacer Europa”. CIBEREHD is funded by the Instituto de Salud Carlos III.