Epidemiology of overall and early-onset serrated polyps versus conventional adenomas in a colonoscopy screening cohort

Serrated polyps (SPs) are precursors to one-third of colorectal cancers (CRCs), with histological subtypes: hyperplastic polyps (HPs), sessile serrated lesions (SSLs) and traditional serrated adenomas (TSAs). The incidence of early-onset CRC before the age of 50 is increasing, with limited understanding of SPs in younger cohorts. Using a large colonoscopy-based cohort, we characterized epidemiologic profiles of SP subtypes, compared to conventional adenomas, with secondary analysis on early-onset polyps. Ninety-four thousand four hundred and twenty-seven patients underwent screening colonoscopies between 2010 and 2018. Demographic, endoscopic and histopathologic characteristics of each polyp subtype were described. High-risk polyps included SSLs ≥10 mm/with dysplasia and conventional adenomas ≥10 mm/with tubulovillous/villous histology/high-grade dysplasia. We examined polyp prevalence with age and compared early- (age < 50) and late-onset polyps (age ≥ 50). Eighteen thousand one hundred and twenty-five patients had SPs (4357 SSLs, 15 415 HPs, 120 TSAs) and 26 699 had conventional adenomas. High-risk SSLs were enriched in the ascending colon (44.1% vs 2.6-35.8% for other locations; P < .003). Early- and late-onset SPs had similar subsite distribution. Early-onset conventional adenomas were more enriched in the distal colon/rectum (51.8% vs 43.4%, P < .001). Multiple conventional adenomas were more represented in late-onset groups (40.8% vs 33.8%, P < .001), with no difference in SSLs. The prevalence of conventional adenomas/high-risk conventional adenomas increased continuously with age, whereas the prevalence of SSLs/high-risk SSLs was stable from age 40 years onwards. A higher proportion of women were diagnosed with early-onset than late-onset SSLs (62.9% vs 57.6%, P = .03). Conventional adenomas, SSLs, early- and late-onset polyps have distinct epidemiology. The findings have implications for improved colonoscopy screening and surveillance and understanding the etiologic heterogeneity of CRC.     

Radiation-Shielding Devices: The Best Combination for Spine Interventional Procedures

PurposeAlthough many studies have examined the efficiency of various protective devices for reducing the dose of radiation exposure to physicians during interventional pain procedures, no study has compared the protective effect of these devices when they are used in combination. The purpose of this prospective experimental study was to determine the best combination of radiation-shielding devices.Materials and MethodsUsing anthropomorphic phantoms of a physician and patient, we measured the radiation protection efficiency (RPE) of each of the following protection methods and in combination during C-arm–guided simulated lumbar epidural injection: (a) personal protective equipment (PPE), (b) bedside curtain shield (Curtain), (c) x-ray tube filter (Filter), and (d) fluoroscopic collimation method (Collimation). We measured exposure doses using personal electronic dosimeters at the eye, thyroid, and gonad levels for 1 minute. Each experiment was repeated 15 times.ResultsThe radiation exposure dose and RPE with the best single-, double-, and triple-protection methods were as follows: PPE for the single-protection method (11.82 μSv/min, 80.04%), PPE + Collimation for the double-combination method (4.68 μSv/min, 92.09%), and PPE + Collimation + Curtain for the triple-combination method (3.08 μSv/min, 93.39%). Additionally, PPE + Collimation + Curtain + Filter for the quadruple-combination method resulted in a radiation exposure and RPE of 2.91 μSv/min and 93.61%, respectively, compared with nonprotection.ConclusionsThe best single-, double-, and triple-protection method was PPE, PPE + Collimation, and PPE + Collimation + Curtain, respectively. While preparing protective equipment, we recommend prioritizing equipment in this order.     

Implementation of a Semistructured Clinical Event Documentation Tool for Acute Adverse Contrast Reactions

PurposeTo improve the efficiency and accuracy of clinicians documenting acute clinical events related to contrast agent administration using a web browser–based semistructured documentation support tool.MethodsA new tool called Contrast Incident Support and Reporting (CISaR) was developed to enable radiologists responding to contrast reactions to document inciting contrast class, type of event, severity of contrast reaction, and recommendation for future contrast use. Retrospective analysis was conducted of all CT and MRI examinations performed between February 2018 and December 2019 across our hospital system with associated contrast reaction documentation. Time periods were defined as before tool deployment, early adoption, and steady-state deployment. The primary outcome measure was the presence of event documentation by a radiologist. The secondary outcome measure was completeness of the documentation parameters.ResultsA total of 431 CT and MRI studies with reactions were included in the study, and 50% of studies had radiologist documentation during the pre-CISaR period. This increased to 66% during the early adoption period and 89% in the post-CISaR period. It took approximately 9 months from the introduction of CISaR to reach full adoption and become the main method for adverse contrast reaction documentation. The percentage of radiologist documentation that detailed provoking contrast agent class, severity of reaction, reaction type, and future contrast agent recommendation all significantly increased (P < .0001), with greater than 95% inclusion of each element.ConclusionThe implementation of a semistructured electronic application for adverse contrast reaction reporting significantly increased radiologist documentation rate and completeness of the documentation.