Faculty Bibliography

PURPOSE OF REVIEW/OBJECTIVE:The goal of this review is to summarize stool-based testing for colorectal cancer (CRC). The key questions answered in this review were the advantages and limitations of each available stool-based test for CRC and to examine their comparative efficacy. RECENT FINDINGS/RESULTS:Guaiac-based fecal occult blood testing (gFOBT) is no longer a relevant test for CRC screening. fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) tests, especially quantitative assays, are clearly a reliable stool-based test. Multitarget DNA (mtsDNA) stool testing may represent a viable option as well, although cost and test characteristics are yet fully defined. FIT and mtsDNA represent the options for stool-based CRC screening. In larger screening centers, quantitative FIT assays represent an attractive option for stool-based testing. Qualitative FIT has applicability in smaller centers. Although a large validation trial showed promising results for mtsDNA, further head-to-head trials with FIT will help define the ultimate role of mtsDNA. Ultimately, however, the best test for CRC screening is the one performed stool-based CRC screening as an initial or alternative option can increase participation in CRC screening.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS/OBJECTIVE: Accurate sizing of polyps at time of colonoscopy is critical for determining surveillance intervals. Endoscopists routinely over- or underestimate the size of polyps at colonoscopy. We evaluated the variability in sizing of polyps among multiple endoscopists, and the effect of patient and physician related factors on polyp size estimation in a large community-based practice. METHODS: Adult patients who underwent a colonoscopy with polypectomy at five endoscopy centers in Minneapolis/St. Paul by one of 52 endoscopists in 2013 were included in this study. Association of patient, physician, and procedure related factors on polyp sizing was assessed. RESULTS: In the study time frame, 38 624 colonoscopies were performed at five ambulatory endoscopy centers. Of these, 16 336 had one or more polyp removed with size information available, and were included in this analysis. There was significant inter-physician variation for estimating polyp sizes larger than 5 mm (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] 0.13). Older patient age (OR 1.08, 95 %CI 1.06 - 1.11), and male physician gender (OR 1.92, 95 %CI 1.26 - 2.94) were associated with increased odds of physicians sizing polyps as larger in size. Surveillance procedures had a higher odds of larger polyp sizing compared to screening (OR 0.91, 95 %CI 0.86 - 0.97) and diagnostic procedures (OR 0.86, 95 %CI 0.78 - 0.94). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS: In a large community setting, variation of polyp sizing estimates exists between physicians. Male physicians were more likely to size polyps as larger in size. Older patients and patients undergoing surveillance procedures were more likely to have polyps that were sized as larger in size.