Barriers to screening colonoscopy in an urban population: a study to help focus further efforts to attain full compliance

Robotic endoscope with double-balloon and double-bend tube for colonoscopy

The insertion of conventional colonoscopes can sometimes cause patients to experience pain during the procedure owing to the stretching of the mesentery. In this study, a prototype of a robotic colonoscope with a double-balloon and double-bend tube based on the conventional double-balloon endoscope was developed to simplify insertion and prevent the overstretching of the colon. Both the outer and inner tubes were confirmed to be free from interference from wires and sheaths. Additionally, all functions such as tip bending, inflation and deflation of the balloons, and actuator-driven pulling and pushing of the inner tube were operated properly. During the insertion test, the device could be reached the cecum of a colon model in approximately 442 s when operated by a non-medical operator. In addition, the device did not overstretch the colon model, thereby suggesting that the insertion mechanism can follow the shape of the colon model. As a result, the developed mechanism has the potential to navigate through a highly-bent colon without overstretching.

2021 Patient Perceptions Regarding Colonoscopy Experience

GOAL

We sought to document patient perceptions in 2021 regarding colonoscopy experience and potential deterrents to repeat colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Bowel preparation has been previously considered by patients to be the worst part of a colonoscopy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a prospective survey of consecutive patients age 18 years and older who had just completed colonoscopy at 2 outpatient endoscopy centers at a tertiary academic hospital. The short survey was conducted in the recovery area. The main outcome measure was patient perceptions of the worst part of their colonoscopy experience and which factor would most deter them from a future colonoscopy.

RESULTS

Four hundred patients completed the survey of 405 approached. Average patient age was 64 years, and 48% were women. Seventy-five percent of patients used low-volume preparations. Bowel preparation was considered the worst part of colonoscopy by 71% of patients. Women were more likely to choose laxatives as the worst part of a colonoscopy. Bowel preparation was chosen most often (55%) as the most likely deterrent to a future colonoscopy. There were minimal differences in responses between those receiving low-volume versus high-volume (4 L) preparations.

CONCLUSION

Bowel preparation remains the worst part of the colonoscopy experience for patients, and the most likely deterrent to future colonoscopy.

Effect of visual distraction on pain in adults undergoing colonoscopy: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Pain is a contributing factor to the low compliance rate for performing a colonoscopy on screening for colorectal cancer.

PURPOSE

This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effect of visual distraction on adults undergoing colonoscopy.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library Database from their inception to February 2022. Randomized controlled trials comparing visual distraction with non-visual distraction were considered for inclusion. The fixed-effects and random-effects models were used to pool the data from individual studies and the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool was used to determine the methodology quality.

RESULTS

This meta-analysis included four studies (N = 301) for pain level and total procedure time, three studies (N = 181) for satisfaction score, three studies (N = 196) for anxiety level, and four studie (N = 402) for willingness to repeat the procedure. The pooled analysis shown that significantly lower pain levels (SMD, - 0.25; 95% CI - 0.47 to - 0.02; P = 0.03), higher satisfaction score with the procedure (SMD, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.93; P < 0.0001), and higher willingness to repeat the procedure (OR, 2.66; 95% CI 1.70 to 4.17; P < 0.0001) in the visual distraction group than those in the non-visual distraction group, with no significant differences in total procedure time (SMD,- 0.07; 95% CI - 0.30 to 0.15; P = 0.53) or anxiety level (SMD,- 0.27; 95% CI - 0.55 to 0.01; P = 0.06).

CONCLUSIONS

Visual distraction improved the patient's pain, satisfaction, and willingness to repeat the procedure. Thus, visual stimulation is an effective way to reduce pain during colonoscopy and should be recommended.

Colonoscopy Insertion in Patients with Gastrectomy: Does Position Impact Cecal Intubation Time?

BACKGROUND

A history of abdominal surgery is associated with difficulty in colonoscopy insertion. Few studies have reported effective colonoscopy insertion for patients who underwent abdominal surgery due to stomach cancer.

AIM

We aimed to compare the impact of supine position (SP) and left lateral position (LLP) as the starting position of colonoscopy insertion in patients who underwent abdominal surgery due to stomach cancer.

METHODS

This was a prospective, randomized controlled trial. Patients undergoing colonoscopy for screening or post-polypectomy surveillance after gastrectomy due to stomach cancer were enrolled and randomized to the SP or LLP group as the starting position of colonoscopy insertion. All colonoscopic examinations were performed with a transparent cap. The primary outcome was to compare the cecal intubation time between the two groups.

RESULTS

A total of 224 patients were enrolled. The mean cecal intubation time was not significantly different between the SP and LLP groups (364.5 s versus 306.9 s; p = 0.105). In patients with a lower body mass index (< 21 kg/m²) or who underwent gastrectomy within three years, the mean cecal intubation time of the LLP group was shorter than the SP group. In the multivariate analysis for the factors affecting to increase in the cecal intubation time (> 5 min), the starting position was not an independent factor.

CONCLUSION

Either the SP or LLP could serve as a possible starting position of colonoscopy insertion for patients who underwent abdominal surgery due to stomach cancer.

Efficacy of a small-caliber colonoscope for pain in female patients during unsedated colonoscopy: a randomized controlled study

Background and study aims  Female sex has been identified as a factor increasing patients' pain during colonoscopy. The aim of this randomized controlled study was to investigate the efficacy of a small-caliber colonoscope, PCF-PQ260 L, for limiting pain in women during unsedated colonoscopy. Patients and methods  Women who underwent unsedated colonoscopy were randomly allocated to either the small-caliber or standard colonoscope group. The primary outcome was overall pain and secondary outcomes were maximum pain and procedural measures. In addition, the effects of colonoscope type were analysed using analysis of covariance and logistic regression with adjustment for stratification factors, age and prior abdomino-pelvic surgery. Results  A total of 220 women were randomly assigned to the small-caliber (n = 110) or standard (n = 110) colonoscope groups. Overall and maximum pain scores were significantly lower in the small-caliber colonoscope group than the standard colonoscope group (overall pain, 20.0 vs. 32.4, P < 0.0001; maximum pain, 28.9 vs. 47.2, P < 0.0001). The small-caliber colonoscope group achieved a superior cecal intubation rate (99 % vs. 93 %, P = 0.035). The rate of patient acceptance of unsedated colonoscopy in the future was higher in the small-caliber colonoscope group than in the standard colonoscope group (98 % vs. 87 %, P = 0.003). In addition, the small-caliber colonoscope was superior with respect to reducing pain and improving the rate of patient acceptance of unsedated colonoscopy with adjustment. Conclusions  This study demonstrates the efficacy of the small-caliber colonoscope for reducing pain in women and improving their rate of acceptance of unsedated colonoscopy.

Watching Videos of Colonoscopies and Receiving Interpretations Reduce Pain and Anxiety While Increasing the Satisfaction of Patients

BACKGROUND

Pain associated with colonoscopies is a major barrier to patients participating in colorectal cancer screenings. While sedation and analgesia are used to reduce pain during the procedure, they are associated with increased complications and costs. Thus, it is necessary to identity novel techniques to relieve pain in a safe and cost-effective way.

AIMS

To test whether watching real-time videos of colonoscopies while receiving detailed interpretations of the procedures reduces pain and anxiety and increases a patient's satisfaction.

METHODS

Patients were randomized into three groups including a group who watched real-time videos of their colonoscopies (Group A), a group who watched real-time videos of their colonoscopies while receiving detailed interpretations of the procedures from the endoscopists (Group B), and a group who did not receive either method (Group C).

RESULTS

Pain and anxiety scores were significantly (Group A vs. Group C, [Formula: see text]; Group B vs. Group C, [Formula: see text]) lower in Groups A and B compared to Group C. Additionally, significantly (Group A vs. Group C, [Formula: see text]; Group B vs. Group C, [Formula: see text]) increased satisfaction was observed in Groups A and B compared to Group C. There were no statistically significant differences observed in the pain and anxiety scores when comparing Groups A and B. However, the overall satisfaction score was significantly ([Formula: see text]) higher in Group B compared to Group A.

CONCLUSIONS

Real-time videos of colonoscopies as well as videos along with detailed interpretations of the procedures decrease pain and anxiety while improving satisfaction in patients undergoing colonoscopies without sedation. Videos combined with interpretations lead to a greater increase in patient satisfaction.

Predicting Colonoscopy Screening Behavior and Future Screening Intentions for African Americans Older than 50 Years

African Americans experience a disproportionate burden of morbidity and mortality from colorectal cancer, which may be due to low adherence to screening recommendations. Previous studies have found relationships between decision-making factors and screening behavior, but few have looked at both cognitive and affective factors or within a specifically African American sample. To better understand determinants that drive screening behavior, this study examines affective, cognitive, and social variables as predictors of colonoscopy in an age-eligible African American population. Participants completed surveys assessing affective associations with colonoscopy, perceived benefits and barriers, self-efficacy, knowledge, fear of colonoscopy, perceived risk, and colorectal cancer worry and fear. Regression analysis was used to model decision-making constructs as predictors of screening behavior/intentions. Affective, cognitive, and health care experience variables predicted colonoscopy completion and intentions. Provider-level factors and previous cancer screenings predicted prior screening only, but not intentions. Affective and cognitive components of perceived risk were associated with decreased likelihood of colonoscopy behavior, but increased likelihood of colonoscopy intentions. These findings suggest that colonoscopy decision making involves a complex array of both cognitive and affective determinants. This work extends our knowledge of colorectal cancer screening decision making by evaluating the effects of these multiple determinants on screening behavior in an African American sample. Future work exploring the interplay of affect and cognitions as influences on colonoscopy decision making and how health care experiences may moderate this effect is needed to develop effective intervention approaches and reduce screening disparities.

Colorectal Cancer Screening Modalities in Chinese Population: Practice and Lessons in Pudong New Area of Shanghai, China

Background: Parallel test of risk stratification and two-sample qualitative fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) are used to screen colorectal cancer (CRC) in Shanghai, China. This study was designed to identify an optimal initial screening modality based on available data. Methods: A total of 538,278 eligible residents participated in the program during the period of January 2013 to June 2017. Incident CRC was collected through program reporting system and by record linkage with the Shanghai Cancer Registry up to December 2017. Logistic regression model was applied to identify significant factors to calculate risk score for CRC. Cutoff points of risk score were determined based on Youden index and defined specificity. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive values (PPVs) were computed to evaluate validity of assumed screening modalities. Results: A total of 446 CRC were screen-detected, and 777 interval or missed cases were identified through record linkage. The risk score system had an optimal cutoff point of 19 and performed better in detecting CRC and predicting long-term CRC risk than did the risk stratification. When using a cutoff point of 24, parallel test of risk score, and FIT were expected to avoid 56 interval CRCs with minimal decrease in PPV and increase in colonoscopy. However, the observed detection rates were much lower than those expected due to low compliance to colonoscopy. Conclusions: Risk score is superior to risk stratification used in the program, particularly when combined with FIT. Compliance to colonoscopy should be improved to guarantee the effectiveness of CRC screening in the population.

Impact of the supine position versus left horizontal position on colonoscopy insertion: a 2-center, randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Colonoscopy insertion is painful for some patients and is one of the main barriers to screening colonoscopy. Few studies have assessed the impact of the supine position (SP) on colonoscopy insertion, especially for unsedated patients. The aim of this randomized controlled trial was to clarify this issue.

METHODS

Unsedated patients were randomized to SP or left horizontal position (LHP) as the starting position of colonoscopy insertion. The primary outcome measure was cecal intubation time (CIT), and the secondary outcome measures were descending colon intubation time (DIT), pain score of patients, difficulty score according to the endoscopist, and patients' acceptance of unsedated colonoscopy.

RESULTS

A total of 347 patients were randomized to the SP group (175) or the LHP group (172). The CIT in the SP group was significantly shorter than that in the LHP group (275.0 seconds [interquartile range (IQR), 234.0-328.5 seconds] versus 316.0 seconds [IQR, 261.0-370.0 seconds], P < .001). The DIT was also shorter in the SP group (64.5 seconds [IQR, 52.0-86.3 seconds] versus 74.0 seconds [IQR, 62.0-92.0 seconds], P = .001). Compared with the LHP, the SP had a lower pain score (3.3 versus 3.9, P = .002), a lower difficulty score (3.1 versus 3.7, P < .001), a lower frequency of position change (7.1% versus 38.0%, P < .001), and less need for abdominal compression (39.1% versus 45.5%, P = .02). SP was the only modifiable and independent factor identified to reduce CIT and pain score and improve patients' acceptance of unsedated colonoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

As an economical and convenient method, SP can reduce CIT, ease pain, and improve patients' acceptance of unsedated colonoscopy. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03289442.).

Viewpoints of the target population regarding barriers and facilitators of colorectal cancer screening in the Czech Republic

BACKGROUND

Public awareness of colorectal cancer (CRC) and uptake of CRC screening remain challenges. The viewpoints of the target population (asymptomatic individuals older than 50) regarding CRC screening information sources and the reasons for and against participation in CRC screening are not well known in the Czech Republic. This study aimed to acquire independent opinions from the target population independently on the health system.

AIM

To investigate the viewpoints of the target population regarding the source of information for and barriers and facilitators of CRC screening.

METHODS

A survey among relatives (aged 50 and older) of university students was conducted. Participants answered a questionnaire about sources of awareness regarding CRC screening, reasons for and against participation, and suggestions for improvements in CRC screening. The effect of certain variables on participation in CRC screening was analyzed.

RESULTS

Of 498 participants, 478 (96%) respondents had some information about CRC screening and 375 (75.3%) had participated in a CRC screening test. General practitioners (GPs) (n = 319, 64.1%) and traditional media (n = 166, 33.3%) were the most common information sources regarding CRC screening. A lack of interest or time and a fear of colonoscopy or positive results were reported as reasons for non-participation. Individuals aged > 60 years [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 2.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.42-3.71), P = 0.001], females (aOR = 1.95, 95%CI (1.26-3.01) P = 0.003), and relatives of CRC patients (aOR = 4.17, 95%CI (1.82-9.58) P = 0.001) were more likely to participate in screening. Information regarding screening provided by physicians - GPs: (aOR = 8.11, 95%CI (4.90-13.41), P < 0.001) and other specialists (aOR = 4.19, 95%CI (1.87-9.38), P = 0.001) increased participation in screening. Respondents suggested that providing better explanations regarding screening procedures and equipment for stool capturing could improve CRC screening uptake.

CONCLUSION

GPs and other specialists play crucial roles in the successful uptake of CRC screening. Reduction of the fear of colonoscopy and simple equipment for stool sampling might assist in improving the uptake of CRC screening.

Modifiable factors associated with patient-reported pain during and after screening colonoscopy

OBJECTIVE

Pain associated with colonoscopy is a major burden for patients. We investigated modifiable factors associated with patient-reported pain during and after colonoscopy.

DESIGN

This cross-sectional analysis included database records from 23 centres participating in a population-based colonoscopy screening programme in Poland. Colonoscopies were performed under three sedation modalities: none, benzodiazepine-opioid sedation or propofol sedation. We used Gastronet (a validated tool) to assess patients' pain during and after colonoscopy; pain was scored on a four-point scale (no, little, moderate or severe pain), with moderate to severe defined as painful. We used multivariate logistic regression models to estimate ORs for painful colonoscopy and calculated risk-adjusted ratios of painful colonoscopies per endoscopist and compared it to the mean rate.

RESULTS

Of 35 216 screening colonoscopies in 2014 and 2015 included in our study, 22 725 (64.5%) patients returned valid Gastronet questionnaires. The proportion of examinations described as causing pain during (after) the procedure was 22.5% (14.2%) for unsedated, 19.9% (13.5%) for benzodiazepine-opioid sedation and 2.5% (7.5%) for propofol sedation. Propofol sedation, higher case volume of endoscopists, newest endoscope generation and adequate bowel preparation were significantly associated with lower odds of painful colonoscopy. Pain scores after colonoscopy showed similar associations. Adjusted pain rates during and after colonoscopy varied 11 and over 23-fold, respectively, between endoscopists.

CONCLUSION

We identified several independent, modifiable factors associated with pain during and after colonoscopy, of which individual endoscopist was the most important. Dedicated training should be considered to decrease variability among endoscopists.

Uncovering the barriers to undergoing screening among first degree relatives of colorectal cancer patients: a review of qualitative literature

First degree relatives (FDRs) of colorectal cancer (CRC) patients are at higher risks of developing the disease, but screening rates amongst this group remains dismal. We undertook a systematic review of qualitative studies to identify the barriers surrounding CRC screening among FDRs from both the FDRs' and the healthcare professionals' perspectives. A comprehensive search of major bibliographic databases from January 2000 till February 2017 was performed to answer the above research questions. Pre-determined inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied. Thematic analysis was used to derive the commonalities across the studies. COREQ checklist was used to evaluate the quality of the included studies. Eight qualitative studies were included. Some of the barriers reported by FDRs included the fear of diagnosis of cancer and socio-cultural barriers. The most important barrier was the FDRs' negative perceptions towards screening test such as discomfort, embarrassment, cost of procedure and accessibility to healthcare resources. Likewise, the lack of awareness amongst FDRs that they are at increased risk of developing CRC was also found to be a barrier. On the other hand, healthcare providers are keen for patients themselves to be advocates for CRC screening of their family members as constraints posed by their daily workload impede their time to advocate screening. Lack of knowledge of the physicians on CRC screening guidelines is another notable barrier. A lack of awareness of being at higher risk of developing CRC coupled with negative attitude towards colonoscopy are the main barriers faced by the FDRs of CRC patients. Healthcare providers are more comfortable with patients being the advocates of screening among their family members.

A short telephone-call reminder improves bowel preparation, quality indicators and patient satisfaction with first colonoscopy

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

 Addition of a reminder program to conventional indications improves colonoscopy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a short telephone call reminder (STCR) on a patient's first colonoscopy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

 One day before colonoscopy, we made a STCR of < 10 minutes to 141 randomly selected patients of 258 recruited. The STCRs informed patients about the procedure date, indications for taking laxatives, and dietetic requirements. Questions were clarified only when patients asked directly. We evaluated bowel preparation, quality indicators, and patient satisfaction. Data were expressed as mean ± SD and percentages. Statistical differences were evaluated by Student's t and Chi squared tests; alpha = 0.05. All authors had access to the study data and reviewed and approved the final manuscript.

RESULTS

 The STCR group had better bowel preparation which was demonstrated by higher completion frequency (97.16 % vs. 82.05 %), in less time (4.52 ± 3.06 vs. 5.38 ± 3.03 hours) intake of laxative, and higher Boston's scale (7.66 ± 2.42 vs. 5.2 ± 1.65). Quality indicators of colonoscopy were better in patients that received a STCR [cecal intubation rate: 100.00 % vs. 87.18 %; polyp detection: 42.55 % vs. 9.4 %; and cecal arrival time (min): 12.09 ± 3.62 vs. 15.09 ± 5.02]. STCR patients were more satisfied (97.87 % vs. 55.56 %) and would repeat colonoscopy (21.99 % vs. 11.11 %).

CONCLUSIONS

 A simple additional step such as a STCR improves quality of bowel preparation, quality indicators, and satisfaction of patients undergoing their first colonoscopy. Clinical trial registry in Mexico City General Hospital: DI/16/107/3/108.

Colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy use among older adults in different countries: A systematic review

Screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) by colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy has been demonstrated to be effective in reducing CRC incidence and mortality, and they are increasingly employed as screening tests and for diagnostic purposes in many countries. We conducted a systematic review to provide up-to-date estimates on the utilization of lower gastrointestinal endoscopy (colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy) in the general average-risk population in different countries. PubMed and Web of Science were searched for relevant articles published between 1 September 2008 and 31 October 2016. A total of 23 studies from the US and 20 studies from other countries were included in this review. Estimates from the US were highest, continued to increase over the past decade and reached 62% for colonoscopy use within 10years in people aged 50-75years in 2012. Endoscopy use in other countries was substantially lower (12-44% for lifetime colonoscopy use and 13-30% for recent colonoscopy use), except for Germany, where 55% of the screening-eligible population reported colonoscopy utilization within the previous 10years in 2008-2011. Both lifetime and recent endoscopy use increased with age and peaked at approximately 70-75years. Although several European and Asian countries have started to collect endoscopy utilization data through periodic national health surveys, more data are still much needed from non-US countries. With the implementation of CRC screening programs in an increasing number of countries, especially European countries, an increase in endoscopy use and subsequent reduction in CRC incidence and mortality in the years to come might be expected in those countries.

A hydraulically driven colonoscope

BACKGROUND

Conventional colonoscopy requires a high degree of operator skill and is often painful for the patient. We present a preliminary feasibility study of an alternative approach where a self-propelled colonoscope is hydraulically driven through the colon.

METHODS

A hydraulic colonoscope which could be controlled manually or automatically was developed and assessed in a test bed modelled on the anatomy of the human colon. A conventional colonoscope was used by an experienced colonoscopist in the same test bed for comparison. Pressures and forces on the colon were measured during the test.

RESULTS

The hydraulic colonoscope was able to successfully advance through the test bed in a comparable time to the conventional colonoscope. The hydraulic colonoscope reduces measured loads on artificial mesenteries, but increases intraluminal pressure compared to the colonoscope. Both manual and automatically controlled modes were able to successfully advance the hydraulic colonoscope through the colon. However, the automatic controller mode required lower pressures than manual control, but took longer to reach the caecum.

CONCLUSIONS

The hydraulic colonoscope appears to be a viable device for further development as forces and pressures observed during use are comparable to those used in current clinical practice.

[Risk factors of pain during colonoscopic examination]

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the risk factorsthat predict pain during colonoscopy for decision of sedation or analgesia before the examination.

METHODS

A total of 283 consecutive patients undergoing colonoscopicexamination at Nanfang Hospital between July, 2016 and September, 2016were retrospectively analyzed. The clinical data and visual analogue scale after the examination were analyzed to identify the risk factors for pain during colonoscopy using univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression. A risk stratification model for predicting pain in colonoscopy was established.

RESULTS

The completion rate of the procedure was significantly lower in patients with a visual analogue scale ≥5 (P<0.000). Univariate analysis showed that female patients, previous abdominal surgery, no previous experience with colonoscopy, complaint of abdominal pain before colonoscopy, insufficient experience of the endoscopists, patient's anticipation of high painlevelbefore examination, and a low body mass index (BMI) were all associated with the experience of pain in colonoscopy (P<0.05). Multivariate logistic regressionanalysis identified BMI index (X₁), level of experience of the endoscopist (A₁, A₂, A₃) and the patient's anticipation of painlevel (X₂) as the risk factors of pain in colonoscopy(P<0.05), and the establishedmodel with the 3 variables was: P=e^Y/(1+e^Y),Y=0.049-0.124×X₁-0.97×X₂+1.713×A₁+0.781×A₂+0.147×A₃, which showed a sensitivity of 70.3% and a specificity of 67.5%for predicting pain in colonoscopy.

CONCLUSION

The patient's anticipation of a high pain level in colonoscopy, insufficient experience of the endoscopist, and a low BMI are the independent risk factors for pain in colonoscopy, and evaluation of these factors can help in the decision-making concerning the use of sedation or analgesia before colonoscopy.

Improved Bowel Preparation with Multimedia Education in a Predominantly African-American Population: A Randomized Study

Background and Aim. Inadequate bowel preparation is a major impediment in colonoscopy quality outcomes. Aim of this study was to evaluate the role of multimedia education (MME) in improving bowel preparation quality and adenoma detection rate. Methods. This was an IRB-approved prospective randomized study that enrolled 111 adult patients undergoing outpatient screening or surveillance colonoscopy. After receiving standard colonoscopy instructions, the patients were randomized into MME group (n = 48) and control group (n = 46). The MME group received comprehensive multimedia education including an audio-visual program, a visual aid, and a brochure. Demographics, quality of bowel preparation, and colonoscopy findings were recorded. Results. MME group had a significantly better bowel preparation in the entire colon (OR 2.65, 95% CI 1.16–6.09) and on the right side of the colon (OR 2.74, 95% CI 1.12–6.71) as compared to control group (p < 0.05). Large polyps (>1 cm) were found more frequently in the MME group (11/31, 35.5% versus 0/13; p < 0.05). More polyps and adenomas were detected in MME group (57 versus 39 and 31 versus 13, resp.) but the difference failed to reach statistical significance. Conclusion. MME can lead to significant improvement in the quality of bowel preparation and large adenoma detection in a predominantly African-American population.

Determinants of variations in self-reported barriers to colonoscopy among uninsured patients in a primary care setting

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common type of cancer among both males and females in the United States and the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths. Although largely preventable through screening, early detection and removal of polyps, screening rates are considered sub-optimal. Perceived barriers to screening have been reported to influence screening rates. This paper examines variations in the extent to which uninsured patients identified barriers to CRC screening using colonoscopy based on race/ethnicity, educational attainment, age, gender, marital status and prior colonoscopy. Multivariate analyses showed that compared to Caucasians, African Americans had an increased likelihood of identifying lack of transportation as a barrier [odds ratio (OR) 2.68; 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.35-5.32] while Hispanics were more likely to identify fear of finding cancer as a barrier (OR 2.09; 95 % CI 1.19-3.66). Compared to those with more than a high school education, there was increased likelihood of identifying lack of knowledge as a barrier among individuals with high school education (OR 3.51; 95 % CI 1.94-6.36) or less than a high school education (OR 2.16; 95 % CI 1.04-4.50). Our findings suggest that strategies aimed at increasing colonoscopy screening rates among underserved populations should take into consideration race/ethnicity, educational attainment, age, and prior colonoscopy experience when developing education and outreach plans to reduce barriers to colonoscopy.

Breath testing as potential colorectal cancer screening tool

Although colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is included in organized programs of many countries worldwide, there is still a place for better screening tools. In this study, 418 breath samples were collected from 65 patients with CRC, 22 with advanced or nonadvanced adenomas, and 122 control cases. All patients, including the controls, had undergone colonoscopy. The samples were analysed with two different techniques. The first technique relied on gas chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry (GC-MS) for identification and quantification of volatile organic compounds (VOCs). The T-test was used to identify significant VOCs (p values < 0.017). The second technique relied on sensor analysis with a pattern recognition method for building a breath pattern to identify different groups. Blind analysis or leave-one-out cross validation was conducted for validation. The GC-MS analysis revealed four significant VOCs that identified the tested groups; these were acetone and ethyl acetate (higher in CRC), ethanol and 4-methyl octane (lower in CRC). The sensor-analysis distinguished CRC from the control group with 85% sensitivity, 94% specificity and 91% accuracy. The performance of the sensors in identifying the advanced adenoma group from the non-advanced adenomas was 88% sensitivity, 100% specificity, and 94% accuracy. The performance of the sensors in identifying the advanced adenoma group was distinguished from the control group was 100% sensitivity, 88% specificity, and 94% accuracy. For summary, volatile marker testing by using sensor analysis is a promising noninvasive approach for CRC screening.

Decisional stage distribution for colorectal cancer screening among diverse, low-income study participants

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening uptake among minorities and those with lower incomes is suboptimal. Behavioral interventions specifically tailored to these populations can increase screening rates and save lives. The Precaution Adoption Process Model (PAPM) allows assignment of a decisional stage for adoption of a behavior such as CRC screening. Here, we characterize the PAPM decisional stage distribution among 470 low income, racially and ethnically diverse study participants at intake into a behavioral intervention study designed to increase CRC screening uptake. We staged participants for stool blood test (SBT) and colonoscopy separately and used the highest stage for the two tests as the 'overall' stage for CRC screening. For SBT, sex, language (English versus Spanish) and doctor recommendation were significantly related to PAPM stage for CRC screening. For colonoscopy, language, education level, doctor recommendation and self-efficacy were related to stage. For overall CRC screening stage, all the variables associated with either SBT or colonoscopy, with the exception of language were significant. This study suggests attending to these key variables in designing interventions to promote CRC screening, particularly with respect to medically underserved populations.

Optimal section thickness for detection of polyps at MR: resolution phantom study

PURPOSE

To determine (1) the sensitivity for detection of small polyps with varying MR slice thicknesses using a resolution phantom; (2) reader confidence in polyp detection; and (3) image acquisition time.

METHODS

A resolution phantom was created using a 3D printer. Polyp morphologies were sessile (height = diameter), flat (height = 1/2 diameter of the base), and pedunculated (stalk length = polyp diameter). Polyp diameters were 5, 7, 10, and 12 mm. Images were acquired with section thicknesses of 5, 3, and 1 mm. Images were independently reviewed by 4 board-certified radiologists who were blinded to phantom design and sequences parameters. Readers recorded maximal polyp diameter and confidence level that a polyp was present on a 1-100 point scale. Image acquisition time was also recorded.

RESULTS

All polyps were detected by all 4 readers in the 5-mm-section thickness series. All polyps were detected by 3 readers in the 3- and 1-mm-section thickness series. The fourth reader identified 11/12 polyps in the 3- and 1-mm-section thickness series. Confidence levels were not statistically significantly different for the different section thicknesses (p = 0.28). Increasing the section thickness from 1 to 5 mm decreased image acquisition time from 3 min 54 s to 41 s.

CONCLUSIONS

Five-millimeter-section thickness was adequate for identification of 5-12 mm polyps regardless of shape. Pending further reduction in acquisition time, this prototype sequence holds promise for segmental imaging of the colon with MR colonography.

Development and validation of the Mayo Clinic Bowel Prep Tolerability Questionnaire

BACKGROUND

Bowel cleansing is paramount for colonoscopy quality. Unfortunately, an adequate bowel preparation is often limited by side effects and/or patient's intolerance to bowel preparation solutions. Comparisons among different preparations are limited by the lack of validated instruments designed to assess patient's tolerability.

AIM

To develop and validate a simple, comprehensive instrument to assess bowel preparation tolerability in patients undergoing colonoscopy.

METHODS

Development and validation by phases: Phase I (bibliographic search and questionnaire design); Phase II (assessment of content validity and modification of the questionnaire); Phase III (assessment of reproducibility, final validation, and definitive version of the questionnaire).

RESULTS

The initial draft of the questionnaire was generated based on a systematic literature review and feedback from a panel of consultants. Content validity was tested in a focus group of 25 patients undergoing colonoscopy. Patients' suggestions were reviewed by the research team and a second draft of the questionnaire was generated. Final validation and reproducibility were successfully tested (agreement: 86-100%, kappa: 0.77-1.00) in a convenience sample of 100 patients undergoing bowel preparation with different cleansing solutions.

CONCLUSION

The Mayo Clinic Bowel Prep Tolerability Questionnaire is a simple, comprehensive instrument suitable to evaluate the tolerability of various types of bowel preparations.

Optimal bowel preparation--a practical guide for clinicians

High-quality bowel preparation is essential for effective colonoscopy. Bowel preparations are judged by their safety, efficacy and tolerability. Between efficacy and tolerability, efficacy is the clinical priority because inadequate preparations are disruptive and costly. Achieving high rates of adequate preparation depends first on using split-dose or same-day dosing. Patients who have medical predictors of inadequate preparation quality (for example chronic constipation) should be prescribed more aggressive preparations and patients who have factors that predict they are less likely to follow the instructions (such as English not being their first language) should receive intensified education. On the day of the procedure, patients with persistent brown effluent should be considered for large-volume enemas or additional oral preparation before proceeding with colonoscopy. During the procedure, preparation quality should be graded after the clean-up has been completed.