Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Colorectal cancer among adults aged <50 years [early-onset colorectal cancer (EOCRC)] is projected to be the leading cause of cancer-related death by 2030. Although evidence-based guidelines for colorectal cancer screening now recommend beginning screening at age 45, the needs of many at-risk young adults are potentially being overlooked. Unanswered questions also remain regarding the effects of EOCRC on quality-of-life and psychosocial outcomes. This qualitative study explored the lived experiences and perceptions of a sample of adult EOCRC survivors in the United States through one-on-one interviews. METHODS:An EOCRC advocate survivor team member led 27 structured virtual interviews using a 10-question interview guide. Data were analyzed using a 9-step inductive approach. RESULTS:Participants were geographically diverse. Most were women (66.6%) who self-identified as non-Hispanic White (85.2%). The mean age at interview was 40.19 ± 5.99; at diagnosis, 33.93 ± 5.90. Six overarching themes emerged: signs and symptoms, risk factors, system-level factors, quality of life, social support, and reflection. CONCLUSIONS:The specific needs of individuals in this younger population of patients with colorectal cancer should be considered during treatment and future interventions and throughout survivorship. IMPACT:While the reasons for the increasing incidence of EOCRC are currently unknown, the lived experiences and perceptions of EOCRC survivors noted in this study highlight specific needs of this population that can inform educational materials, comprehensive care, future research, and policy change.

The incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) has declined over time, though it remains a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in the U.S. It has the third highest incidence in incidence among all cancers and is the second leading cause of cancer death in both men and women. Screening reduces the incidence and mortality from CRC. There are several modalities for CRC screening, but the most common ones are a choice between a non-invasive stool-based test, such as fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) or an invasive endoscopic modality, such as colonoscopy. In the U.S. colonoscopy is the predominant CRC screening modality, with observational studies reporting large reductions in CRC incidence and mortality. Recently, a large randomized controlled trial (RCT) on effectiveness of colonoscopy reported smaller than expected reduction in CRC incidence and no reduction in CRC mortality with colonoscopy screening. Explanations of the lower than expected benefit include low uptake of colonoscopy, short follow-up for mortality endpoints and quality indicators (QIs) for some of the endoscopists participating in the screening colonoscopies. The findings of the study need to be taken in context with other literature on effectiveness of colonoscopy, with the overall message of reassuring patients of the benefits of screening, and colonoscopy. Here, we discuss the latest evidence on colonoscopy screening and it in the context of other screening modalities and the landscape.

INTRODUCTION:To investigate the impact of procedure-related and endoscopist-related factors on the effectiveness of a computer-aided detection (CADe) device in adenomas per colonoscopy (APC) detection. METHODS:The SKOUT clinical trial was conducted at 5 US sites. We present prespecified analyses of procedure-related and endoscopist-related factors, and association with APC across treatment and control cohorts. RESULTS:There were numeric increases in APC between SKOUT vs standard colonoscopy in community-based endoscopists, withdrawal time of ≥8 minutes, for endoscopists with >20 years of experience, and endoscopists with baseline adenoma detection rate <45%. DISCUSSION:The application of CADe devices in clinical practice should be carefully evaluated. Larger studies should explore differences in endoscopist-related factors for CADe.

DESCRIPTION/METHODS:Belching, bloating, and abdominal distention are all highly prevalent gastrointestinal symptoms and account for some of the most common reasons for patient visits to outpatient gastroenterology practices. These symptoms are often debilitating, affecting patients' quality of life, and contributing to work absenteeism. Belching and bloating differ in their pathophysiology, diagnosis, and management, and there is limited evidence available for their various treatments. Therefore, the purpose of this American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Clinical Practice Update is to provide best practice advice based on both controlled trials and observational data for clinicians covering clinical features, diagnostics, and management considerations that include dietary, gut-directed behavioral, and drug therapies. METHODS:This Expert Review was commissioned and approved by the AGA Institute Clinical Practice Updates Committee and the AGA Governing Board to provide timely guidance on a topic of high clinical importance to the AGA membership, and underwent internal peer review by the Clinical Practice Updates Committee and external peer review through standard procedures of Gastroenterology. These best practice advice statements were drawn from a review of the published literature based on clinical trials, the more robust observational studies, and from expert opinion. Because systematic reviews were not performed, these best practice advice statements do not carry formal ratings regarding the quality of evidence or strength of the presented considerations. Best Practice Advice Statements BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: Clinical history and physical examination findings and impedance pH monitoring can help to differentiate between gastric and supragastric belching. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: Treatment options for supragastric belching may include brain-gut behavioral therapies, either separately or in combination, such as cognitive behavioral therapy, diaphragmatic breathing, speech therapy, and central neuromodulators. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: Rome IV criteria should be used to diagnose primary abdominal bloating and distention. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: Carbohydrate enzyme deficiencies may be ruled out with dietary restriction and/or breath testing. In a small subset of at-risk patients, small bowel aspiration and glucose- or lactulose-based hydrogen breath testing may be used to evaluate for small intestinal bacterial overgrowth. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: Serologic testing may rule out celiac disease in patients with bloating and, if serologies are positive, a small bowel biopsy should be done to confirm the diagnosis. A gastroenterology dietitian should be part of the multidisciplinary approach to care for patients with celiac disease and nonceliac gluten sensitivity. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: Abdominal imaging and upper endoscopy should be ordered in patients with alarm features, recent worsening symptoms, or an abnormal physical examination only. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: Gastric emptying studies should not be ordered routinely for bloating and distention, but may be considered if nausea and vomiting are present. Whole gut motility and radiopaque transit studies should not be ordered unless other additional and treatment-refractory lower gastrointestinal symptoms exist to warrant testing for neuromyopathic disorders. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: In patients with abdominal bloating and distention thought to be related to constipation or difficult evacuation, anorectal physiology testing is suggested to rule out a pelvic floor disorder. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: When dietary modifications are needed (eg, low-fermentable oligosaccharides, disaccharides, monosaccharides and polyols diet), a gastroenterology dietitian should preferably monitor treatment. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 10: Probiotics should not be used to treat abdominal bloating and distention. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 11: Biofeedback therapy may be effective for bloating and distention when a pelvic floor disorder is identified. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 12: Central neuromodulators (eg, antidepressants) are used to treat bloating and abdominal distention by reducing visceral hypersensitivity, raising sensation threshold, and improving psychological comorbidities. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 13: Medications used to treat constipation should be considered for treating bloating if constipation symptoms are present. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 14: Psychological therapies, such as hypnotherapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, and other brain-gut behavior therapies may be used to treat patients with bloating and distention. BEST PRACTICE 15: Diaphragmatic breathing and central neuromodulators are used to treat abdominophrenic dyssynergia.

Background and study aim Cold snare endoscopic mucosal resection (CS-EMR) can reduce some of the risks associated with electrocautery use during colon polyp resection. Data regarding efficacy have yielded variable results. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the pooled efficacy and safety rates of CS-EMR. Patients and methods We conducted a literature search of multiple databases for studies addressing outcomes of CS-EMR for colon polyps from inception through March 2023. The weighted pooled estimates with the 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were calculated using the random effects model. I2 statistics was used to evaluate heterogeneity. Results 4137 articles were reviewed, and 16 studies met the inclusion criteria. 2584 polyps were removed from 1930 patients and48.9% were females. 54.4% were adenomas, 45% were sessile serrated lesions (SSLs), and 0.6% were invasive carcinoma. Polyp recurrence after CS-EMR was 6.7% (95% CI: [2.4-17.4%], I2=94%). The recurrence rate for polyps ≥ 20 mm was 12.3% (95% CI: [3.4-35.7%], I2= 94.%), 17.1% (95% CI: [4.6-46.7%], I2= 93%) for adenomas, and 5.7% (95% CI: [3.2-9.9%], I2= 50%) for SSLs. The pooled intraprocedural bleeding rate was 2.6% (95% CI: [1.5-4.4%], I2=51%), the delayed bleeding rate was 1.5% (95% CI: [0.9-2.8%], I2=20%) and no perforations or post-polypectomy syndromes were reported with estimated rates of 0.6% (95% CI: [0.3-1.2%], I2=0%) and 0.6% (95% CI: [0.2-1.3%], I2=0%), respectively. Conclusion CS-EMR demonstrated an excellent safety profile for colon polyps with variable recurrence rates based on polyp size and histology. Large prospective studies are needed to validate these findings.

IMPORTANCE:The Colonoscopy Versus Fecal Immunochemical Test in Reducing Mortality From Colorectal Cancer (CONFIRM) randomized clinical trial sought to recruit 50 000 adults into a study comparing colorectal cancer (CRC) mortality outcomes after randomization to either an annual fecal immunochemical test (FIT) or colonoscopy. OBJECTIVE:To (1) describe study participant characteristics and (2) examine who declined participation because of a preference for colonoscopy or stool testing (ie, fecal occult blood test [FOBT]/FIT) and assess that preference's association with geographic and temporal factors. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:This cross-sectional study within CONFIRM, which completed enrollment through 46 Department of Veterans Affairs medical centers between May 22, 2012, and December 1, 2017, with follow-up planned through 2028, comprised veterans aged 50 to 75 years with an average CRC risk and due for screening. Data were analyzed between March 7 and December 5, 2022. EXPOSURE:Case report forms were used to capture enrolled participant data and reasons for declining participation among otherwise eligible individuals. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES:Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the cohort overall and by intervention. Among individuals declining participation, logistic regression was used to compare preference for FOBT/FIT or colonoscopy by recruitment region and year. RESULTS:A total of 50 126 participants were recruited (mean [SD] age, 59.1 [6.9] years; 46 618 [93.0%] male and 3508 [7.0%] female). The cohort was racially and ethnically diverse, with 748 (1.5%) identifying as Asian, 12 021 (24.0%) as Black, 415 (0.8%) as Native American or Alaska Native, 34 629 (69.1%) as White, and 1877 (3.7%) as other race, including multiracial; and 5734 (11.4%) as having Hispanic ethnicity. Of the 11 109 eligible individuals who declined participation (18.0%), 4824 (43.4%) declined due to a stated preference for a specific screening test, with FOBT/FIT being the most preferred method (2820 [58.5%]) vs colonoscopy (1958 [40.6%]; P < .001) or other screening tests (46 [1.0%] P < .001). Preference for FOBT/FIT was strongest in the West (963 of 1472 [65.4%]) and modest elsewhere, ranging from 199 of 371 (53.6%) in the Northeast to 884 of 1543 (57.3%) in the Midwest (P = .001). Adjusting for region, the preference for FOBT/FIT increased by 19% per recruitment year (odds ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.14-1.25). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:In this cross-sectional analysis of veterans choosing nonenrollment in the CONFIRM study, those who declined participation more often preferred FOBT or FIT over colonoscopy. This preference increased over time and was strongest in the western US and may provide insight into trends in CRC screening preferences.

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW/OBJECTIVE:Our national guidelines regarding screening and surveillance for colorectal cancer recommend individualized discussions with patients 75-85 years of age. This review explores the complex decision-making that surrounds these discussions. RECENT FINDINGS/RESULTS:Despite updated guidelines for colorectal cancer screening and surveillance, the guidance for patients 75 years of age or older remains unchanged. Studies exploring the risks to colonoscopy in this population, patient preferences, life expectancy calculators and additional studies in the subpopulation of inflammatory bowel disease patients provide points of consideration to aid in individualized discussions. The benefit-risk discussion for colorectal cancer screening in patients over 75 years old warrants further guidance to develop best practice. To craft more comprehensive recommendations, additional research with inclusion of such patients is needed.