Impact of changes to the interscreening interval and faecal immunochemical test threshold in the national bowel cancer screening programme in England: results from the FIT pilot study

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.

Diagnostic yield from symptomatic lower gastrointestinal endoscopy in the UK: A British Society of Gastroenterology analysis using data from the National Endoscopy Database

BACKGROUND

The value of lower gastrointestinal endoscopy (LGIE; colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy) relates to its ability to detect clinically relevant findings, predominantly cancers, preneoplastic polyps or inflammatory bowel disease. There are concerns that many LGIEs are performed on low-risk patients with limited benefit.

AIMS

To determine the diagnostic outcomes of LGIE for common symptoms.

METHODS

We performed a cross-sectional study of diagnostic LGIE between March 2019 and February 2020 using the UK National Endoscopy Database. We used mixed-effects logistic regression models, incorporating random (endoscopist) and fixed (symptoms, patient age, and sex) effects upon two dependent variables (large polyp [≥10 mm] and cancer diagnosis). Adjusted positive predictive values (aPPVs) were calculated.

RESULTS

We analysed 384,510 LGIEs; 33.2% were performed on patients aged under 50 and 53.6% on women. Regarding colonoscopies, the unadjusted PPV for cancer was 1.5% (95% CI: 1.4-1.5); higher for men than women (1.9% vs. 1.1%, p < 0.01). The PPV for large polyps was 3.2% (95% CI: 3.1-3.2). The highest colonoscopy cancer aPPVs were in the over 50s (1.9%) and in those with rectal bleeding (2.5%) or anaemia (2.1%). Cancer aPPVs for other symptoms were <1% despite representing 54.3% of activity. In patients under 50, aPPVs were 0.4% for cancer and 1.6% for large polyps. Results were similar for sigmoidoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

Most colonoscopies were performed on patients with low-risk symptoms, where cancer risk was similar to the general population. Cancer and large polyp yield was highest in elderly patients with rectal bleeding or anaemia, although still fell short of FIT-based screening yields.

Maximizing scarce colonoscopy resources: the crucial role of stool-based tests

During the COVID-19 pandemic, health systems, including federally qualified health centers, experienced disruptions in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. National organizations called for greater use of at-home stool-based testing followed by colonoscopy for those with abnormal test results to limit (in-person) colonoscopy exams to people with acute symptoms or who were high risk. This stool-test-first strategy may also be useful for adults with low-risk adenomas who are due for surveillance colonoscopy. We argue that colonoscopy is overused as a first-line screening method in low- and average-risk adults and as a surveillance tool among adults with small adenomas. Yet, simultaneously, many people do not receive much-needed colonoscopies. Delivering the right screening tests at intervals that reduce the risk of CRC, while minimizing patient inconvenience and procedural risks, can strengthen health-care systems. Risk stratification could improve efficiency of CRC screening, but because models that adequately predict risk are years away from clinical use, we need to optimize use of currently available technology-that is, low-cost fecal testing followed by colonoscopy for those with abnormal test results. The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the urgent need to adapt to resource constraints around colonoscopies and showed that increased use of stool-based testing was possible. Learning how to adapt to such constraints without sacrificing patients' health, particularly for patients who receive care at federally qualified health centers, should be a priority for CRC prevention research.

The value of hypersensitivity quantitative fecal immunochemical test in early colorectal cancer detection

At present, both the incidence and mortality rates of colorectal cancer are on the rise, making early screening a crucial tool in reducing the fatality rate. Although colonoscopy is the recommended method according to the guidelines, compliance tends to be poor. The fecal immunochemical test (FIT), a new technology that uses latex immunoturbidimetry to detect fecal blood, offers high specificity and sensitivity. Additionally, it is low-cost, easy to operate, and less likely to be affected by food and drugs, thus improving the compliance rate for population screening. Compared to other screening techniques, FIT represents a safer and more accurate option. This article reviews the application of FIT in early colorectal cancer screening.