Faculty Bibliography

PURPOSE OF REVIEW/OBJECTIVE:Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a leading cause of cancer-related mortality, with 44% of deaths occurring in individuals aged 75 years and older. With 78 million adults over 65 years projected by 2035, optimizing CRC screening and surveillance is crucial. This review examines guidelines, risks, and personalized approaches. RECENT FINDINGS/RESULTS:CRC screening reduces incidence by 17-33% and mortality by 11-53%. Colonoscopy lowers mortality by 61% but has a 6.8% complication rate in those aged 75 years and older. The risk of gastrointestinal bleeding is 8.7 per 1,000 for polypectomy, and perforation occurs in 0.6 per 1,000. Frailty indices assess suitability, but surveillance guidelines lack clear discontinuation criteria. Screening should balance risk, complications, and health status. It may be cost-effective up to age 86 years in healthy individuals, but more research is needed to refine surveillance strategies and reduce overtreatment in older adults.

Description Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a leading cause of morbidity and cancer-related mortality in the US. Despite multiple screening options, adherence to CRC screening in the US remains suboptimal and there are racial, ethnic and geographic disparities in CRC screening rates and outcomes. Advances in diagnostic technology have allowed for development and validation of blood tests for CRC screening. In this clinical practice update, our aims were to review the current evidence on blood tests, and the potential implications for CRC screening. We leveraged published modelling studies to understand the optimal test performance characteristics, interval, and uptake that would be needed for blood tests to achieve comparable effectiveness to that of currently available stool tests and screening colonoscopy.

With nearly 60 million Americans aged 65 and older, gastrointestinal (GI) conditions are a leading cause of healthcare utilization in this population. Despite this, older adults remain underrepresented in GI clinical trials and research, limiting evidence-based care. This review highlights three pivotal studies addressing this gap: (1) proton pump inhibitors, which are commonly used to treat gastroesophageal reflux disease, are not associated with the later development of dementia; (2) undertreatment of chronic inflammation among older adults with inflammatory bowel disease is associated with a higher rate of adverse events compared to treatment with anti-TNF therapy, a biologic agent; (3) the majority (85%) of surveillance colonoscopies among older adults with a life expectancy of ≥ 10 years did not yield colorectal cancer, advanced dysplasia, or ≥ 3 polyps.

BACKGROUND:As the inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patient population is aging, the prevalence of polypharmacy is rising. However, data exploring the prevalence, risk factors, and clinical outcomes associated with polypharmacy among older adults with IBD are limited. AIMS/OBJECTIVE:To determine (i) prevalence of polypharmacy (≥5 medications) and potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) utilization in older adults with IBD, (ii) changes in medications over time (iii) predictors of polypharmacy, and (iv) the impact of polypharmacy/PIMs on one-year hospitalization rates. METHODS:We conducted a retrospective single-center study of older adults with IBD from September 1st 2011 to December 31st 2022. Wilcoxon-signed rank and McNemar's tests were used to assess changes in polypharmacy between visits, with ordinal logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards models used to determine risk factors for polypharmacy and time to hospitalization, respectively. RESULTS:Among 512 older adults with IBD, 74.0% experienced polypharmacy at initial visit, with 42.6% receiving at least one PIM. Additionally, severe polypharmacy (≥10 medications) was present among 28.6% individuals at index visit and increased to 38.6% by last visit (p<0.01). Multivariable analysis revealed that age ≥70 years, BMI ≥30.0 kg/m2, prior IBD-related surgery, and the presence of comorbidities were associated with polypharmacy. Moreover, severe polypharmacy (adjHR 1.95, 95%CI 1.29-2.92), as well as PIM use (adjHR 2.16, 95%CI 1.37-3.43) among those with polypharmacy, were significantly associated with all-cause hospitalization within a year of index visit. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS:Severe polypharmacy was initially present in more than 25% of older adults with IBD and increased to 34% within 4 years of index visit. Severe polypharmacy, as well as PIM utilization among those with polypharmacy, were also associated with an increased risk of hospitalization at one-year, highlighting the need for deprescribing efforts in this population.

This document is an update to the 2014 recommendations for optimizing the adequacy of bowel cleansing for colonoscopy from the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, which represents the American College of Gastroenterology, the American Gastroenterological Association, and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. The US Multi-Society Task Force developed consensus statements and key clinical concepts addressing important aspects of bowel preparation for colonoscopy. The majority of consensus statements focus on individuals at average risk for inadequate bowel preparation. However, statements addressing individuals at risk for inadequate bowel preparation quality are also provided. The quality of a bowel preparation is defined as adequate when standard screening or surveillance intervals can be assigned based on the findings of the colonoscopy. We recommend the use of a split-dose bowel preparation regimen and suggest that a 2 L regimen may be sufficient. A same-day regimen is recommended as an acceptable alternative for individuals undergoing afternoon colonoscopy, but we suggest that a same-day regimen is an inferior alternative for individuals undergoing morning colonoscopy. We recommend limiting dietary restrictions to the day before a colonoscopy, relying on either clear liquids or low-fiber/low-residue diets for the early and midday meals. We suggest the adjunctive use of oral simethicone for bowel preparation before colonoscopy. Routine tracking of the rate of adequate bowel preparations at the level of individual endoscopists and at the level of the endoscopy unit is also recommended, with a target of >90% for both rates.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:To assess strategies for optimizing participation of underserved minorities in a blood-based early CRC detection test study (PREEMPT CRC; NCT04369053) at a hospital serving primarily Black patients. METHODS:Culturally sensitive, racially congruent research staff approached patients undergoing average-risk screening colonoscopy. Consent/study procedures were synchronized with clinical appointments. Enrolled and not-enrolled patient characteristics were compared. Recruitment was compared with other study sites. RESULTS:247/509 eligible participants enrolled; most identified as Black (88.7%). No baseline characteristics were associated with participation. Recruitment was high compared to other sites (11th centile). CONCLUSIONS:Recruitment barriers for Black individuals can be overcome when easy, culturally sensitive access is facilitated.

This document is an update to the 2014 recommendations for optimizing the adequacy of bowel cleansing for colonoscopy from the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, which represents the American College of Gastroenterology, the American Gastroenterological Association, and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. The US Multi-Society Task Force developed consensus statements and key clinical concepts addressing important aspects of bowel preparation for colonoscopy. The majority of consensus statements focus on individuals at average risk for inadequate bowel preparation. However, statements addressing individuals at risk for inadequate bowel preparation quality are also provided. The quality of a bowel preparation is defined as adequate when standard screening or surveillance intervals can be assigned based on the findings of the colonoscopy. We recommend the use of a split-dose bowel preparation regimen and suggest that a 2 L regimen may be sufficient. A same-day regimen is recommended as an acceptable alternative for individuals undergoing afternoon colonoscopy, but we suggest that a same-day regimen is an inferior alternative for individuals undergoing morning colonoscopy. We recommend limiting dietary restrictions to the day before a colonoscopy, relying on either clear liquids or low-fiber/low-residue diets for the early and midday meals. We suggest the adjunctive use of oral simethicone for bowel preparation before colonoscopy. Routine tracking of the rate of adequate bowel preparations at the level of individual endoscopists and at the level of the endoscopy unit is also recommended, with a target of >90% for both rates.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has potential to significantly impact clinical research when it comes to research preparation and data interpretation. Development of AI tools that can help in performing literature searches, synthesizing and streamlining data collection and analysis, and formatting of study could make the clinical research process more efficient. Several of these tools have been developed and trialed and many more are being rapidly developed. This article highlights the AI applications in clinical research in gastroenterology including its impact on drug discovery and explores areas where further guidance is needed to supplement the current understanding and enhance its use.

This document is an update to the 2014 recommendations for optimizing the adequacy of bowel cleansing for colonoscopy from the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, which represents the American College of Gastroenterology and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. The US Multi-Society Task Force developed consensus statements and key clinical concepts addressing important aspects of bowel preparation for colonoscopy. The majority of consensus statements focus on individuals at average risk for inadequate bowel preparation. However, statements addressing individuals at risk for inadequate bowel preparation quality are also provided. The quality of a bowel preparation is defined as adequate when standard screening or surveillance intervals can be assigned based on the findings of the colonoscopy. We recommend the use of a split-dose bowel preparation regimen and suggest that a 2 L regimen may be sufficient. A same-day regimen is recommended as an acceptable alternative for individuals undergoing afternoon colonoscopy, but we suggest that a same-day regimen is an inferior alternative for individuals undergoing morning colonoscopy. We recommend limiting dietary restrictions to the day before a colonoscopy, relying on either clear liquids or low-fiber/low-residue diets for the early and midday meals. We suggest the adjunctive use of oral simethicone for bowel preparation before colonoscopy. Routine tracking of the rate of adequate bowel preparations at the level of individual endoscopists and at the level of the endoscopy unit is also recommended, with a target of >90% for both rates.

The substantial carbon footprint imparted by medical services warrants increased attention to their environmental impact. National guideline organizations such as the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommend multiple modalities for average-risk colorectal cancer (CRC) screening with varying resource intensity. The aim of this study was to quantify the environmental burden for 2 of the most used CRC screening modalities, colonoscopy and the multi-target stool DNA (mt-sDNA) test. A validated CRC microsimulation model was used to estimate the number of screening and follow-up tests for a cohort of 1 million average-risk individuals who underwent screening between ages 45 and 75. Component resources used for mt-sDNA, including waste products, energy, and transportation for colonoscopy and mt-sDNA, were collected from January 1, 2023, to January 1, 2024, and converted to carbon-equivalent emissions. Resources used for colonoscopy were captured from the literature. Resources devoted to screening colonoscopy were substantially (59%) higher than those to mt-sDNA, even when including follow-up colonoscopy. Of note, follow-up colonoscopy accounted for the majority (64%) of total emissions for the mt-sDNA screening strategy. Compared with colonoscopy screening, mt-sDNA substantially reduces the carbon emissions attributable to population-level CRC screening. Environmental impact should be included as a factor when choosing among guideline-recommended CRC screening strategies.