The COVID-19 pandemic has had a major global impact on endoscopic services. This reduced capacity, along with public reluctance to undergo endoscopy during the pandemic, might result in excess ...mortality from delayed cancer diagnosis. Using the UK's National Endoscopy Database (NED), we performed the first national analysis of the impact of the pandemic on endoscopy services and endoscopic cancer diagnosis.
We developed a NED COVID-19 module incorporating procedure-level data on all endoscopic procedures. Three periods were designated: pre-COVID (6 January 2020 to 15 March), transition (16-22 March) and COVID-impacted (23 March-31 May). National, regional and procedure-specific analyses were performed. The average weekly number of cancers, proportion of missing cancers and cancer detection rates were calculated.
A weekly average of 35 478 endoscopy procedures were performed in the pre-COVID period. Activity in the COVID-impacted period reduced to 12% of pre-COVID levels; at its low point, activity was only 5%, recovering to 20% of pre-COVID activity by study end. Although more selective vetting significantly increased the per-procedure cancer detection rate (pre-COVID 1.91%; COVID-impacted 6.61%; p<0.001), the weekly number of cancers detected decreased by 58%. The proportion of missing cancers ranged from 19% (pancreatobiliary) to 72% (colorectal).
This national analysis demonstrates the remarkable impact that the pandemic has had on endoscopic services, which has resulted in a substantial and concerning reduction in cancer detection. Major, urgent efforts are required to restore endoscopy capacity to prevent an impending cancer healthcare crisis.
Barrett's esophagus (BE) is a commonly undiagnosed condition that predisposes to esophageal adenocarcinoma. Routine endoscopic screening for BE is not recommended because of the burden this would ...impose on the health care system. The objective of this study was to determine whether a novel approach using a minimally invasive cell sampling device, the Cytosponge, coupled with immunohistochemical staining for the biomarker Trefoil Factor 3 (TFF3), could be used to identify patients who warrant endoscopy to diagnose BE.
A case-control study was performed across 11 UK hospitals between July 2011 and December 2013. In total, 1,110 individuals comprising 463 controls with dyspepsia and reflux symptoms and 647 BE cases swallowed a Cytosponge prior to endoscopy. The primary outcome measures were to evaluate the safety, acceptability, and accuracy of the Cytosponge-TFF3 test compared with endoscopy and biopsy. In all, 1,042 (93.9%) patients successfully swallowed the Cytosponge, and no serious adverse events were attributed to the device. The Cytosponge was rated favorably, using a visual analogue scale, compared with endoscopy (p < 0.001), and patients who were not sedated for endoscopy were more likely to rate the Cytosponge higher than endoscopy (Mann-Whitney test, p < 0.001). The overall sensitivity of the test was 79.9% (95% CI 76.4%-83.0%), increasing to 87.2% (95% CI 83.0%-90.6%) for patients with ≥3 cm of circumferential BE, known to confer a higher cancer risk. The sensitivity increased to 89.7% (95% CI 82.3%-94.8%) in 107 patients who swallowed the device twice during the study course. There was no loss of sensitivity in patients with dysplasia. The specificity for diagnosing BE was 92.4% (95% CI 89.5%-94.7%). The case-control design of the study means that the results are not generalizable to a primary care population. Another limitation is that the acceptability data were limited to a single measure.
The Cytosponge-TFF3 test is safe and acceptable, and has accuracy comparable to other screening tests. This test may be a simple and inexpensive approach to identify patients with reflux symptoms who warrant endoscopy to diagnose BE.
Full text
Available for:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
Heritable factors account for approximately 35% of colorectal cancer (CRC) risk, and almost 30% of the population in the UK have a family history of CRC. The quantification of an individual's ...lifetime risk of gastrointestinal cancer may incorporate clinical and molecular data, and depends on accurate phenotypic assessment and genetic diagnosis. In turn this may facilitate targeted risk-reducing interventions, including endoscopic surveillance, preventative surgery and chemoprophylaxis, which provide opportunities for cancer prevention. This guideline is an update from the 2010 British Society of Gastroenterology/Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (BSG/ACPGBI) guidelines for colorectal screening and surveillance in moderate and high-risk groups; however, this guideline is concerned specifically with people who have increased lifetime risk of CRC due to hereditary factors, including those with Lynch syndrome, polyposis or a family history of CRC. On this occasion we invited the UK Cancer Genetics Group (UKCGG), a subgroup within the British Society of Genetic Medicine (BSGM), as a partner to BSG and ACPGBI in the multidisciplinary guideline development process. We also invited external review through the Delphi process by members of the public as well as the steering committees of the European Hereditary Tumour Group (EHTG) and the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE). A systematic review of 10 189 publications was undertaken to develop 67 evidence and expert opinion-based recommendations for the management of hereditary CRC risk. Ten research recommendations are also prioritised to inform clinical management of people at hereditary CRC risk.
Colonoscopy examination does not always detect colorectal cancer (CRC)— some patients develop CRC after negative findings from an examination. When this occurs before the next recommended ...examination, it is called interval cancer. From a colonoscopy quality assurance perspective, that term is too restrictive, so the term post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC) was created in 2010. However, PCCRC definitions and methods for calculating rates vary among studies, making it impossible to compare results. We aimed to standardize the terminology, identification, analysis, and reporting of PCCRCs and CRCs detected after other whole-colon imaging evaluations (post-imaging colorectal cancers PICRCs).
A 20-member international team of gastroenterologists, pathologists, and epidemiologists; a radiologist; and a non-medical professional met to formulate a series of recommendations, standardize definitions and categories (to align with interval cancer terminology), develop an algorithm to determine most-plausible etiologies, and develop standardized methodology to calculate rates of PCCRC and PICRC. The team followed the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II tool. A literature review provided 401 articles to support proposed statements; evidence was rated using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system. The statements were voted on anonymously by team members, using a modified Delphi approach.
The team produced 21 statements that provide comprehensive guidance on PCCRCs and PICRCs. The statements present standardized definitions and terms, as well as methods for qualitative review, determination of etiology, calculation of PCCRC rates, and non-colonoscopic imaging of the colon.
A 20-member international team has provided standardized methods for analysis of etiologies of PCCRCs and PICRCs and defines its use as a quality indicator. The team provides recommendations for clinicians, organizations, researchers, policy makers, and patients.
These consensus guidelines were jointly commissioned by the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG), the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (ACPGBI) and Public Health ...England (PHE). They provide an evidence-based framework for the use of surveillance colonoscopy and non-colonoscopic colorectal imaging in people aged 18 years and over. They are the first guidelines that take into account the introduction of national bowel cancer screening. For the first time, they also incorporate surveillance of patients following resection of either adenomatous or serrated polyps and also post-colorectal cancer resection. They are primarily aimed at healthcare professionals, and aim to address:Which patients should commence surveillance post-polypectomy and post-cancer resection?What is the appropriate surveillance interval?When can surveillance be stopped? two or more premalignant polyps including at least one advanced colorectal polyp (defined as a serrated polyp of at least 10 mm in size or containing any grade of dysplasia, or an adenoma of at least 10 mm in size or containing high-grade dysplasia);
five or more premalignant polyps The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument provided a methodological framework for the guidelines. The BSG's guideline development process was used, which is National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) compliant.two or more premalignant polyps including at least one advanced colorectal polyp (defined as a serrated polyp of at least 10 mm in size or containing any grade of dysplasia, or an adenoma of at least 10 mm in size or containing high-grade dysplasia);
five or more premalignant polyps The key recommendations are that the high-risk criteria for future colorectal cancer (CRC) following polypectomy comprise
:two or more premalignant polyps including at least one advanced colorectal polyp (defined as a serrated polyp of at least 10 mm in size or containing any grade of dysplasia, or an adenoma of at least 10 mm in size or containing high-grade dysplasia);
five or more premalignant polyps This cohort should undergo a one-off surveillance colonoscopy at 3 years. Post-CRC resection patients should undergo a 1 year clearance colonoscopy, then a surveillance colonoscopy after 3 more years.
The association between inflammatory bowel disease（IBD） and colorectal cancer（CRC） has been recognised since 1925 and still accounts for 10%-15% of deaths in IBD.IBD-associated CRC（IBD-CRC） affects ...patients at a younger age than sporadic CRC.The prognosis for sporadic CRC and IBD-CRC is similar,with a 5-year survival of approximately 50%.Identifying at risk patients and implementing appropriate surveillance for these patients is central to managing the CRC risk in IBD.The increased risk of colorectal cancer in association with IBD is thought to be due to genetic and acquired factors.The link between inflammation and cancer is well recognised but the molecular biology,immune pathobiology and genetics of IBD-CRC are areas of much ongoing research.This review examines the literature relating to IBD-CRC,focusing on the incidence of IBD-CRC and examining potential risk factors including age at diagnosis,gender,duration and extent of colitis,severity of inflammation,family history of sporadic CRC and co-existent primary sclerosing cholangitis（PSC）.Confirmed risk factors for IBD-CRC are duration,severity and extent of colitis,the presence of co-existent PSC and a family history of CRC.There is insufficient evidence currently to support an increased frequency of surveillance for patients diagnosed with IBD at a younger age.Evidence-based guidelines advise surveillance colonoscopy for patients with colitis 8 to 10 years after diagnosis,with the interval for further surveillance guided by risk factors（extent of disease,family history of CRC,post-inflammatory polyps,concomitant PSC,personal history of colonic dysplasia,colonic strictures）.There is a move away from using random colonic biopsies towards targeted biopsies aimed at abnormal areas identified by newer colonoscopic techniques（narrow band imaging,chromoendoscopy,confocal microendoscopy）.
This study provides an overview of the largest and longest-running colonoscopic surveillance program for colorectal cancer (CRC) in patients with long-standing ulcerative colitis (UC).
Data were ...obtained from medical records, endoscopy, and histology reports. Primary end points were defined as death, colectomy, withdrawal from surveillance, or censor date (1 January 2013).
A total of 1,375 UC patients were followed up for 15,234 patient-years (median, 11 years per patient). CRC was detected in 72 patients (incidence rate (IR), 4.7 per 1,000 patient-years). Time-trend analysis revealed that although there was significant decrease in incidence of colectomy performed for dysplasia (linear regression, R=-0.43; P=0.007), IR of advanced CRC and interval CRC have steadily decreased over past four decades (Pearson's correlation, -0.99; P=0.01 for both trends). The IR of early CRC has increased 2.5-fold in the current decade compared with past decade (χ(2), P=0.045); however, its 10-year survival rate was high (79.6%). The IR of dysplasia has similarly increased (χ(2), P=0.01), potentially attributable to the recent use of chromoendoscopy that was twice more effective at detecting dysplasia compared with white-light endoscopy (χ(2), P<0.001). CRCs were frequently accompanied by synchronous CRC or spatially distinct dysplasia (37.5%). Finally, the risk of CRC was not significantly different between "indefinite" or low-grade dysplasia (log-rank, P=0.78).
Colonoscopic surveillance may have a significant role in reducing the risk of advanced and interval CRC while allowing more patients to retain their colon for longer. Given the ongoing risk of early CRC, patients with any grade of dysplasia who are managed endoscopically should be monitored closely with advanced techniques.
Polypectomy is an essential skill for all endoscopists performing lower gastrointestinal endoscopy. Different polypectomy tools and techniques have evolved and it is important that endoscopists are ...familiar with these so they can select the most appropriate technique for each polyp. This narrative review updates the different concepts in tailoring polypectomy technique to the characteristics of polyps. Effective polypectomy requires different components, including the following: careful evaluation of the polyp; decision making about optimal polyp management; actual polypectomy, which includes careful positioning of the endoscope and polyp; and postpolypectomy evaluation of the results (for completeness of resection and prophylaxis of complications).
There are concerns that the COVID-19 pandemic has had a negative effect on cancer care but there is little direct evidence to quantify any effect. This study aims to investigate the impact of the ...COVID-19 pandemic on the detection and management of colorectal cancer in England.
Data were extracted from four population-based datasets spanning NHS England (the National Cancer Cancer Waiting Time Monitoring, Monthly Diagnostic, Secondary Uses Service Admitted Patient Care and the National Radiotherapy datasets) for all referrals, colonoscopies, surgical procedures, and courses of rectal radiotherapy from Jan 1, 2019, to Oct 31, 2020, related to colorectal cancer in England. Differences in patterns of care were investigated between 2019 and 2020. Percentage reductions in monthly numbers and proportions were calculated.
As compared to the monthly average in 2019, in April, 2020, there was a 63% (95% CI 53–71) reduction (from 36 274 to 13 440) in the monthly number of 2-week referrals for suspected cancer and a 92% (95% CI 89–95) reduction in the number of colonoscopies (from 46 441 to 3484). Numbers had just recovered by October, 2020. This resulted in a 22% (95% CI 8–34) relative reduction in the number of cases referred for treatment (from a monthly average of 2781 in 2019 to 2158 referrals in April, 2020). By October, 2020, the monthly rate had returned to 2019 levels but did not exceed it, suggesting that, from April to October, 2020, over 3500 fewer people had been diagnosed and treated for colorectal cancer in England than would have been expected. There was also a 31% (95% CI 19–42) relative reduction in the numbers receiving surgery in April, 2020, and a lower proportion of laparoscopic and a greater proportion of stoma-forming procedures, relative to the monthly average in 2019. By October, 2020, laparoscopic surgery and stoma rates were similar to 2019 levels. For rectal cancer, there was a 44% (95% CI 17–76) relative increase in the use of neoadjuvant radiotherapy in April, 2020, relative to the monthly average in 2019, due to greater use of short-course regimens. Although in June, 2020, there was a drop in the use of short-course regimens, rates remained above 2019 levels until October, 2020.
The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a sustained reduction in the number of people referred, diagnosed, and treated for colorectal cancer. By October, 2020, achievement of care pathway targets had returned to 2019 levels, albeit with smaller volumes of patients and with modifications to usual practice. As pressure grows in the NHS due to the second wave of COVID-19, urgent action is needed to address the growing burden of undetected and untreated colorectal cancer in England.
Cancer Research UK, the Medical Research Council, Public Health England, Health Data Research UK, NHS Digital, and the National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre.
PDF
