Faculty Bibliography

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs based on the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) and guaiac-based fecal occult blood (gFOBT) are associated with a substantial reduction in CRC incidence and mortality. We conducted a systematic review and comprehensive meta-analysis to evaluate colonoscopy-related adverse events in individuals with a positive FIT or gFOBT. METHODS:A systematic and detailed search was run in January 2021, with the assistance of a medical librarian for studies reporting on colonoscopy-related adverse events as part of organized CRC screening programs. Meta-analysis was performed using the random-effects model, and the results were expressed for pooled proportions along with relevant 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS:A total of 771,730 colonoscopies were performed in patients undergoing CRC screening using either gFOBT or FIT across 31 studies. The overall pooled incidence of severe adverse events in the entire patient cohort was 0.42% (CI 0.20-0.64); I2 = 38.76%. In patients with abnormal gFOBT, the incidence was 0.2% (CI 0.1-0.3); I2 = 24.6%, and in patients with a positive FIT, it was 0.4% (CI 0.2-0.7); I2 = 48.89%. The overall pooled incidence of perforation, bleeding, and death was 0.13% (CI 0.09-0.21); I2 = 22.84%, 0.3% (CI 0.2-0.4); I2 = 35.58%, and 0.01% (CI 0.00-0.01); I2 = 33.21%, respectively. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS:Our analysis shows that in colonoscopies performed after abnormal stool-based testing, the overall risk of severe adverse events, perforation, bleeding, and death is minimal.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:The Veterans Health Administration introduced a clinical reminder system in 2018 to help address process gaps in colorectal cancer screening, including the diagnostic evaluation of positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT) results. We conducted a qualitative study to explore the differences between facilities who performed in the top vs bottom decile for follow-up colonoscopy. METHODS:Seventeen semi-structured interviews with gastroenterology (GI) providers and staff were conducted at 9 high-performing and 8 low-performing sites. RESULTS:We identified 2 domains, current practices and perceived barriers, and most findings were described by both high- and low-performing sites. Findings exclusive to 1 group mainly pertained to current practices, especially arranging colonoscopy for FIT positive patients. We observed only 1 difference in the perceived barriers domain, which pertained to primary care providers. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS:These results suggest that what primarily distinguishes high- and low-performing sites is not a difference in barriers, but rather in the GI clinical care process. Developing and disseminating patient education materials about the importance of diagnostic colonoscopy, eliminating in-person pre-colonoscopy visits when clinically appropriate, and involving GI in missed colonoscopy appointments and outside referrals should all be considered to increase follow-up colonoscopy rates. Our study illustrates the challenges of performing a timely colonoscopy after a positive FIT result and provides insights on improving the clinical care process for patients who are at substantially increased risk for colorectal cancer.

Fecal hemoglobin (f-Hb) detected by the guaiac fecal occult blood test (gFOBT) may be associated with mortality and cause of death in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening participants. We investigated this association in a randomly selected population of 20,694 participants followed for 33 years. We followed participants from the start of the Hemoccult-II CRC trial in 1985-1986 until December 2018. Data on mortality, cause of death and covariates were retrieved using Danish national registers. We conducted multivariable Cox regressions with time-varying exposure, reporting results as crude and adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs). We identified 1766 patients with at least one positive gFOBT, 946 of whom died in the study period. Most gFOBT-positive participants (93.23%) died of diseases unrelated to CRC and showed higher non-CRC mortality than gFOBT-negative participants (aHR: 1.20, 95% CI 1.10-1.30). Positive gFOBT participants displayed a modest increase in all-cause (aHR: 1.28, 95% CI: 1.18-1.38), CRC (aHR: 4.07, 95% CI: 3.00-5.56), cardiovascular (aHR: 1.22, 95% CI: 1.07-1.39) and endocrine and hematological mortality (aHR: 1.58, 95% CI: 1.19-2.10). In conclusion, we observed an association between positive gFOBT, cause of death and mortality. The presence of f-Hb in the gFOBT might indicate the presence of systemic diseases.

Diverticular disorders are frequently encountered in the primary care setting. Diverticular bleeding is the most common cause of lower gastrointestinal bleeding. Low risk patients with uncomplicated diverticulitis can be managed in the outpatient setting, in some cases without the need for antibiotics. In patients with diverticulosis and persistent abdominal pain, chronic smoldering diverticulitis, segmental colitis associated with diverticulosis (SCAD), symptomatic uncomplicated diverticular disease (SUDD), and visceral hypersensitivity should all be considered. To avoid these complications, patients should be encouraged to lead an active lifestyle, consume a healthy diet, and avoid tobacco, alcohol, and certain medications. Contrary to conventional teaching, seeds and nuts do not need to be avoided.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW/OBJECTIVE:Diverticulosis leads to significant morbidity and mortality and is increasing in prevalence worldwide. In this paper, we review the clinical features, diagnosis, and management of diverticular disorders, followed by a discussion of recent updates and changes in the clinical approach to diverticular disease. RECENT FINDINGS/RESULTS:Recent literature suggests that antibiotics are likely not necessary for low-risk patients with acute uncomplicated diverticulitis, and not all patients with recurrent diverticulitis require colectomy. Dietary restrictions do not prevent recurrent diverticulitis. Visceral hypersensitivity is increasingly being recognized as a cause of persistent abdominal pain after acute diverticulitis and should be considered along with chronic smoldering diverticulitis, segmental colitis associated with diverticula, and symptomatic uncomplicated diverticular disease. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS:Clinicians should be aware that traditionally held assumptions regarding the prevention and management of diverticular disorders have recently been called into question and should adjust their clinical practice accordingly.

This document is a focused update to the 2017 colorectal cancer (CRC) screening recommendations from the U.S. 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. This update is restricted to addressing the age to start and stop CRC screening in average-risk individuals and the recommended screening modalities. Although there is no literature demonstrating that CRC screening in individuals under age 50 improves health outcomes such as CRC incidence or CRC-related mortality, sufficient data support the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force to suggest average-risk CRC screening begin at age 45. This recommendation is based on the increasing disease burden among individuals under age 50, emerging data that the prevalence of advanced colorectal neoplasia in individuals ages 45 to 49 approaches rates in individuals 50 to 59, and modeling studies that demonstrate the benefits of screening outweigh the potential harms and costs. For individuals ages 76 to 85, the decision to start or continue screening should be individualized and based on prior screening history, life expectancy, CRC risk, and personal preference. Screening is not recommended after age 85.

This document is a focused update to the 2017 colorectal cancer (CRC) screening recommendations from the U.S. 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. This update is restricted to addressing the age to start and stop CRC screening in average-risk individuals and the recommended screening modalities. Although there is no literature demonstrating that CRC screening in individuals under age 50 improves health outcomes such as CRC incidence or CRC-related mortality, sufficient data support the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force to suggest average-risk CRC screening begin at age 45. This recommendation is based on the increasing disease burden among individuals under age 50, emerging data that the prevalence of advanced colorectal neoplasia in individuals ages 45 to 49 approaches rates in individuals 50 to 59, and modeling studies that demonstrate the benefits of screening outweigh the potential harms and costs. For individuals ages 76 to 85, the decision to start or continue screening should be individualized and based on prior screening history, life expectancy, CRC risk, and personal preference. Screening is not recommended after age 85.

This document is a focused update to the 2017 colorectal cancer (CRC) screening recommendations from the U.S. 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. This update is restricted to addressing the age to start and stop CRC screening in average-risk individuals and the recommended screening modalities. Although there is no literature demonstrating that CRC screening in individuals under age 50 improves health outcomes such as CRC incidence or CRC-related mortality, sufficient data support the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force to suggest average-risk CRC screening begin at age 45. This recommendation is based on the increasing disease burden among individuals under age 50, emerging data that the prevalence of advanced colorectal neoplasia in individuals ages 45 to 49 approaches rates in individuals 50 to 59, and modeling studies that demonstrate the benefits of screening outweigh the potential harms and costs. For individuals ages 76 to 85, the decision to start or continue screening should be individualized and based on prior screening history, life expectancy, CRC risk, and personal preference. Screening is not recommended after age 85.