Faculty Bibliography

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer in men and women in the United States. CRC screening efforts are directed toward removal of adenomas and sessile serrated lesions and detection of early-stage CRC. The purpose of this article is to update the 2009 American College of Gastroenterology CRC screening guidelines. The guideline is framed around several key questions. We conducted a comprehensive literature search to include studies through October 2020. The inclusion criteria were studies of any design with men and women age 40 years and older. Detailed recommendations for CRC screening in average-risk individuals and those with a family history of CRC are discussed. We also provide recommendations on the role of aspirin for chemoprevention, quality indicators for colonoscopy, approaches to organized CRC screening and improving adherence to CRC screening. CRC screening must be optimized to allow effective and sustained reduction of CRC incidence and mortality. This can be accomplished by achieving high rates of adherence, quality monitoring and improvement, following evidence-based guidelines, and removing barriers through the spectrum of care from noninvasive screening tests to screening and diagnostic colonoscopy. The development of cost-effective, highly accurate, noninvasive modalities associated with improved overall adherence to the screening process is also a desirable goal.

ABSTRACT:Many gastrointestinal disorders, autoimmune diseases, and pregnancy-related conditions preferentially impact women. This issue of The American Journal of Gastroenterology focuses on women's health in the context of gastrointestinal and liver disease. This editorial highlights the current issue's contents and seeks to spark the conversations to bring awareness to the many issues faced by women as both patients and practitioners.

Colonic diverticulitis is a painful gastrointestinal disease that recurs unpredictably and can lead to chronic gastrointestinal symptoms. Gastroenterologists commonly care for patients with this disease. The purpose of this Clinical Practice Update is to provide practical and evidence-based advice for management of diverticulitis. We reviewed systematic reviews, meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials, and observational studies to develop 14 best practices. In brief, computed tomography is often necessary to make a diagnosis. Rarely, a colon malignancy is misdiagnosed as diverticulitis. Whether patients should have a colonoscopy after an episode of diverticulitis depends on the patient's history, most recent colonoscopy, and disease severity and course. In patients with a history of diverticulitis and chronic symptoms, alternative diagnoses should be excluded with both imaging and lower endoscopy. Antibiotic treatment can be used selectively rather than routinely in immunocompetent patients with mild acute uncomplicated diverticulitis. Antibiotic treatment is strongly advised in immunocompromised patients. To reduce the risk of recurrence, patients should consume a high-quality diet, have a normal body mass index, be physically active, not smoke, and avoid nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use except aspirin prescribed for secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease. At the same time, patients should understand that genetic factors also contribute to diverticulitis risk. Patients should be educated that the risk of complicated diverticulitis is highest with the first presentation. An elective segmental resection should not be advised based on the number of episodes. Instead, a discussion of elective segmental resection should be personalized to consider severity of disease, patient preferences and values, as well as risks and benefits.

INTRODUCTION:Sessile serrated lesions (SSLs) are important precursor lesions for the CpG island-methylated pathway to colorectal cancer. The reported detection rates of SSL are highly variable, and national or population-based estimates are not available. Patient-, provider-, and procedure-level factors associated with the detection rates of SSL have not been well described. The aim of our study was to study the detection rates of SSL, variability of rates over time, and factors associated with detection rates of SSL in a national sample of patients undergoing colonoscopy using the GIQuIC registry. METHODS:We used colonoscopies submitted to the GIQuIC registry from 2014 to 2017 on adults, aged 18-89 years. Only the first colonoscopy record per patient was included. Indications for colonoscopy were categorized as screening, diagnostic, and surveillance. We used the hierarchical logistic models to study the factors associated with the detection rates of SSL. The Cochrane-Armitage test was used to study the significance of trend over time. RESULTS:There were a total of 5,173,211 colonoscopies performed by 3,934 endoscopists during the study period. Among the 2,101,082 screening colonoscopies over the study period in adults older than or equal to 50 years that were complete to the cecum, the average detection rate per endoscopist for SSL was 6.43% (SD 5.18) and 6.25% standardized for the 2010 US population. There was a significant increase in the detection rates of SSLs from screening colonoscopies over the study period from 4.99% in 2014 to 7.09% in 2017 (P trend <0.001). Clinically significant factors associated with higher detection rates of SSL were longer withdrawal times (>11 minutes vs ≤6 minutes) (odds ratio [OR] 9.61; 9.03-10.24), adequate preparation (OR 1.25; 1.22-1.28), female sex (OR 1.17; 1.16-1.18), and use of a specialized gastrointestinal pathology group (OR 1.12; 95% confidence interval 1.04, 1.19). DISCUSSION:Population-based estimates of the detection rates of SSL are 6% and have increased over time.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW:In the United States, only 67% of patients are up to date with colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. While colonoscopy is highly sensitive and specific for CRC and precursor lesion detection and removal, it is invasive, expensive and resource heavy. Hence, there is an unfulfilled need for multiple modality CRC screening that can improve current CRC screening rates and may be resource effective strategies when used in conjunction with a colonoscopy program. Our review highlights the complementary, often underutilized, noninvasive CRC screening methods with a focus on performance, risks, benefits, and recent updates. RECENT FINDINGS:Studies demonstrate that fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) is superior to guaiac-based fecal occult blood tests for CRC screening. Studies show superiority of multitarget stool DNA test to FIT in sensitivity, though with concern for decreased specificity in setting of one-time tests. Technical advances continue to improve accuracy of colon capsule endoscopy. There are ongoing studies to characterize often difficult-to-detect high-risk lesions in computed tomography colonography. Septin 9 continues to have suboptimal accuracy for CRC screening, but has been shown to be associated with more advanced, invasive CRC stages. SUMMARY:There are ongoing advances in noninvasive screening modalities for CRC; these should be considered as alternatives to colonoscopy in specific patient populations.

Colorectal cancer surveillance intervals by colonoscopy are based on the size and number of polyps removed. Evidence suggests endoscopists' estimation of polyp size is often inaccurate, but the differences by endoscopists' characteristics have not been reported. This study assesses endoscopists' accuracy of measuring polyp illustrations, the effect of endoscopists' characteristics, and the impact of having a measurement reference. Endoscopists in a community-based, gastroenterology practice estimated the size of several illustrations in a booklet. One month later, they estimated the size of illustrations with a provided measurement reference. Accuracy was defined as no difference between estimated and actual value. Endoscopists were accurate in sizing only 15% of the time, with a tendency toward undersizing. Female endoscopists, those with less than 10 years in practice and those with lower adenoma detection rates, were more likely to undersize polyps. Accuracy of measuring the polyp illustrations increased to 50% (p < .01) with the measurement reference. The improvement in accuracy was seen across endoscopists' demographic groups. Endoscopists had poor accuracy of measuring polyp illustrations. Almost universally, endoscopists tended to undersize the polyp illustrations. Accuracy improved significantly with the use of a polyp-measuring guide, particularly when considering important surveillance thresholds of 5 and 10 mm.