Colonoscopy-Related Mortality in a Fecal Immunochemical Test-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening Program

Stool-Based Testing for Post-Polypectomy Colorectal Cancer Surveillance Safely Reduces Colonoscopies: The MOCCAS Study

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Colonoscopy-based surveillance to prevent colorectal cancer (CRC) causes substantial burden for patients and health care. Stool tests may help to reduce surveillance colonoscopies by limiting colonoscopies to individuals at increased risk of advanced neoplasia.

METHODS

This cross-sectional observational study included individuals aged 50-75 years with surveillance indication. Before bowel preparation, participants collected samples for a multitarget stool DNA test and 2 fecal immunochemical tests (FITs). Test accuracy was calculated for all surveillance indications. For the post-polypectomy indication only, which is the most common and is associated with a relatively low CRC risk, long-term impact of stool-based surveillance was evaluated with the Adenoma and Serrated Pathway to Colorectal Cancer (ASCCA) model. Stool-based strategies were simulated to tune each test's positivity threshold to obtain strategies at least as effective as colonoscopy surveillance.

RESULTS

There were 3453 individuals with results for all stool tests and colonoscopy; 2226 had previous polypectomy, 1003 had previous CRC, and 224 had a familial risk. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve for advanced neoplasia were 0.72 (95% CI, 0.69-0.75) for the multitarget stool DNA test, 0.61 (95% CI, 0.58-0.64) for the FIT OC-SENSOR (Eiken Chemical Co, Tokyo, Japan) and 0.59 (95% CI, 0.56-0.61) for the FIT FOB-Gold (Sentinel, Milan, Italy). Stool-based post-polypectomy surveillance strategies at least as effective as colonoscopy surveillance reduced the number of colonoscopies by 15%-41% and required 5.6-9.5 stool tests over a person's lifetime. Multitarget stool DNA-based surveillance was more costly than colonoscopy surveillance, whereas FIT-based surveillance saved costs.

CONCLUSIONS

This study found that stool-based post-polypectomy surveillance strategies can be safe and cost-effective, with potential to reduce the number of colonoscopies by up to 41%.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov, Number: NCT02715141.

Unsedated or On-Demand Minimally Sedated Water-Aided Outpatient Colonoscopy in Colorectal Cancer Screening and Surveillance: A Step Forward or Backward? Experience from Daily Practice in a Regional (Nonacademic) Hospital

Background: By using optimal insertion techniques with water infusion and dynamic position changes, pain during colonoscopy is greatly reduced and the procedures can usually be performed without sedation. We investigated whether the excellent results with water-aided colonoscopy reported by experts are reproducible in daily practice in a regional hospital. Methods: During the year 2023, 500 consecutive outpatients 50-75 years old presenting for colorectal cancer screening and surveillance could choose between unsedated or on-demand minimally sedated colonoscopy, moderate sedation with midazolam, or deep sedation with propofol. A total of 57% opted for unsedated colonoscopy, and of those patients, 250 consecutive patients were included. The primary outcome was the feasibility of the procedure. Cecal intubation rate (CIR), pain scores, use of midazolam, and willingness to repeat future procedures in the same way were registered periprocedural. Additional outcomes were cecal intubation time (CIT), detection rate of lesions, polyp resection rate, rate of adequate bowel preparation, and volume of water aspirated during insertion. Results: 250 consecutive sedation-free or on-demand minimally sedated water-based colonoscopies were analyzed. The CIR was 98%. A total of 96.5% completed without sedation and 5% of the procedures were perceived as moderately painful, but none had severe pain. The willingness to repeat was 97%. The mean CIT was 8.2 min. Conclusions: Using water-aided insertion techniques, comfortable sedation-free, or on-demand minimally sedated colonoscopy in daily practice in a regional hospital is feasible in the vast majority of patients presenting for colorectal cancer screening and surveillance, and the willingness to repeat is very high.

Adverse events after colonoscopy in a randomised colorectal cancer screening trial

OBJECTIVE

Colonoscopy-related adverse events increase the burden of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. This cross-sectional study evaluates adverse events during and after colonoscopy in a large, randomised CRC screening trial in Norway comparing sigmoidoscopy to immunochemical testing for faecal blood.

METHODS

We included all individuals who underwent colonoscopy at two screening centres between 2012 and 2020. From medical records, we retrieved data on adverse events during and within 30 days after colonoscopy and classified them according to the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy lexicon for endoscopic adverse events. Multivariable logistic regression models were fitted to identify risk factors for adverse events.

RESULTS

Of the 10 244 included individuals, 242 (2.4%) had at least one adverse event that was possibly, probably, or definitively related to the colonoscopy. 188 (1.8%) had mild adverse events, 50 (0.49%) had moderate, 3 (0.03%) had severe, and 1 had a fatal adverse event. The most frequent adverse events were lower gastrointestinal bleeding (0.86%), abdominal pain (0.48%), vasovagal reaction (0.39%), postpolypectomy syndrome (0.20%), and perforation (0.08%). 23 (0.22%) individuals had non-gastrointestinal adverse events. Risk factors associated with adverse events were older age, female sex, screening centre, anticoagulant therapy, number of polypectomies, size of lesion removed, presence of proximal lesion, and adenocarcinoma. Adverse event rates per endoscopist ranged from 0% to 4.9%.

CONCLUSION

Adverse events after colonoscopy of screening positives occurred in about 2 out of 100 procedures. Three-quarters of events were mild. Awareness of risk factors may help endoscopists to mitigate the risk.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT01538550.

Benefits and Harms of Interception and Early Detection of Cancer

Strategies for early detection and interception of cancer are based on 2 synergistic elements: proactive search for asymptomatic cancer, precancer, or cancer predisposition and proactive disruption of cancer evolution. Benefits and harms of both these elements will vary widely depending on the screened populations, the types of cancers targeted, the detection modalities, and the health care delivery approaches following diagnosis. This article attempts to identify common elements that can inform the evaluation of alternative strategies across many of these scenarios.

Benefit-Harm Analysis for Informed Decision Making on Participating in Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Modeling Study

OBJECTIVES

To facilitate informed decision making on participating in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, we assessed the benefit-harm balance of CRC screening for a wide range of subgroups over different time horizons.

METHODS

The study combined incidence proportions of benefits and harms of (not) participating in CRC screening estimated by the Adenoma and Serrated pathway to CAncer microsimulation model, a preference eliciting survey, and benefit-harm balance modeling combining all outcomes to determine the net health benefit of CRC screening over 10, 20, and 30 years. Probability of net health benefit was estimated for 210 different subgroups based on age, sex, previous participation in CRC screening, and lifestyle.

RESULTS

CRC screening was net beneficial in 183 of 210 subgroups over 30 years (median probability [MP] of 0.79, interquartile range [IQR] of 0.69-0.85) across subgroups. Net health benefit was greater for men (MP 0.82; IQR 0.69-0.89) than women (MP 0.76; IQR 0.67-0.83) and for those without history of participation in previous screenings (MP 0.84; IQR 0.80-0.89) compared with those with (MP 0.69; IQR 0.59-0.75). Net health benefit decreased with increasing age, from MP of 0.84 (IQR 0.80-0.86) at age 55 to 0.61 (IQR 0.56-0.71) at age 75. Shorter time horizons led to lower benefit, with MP of 0.70 (IQR 0.62-0.80) over 20 years and 0.54 (IQR 0.48-0.67) over 10 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Our benefit-harm analysis provides information about net health benefit of screening participation, based on important characteristics and preferences of individuals, which could assist screening invitees in making informed decisions on screening participation.

Trauma to the solid abdominal organs: The missed dark box of colonoscopy

Colonoscopy is an integral part of the lower bowel care and is generally considered a potentially safe diagnostic and therapeutic procedure performed as a daycare outpatient procedure. Colonoscopy is associated with different complications that are not limited to adverse events related to the bowel preparation solutions used, the sedatives used, but to the procedure related as well including bleeding and perforation. Injuries to the extra-luminal abdominal organs during colonoscopy are uncommon, however, serious complications related to the procedure have been reported infrequently in the literature. Life threatening injuries to the spleen, liver, pancreas, mesentery, and urinary bladder have been reported as early as in mid-1970s. These injuries should not be overlooked by clinicians and endoscopists. Steadily increasing abdominal pain, abdominal distension, and hemodynamic instability in absence of rectal bleeding should raise the possibility of severe organ injury. Splenic and hepatic injury following colonoscopy are usually serious and may be life threatening. Although conservative management may help, yet they usually need interventional radiology or surgical intervention. Acute pancreatitis following colonoscopy is usually mild and is mostly managed conservatively. The mechanism of abdominal organ injuries during colonoscopy is not fully understood, however many risk factors have been identified, which can be classified as- organ related, procedure related, and local abdominal factors. Difficult colonoscopy and prior intra-abdominal adhesions are probably the most relevant risk factors for these injuries. Left lateral position, avoidance of looping and excessive force during the procedure would probably reduce the risk of such injuries.

Fatal outcomes of endoscopy: an analysis from the coroner's point of view

Background and study aims  This study was designed to provide a profound analysis of fatalities associated with endoscopic procedures. Methods  Protocols of all autopsies performed within 20 years in a large Department of Forensic Medicine were retrospectively analyzed to identify all fatalities directly related to an endoscopic procedure. Data were further specified focusing on the type of endoscopy and the final cause of death. Results  Of 22,615 autopsies performed between January 2000 and September 2019, 86 deaths were identified as complications of an endoscopic procedure. The average age of these 86 patients was 70.9 years (66.4 (range, 26-89) in males (n = 35) and 74.1 years (range, 22-94) in females (n = 51)). Endoscopic procedures included 29 endoscopic retrograde cholangeopancreatographies (ERCPs), 27 colonoscopies, 18 percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube placements, six gastroscopies, two upper endosopic ultrasonographies, and four transesophageal echocardiographies. ERCPs, colonoscopy and PEG procedures together accounted for 74 of 86 (86 %) endoscopy-related deaths. Focusing on the single procedures, post-ERCP pancreatitis (14/29, 48 %), colonoscopy-associated perforation (24/27, 89 %), and peritonitis after PEG placement (16/18, 88 %) were the most common causes of death. Conclusions  Even in the thought-to-be-safe and screening endoscopic procedures fatalities do occur. This study gives an overview of endoscopy-related fatalities, stressing the role of ERCP, colonoscopy, and PEG.

How Would You Screen This Patient for Colorectal Cancer? : Grand Rounds Discussion From Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third leading cause of cancer death for men and women in the United States, with an estimated 52 580 people expected to die in 2022. Most frequently, CRC is diagnosed among persons aged 65 to 74 years. However, among persons younger than 50 years, incidence rates have been increasing since the mid-1990s. In 2021, partially because of the rising incidence, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended CRC screening for adults aged 45 to 49 years (Grade B recommendation). Options for CRC screening include stool-based and direct visualization tests. The USPSTF did not recommend a specific screening test; rather, its guidance was to select a test after a discussion with the patient. Here, a primary care physician and a gastroenterologist discuss the recommendation to begin CRC screening at age 45, review options for CRC screening, and discuss how to choose among the available options.

[Factors Associated with the Clinical Outcomes of Iatrogenic Colonic Perforation]

Background/Aims

This study evaluated the incidence of iatrogenic colonic perforation (ICP) in a high-volume center and analyzed the clinical outcomes and associated factors.

Methods

As a retrospective study of the electronic medical records, the whole data of patients who underwent colonoscopy from June 2004 to May 2020 were reviewed.

Results

During 16 years, 69,458 procedures were performed, of which 60,288 were diagnostic and 9,170 were therapeutic. ICP occurred in 0.027% (16/60,288) for diagnostic colonoscopies and in 0.076% (7/9,170) for therapeutic purposes (p=0.015; hazard ratio 2.878; 95% CI, 1.184-6.997). Fifty-two percent (12 cases) were managed with endoscopic clip closure, and 43.5% (10 cases) required surgery. The reasons for the procedure and the procedure timing appeared to affect the treatment decision. Perforations during therapeutic colonoscopy were treated with surgery more often than those for diagnostic purposes (66.7% [4/6] vs. 37.5% [6/16], p=0.221). Regarding the timing of the procedure, ICP that occurred in the afternoon session was more likely treated surgically (56.3% [9/16] vs. 0/5, p=0.027). Mortality occurred in two patients (2/23, 8.7%). Both were aged (mean age 84.0±1.4 vs. 65.7±10.5, p<0.001) and lately recognized (mean elapsed time [hours], 43.8±52.5 vs. 1.5±3.0, p<0.001) than the surviving patients.

Conclusions

ICP occurs in less than 0.1% of cases. The events that occurred during the morning session were more likely managed endoscopically. Age over 80 years and a longer time before perforation recognition were associated with mortality.

Continuous monitoring of colonoscopy performance in the Netherlands: first results of a nationwide registry

BACKGROUND

To optimize colonoscopy quality, several performance measures have been developed. These are usually assessed without distinction between the indications for colonoscopy. This study aimed to assess the feasibility of linking two national registries (one for colonoscopy and one for adverse events of gastrointestinal endoscopies in the Netherlands), and to describe the results of colonoscopy quality per indication.

METHODS

This retrospective study was conducted with prospectively collected data of the Dutch Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Audit (DGEA) and the Dutch Registration of Complications in Endoscopy (DRCE). Data between 01-01-2016 and 01-01-2019 were analyzed. To calculate adverse event rates, data were linked at the level of endoscopy service.

RESULTS

During the 3-year study period, 266 981 colonoscopies were recorded in DGEA. Of all indications, cecal intubation rate was highest in fecal immunochemical test (FIT)-positive screening colonoscopies (97.1 %), followed by surveillance (93.2 %), diagnostic (90.7 %), and therapeutic colonoscopies (83.1 %). The highest rate of adequate bowel preparation was observed in FIT-positive screening colonoscopies (97.1 %). A total of 1540 colonoscopy-related adverse events occurred (0.58 % of all colonoscopies). Bleeding and perforation and rates were highest for therapeutic (1.56 % and 0.51 %, respectively) and FIT-positive screening (0.72 % and 0.06 %, respectively) colonoscopies. The colonoscopy-related mortality was 0.006 %.

CONCLUSION

This study describes the first results of the Dutch national colonoscopy registry, which was successfully linked to data from the national registry for adverse events of gastrointestinal endoscopies. In this large dataset, performance varied between indications. Our results emphasize the importance of defining benchmarks per indication in future guidelines.

Colonoscopy-Related Adverse Events in Patients With Abnormal Stool-Based Tests: A Systematic Review of Literature and Meta-analysis of Outcomes

INTRODUCTION

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs based on the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) and guaiac-based fecal occult blood (gFOBT) are associated with a substantial reduction in CRC incidence and mortality. We conducted a systematic review and comprehensive meta-analysis to evaluate colonoscopy-related adverse events in individuals with a positive FIT or gFOBT.

METHODS

A systematic and detailed search was run in January 2021, with the assistance of a medical librarian for studies reporting on colonoscopy-related adverse events as part of organized CRC screening programs. Meta-analysis was performed using the random-effects model, and the results were expressed for pooled proportions along with relevant 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

A total of 771,730 colonoscopies were performed in patients undergoing CRC screening using either gFOBT or FIT across 31 studies. The overall pooled incidence of severe adverse events in the entire patient cohort was 0.42% (CI 0.20-0.64); I2 = 38.76%. In patients with abnormal gFOBT, the incidence was 0.2% (CI 0.1-0.3); I2 = 24.6%, and in patients with a positive FIT, it was 0.4% (CI 0.2-0.7); I2 = 48.89%. The overall pooled incidence of perforation, bleeding, and death was 0.13% (CI 0.09-0.21); I2 = 22.84%, 0.3% (CI 0.2-0.4); I2 = 35.58%, and 0.01% (CI 0.00-0.01); I2 = 33.21%, respectively.

DISCUSSION

Our analysis shows that in colonoscopies performed after abnormal stool-based testing, the overall risk of severe adverse events, perforation, bleeding, and death is minimal.

Gender-specific cut-off levels in colorectal cancer screening with fecal immunochemical test: A population-based study of colonoscopy findings and costs

OBJECTIVE

In the population-based Swedish regional colorectal cancer (CRC) screening program of Stockholm-Gotland using the fecal immunochemical test (FIT), gender-specific cut-off levels of fecal hemoglobin are applied, since previous studies have indicated a lower sensitivity of FIT for CRC in women. The aim was to evaluate the diagnostic yield and the screening costs overall and per detected CRC of this strategy.

METHODS

All individuals aged 60-69 invited to screening in 2015-2017 were included. Cut-off level for positive FIT was 40 µg/g in women and 80 µg/g in men. Those with a positive FIT were referred to colonoscopy. The yield of CRC and screening cost for the study period were assessed and compared to cut-off levels of 80 µg/g in both genders.

RESULTS

Approximately 230,000 individuals were invited. Overall participation rates were 72% in women and 65% in men (p < 0.05). FIT was positive in 4256 individuals (2.7% in both genders). In 3758 colonoscopies, 258 (6.9%) CRCs were detected. The positive predictive value for CRC was significantly higher in men (8.3% vs. 5.8%). In 120 women with CRC, 28 (23%) had FIT < 80 µg/g. Negative colonoscopies were more common in women (24% vs. 17%, p < 0.05). Total costs for the study period were 52,000,000SEK (≈5,200,000€), i.e. 16% higher compared to using cut-off levels of 80 µg/g in both genders, and corresponding to a 3% increment in cost per detected CRC.

CONCLUSION

The high rate of CRC detected in women in the lowest FIT category outweighs the minor reduction in screening costs if the same cut-off level was used as for men.