Faculty Bibliography

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.

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.

BACKGROUND & AIMS/OBJECTIVE:Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening guidelines include screening colonoscopy and sequential high-sensitivity fecal occult blood testing (HSgFOBT), with expectation of similar effectiveness based on the assumption of similar high adherence. However, adherence to screening colonoscopy compared with sequential HSgFOBT has not been reported. In this randomized clinical trial, we assessed adherence and pathology findings for a single screening colonoscopy vs sequential and nonsequential HSgFOBTs. METHODS:Participants aged 40-69 years were enrolled at 3 centers representing different clinical settings. Participants were randomized into a single screening colonoscopy arm vs sequential HSgFOBT arm composed of 4-7 rounds. Initial adherence to screening colonoscopy and sequential adherence to HSgFOBT, follow-up colonoscopy for positive HSgFOBT tests, crossover to colonoscopy, and detection of advanced neoplasia or large serrated lesions (ADN-SERs) were measured. RESULTS:There were 3523 participants included in the trial; 1761 and 1762 participants were randomized to the screening colonoscopy and HSgFOBT arms, respectively. Adherence was 1473 (83.6%) for the screening colonoscopy arm vs 1288 (73.1%) for the HSgFOBT arm after 1 round (relative risk [RR], 1.14; 95% CI, 1.10-1.19; P ≤ .001), but only 674 (38.3%) over 4 sequential HSgFOBT rounds (RR, 2.19; 95% CI, 2.05-2.33). Overall adherence to any screening increased to 1558 (88.5%) in the screening colonoscopy arm during the entire study period and 1493 (84.7%) in the HSgFOBT arm (RR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.02-1.07). Four hundred thirty-six participants (24.7%) crossed over to screening colonoscopy during the first 4 rounds. ADN-SERs were detected in 121 of the 1473 participants (8.2%) in the colonoscopy arm who were adherent to protocol in the first 12 months of the study, whereas detection of ADN-SERs among those who were not sequentially adherent (n = 709) to HSgFOBT was subpar (0.6%) (RR, 14.72; 95% CI, 5.46-39.67) compared with those who were sequentially adherent (3.3%) (n = 647) (RR, 2.52; 95% CI, 1.61-3.98) to HSgFOBT in the first 4 rounds. When including colonoscopies from HSgFOBT patients who were never positive yet crossed over (n = 1483), 5.5% of ADN-SERs were detected (RR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.15-1.96) in the first 4 rounds. CONCLUSIONS:Observed adherence to sequential rounds of HSgFOBT was suboptimal compared with a single screening colonoscopy. Detection of ADN-SERs was inferior when nonsequential HSgFOBT adherence was compared with sequential adherence. However, the greatest number of ADN-SERs was detected among those who crossed over to colonoscopy and opted to receive a colonoscopy. The effectiveness of an HSgFOBT screening program may be enhanced if crossover to screening colonoscopy is permitted. CLINICALTRIALS/RESULTS:gov, Number: NCT00102011.

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.

Introduction: Colonic polyps with carcinoma in situ (Tis) are considered advanced adenomas, appropriately treated by endoscopic resection. However, they represent a risk factor for metachronous neoplasia for which current guidelines recommend shorter interval surveillance as compared with low-risk adenomas. While the worse survival of proximal colon cancers has been established, the prognostic impact of laterality for Tis remains unknown. Additionally, proximal adenomas are more challenging to identify and resect, and possibly associated with higher rates of subsequent pathology; therefore, we hypothesized that Tis polyps in this location would have worse prognosis.
Method(s): Adult patients with TisNxMx tumors managed with endoscopic polypectomy alone were identified in the National Cancer Database, 2004-2017.
Result(s): A total of 3,980 patients were included; 29% had proximal lesions. Endoscopically excised proximal Tis polyps were more common in elderly, Black patients, and those with public insurance and more comorbidities (all p<0.01). There was no difference in median size (10mm) between sides. Unadjusted 5-year overall survival (OS) was 81% vs 89% for proximal and distal polyps, while 10-year OS was 67% vs 78% (p<0.01). In multivariable analysis, proximal location did not demonstrate significant worse prognosis (HR=1.11, 95%CI 0.94-1.31).
Conclusion(s): After adjusting for patient factors, proximal Tis polyps did not have significantly lower OS. However, survival may not be the optimal outcome for high-risk adenomas, particularly when considering the relatively low cancer incidence and effective treatment for early-stage malignancy. Future research should focus on risk of metachronous neoplasia, excluded from most national databases, to determine optimal surveillance protocols

Age is the strongest risk factor for colorectal cancer. Although there is updated guidance for the age at which to start screening, there is little guidance for individuals or their medical teams on how to decide when to stop. Current recommendations from the US Preventive Services Task Force and other societies focus primarily on age. For patients older than 85 years, guidelines discourage screening because the harms largely outweigh benefits. Although at a population level, the overall benefit of screening in older individuals decreases, one must individualize the recommendation based on comorbidities, functional status, screening history, and gender-not solely base it on age. Patient and caregiver preferences must also be thoroughly explored. Current models struggle with incorporating other colorectal cancer risk factors such as family history, previous adenomas, and modality of previous screening into recommendations and simulations, but are likely to improve with machine learning and whole electronic health record prediction-based approaches.

BACKGROUND:Current guidelines consider endoscopic resection appropriate treatment for malignant colon polyps with negative margins, low-grade histology, and no lymphovascular invasion. While increasing literature demonstrates a worse prognosis for advanced stage right- versus left-sided colon cancers after curative treatment, there is paucity of data regarding prognostic effect of location in patients undergoing endoscopic resection of T1 polyps. We hypothesized the more aggressive biologic behavior observed in advanced right-sided cancers would be similarly represented in malignant polyps, and this location would be associated with lower overall survival. METHODS:The National Cancer Database was queried for adults with T1NxMx tumors who underwent endoscopic polypectomy (2004-2017). Patients with positive margins or without follow-up information were excluded. RESULTS:A total of 2,337 patients met inclusion criteria; 22% had right-sided polyps. Endoscopically excised proximal tumors were more common in elderly, and those with public insurance and more comorbidities (all P < .01). Among patients with complete pathologic data, there were no statistical differences between right- and left-sided polyps with 1 cm median size, >92% without lymphovascular invasion, and 100% without tumor deposits. Univariate analysis showed 73% vs 86% 5-year overall survival for right versus left polyps (P < .01). After adjustment for available confounders, right-sided location remained significantly associated with worse overall survival (hazard ratio 1.49, 95% confidence interval 1.21-1.83). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:In this national cohort of patients with endoscopically excised malignant polyps, we identified right colon location as an independent prognostic factor associated with increased risk of mortality. Our data suggest polyp location should be taken into consideration when making clinical decisions regarding treatment and/or surveillance.