Main Recommendations
ESGE recommends that individuals with hereditary gastrointestinal polyposis syndromes should be surveilled in dedicated units that provide monitoring of compliance and endoscopic ...performance measures.
Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence, level of agreement 90 %.
ESGE recommends performing esophagogastroduodenoscopy, small-bowel examination, and/or colonoscopy earlier than the planned surveillance procedure if a patient is symptomatic.
Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence, level of agreement 100 %.
ObjectiveThe incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) declines among subjects aged 50 years and above. An opposite trend appears among younger adults. In Europe, data on CRC incidence among younger ...adults are lacking. We therefore aimed to analyse European trends in CRC incidence and mortality in subjects younger than 50 years.DesignData on age-related CRC incidence and mortality between 1990 and 2016 were retrieved from national and regional cancer registries. Trends were analysed by Joinpoint regression and expressed as annual percent change.ResultsWe retrieved data on 143.7 million people aged 20–49 years from 20 European countries. Of them, 187 918 (0.13%) were diagnosed with CRC. On average, CRC incidence increased with 7.9% per year among subjects aged 20–29 years from 2004 to 2016. The increase in the age group of 30–39 years was 4.9% per year from 2005 to 2016, the increase in the age group of 40–49 years was 1.6% per year from 2004 to 2016. This increase started earliest in subjects aged 20–29 years, and 10–20 years later in those aged 30–39 and 40–49 years. This is consistent with an age-cohort phenomenon. Although in most European countries the CRC incidence had risen, some heterogeneity was found between countries. CRC mortality did not significantly change among the youngest adults, but decreased with 1.1%per year between 1990 and 2016 and 2.4% per year between 1990 and 2009 among those aged 30–39 years and 40–49 years, respectively.ConclusionCRC incidence rises among young adults in Europe. The cause for this trend needs to be elucidated. Clinicians should be aware of this trend. If the trend continues, screening guidelines may need to be reconsidered.
Abstract
We are currently living in the throes of the COVID-19 pandemic that imposes a significant stress on health care providers and facilities. Europe is severely affected with an exponential ...increase in incident infections and deaths. The clinical manifestations of COVID-19 can be subtle, encompassing a broad spectrum from asymptomatic mild disease to severe respiratory illness. Health care professionals in endoscopy units are at increased risk of infection from COVID-19. Infection prevention and control has been shown to be dramatically effective in assuring the safety of both health care professionals and patients. The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (www.esge.com) and the European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates (www.esgena.org) are joining forces to provide guidance during this pandemic to help assure the highest level of endoscopy care and protection against COVID-19 for both patients and endoscopy unit personnel. This guidance is based upon the best available evidence regarding assessment of risk during the current status of the pandemic and a consensus on which procedures to perform and the priorities on resumption. We appreciate the gaps in knowledge and evidence, especially on the proper strategy(ies) for the resumption of normal endoscopy practice during the upcoming phases and end of the pandemic and therefore a list of potential research questions is presented. New evidence may result in an updated statement.
In this large study of colorectal-cancer screening, the endoscopist's rate of adenoma detection was associated with the risk of interval colorectal cancer after screening colonoscopy. Colorectal ...cancers were less likely to be diagnosed between screening examinations when colonoscopies were performed by endoscopists with an adenoma detection rate of 20% or more.
In this large study of colorectal-cancer screening, the endoscopist's rate of adenoma detection was associated with the risk of interval colorectal cancer after screening colonoscopy.
Although colonoscopy is widely used for colorectal-cancer screening,
1
–
3
its miss rate for cancers and adenomatous polyps (benign premalignant tumors or adenomas), which is low but not negligible, remains a concern.
4
–
6
It has been suggested that a high-quality examination that ensures the detection and removal of all neoplastic lesions is key for screening efficacy.
6
–
8
In response, professional societies have proposed the use of various quality-assessment indicators. Of such indicators, the rates of adenoma detection and cecal intubation are the most commonly used.
7
–
10
However, these measurements have never been validated, and it is not known whether an improvement . . .
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.
Background & Aims The quality of endoscopists' colonoscopy performance is measured by adenoma detection rate (ADR). Although ADR is associated inversely with interval colorectal cancer and colorectal ...cancer death, the effects of an increasing ADR have not been shown. We investigated whether increasing ADRs from individual endoscopists is associated with reduced risks of interval colorectal cancer and subsequent death. Methods We performed a prospective cohort study of individuals who underwent a screening colonoscopy within the National Colorectal Cancer Screening Program in Poland, from January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2008. We collected data from 146,860 colonoscopies performed by 294 endoscopists, with each endoscopist having participated at least twice in annual editions of primary colonoscopy screening. We used annual feedback and quality benchmark indicators to improve colonoscopy performance. We used ADR quintiles in the whole data set to categorize the annual ADRs for each endoscopist. An increased ADR was defined as an increase by at least 1 quintile category, or the maintenance of the highest category in subsequent screening years. Multivariate frailty models were used to evaluate the effects of increased ADR on the risk of interval colorectal cancer and death. Results Throughout the enrollment period, 219 endoscopists (74.5%) increased their annual ADR category. During 895,916 person-years of follow-up evaluation through the National Cancer Registry, we identified 168 interval colorectal cancers and 44 interval cancer deaths. An increased ADR was associated with an adjusted hazard ratio for interval colorectal cancer of 0.63 (95% confidence interval CI, 0.45–0.88; P = .006), and for cancer death of 0.50 (95% CI, 0.27–0.95; P = .035). Compared with no increase in ADR, reaching or maintaining the highest quintile ADR category (such as an ADR > 24.56%) decreased the adjusted hazard ratios for interval colorectal cancer to 0.27 (95% CI, 0.12–0.63; P = .003), and 0.18 (95% CI, 0.06–0.56; P = .003), respectively. Conclusions In a prospective study of individuals who underwent screening colonoscopy within a National Colorectal Cancer Screening Program, we associated increased ADR with a reduced risk of interval colorectal cancer and death.
Multimodal cancer treatment with endoscopy Kaminski, Michal F.; Pilonis, Nastazja Dagny
Baillière's best practice & research. Clinical gastroenterology,
February 2024, 2024-Feb, 2024-02-00, 20240201, Letnik:
68
Journal Article
PDF
