To compare the performance of a new blood test for colorectal cancer (CRC) to an established fecal immunochemical test (FIT) in a study population with the full range of neoplastic and non-neoplastic ...pathologies encountered in the colon and rectum.
Volunteers were asked to complete a FIT prior to colonoscopy. Blood was collected after bowel preparation but prior to colonoscopy, and plasma was assayed for the presence of methylated BCAT1 and IKZF1 DNA using a multiplex real-time PCR assay. Sensitivity and specificity estimates for the blood test were calculated from true- and false-positive rates for neoplasia and compared with FIT at a range of fecal hemoglobin (Hb) concentration positivity thresholds.
In total, 1,381 volunteers (median age 64 years; 49% male) completed both tests prior to colonoscopy. Estimated sensitivity of the BCAT1/IKZF1 blood test for CRC was 62% (41/66; 95% confidence interval 49-74%) with a specificity of 92% (1207/1315; 90-93%). FIT returned the same specificity at a cutoff of 60 μg Hb/g, at which its corresponding sensitivity for cancer was 64% (42/66; 51-75%). In the range of commonly used FIT cutoffs, respective cancer sensitivity and specificity estimates with FIT were: 59% (46-71%) and 93% (92-95%) at 80 μg Hb/g, and 79% (67-88%) and 81% (78-83%) at 10 μg Hb/g. Although estimated sensitivities were not significantly different between the two tests for any stage of cancer, FIT showed a significantly higher sensitivity for advanced adenoma at the lower cutoffs. Specificity of FIT, but not of the BCAT1/IKZF1 blood test, deteriorated substantially in people with overt blood in the feces. When combining FIT (cutoff 10 μg Hb/g) with the BCAT1/IKZF1 blood test, sensitivity for cancer was 89% (79-96%) at 74% (72-77%) specificity.
A test based on detection of methylated BCAT1/IKZF1 DNA in blood has comparable sensitivity but better specificity for CRC than FIT at the commonly used positivity threshold of 10 μg Hb/g. Further evaluation of the new test relative to FIT in the population screening context is now required to fully understand the potential advantages and disadvantages of these biomarkers in screening.
Background and Aim
Cold snare polypectomy is safe and efficacious for removing polyps <10 mm with reduced rates of delayed postpolypectomy bleeding and postpolypectomy syndrome. This technique can ...also be used for sessile polyps ≥10 mm; however, further evidence is required to establish its safety. The aim of this study was to compare intraprocedure and postprocedure adverse events in patients who underwent cold (CSP) versus hot snare polypectomy (HSP) of 10–20 mm sessile colonic polyps.
Methods
Electronic medical records and endoscopy reports of all patients who underwent polypectomy for Paris 0‐IIa, Is, or 0‐IIa + Is 10–20 mm colonic polyps between January 2015 and June 2017 at three tertiary academic hospitals and one private hospital were retrospectively reviewed. Data on patient demographics, polyp characteristics, method of polypectomy, and intraprocedural and postpolypectomy adverse events were collected.
Results
A total of 408 patients (median age 67, 50% male) had 604 polyps, 10–20 mm in size, removed. Of these, 258 polyps were removed by HSP, with a median size of 15 mm (interquartile range IQR 12–20), compared to 346 polyps that were removed by CSP, with median size of 12 mm (IQR 10–15), P < 0.001. In the HSP group, 15 patients presented with postprocedure complications, including 11 with clinically significant bleeding, 2 with postpolypectomy syndrome, and 2 with abdominal pain. This compares with no postpolypectomy complications in the CSP group, P < 0.001.
Conclusion
In this study, CSP was not associated with any postpolypectomy adverse events. CSP appears to be safer than HSP for removing 10–20 mm‐sized sessile polyps. A prospective multicenter study has been commenced to verify these findings and to assess the efficacy of CSP for the complete resection of polyps of this size.
Cold snare polypectomy of 10–20 mm sessile polyps is safe, and no complications were seen when compared with hot snare.
Full text
Available for:
FZAB, GIS, IJS, KILJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, SAZU, SBCE, SBMB, UL, UM, UPUK
Background
Limited studies of patient survival and alcoholic relapse following transplantation for alcoholic liver disease have been described in Australian populations.
Aim
To describe these ...outcomes in an Australian population, to determine the association between harmful alcoholic relapse and patient survival, and to examine pre‐transplant variables associated with harmful relapse.
Methods
Single centre, retrospective review of consecutive patients transplanted at the South Australian Liver Transplant Unit. Relapse was identified by an independent investigator using case note review and confidential patient questionnaire.
Results
A total of 87 patients (median age 52 years, 84% male, median Model for End‐Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score 18) was included in the study with a median follow‐up time of 50 months. The 1‐, 3‐ and 5‐year survival of patients was 93.1, 87.4 and 82.0% respectively. Two deaths were directly attributable to graft failure due to alcohol. Fourteen (16%) patients fulfilled criteria for harmful relapse and 18 (21%) patients experienced any form of relapse to alcohol. Harmful relapse was associated with increased mortality (hazard ratio (HR) 3.2, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.1–9.7, P = 0.041). Only two factors were independently associated with harmful relapse on multivariate analysis; prior alcohol rehabilitation (HR 8.4, 95% CI 2.5–28.4, P = 0.001) and single versus married status (HR 0.09, 95% CI 0.02–1.2, P = 0.019).
Conclusion
Good patient survival outcomes were seen for this South Australian population. Harmful alcohol relapse occurs in a minority of patients and rarely results in direct graft loss. Modifiable pre‐transplant factors that predict harmful relapse were not identified.
Full text
Available for:
FZAB, GIS, IJS, KILJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, SAZU, SBCE, SBMB, UL, UM, UPUK
Background and Aim
The addition of a laxative prior to a standard bowel preparation (BP) has shown variable results in efficacy, safety, and tolerability of the BP. This study compared the efficacy ...and tolerability of a macrogol‐augmented BP (M‐BP) with standard BP for routine colonoscopy in unselected patients.
Methods
Adults undergoing outpatient colonoscopy were randomized to either M‐BP (one sachet of macrogol‐based osmotic laxative (MBOL) twice daily for eight doses prior to standard preparation) or BP (split‐dose of polyethylene glycol and sodium picosulfate). Bowel cleansing was assessed using the Ottawa BP scale. Risk factors for poor BP, patient satisfaction, and tolerance were recorded.
Results
This randomized trial was stopped due to futility after 14 months; at that point, 92 subjects were randomized to the study arm and 102 to the control arm. M‐BP had a success rate of 71.7% (95% CI: 58.5–82.7%), while the BP had a success rate of 67.7% (95% CI: 54.9–78.8%), with a Pearson χ2 test P‐value of 0.639, which exceeded the cut‐off for futility (0.313). In subgroup analyses, there were statistically significant decreases in the rates of successful BP in patients taking regular opioids and regular laxatives. Both preparations were well tolerated, with no difference between groups (BP – 5.3% and M‐BP – 6.6% P = 0.66).
Conclusion
The addition of MBOL prior to a standard BP in unselected subjects does not significantly improve bowel cleanliness at routine colonoscopy. The role of this laxative in patients at high risk of poor preparation warrants further investigation.
The addition of a macrogol‐based osmotic laxative prior to a standard bowel preparation in unselected subjects does not significantly improve bowel cleanliness at routine colonoscopy. The role of this laxative in patients at high risk of poor preparation warrants further investigation.
Full text
Available for:
FZAB, GIS, IJS, KILJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, SAZU, SBCE, SBMB, UL, UM, UPUK
Conventional EMR using a hot snare is the standard of care for resection of large (≥20 mm) nonmalignant sessile colonic polyps. Serious adverse events are predominantly because of electrocautery. ...This could potentially be avoided by cold snare piecemeal EMR (CSP-EMR). This study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of CSP-EMR of sessile colonic polyps sized ≥20 mm.
All cases of CSP-EMR at 5 Australian academic hospitals for sessile polyps ≥20 mm over a 2-year period, from January 2016 to December 2017, were identified retrospectively. Efficacy was defined as the absence of residual or recurrent polyp tissue during the first surveillance colonoscopy (SC1) and second surveillance colonoscopy (SC2). Clinically significant intraprocedural or delayed adverse events and surveillance colonoscopy findings were assessed by reviewing medical records.
CSP-EMR was performed on 204 polyps sized ≥20 mm in 186 patients (men, 33.8%; median age, 68 years). SC1 for 164 polyps (80.4%) at a median interval of 150 days showed residual or recurrent polyp in 9 cases (5.5%; 95% confidence interval, 3%-11%). SC2 for 113 polyps (72.9%) at a median interval of 18 months showed late residual or recurrent polyp in 4 cases (3.5%; 95% confidence interval, .9%-8.5%) after a normal SC1. Intraprocedural bleeding was successfully treated in 4 patients (2.2%), whereas 7 patients (3.8%) experienced self-limited clinically significant post-EMR bleeding and 1 patient (.5%) required overnight observation for nonspecific abdominal pain that resolved spontaneously. None experienced other adverse events.
CSP-EMR of sessile colonic polyps ≥20 mm is technically feasible, effective, and safe. The adverse event rate and polyp recurrence rate were low. Randomized or large prospective trials are required to confirm the noninferiority and improved safety of CSP-EMR compared with conventional EMR and to further determine the polyp morphologies that are best suited for CSP-EMR.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UILJ, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK, ZAGLJ, ZRSKP
AIM To compare high definition white light endoscopy and bright narrow band imaging for colon polyps’ detection rates. METHODS Patients were randomised to high definition white light ...endoscopy(HD-WLE) or the bright narrow band imaging(b NBI) during withdrawal of the colonoscope. Polyps identified in either mode were characterised using b NBI with dual focus(b NBI-DF) according to the Sano’s classification. The primary outcome was to compare adenoma detection rates(ADRs) between the two arms. The secondary outcome was to assess the negative predictive value(NPV) in differentiating adenomas from hyperplastic polyps for diminutive rectosigmoid lesions.RESULTS A total of 1006 patients were randomised to HD-WLE(n = 511) or b NBI(n = 495). The mean of adenoma per patient was 1.62 and 1.84, respectively. The ADRs in b NBI and HD-WLE group were 37.4% and 39.3%, respectively. When adjusted for withdrawal time(OR = 1.19, 95%CI: 1.15-1.24, P < 0.001), the use of b NBI was associated with a reduced ADR(OR = 0.69, 95%CI: 0.52-0.92). Nine hundred and thirty three polyps(86%) in both arms were predicted with high confidence. The sensitivity(Sn), specificity(Sp), positive predictive value and NPV in differentiating adenomatous from non-adenomatous polyps of all sizes were 95.9%, 87.2%, 94.0% and 91.1% respectively. The NPV in differentiating an adenoma from hyperplastic polyp using b NBI-DF for diminutive rectal polyps was 91.0%.CONCLUSION ADRs did not differ between b NBI and HD-WLE, however HD-WLE had higher ADR after adjustment of withdrawal time. b NBI surpassed the PIVI threshold for diminutive polyps.
PDF
