Faculty Bibliography

Prior studies have reported the prevalence of colorectal cancer (CRC) in average-risk screening population ages 50-75 to be 0.7%-1.0%.^1,2 However, no estimates from studies enrolling individuals undergoing screening colonoscopy have been reported. The experience of ongoing studies enrolling average-risk individuals is that the prevalence rates are substantially lower. A 2020 study from a community-based cohort undergoing CRC screening with fecal immunochemical testing followed by diagnostic colonoscopy reported a CRC prevalence rate of 1.46 per 1000, or 0.15%.³ The aim of our study is to report the screen-detected prevalence of CRC and advanced neoplasia in average-risk asymptomatic individuals from selected academic and community medical centers in the United States, Canada, and Germany and describe associated risk factors.

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.

BACKGROUND & AIMS/OBJECTIVE:Randomized trials have shown that biennial fecal occult blood test (FOBT) screening reduces mortality from colorectal cancer (CRC), but not overall mortality. Differences in benefit for men vs women, and by age, are unknown. We sought to evaluate long-term reduction in all-cause and CRC-specific mortality in men and women who comply with offered screening, and in different age groups, using individual participant data from 2 large randomized trials of biennial FOBT screening, compared with an intention to treat analysis. METHODS:We updated the CRC and all-cause mortality from the Danish CRC screening trial (n = 61,933) through 30 years of follow up and pooled individual participant data with individual 30-year follow-up data from the Minnesota Colon Cancer Control trial (n = 46,551). We compared the biennial screening groups to usual care (controls) in individuals 50-80 years old using Kaplan Meier estimates of relative risks and risk differences, adjusted for study differences in age, sex, and compliance. RESULTS:Through 30 years of follow up, there were 33,478 (71.9%) and 33,479 (72.2%) total deaths and 1023 (2.2%) and 1146 (2.5%) CRC deaths in the biennial screening (n = 46,553) and control groups (n = 46,358), respectively. Among compliers, biennial FOBT screening significantly reduced CRC mortality by 16% (relative risk [RR], 0.84; 95% CI, 0.74-0.96) and all-cause mortality by 2% (RR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.97-0.99). Among compliers, the reduction in CRC mortality was larger for men (RR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.62-0.90) than women (RR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.75-1.09). The largest reduction in CRC mortality was in compliant men 60-69 years old (RR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.42-0.81) and women 70 years and older (RR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.30-0.94). CONCLUSIONS:Long-term CRC mortality outcomes of screening among compliers using biennial FOBT are sustained, with a statistically significant reduction in all-cause mortality. The reduction in CRC mortality is greater in men than women-the benefit in women lags that of men by about 10 years.

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.

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.

BACKGROUND & AIMS/OBJECTIVE:There is a lack of clinical studies to establish indications and methodology for tattooing, therefore technique and practice of tattooing is very variable. We aimed to establish a consensus on the indications and appropriate techniques for colonic tattoo through a modified Delphi process. METHODS:The baseline questionnaire was classified into 3 areas: where tattooing should not be used (1 domain, 6 questions), where tattooing should be used (4 domains, 20 questions), and how to perform tattooing (1 domain 20 questions). A total of 29 experts participated in the 3 rounds of the Delphi process. RESULTS:A total of 15 statements were approved. The statements that achieved the highest agreement were as follows: tattooing should always be used after endoscopic resection of a lesion with suspicion of submucosal invasion (agreement score, 4.59; degree of consensus, 97%). For a colorectal lesion that is left in situ but considered suitable for endoscopic resection, tattooing may be used if the lesion is considered difficult to detect at a subsequent endoscopy (agreement score, 4.62; degree of consensus, 100%). A tattoo should never be injected directly into or underneath a lesion that might be removed endoscopically at a later point in time (agreement score, 4.79; degree of consensus, 97%). Details of the tattoo injection should be stated clearly in the endoscopy report (agreement score, 4.76; degree of consensus, 100%). CONCLUSIONS:This expert consensus has developed different statements about where tattooing should not be used, when it should be used, and how that should be done.