Epidemiology, characteristics, and survival of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer in Asia: A population-based study

Proton pump inhibitors associated with severe COVID-19 among two-dose but not three-dose vaccine recipients

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) may increase the risk of COVID-19 among non-vaccinated subjects via various mechanisms, including gut dysbiosis. We aimed to investigate whether PPIs also affect the clinical outcomes of COVID-19 among vaccine recipients.

METHODS

This was a territory-wide cohort study of 3 272 286 vaccine recipients (aged ≥ 18 years) of ≥ 2 doses of either BNT162b2 or CoronaVac. Exclusion criteria included prior gastrointestinal surgery, immunocompromised status, and prior COVID-19. The primary outcome was COVID-19, and secondary outcomes included COVID-19-related hospitalization and severe infection (composite of intensive care unit admission, ventilatory support, and/or death). Covariates include age, sex, the Charlson Comorbidity Index, comorbidities, and concomitant medication use. Subjects were followed from index date (first dose of vaccination) until outcome occurrence, death, additional dose of vaccination, or March 31, 2022. Exposure was pre-vaccination PPI use (any prescription within 90 days before the index date). Propensity score (PS) matching and a Poisson regression model were used to estimate the adjusted incidence rate ratio (aIRR) of outcomes with PPI use.

RESULTS

Among 439 154 PS-matched two-dose vaccine recipients (mean age: 65.3 years; male: 45.7%) with a median follow-up of 6.8 months (interquartile range: 2.6-7.9), PPI exposure was associated with a higher risk of COVID-19 (aIRR: 1.08; 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 1.05-1.10), hospitalization (aIRR: 1.20; 95% CI: 1.08-1.33), and severe infection (aIRR: 1.57; 95% CI: 1.24-1.98). Among 188 360 PS-matched three-dose vaccine recipients (mean age: 62.5 years; male: 49.0%; median follow-up: 9.1 months [interquartile range: 8.0-10.9]), PPIs were associated with higher infection risk (aIRR: 1.11; 95% CI: 1.08-1.15) but not other outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Although PPI use was associated with a higher COVID-19 risk, severe infection was limited to two-dose but not three-dose vaccine recipients.

Post-colonoscopy colorectal cancers in a national fecal immunochemical test-based colorectal cancer screening program

BACKGROUND

Post-colonoscopy colorectal cancers (PCCRCs) decrease the effect of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs. To enable PCCRC incidence reduction in the long-term, we classified PCCRCs diagnosed after colonoscopies performed in a fecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based screening program.

METHODS

PCCRCs diagnosed after colonoscopies performed between 2014-2016 for a positive FIT in the Dutch CRC screening program were included. PCCRCs were categorized according to the World Endoscopy Organization consensus statement into (a) interval PCCRC (diagnosed before the recommended surveillance); (b) non-interval type A (diagnosed at the recommended surveillance interval); (c) non-interval type B (diagnosed after the recommended surveillance interval); or (d) non-interval type C (diagnosed after the intended recommended surveillance interval, with surveillance not implemented owing to co-morbidity). The most probable etiology was determined by root-cause analysis. Tumor stage distributions were compared between categories.

RESULTS

116362 colonoscopies were performed after a positive FIT with 9978 screen-detected CRCs. During follow-up, 432 PCCRCs were diagnosed. The 3-year PCCRC rate was 2.7%. PCCRCs were categorized as interval (53.5%), non-interval type A (14.6%), non-interval type B (30.6%), and non-interval type C (1.4%). The most common etiology for interval PCCRCs was possible missed lesion with adequate examination (73.6%); they were more often diagnosed at an advanced stage (stage III/IV; 53.2%) compared with non-interval type A (15.9%; P<0.001) and non-interval type B (40.9%; P=0.03) PCCRCs.

CONCLUSIONS

The 3-year PCCRC rate was low in this FIT-based CRC screening program. Approximately half of PCCRCs were interval PCCRCs. These were mostly caused by missed lesions and were diagnosed at a more advanced stage. This emphasizes the importance of high quality colonoscopy with optimal polyp detection.

Optimal glycaemic control and the reduced risk of colorectal adenoma and cancer in patients with diabetes: a population-based cohort study

OBJECTIVE

Whether varying degrees of glycaemic control impact colonic neoplasm risk in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) remains uncertain.

DESIGN

Patients with newly diagnosed DM were retrieved from 2005 to 2013. Optimal glycaemic control at baseline was defined as mean haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c)<7%. Outcomes of interest included colorectal cancer (CRC) and colonic adenoma development. We used propensity score (PS) matching with competing risk models to estimate subdistribution HRs (SHRs). We further analysed the combined effect of baseline and postbaseline glycaemic control based on time-weighted mean HbA1c during follow-up.

RESULTS

Of 88 468 PS-matched patients with DM (mean (SD) age: 61.5 (±11.7) years; male: 47 127 (53.3%)), 1229 (1.4%) patients developed CRC during a median follow-up of 7.2 (IQR: 5.5-9.4) years. Optimal glycaemic control was associated with lower CRC risk (SHR 0.72; 95% CI 0.65 to 0.81). The beneficial effect was limited to left-sided colon (SHR 0.71; 95% CI 0.59 to 0.85) and rectum (SHR 0.71; 95% CI 0.57 to 0.89), but not right-sided colon (SHR 0.86; 95% CI 0.67 to 1.10). Setting suboptimal glycaemic control at baseline/postbaseline as a reference, a decreased CRC risk was found in optimal control at postbaseline (SHR 0.79), baseline (SHR 0.71) and both time periods (SHR 0.61). Similar associations were demonstrated using glycaemic control as a time-varying covariate (HR 0.75). A stepwise greater risk of CRC was found (Ptrend<0.001) with increasing HbA1c (SHRs 1.34, 1.30, 1.44, 1.58 for HbA1c 7.0% to <7.5%, 7.5% to <8.0%, 8.0% to <8.5% and ≥8.5%, respectively). Optimal glycaemic control was associated with a lower risk of any, non-advanced and advanced colonic adenoma (SHRs 0.73-0.87).

CONCLUSION

Glycaemic control in patients with DM was independently associated with the risk of colonic adenoma and CRC development with a biological gradient.

Endocuff With or Without Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Colonoscopy in Detection of Colorectal Adenoma: A Randomized Colonoscopy Trial

INTRODUCTION

Both artificial intelligence (AI) and distal attachment devices have been shown to improve adenoma detection rate and reduce miss rate during colonoscopy. We studied the combined effect of Endocuff and AI on enhancing detection rates of various colonic lesions.

METHODS

This was a 3-arm prospective randomized colonoscopy study involving patients aged 40 years or older. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to undergo Endocuff with AI, AI alone, or standard high-definition (HD) colonoscopy. The primary outcome was adenoma detection rate (ADR) between the Endocuff-AI and AI groups while secondary outcomes included detection rates of polyp (PDR), sessile serrated lesion (sessile detection rate [SDR]), and advanced adenoma (advanced adenoma detection rate) between the 2 groups.

RESULTS

A total of 682 patients were included (mean age 65.4 years, 52.3% male), with 53.7% undergoing diagnostic colonoscopy. The ADR for the Endocuff-AI, AI, and HD groups was 58.7%, 53.8%, and 46.3%, respectively, while the corresponding PDR was 77.0%, 74.0%, and 61.2%. A significant increase in ADR, PDR, and SDR was observed between the Endocuff-AI and AI groups (ADR difference: 4.9%, 95% CI: 1.4%-8.2%, P = 0.03; PDR difference: 3.0%, 95% CI: 0.4%-5.8%, P = 0.04; SDR difference: 6.4%, 95% CI: 3.4%-9.7%, P < 0.01). Both Endocuff-AI and AI groups had a higher ADR, PDR, SDR, and advanced adenoma detection rate than the HD group (all P < 0.01).

DISCUSSION

Endocuff in combination with AI further improves various colonic lesion detection rates when compared with AI alone.

Artificial intelligence-assisted real-time monitoring of effective withdrawal time during colonoscopy: a novel quality marker of colonoscopy

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The importance of withdrawal time during colonoscopy cannot be overstated in mitigating the risk of missed lesions and postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer. We evaluated a novel colonoscopy quality metric called the effective withdrawal time (EWT), which is an artificial intelligence (AI)-derived quantitative measure of quality withdrawal time, and its association with various colonic lesion detection rates as compared with standard withdrawal time (SWT).

METHODS

Three hundred fifty video recordings of colonoscopy withdrawal (from the cecum to the anus) were assessed by the new AI model. The primary outcome was adenoma detection rate (ADR) according to different quintiles of EWT. Multivariate logistic regression, adjusting for baseline covariates, was used to determine the adjusted odd ratios (ORs) for EWT on lesion detection rates, with the lowest quintile as reference. The area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve of EWT was compared with SWT.

RESULTS

The crude ADR in different quintiles of EWT, from lowest to highest, was 10.0%, 31.4%, 33.3%, 53.5%, and 85.7%. The ORs of detecting adenomas and polyps were significantly higher in all top 4 quintiles when compared with the lowest quintile. Each minute increase in EWT was associated with a 49% increase in ADR (aOR, 1.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.36-1.65). The area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve of EWT was also significantly higher than SWT on adenoma detection (.80 [95% CI, .75-.84] vs .70 [95% CI, .64-.74], P < .01).

CONCLUSIONS

AI-derived monitoring of EWT is a promising novel quality indicator for colonoscopy, which is more associated with ADR than SWT.

What are the priority quality indicators for colonoscopy in real-world clinical practice?

Colonoscopy is widely used as a colorectal cancer (CRC) screening tool. The effectiveness of a screening colonoscopy is associated with a decreased risk of CRC. However, colonoscopy is an operator-dependent procedure, and endoscopists' quality performance varies widely. This article reviewed the priority metrics and practices that contribute to high-quality screening colonoscopy in real-world clinical practice. With growing evidence, quality indicators have been subject to intense research and associated with reducing postcolonoscopy CRC incidence and mortality. Some quality metrics can reflect an endoscopy unit-based practice (i.e. quality of bowel preparation and withdrawal time). Other quality indicators primarily reflect individuals' skill and knowledge (i.e. cecal intubation rate, adenoma detection rate, and appropriately assigned follow-up colonoscopy interval). Measurement and improvement of priority quality indicators for colonoscopy should be made at both the endoscopist and unit levels. Substantial evidence supports the impact of high-quality colonoscopy in reducing the incidence of postcolonoscopy CRC.

Blue-light imaging or narrow-band imaging for proximal colonic lesions: a prospective randomized tandem colonoscopy study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Blue-light imaging (BLI) is a new image-enhanced endoscopy with a wavelength filter similar to narrow-band imaging (NBI). We compared the 2 with white-light imaging (WLI) on proximal colonic lesion detection and miss rates.

METHODS

In this 3-arm prospective randomized study with tandem examination of the proximal colon, we enrolled patients aged ≥40 years. Eligible patients were randomized in 1:1:1 ratio to receive BLI, NBI, or WLI during the first withdrawal from the proximal colon. The second withdrawal was performed using WLI in all patients. Primary outcomes were proximal polyp (pPDRs) and adenoma (pADRs) detection rates. Secondary outcomes were miss rates of proximal lesions found on tandem examination.

RESULTS

Of 901 patients included (mean age, 64.7 years; 52.9% men), 48.1% underwent colonoscopy for screening or surveillance. The corresponding pPDRs of the BLI, NBI, and WLI groups were 45.8%, 41.6, and 36.6%, whereas the corresponding pADRs were 36.6%, 33.8%, and 28.3%. There was a significant difference in pPDR and pADR between BLI and WLI groups (difference, 9.2% [95% confidence interval {CI}, 3.3-16.9] and 8.3% [95% CI, 2.7-15.9]) and between NBI and WLI groups (difference, 5.0% [95% CI, 1.4-12.9] and 5.6% [95% CI, 2.1-13.3]). Proximal adenoma miss rates were significantly lower with BLI (19.4%) than with WLI (27.4%; difference, -8.0%; 95% CI, -15.8 to -.1) but not between NBI (27.2%) and WLI.

CONCLUSIONS

Both BLI and NBI were superior to WLI on detecting proximal colonic lesions, but only BLI had lower proximal adenoma miss rates than WLI. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03696992.).

The Impacts of Computer-Aided Detection of Colorectal Polyps on Subsequent Colonoscopy Surveillance Intervals: Simulation Study

BACKGROUND

Computer-aided detection (CADe) of colorectal polyps has been shown to increase adenoma detection rates, which would potentially shorten subsequent surveillance intervals.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study is to simulate the potential changes in subsequent colonoscopy surveillance intervals after the application of CADe in a large cohort of patients.

METHODS

We simulated the projected increase in polyp and adenoma detection by universal CADe application in our patients who had undergone colonoscopy with complete endoscopic and histological findings between 2016 and 2020. The simulation was based on bootstrapping the published performance of CADe. The corresponding changes in surveillance intervals for each patient, as recommended by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer (USMSTF) or the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), were determined after the CADe was determined.

RESULTS

A total of 3735 patients who had undergone colonoscopy were included. Based on the simulated CADe effect, the application of CADe would result in 19.1% (n=714) and 1.9% (n=71) of patients having shorter surveillance intervals, according to the USMSTF and ESGE guidelines, respectively. In particular, all (or 2.7% (n=101) of the total) patients who were originally scheduled to have 3-5 years of surveillance would have their surveillance intervals shortened to 3 years, following the USMSTF guidelines. The changes in this group of patients were largely attributed to an increase in the number of adenomas (n=75, 74%) rather than serrated lesions being detected.

CONCLUSIONS

Widespread adoption of CADe would inevitably increase the demand for surveillance colonoscopies with the shortening of original surveillance intervals, particularly following the current USMSTF guideline.

Clinical and Genomic Characterization of Interval Colorectal Cancer in 3 Prospective Cohorts

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Interval colorectal cancers (CRCs), cancers diagnosed after a screening/surveillance examination in which no cancer is detected, and before the date of next recommended examination, reflect an unprecedented challenge in CRC detection and prevention. To better understand this poorly characterized CRC variant, we examined the clinical and mutational characteristics of interval CRCs in comparison with screen detected CRCs.

METHODS

We included 1175 CRCs documented in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) cancer screening trial and 3661 CRCs in the Nurses' Health Study (NHS) and Health Professionals Follow-up Study (HPFS). Multivariable Cox models were performed to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of death risk. Whole exome sequencing was conducted in 147 PLCO cases and 796 NHS/HPFS cases.

RESULTS

A total of 619 deaths (312 CRC-specific) and 2404 deaths (1904 CRC-specific) were confirmed during follow-up of PLCO and NHS/HPFS, respectively. Compared with screen detected CRCs, interval CRCs had a multivariate-adjusted HR (95% CI) of 1.47 (1.21-1.78) for CRC-specific mortality and 1.27 (1.09-1.47) for overall mortality (meta-analysis combining all 3 cohorts). However, we did not observe significant differences in mutational features between interval and screen detected CRCs (false discovery rate adjusted P > .05).

CONCLUSION

Interval CRCs had a significantly increased risk of death compared with screen detected CRCs that were not explained by established clinical prognostic factors, including stage at diagnosis. The survival disadvantage of interval CRCs did not appear to be explained by differences in the genomic landscape of tumors characterized by whole exome sequencing.

Prediction Model Using Readily Available Clinical Data for Colorectal Cancer in Chinese Population

BACKGROUND

In China, health screening has become common, although colonoscopy is not always available or acceptable. We sought to develop a prediction model of colorectal cancer (CRC) for health screening population based on readily available clinical data to reduce labor and economic costs.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional study based on a health screening population in Karamay Central Hospital. By collecting clinical data and basic information from participants, we identified independent risk factors and established a prediction model of CRC. Internal and external validation, calibration plot, and decision curve analysis were employed to test discriminating ability, calibration ability, and clinical practicability.

RESULTS

Independent risk factors of CRC, which were readily available in basic public health institutions, included high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, male sex, total cholesterol, advanced age, and hemoglobin. These factors were successfully incorporated into the prediction model (AUC 0.740, 95% CI 0.713-0.767). The model demonstrated a high degree of discrimination and calibration, in addition to a high degree of clinical practicability in high-risk people.

CONCLUSIONS

The prediction model exhibits good discrimination and calibration and is pragmatic for CRC screening in rural areas and basic public health institutions.

Systematic review with meta-analysis: the prevalence of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancers using the World Endoscopy Organization nomenclature

INTRODUCTION

Post-colonoscopy colorectal cancers (PCCRCs) have been proposed as a performance metric for colonoscopy quality assurance programs. Previously, there was no standardised terminology or reporting methods. In 2018, the World Endoscopy Organization (WEO) advised standardised definitions and prevalence calculation methodology.

AIMS

To assess PCCRC burden using WEO standardised methods, to explore causes of heterogeneity, and to review changes in prevalence over time METHODS: We updated a prior systematic review by searching Ovid MEDLINE and EMBASE databases from 1 January 2013 to 31 January 2021 to identify population-based studies (or multicentre studies representative of the local population) reporting PCCRC prevalence (PROSPERO [CRD42020183796]). Two authors independently determined study eligibility, assessed quality, and extracted data. We estimated the PCCRC 3-year prevalence using WEO-recommended methodologies and investigated between-study sources of heterogeneity. We examined changes in prevalence over time.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies reporting on 25 872 PCCRC cases met eligibility criteria. Pooled PCCRC 3 year prevalence was 8.2% (95% CI = 6.9%-9.4%, I²  = 98.2%) across four European studies using WEO precise methodology. Proximal PCCRC prevalence was greater than distal (9.7% [95% CI = 7.0%-12.4%] vs 5.4% [95% CI = 2.9%-7.8%], I²  = 99.2%). Seven studies reporting PCCRC rates over time showed no consistent trend: four showed a decrease, one an increase and two were unchanged. Between-study heterogeneity was high.

CONCLUSIONS

Pooled 3-year PCCRC prevalence was 8.2% (95% CI = 6.9%-9.4%). Despite WEO standardised methodology to define and calculate PCCRC rates, there was significant heterogeneity among studies. Comparing rates between populations remains challenging and additional studies are needed to better understand the global PCCRC burden to inform quality assurance programs.

Clinical and endoscopist factors associated with post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer in a population-based sample

AIM

Factors associated with verified post-colonoscopy colorectal cancers (PCCRC) have not been well defined and survival for these patients is not well described. We aimed to assess the association of patient, tumour and endoscopist characteristics with PCCRC.

METHODS

Using population-based data, we identified individuals diagnosed with CRC from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2005 who underwent a colonoscopy within 3 years prior to diagnosis. Detected cancers were those diagnosed ≤6 months following colonoscopy; PCCRC were diagnosed >6 months to ≤3 years following colonoscopy. Post-colonoscopy and detected cancers were verified through chart review using a hospital-based simple random sampling frame. We used multivariable conditional logistic regression to determine the association of patient, tumour and endoscopist factors with PCCRC and compared overall survival using Cox proportional hazard models.

RESULTS

Using the random sampling frame, we identified 498 patients with PCCRC and 498 with detected CRC; we obtained records and confirmed 367 patients with PCCRC and 412 with detected cancers. In multivariable analysis, patient age (OR 1.01; 95% CI 1.00-1.03) and tumour location (distal vs. proximal OR 0.36; 95% CI 0.25-0.53) were associated with PCCRC; endoscopist quality measures were not significantly associated with PCCRC. We did not find significant differences in overall survival between PCCRC and detected cancers (hazard ratio 1.12; 95% CI 0.92-1.32).

CONCLUSION

Although endoscopic quality measures are important for CRC prevention, endoscopist factors were not associated with PCCRC. This study highlights the need for further research into the role of tumour biology in PCCRC development.

Guidelines for accreditation of endoscopy units: quality measures from the Korean Society of Coloproctology

Purpose

Colonoscopy is an effective method of screening for colorectal cancer (CRC), and it can prevent CRC by detection and removal of precancerous lesions. The most important considerations when performing colonoscopy screening are the safety and satisfaction of the patient and the diagnostic accuracy. Accordingly, the Korean Society of Coloproctology (KSCP) herein proposes an optimal level of standard performance to be used in endoscopy units and by individual colonoscopists for screening colonoscopy. These guidelines establish specific criteria for assessment of safety and quality in screening colonoscopy.

Methods

The Colonoscopy Committee of the KSCP commissioned this Position Statement. Expert gastrointestinal surgeons representing the KSCP reviewed the published evidence to identify acceptable quality indicators and indicators that lacked sufficient evidence.

Results

The KSCP recommends an optimal standard list for quality control of screening colonoscopy in the following 6 categories: training and competency of the colonoscopist, procedural quality, facilities and equipment, performance indicators and auditable outcomes, disinfection of equipment, and sedation and recovery of the patient.

Conclusion

The KSCP recommends that endoscopy units performing CRC screening evaluate 6 key performance measures during daily practice.

Postcolonoscopy Colorectal Cancer in Sweden From 2003 to 2012: Survival, Tumor Characteristics, and Risk Factors

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The rate of postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC) is a measure of colonoscopy quality, but there are conflicting results from studies of survival times of patients with PCCRC. We assessed survival times of patients with PCCRC and characterized the microscopic and macroscopic features of postcolonoscopy colorectal tumors.

METHODS

We performed a population-based cohort study using data from a database in Sweden, on 458,937 colonoscopies (54.0% women) performed from 2003 through 2012. Rates of colorectal cancer within 3 years of a colonoscopy were calculated based on the World Endoscopy Organization guidelines. Risk factors were evaluated using Poisson regression analysis. We used Cox regression models and Kaplan-Meier analyses, stratified by sex, to assess conditional survival. Logistic regression models were used to evaluate features of postcolonoscopy colorectal tumors, including stage location (right, left, or rectum) differentiation grade (high or low), synchronous tumors, perineural growth, resection margins, and mucinous and vessel characteristics.

RESULTS

Within 36 months after a colonoscopy, there were 19,184 individuals who had received a diagnosis of CRC; 1384 of these were PCCRCs (7.2%). The proportion of individuals with PCCRC decreased from 9.4% in 2003 to 6.1% in 2012. The largest risk factors for PCCRC were a prior diagnosis of CRC (relative risk [RR], 3.31; 95% CI, 2.71-4.04), ulcerative colitis (RR, 5.44; 95% CI, 4.75-6.23), Crohn's disease (RR, 3.81; 95% CI, 2.98-4.87), and prior polypectomy (RR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.97-2.72). Individuals with PCCRCs had shorter survival times than individuals with CRCs detected during the index colonoscopy. Multivariate hazard ratios for PCCRC were 2.75 for men (95% CI, 2.21-3.42) and 2.00 for women (95% CI, 1.59-2.52), respectively. Individuals with left-side PCCRC had shorter survival times than patients with CRC detected during the index colonoscopy. Postcolonoscopy colorectal tumors had increased odds of low differentiation grade (odds ratio, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.09-1.49) compared with colorectal tumors detected during the index colonoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

In an analysis of colonoscopies in Sweden, the rate of PCCRCs decreased from 9.4% in 2003 to 6.1% in 2012. Diseases that require surveillance (such as prior colorectal neoplasms and inflammatory bowel diseases) are the largest risk factors for PCCRC. Patients with PCCRC have shorter survival times than patients with CRC detected during their initial colonoscopy-especially women and patients with left-side tumors.

Is artificial intelligence the final answer to missed polyps in colonoscopy?

Lesions missed by colonoscopy are one of the main reasons for post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer, which is usually associated with a worse prognosis. Because the adenoma miss rate could be as high as 26%, it has been noted that endoscopists with higher adenoma detection rates are usually associated with lower adenoma miss rates. Artificial intelligence (AI), particularly the deep learning model, is a promising innovation in colonoscopy. Recent studies have shown that AI is not only accurate in colorectal polyp detection but can also reduce the miss rate. Nevertheless, the application of AI in real-time detection has been hindered by heterogeneity of the AI models and study design as well as a lack of long-term outcomes. Herein, we discussed the principle of various AI models and systematically reviewed the current data on the use of AI on colorectal polyp detection and miss rates. The limitations and future prospects of AI on colorectal polyp detection are also discussed.

ACE (Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme) Inhibitors/Angiotensin Receptor Blockers Are Associated With Lower Colorectal Cancer Risk: A Territory-Wide Study With Propensity Score Analysis

Whether ACE (angiotensin-converting enzyme) inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers modify colorectal cancer risk remains controversial. We aimed to determine association between their use and colorectal cancer risk after a negative baseline colonoscopy. This is a territory-wide retrospective cohort study recruiting patients aged ≥40 who had undergone colonoscopy between 2005 and 2013. Exclusion criteria included colorectal cancer detected <6 months of index colonoscopy, prior colorectal cancer, inflammatory bowel disease, and prior colectomy. The primary outcome was colorectal cancer diagnosed between 6 and 36 months after index colonoscopy. Sites of colorectal cancer were categorized as proximal (proximal to splenic flexure) and distal cancer. The adjusted hazard ratio of colorectal cancer with ACE inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker use (≥180-day use within 5 years before index colonoscopy) was derived by propensity score regression adjustment of 23 covariates (including patient's factors, concurrent medication use, and endoscopy center's performance). Of 187 897 eligible patients, 30 856 (16.4%) were ACE inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blocker users. Eight hundred fifty-four (0.45%) developed colorectal cancer between 6 and 36 months after index colonoscopy (proximal cancer: 147 [17.2%]). These drugs were associated with lower risk of colorectal cancer that developed <3 years after index colonoscopy (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.64-0.96]), but not colorectal cancer that developed >3years (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.18 [95% CI, 0.88-1.57]); every single year increase in the drug use was associated with 5% reduction in adjusted hazard ratio risk. ACE inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blocker were associated with a lower colorectal cancer risk in a duration-response manner.

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs but not aspirin are associated with a lower risk of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Although nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) reduce colorectal cancer (CRC) risk, their role in preventing post-colonoscopy CRC (PCCRC) remains undetermined.

AIMS

To investigate whether NSAIDs reduce PCCRC risk after a negative baseline colonoscopy METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study based on a territory-wide healthcare database of Hong Kong. All patients (aged 40 or above) who underwent colonoscopies between 2005 and 2013 were identified. Exclusion criteria included CRC detected within 6 months of index colonoscopy, prior CRC, inflammatory bowel disease and prior colectomy. The primary outcome was PCCRC-3y diagnosed between 6 and 36 months after index colonoscopy. Sites of CRC were categorised as proximal (proximal to splenic flexure) and distal. The adjusted hazards ratio (aHR) of PCCRC-3y with NSAID and aspirin use (defined as cumulative use for ≥90 days within 5 years before index colonoscopy) was derived by propensity score (PS) regression adjustment of 22 covariates (including patient factors, concurrent medication use and endoscopy centre's performance).

RESULTS

Of 187 897 eligible patients, 21 757 (11.6%) were NSAID users. 854 (0.45%) developed PCCRC-3y (proximal cancer: 147 [17.2%]). NSAIDs were associated with a lower PCCRC-3y risk (aHR: 0.54, 95% CI: 0.41-0.70), but not CRC that developed >3 years (aHR: 0.78, 95% CI 0.56-1.09). The aHR was 0.48 (95% CI: 0.24-0.95) for proximal and 0.55 (95% CI: 0.40-0.74) for distal cancer. A duration- and frequency response relationship was observed (P_trend  < 0.001). For aspirin, the aHR was 1.01 (95% CI: 0.80-1.28).

CONCLUSIONS

Non-aspirin NSAIDs were associated with lower PCCRC risk after a negative baseline colonoscopy.

Statins Were Associated with a Reduced Gastric Cancer Risk in Patients with Eradicated Helicobacter Pylori Infection: A Territory-Wide Propensity Score Matched Study

BACKGROUND

Individuals may still develop gastric cancer even after Helicobacter pylori eradication. We aimed to investigate statin effect on gastric cancer development in H. pylori-eradicated subjects.

METHODS

All adult subjects who were prescribed clarithromycin-based triple therapy between 2003 and 2012 were identified in this retrospective cohort study utilizing a territory-wide electronic healthcare database. Patients were observed from index date of H. pylori therapy, and censored at gastric cancer diagnosis, death, or December 2015 (study end date). Statin use was defined as ≥180-day use after index date. Exclusion criteria included gastric cancer diagnosed within the first year after index date, previous gastric cancer or gastrectomy, and H. pylori treatment failure. Subdistribution hazard ratio (SHR) of gastric cancer with statins was calculated by competing risk regression with propensity score (PS) analysis matching 19 variables (age, sex, comorbidities, and other drug usage, including proton pump inhibitors, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, aspirin, cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors, and metformin).

RESULTS

During a median follow-up of 7.6 years (interquartile range = 5.1-10.3), 169 (0.27%) of 63,605 patients developed gastric cancer at an incidence rate of 3.5 per 10,000 person-years. Among 22,870 PS-matched subjects, statins were associated with a lower gastric cancer risk (SHR = 0.34; 95% confidence interval, 0.19-0.61), in a duration- and dose-response manner (P _trend < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Statins were associated with a lower gastric cancer risk in a duration- and dose-response manner among H. pylori-eradicated patients.

IMPACT

This study provides evidence on the additional benefits of statins as chemopreventive agents against gastric cancer among H. pylori-eradicated patients.

Diabetes Increases Risk of Gastric Cancer After Helicobacter pylori Eradication: A Territory-Wide Study With Propensity Score Analysis

OBJECTIVE

Whether diabetes mellitus (DM) increases risk of gastric cancer (GC) remains controversial because of inadequate adjustments for important risk factors, including Helicobacter pylori (HP) infection status, concomitant medication use, and cancer site. We investigated whether type 2 DM increased risk of GC in patients after they received treatment for HP infection.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This was a territory-wide cohort study of patients aged ≥45 years who had received clarithromycin-based triple therapy for HP infection between 2003 and 2012 in Hong Kong. Data were retrieved from a public electronic health database. Observation started from receipt of therapy for HP infection to GC diagnosis, death, or the end of the study (December 2015). Exclusion criteria included type 1 DM, GC diagnosed within the 1st year of HP therapy, prior GC or gastrectomy, and retreatment for HP infection. The adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) of GC with type 2 DM was calculated by using a Cox model that adjusted for 20 covariates (age, sex, comorbidities, and medications) through propensity score regression.

RESULTS

During a median follow-up of 7.1 years (interquartile range 4.8-9.3 years), 153 of 46,460 patients (0.33%) developed GC at a median age of 72.4 years. Type 2 DM was associated with an increased risk of GC (aHR 1.73 [95% CI 1.08-2.79]). Stratified analysis showed an increase in risk for cardia cancer only (aHR 3.40 [95% CI 1.45-7.97]) and in those with suboptimal DM control (time-weighted mean HbA_1c ≥6.0% [42 mmol/mol]; aHR 1.68 [95% CI 1.07-2.63]).

CONCLUSIONS

Type 2 DM is associated with an increased risk of GC among patients in whom HP was eradicated, in particular gastric cardia cancer and in those with suboptimal DM control.

Traditional Chinese medicine (Xiaoai Jiedu Decoction) as an adjuvant treatment for prevention new colorectal adenomatous polyp occurrence in post-polypectomy: Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Colorectal Adenomatous Polyp (CAP) was one precursor of colorectal cancer (CRC) and having a high chance of developing into CRC. There was a lack of conclusive chemoprevention evidences to prevention new CAP occurrence in post-polypectomy. Xiaoai Jiedu Decoction, Chinese National Medical Professor (Zhou Zhongying)'s experience formula, has been used to treat new CAP occurrence in post-polypectomy from the 20th century in China. However, clinical research of Xiaoai Jiedu Decoction in the treatment of CAP recurrence was lack. We design this study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Xiaoai Jiedu Decoction in the treatment of new CAP occurrence in post-polypectomy on colonoscopy.

METHODS/DESIGN

A randomized, controlled, blind and multicenter trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Xiaoai Jiedu Decoction is proposed. CAP patients (after complete polypectomy under colonoscopy) will be randomly assigned into Xiaoai Jiedu Decoction group and Xiaoai Jiedu Decoction mimetic agent group. Patients will receive 6-course treatments and a 2-year follow-up. Follow-up colonoscopy will be anticipated to perform in 1 and 2 years after the baseline examinations. The primary outcome measure is the new CAP occurrence in 1 and 2 years. The secondary outcome measure is the occurrence of advanced adenoma in 1 and 2 years.

DISCUSSION

This study will provide objective evidences to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Xiaoai Jiedu Decoction as an adjuvant treatment for new CAP occurrence in post-polypectomy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT03616444.

Application of Big Data analysis in gastrointestinal research

Big Data, which are characterized by certain unique traits like volume, velocity and value, have revolutionized the research of multiple fields including medicine. Big Data in health care are defined as large datasets that are collected routinely or automatically, and stored electronically. With the rapidly expanding volume of health data collection, it is envisioned that the Big Data approach can improve not only individual health, but also the performance of health care systems. The application of Big Data analysis in the field of gastroenterology and hepatology research has also opened new research approaches. While it retains most of the advantages and avoids some of the disadvantages of traditional observational studies (case-control and prospective cohort studies), it allows for phenomapping of disease heterogeneity, enhancement of drug safety, as well as development of precision medicine, prediction models and personalized treatment. Unlike randomized controlled trials, it reflects the real-world situation and studies patients who are often under-represented in randomized controlled trials. However, residual and/or unmeasured confounding remains a major concern, which requires meticulous study design and various statistical adjustment methods. Other potential drawbacks include data validity, missing data, incomplete data capture due to the unavailability of diagnosis codes for certain clinical situations, and individual privacy. With continuous technological advances, some of the current limitations with Big Data may be further minimized. This review will illustrate the use of Big Data research on gastrointestinal and liver diseases using recently published examples.