Faculty Bibliography

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Failure to document colonoscopy follow-up needs postpolypectomy can lead to delayed detection of colorectal cancer (CRC). Automating the update of a unified follow-up date in the electronic health record (EHR) may increase the number of patients with guideline-concordant CRC follow-up screening. METHODS:Prospective pre-post design study of an automated rules engine-based tool using colonoscopy pathology results to automate updates to documented CRC screening due dates was performed as an operational initiative, deployed enterprise-wide May 2023. Participants were aged 45-75 years who received a colonoscopy November 2022 to November 2023. Primary outcome measure is rate of updates to screening due dates and proportion with recommended follow-up < 10 years. Multivariable log-binomial regression was performed (relative risk, 95% confidence intervals). RESULTS:Study population included 9,824 standard care and 19,340 intervention patients. Patients had a mean age of 58.6 ± 8.6 years and were 53.4% female, 69.6% non-Hispanic White, 13.5% non-Hispanic Black, 6.5% Asian, and 4.6% Hispanic. Postintervention, 46.7% of follow-up recommendations were updated by the rules engine. The proportion of patients with a 10-year default follow-up frequency significantly decreased (88.7%-42.8%, P < 0.001). The mean follow-up frequency decreased by 1.9 years (9.3-7.4 years, P < 0.001). Overall likelihood of an updated follow-up date significantly increased (relative risk 5.62, 95% confidence intervals: 5.30-5.95, P < 0.001). DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS:An automated rules engine-based tool has the potential to increase the accuracy of colonoscopy follow-up dates recorded in patient EHR. The results emphasize the opportunity for more automated and integrated solutions for updating and maintaining EHR health maintenance activities.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS/OBJECTIVE:Computer-aided detection (CADe) devices have been shown to increase adenoma detection rates and adenomas per colonoscopy compared to standard colonoscopies. Questions remain about whether CADe colonoscopies are mainly increasing the detection of small, nonneoplastic lesions or if they are detecting more pathologically meaningful polyps. In this analysis, we compare the true histology rate (defined as polyps with confirmation of clinically relevant histopathology) of CADe-identified polyps with polyps identified during standard colonoscopies. METHODS:Using data from the SKOUT trial, we compared the true histology rate (THR) between CADe and standard colonoscopies. We also conducted a subgroup analysis by patient, procedural, and endoscopist factors. To account for multiple testing of comparisons, we used the false discovery rate. RESULTS:A total of 1423 participants were included (CADe, n = 714; standard, n = 709). Overall, THR was similar between the CADe and standard colonoscopy arms for adenomas, sessile serrated lesions, and large hyperplastic polyps. Higher THR with CADe colonoscopy was observed in some subgroups for adenomas. Endoscopists with 11 to 20 years of experience and procedures occurring after 12 pm had significantly higher adenoma THRs in the CADe cohort. Patients younger than 65 years, male patients, and procedures with a withdrawal time of ≥8 minutes had borderline significance in the CADe device adenoma THR subgroup. CONCLUSIONS:CADe colonoscopies may hold the key to improving endoscopic quality measures, provided that the polyps identified by the CADe device are those of clinical relevance. Although the benefit and significance in the CADe group were demonstrated in this analysis, further research is warranted to ensure that the true histology is maintained when applied in real-world applications.

BACKGROUND/AIMS/UNASSIGNED:Cold snare polypectomy (CSP) is routinely performed for small colorectal polyps (≤10 mm). However, challenges include insufficient resection depth and immediate bleeding, hindering precise pathological evaluation. We aimed to compare the outcomes of cold endoscopic mucosal resection (CEMR) with that of CSP for colorectal polyps ≤10 mm, using data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS/UNASSIGNED:Multiple databases were searched in December 2023 for RCTs reporting outcomes of CSP versus CEMR for colorectal polyps ≤10 mm in size. Our primary outcomes were rates of complete and en-bloc resections, while our secondary outcomes were total resection time (seconds) and adverse events, including immediate bleeding, delayed bleeding, and perforation. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:The complete resection rates did not significantly differ (CSP, 91.8% vs. CEMR 94.6%), nor did the rates of en-bloc resection (CSP, 98.9% vs. CEMR, 98.3%) or incomplete resection (CSP, 6.7% vs. CEMR, 4.8%). Adverse event rates were similarly insignificant in variance. However, CEMR had a notably longer mean resection time (133.51 vs. 91.30 seconds). CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:Our meta-analysis of seven RCTs showed that while both CSP and CEMR are equally safe and effective for resecting small (≤10 mm) colorectal polyps, the latter is associated with a longer resection time.

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:Colonoscopy remains the predominant diagnostic modality for colorectal cancer (CRC), as the diagnostic performance of tumor markers in alone, particularly in the early stages of the disease, is limited. This study sought to develop a diagnostic model for CRC that integrated various laboratory parameters. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:One hundred patients with CRC were assigned to an experimental group while 114 with benign colorectal diseases and 101 healthy individuals were assigned to a control group. The clinical and laboratory data, including the tumor markers such as carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), glycan carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9), carbohydrate antigen 242 (CA242), blood count parameters, blood biochemical parameters, and coagulation parameters, were collected for each participant. Three machine-learning models [multilayered perceptron (MLP), eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost), and random forest (RF)] were used to construct CRC diagnostic models. The performance of each model was evaluated based on its area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:There are 12 parameters: including CEA, CA19-9, CA242, absolute neutrophil value (NEUT), hemoglobin, the neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio, the platelet/lymphocyte ratio, alanine aminotransferase, alkaline phosphatase, aspartate aminotransferase, albumin, and prothrombin time, were selected to build the diagnostic model. For the validation set, the RF machine-learning model achieved the highest performance in identifying CRC [AUC: 0.902 (95% confidence interval: 0.812-0.989), accuracy: 0.803, sensitivity: 0.908, specificity: 0.772, positive predictive value: 0.664, negative predictive value: 0.890, and F1 score: 0.763]. The AUC, sensitivity, specificity, and Youden's index for the combined diagnosis of tumor markers CEA, CA19-9, and CA242 were 0.761, 0.486, 0.983, and 0.469, respectively. The RF diagnostic model showed better diagnostic efficacy than the combined diagnosis model of tumor markers CEA, CA19-9 and CA242. CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:The use of machine learning combined with multiple laboratory parameters effectively improved the diagnostic efficiency of CRC and provided more accurate results for clinical diagnosis.

Introduction: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths for the overall US population, with over 153,000 new cases annually. It is one the most diagnosed cancers in veterans and accounts for approximately 9 "‹% of all cancers in this population. Methods: This cross-sectional study used weighted data from the BRFSS 2021, a nationally representative US-telephone-based survey. We assessed the rate of endoscopic and stool-based colorectal cancer screening done in the VP compared to the NVP, stratified by age of screening, insurance, health status, primary care and marital status. We used backward stepwise multivariate logistic regression analyses to then assess for potentially predictive factors. Results: A total of 117,227,096 adults were included in the study of which 11.64 "‹% were veterans. We found that a higher proportion of veterans (78.44 "‹%) had endoscopic CRC screening compared to non-veterans (68.62 "‹%). VP were more likely to be screened compared to NVP (OR "‹= "‹1.32, (1.00"“1.74). Only 26.45 "‹% of VP in this study utilized military health coverage and are four-times likely to be screened (OR "‹= "‹3.64, (2.04"“6.52). Lastly, both VP and NVP who were actively followed by their primary care provider (OR "‹= "‹2.80, (2.02"“3.87) were more likely to be screened. Conclusion: A higher proportion of VP had endoscopic colorectal cancer screening, but a screening gap still exists. Active engagement with PCPs is associated with more frequent endoscopic CRC screening in veterans. We recommend more grassroots efforts to get veterans engaged with their PCPs to significantly improve screening coverage.

BACKGROUND:Endoscopic polypectomy could be an appropriate, definitive treatment for pathologic T1 (pT1) colon polyps without high-risk features. Prior studies suggested worse prognosis for proximal versus distal advanced-stage colon cancers following curative treatment. However, there is limited evidence on the prognostic impact of tumor location for pT1s. PATIENTS AND METHODS/METHODS:This was a retrospective cohort study using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database to identify adults with T1NxMx or T1N0-3M0/x colon adenocarcinoma from 2000 to 2019. RESULTS:A total of 3398 patients underwent endoscopic polypectomy (17% proximal) and 28,334 had a partial colectomy (49% proximal) for pT1 adenocarcinoma. Following endoscopic polypectomy, 5-year overall and cancer-specific survival rates were 64% and 91% for proximal versus 83% and 96% for distal polyps, compared with 82% and 95% for proximal versus 88% and 97% for distal tumors after colectomy. In multivariable models, there was a greater difference in overall survival between proximal and distal polyps for those who underwent endoscopic versus surgical resection [hazard ratio (HR) 1.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.49-2.02 vs. HR 1.13, 95% CI 1.08-1.18]. Patients with proximal versus distal polyps who underwent polypectomy also exhibited increased cancer-specific mortality (HR 1.94, 95% CI 1.37-2.75). However, cancer-specific survival variations based on tumor location were no longer observed in patients undergoing partial colectomy (HR 1.09, 95% CI 0.98-1.21). CONCLUSIONS:Proximal tumor location was independently associated with worse overall and cancer-specific survival following endoscopic polypectomy. However, after colectomy, the cancer-specific disparity based on tumor laterality was mitigated. These findings suggest that proximal location may be considered a high-risk feature in endoscopic polypectomy.

AIM/OBJECTIVE:Primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) increases the risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients; however, there is a paucity of literature to suggest PSC alone as an independent risk factor for CRC. We aimed to determine if PSC is an independent risk factor for CRC in a large tertiary care medical center. Optimizing screening intervals is of great importance, given the burden and risks associated with a lifetime of colonoscopy screening. METHODS:This retrospective cohort study consists of patients diagnosed with PSC preceding IBD (PSC-IBD) and PSC-only before January 6, 2023 from a large, tertiary, academic medical center. Patients diagnosed with IBD concurrently or before PSC were excluded to reduce IBD's impact on CRC risk. Demographic data and colonoscopy findings were collected and assessed. RESULTS:Overall, 140 patients from all NYU Langone Health clinical settings were included. Patients with PSC-IBD were more likely to be diagnosed with CRC (23.3% vs. 1.8%, p < 0.01) and either low-grade or uncharacterized dysplasia (16.7% vs. 0.0%, p < 0.01) compared with those with PSC-only. Among PSC-only patients, the estimated CRC risk was significantly elevated compared with that expected of the standard NYU Langone population (SIR 9.2, 95% CI 1.1, 33.2). CONCLUSIONS:Our study revealed a significantly heightened CRC risk in PSC-IBD patients compared with those with PSC-only. Importantly, individuals with PSC-only also face a greater CRC risk compared with the general population. Individuals with PSC-alone may require extended screening and surveillance colonoscopy intervals compared with those with PSC-IBD, yet still require more frequent monitoring than screening guidelines recommend for the general population.