Chromoendoscopic colonoscopy for detecting preneoplastic lesions in hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer syndrome.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: In hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC) syndrome, flat and small adenomas are particularly prone to malignant transformation but might be missed by standard colonoscopy. We prospectively studied the diagnostic yield of high-resolution colonoscopy coupled with chromoendoscopy for preneoplastic and neoplastic colorectal lesions in patients with HNPCC syndrome. METHODS: Thirty-six consecutive asymptomatic patients (mean age, 42 years) belonging to HNPCC families and receiving genetic counseling were enrolled in this prospective study. Colonoscopy was performed in 2 steps. Conventional colonoscopy was performed first, followed by a second colonoscopy with chromoendoscopy with indigo carmine (.4%) dye sprayed onto the entire proximal colon. RESULTS: Conventional colonoscopy identified 25 lesions (mean size, 4 +/- 3 mm) in 13 patients. Seven lesions, detected in 5 patients, were adenomas, 3 of which were located in the proximal colon. Chromoendoscopy identified additional 45 lesions (mean size, 3 +/- 1 mm) in 20 patients; most of these lesions were flat and hyperplastic. Eleven additional adenomas were detected in the proximal colon of 8 patients, and 8 of these 11 lesions were flat. The use of chromoendoscopy significantly increased the detection rate of adenomas in the proximal colon, from 3 of 33 patients to 10 of 33 patients (P = .045). CONCLUSION: Relative to conventional colonoscopy, high-resolution colonoscopy with chromoendoscopy markedly improves the detection of adenomas in patients with HNPCC syndrome and might help to prevent colorectal carcinoma in these patients with a very high risk of colorectal cancer.     

Evaluation of a risk score based on dietary and lifestyle factors to target a population at risk in colorectal cancer screening

BackgroundThe aim of our study was to assess three risk scores to predict lesions, advanced neoplasia (high-risk adenomas and colorectal cancer (CRC)) and CRC in individuals who participate to colorectal cancer screening.MethodsThe data of dietary and lifestyle risk factors were carried out during 2 mass screening campaigns in France (2013–2016) and the FOBT result was collected until December 2018. The colonoscopy result in positive FOBT was recovered. Three risk scores (Betés score, Kaminski score and adapted-HLI) were calculated to detect individuals at risk of lesions.ResultsThe Betés score had an AUROC of 0.63 (95% CI, [0.61–0.66]) for lesions, 0.65 (95% CI, [0.61–0.68]) for advanced neoplasia and 0.65 (95% CI, [0.58–0.72]) for predicting screen-detected CRC.The adapted HLI score had an AUROC of 0.61 (95% CI, [0.58–0.65]) for lesions, 0.61 (95% CI, [0.56–0.65]) for advanced neoplasia and 0.55 (95% CI, [0.45–0.65]) for predicting screen-detected CRC.The Kaminski score had an AUROC of 0.65 (95% CI, [0.63–0.68]) for lesions, 0.65 (95% CI, [0.61–0.68]) for advanced neoplasia and 0.69 (95% CI, [0.62–0.76]) for predicting screen-detected CRC.ConclusionA simple questionnaire based on CRC risk factors could help general practitioners to identify participants with higher risk of significant colorectal lesions and incite them to perform the fecal occult blood test.     

Prevalence of colorectal neoplasia in smokers

OBJECTIVES: Smoking has been linked with colorectal neoplasia. Previous colonoscopy screening studies have omitted smoking and have examined only gender, age, and family history. Our aim was to use a screening population to measure the prevalence of neoplasia in smokers, the anatomic location of these lesions, and the strength of this association relative to other risk factors. METHODS: Data collected from the charts of 1988 screening colonoscopy patients included colonic findings, histology, risk factors for colorectal neoplasia, and smoking pattern. Current smokers were defined as those who had smoked more than 10 pack-years and were currently smoking or who had quit within the past 10 yr. Our outcomes were any adenomatous lesion and significant colonic neoplasia, which included adenocarcinoma, high grade dysplasia, villous tissue, large (>1 cm) adenomas, and multiple (more than two) adenomas. RESULTS: Multivariate analysis revealed that current smokers were more likely to have any adenomatous lesion (odds ratio [OR] = 1.89; 95% CI = 1.42-2.51; p < 0.001) as well as significant neoplasia (OR = 2.26; 95% CI = 1.56-3.27; p < 0.001) than those who had never smoked. The increased risk for smokers was predominantly for left-sided neoplasia. The risk for significant neoplasia was greater for smokers than for patients with a family history of colorectal cancer (OR = 1.20; 95% CI = 0.75-1.92; p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Smoking is a significant risk factor for colorectal neoplasia in a screening population, especially for significant left-sided lesions. In our sample population, smoking posed a greater risk than family history of colorectal cancer.     

Prospective results of surveillance colonoscopy in dominant familial colorectal cancer with and without Lynch syndrome

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Lynch syndrome is an autosomal dominant predisposition to colorectal cancer caused by mutations in DNA mismatch repair genes; colorectal cancer risk is high. Few studies have addressed colorectal cancer risk in individuals from dominant families without mismatch repair deficiency. We sought to establish whether these individuals are also at increased risk by examining the incidence of advanced neoplasia during surveillance. METHODS: In this prospective cohort study, BAT26 testing of tumors was carried out at 2 tertiary centers on 125 individuals from 97 families (with a dominant colorectal cancer history) to classify families as Lynch syndrome (microsatellite unstable) or non-Lynch syndrome (microsatellite stable). Colonoscopy results in 288 at-risk family members were compared. RESULTS: Twenty-nine families were classified as Lynch syndrome and 68 as non-Lynch syndrome. Seven hundred seventy-six colonoscopies were undertaken. High-risk adenomas occurred in 7 of 91 (7.7%) Lynch syndrome individuals and 15 of 197 (7.6%) non-Lynch syndrome individuals, adjusted relative risk 1.15 (95% CI: 0.6-2.3). Cancer was observed only in Lynch syndrome individuals (4/91; 4.4%), Fisher exact test, P = .010. Multiple adenomas were only seen in non-Lynch syndrome individuals (13/197; 6.6%), Fisher exact text, P = .06. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with an autosomal dominant family history of colorectal cancer with and without evidence of Lynch syndrome are at equal risk of high-risk adenomas during surveillance, but colorectal cancer was only seen in Lynch syndrome. Therefore non-Lynch syndrome individuals do require colonoscopic surveillance, but the interval could be lengthened because risk of (interval) cancer is low. Lynch syndrome individuals require short surveillance intervals as is the recommended practice.     

Predictors of advanced proximal neoplasia in persons with abnormal screening flexible sigmoidoscopy.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The relationship between distal and proximal colonic findings is uncertain. Thus, there is no consensus on which findings on screening flexible sigmoidoscopy should trigger colonoscopy. METHODS: We analyzed data from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial to assess the relationship between distal and proximal colonic findings. RESULTS: A total of 8802 subjects had an abnormal baseline sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy follow-up. Subjects with <10-mm single or multiple tubular adenomas had similar risks for advanced proximal neoplasia as subjects with hyperplastic polyps or other benign lesions (3%-5%). Subjects with large (>or=10 mm), villous, or severely dysplastic distal adenomas had similarly elevated risks for advanced proximal neoplasia (11%-12%). Multivariate logistic modeling showed a significantly increased risk for advanced proximal neoplasia associated with the presence of a large tubular (odds ratio [OR], 2.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.0-3.4) or villous distal adenoma (OR, 2.7; 95% CI, 2.1-3.5) but not with the presence of one (OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.8-1.3) or multiple (OR, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.5-1.2) <10-mm tubular distal adenomas. CONCLUSIONS: Among subjects with a polypoid lesion on screening flexible sigmoidoscopy, those with small tubular distal adenomas are at similar risk for advanced proximal neoplasia as those without distal adenomas. Subjects with a large, villous, or dysplastic distal adenoma are at increased risk. A strategy that encourages individuals with small tubular adenomas on sigmoidoscopy to undergo follow-up colonoscopy and excludes those with nonadenomatous lesions is of questionable validity, because both groups are at similar risk for advanced proximal neoplasia.     

Association of Adenoma Detection Rate and Adenoma Characteristics With Colorectal Cancer Mortality After Screening Colonoscopy

Background & AimsThe adenoma detection rate (ADR) and characteristics of previously resected adenomas are associated with colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality. However, the combined effect of both factors on CRC mortality is unknown.Patients and methodsUsing data of the Austrian quality assurance program for screening colonoscopy, we evaluated the combined effect of ADR and lesion characteristics on subsequent risk for CRC mortality. We analyzed mortality rates for individuals with low-risk adenomas (1–2 adenomas <10 mm), individuals with high-risk adenomas (advanced adenomas or ≥3 adenomas), and after negative colonoscopy (negative colonoscopy or small hyperplastic polyps) performed by endoscopists with an ADR <25% compared with ≥25%. Cox regression was used to determine the association of combined risk groups with CRC mortality, adjusted for age and sex.ResultsWe evaluated 259,885 colonoscopies performed by 361 endoscopists. A total of 165 CRC-related deaths occurred during the follow-up period, up to 12.2 years. In all risk groups, CRC mortality was higher when colonoscopy was performed by an endoscopist with an ADR <25%. Compared with negative colonoscopy with an ADR ≥25%, CRC mortality was similar for individuals with low-risk adenomas irrespective of ADR (for ADR ≥25%: adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.22; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.59–2.49; for ADR <25%: adjusted HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.64–2.43) and after negative colonoscopy with ADR <25% (adjusted HR, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.81–2.00). Individuals with high-risk adenomas were at significantly higher risk for CRC death if colonoscopy was performed by an endoscopist with an ADR <25% (adjusted HR, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.18–4.31) but not if performed by an endoscopist with an ADR ≥25% (adjusted HR, 1.35; 95% CI, 0.61–3.02).ConclusionsOur study adds important evidence for mandatory assessment and monitoring of performance quality in screening colonoscopy. High-quality colonoscopy was associated with a lower risk for CRC death, and the impact of ADR was strongest for individuals with high-risk adenomas.     

Colonoscopic screening of first-degree relatives of patients with large adenomas: increased risk of colorectal tumors

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The risk of developing colorectal neoplasia is not well established among family members of individuals with large adenomas, and screening strategies remain under debate in this population. This study aimed at quantifying the risk of colorectal adenomas and cancers using colonoscopic screening in first-degree relatives of patients with large adenomas. METHODS: This case-control study was performed in 18 endoscopic units of French nonuniversity hospitals. A colonoscopy was offered to first-degree relatives of 306 index cases with adenomas > or =10 mm if they were alive, aged 40-75 years, and could be contacted by the index case. Among them, 168 were examined and matched for age, sex, and geographical area with 2 controls (n = 307). Controls were randomly selected from 1362 consecutive patients aged 40-75 years having undergone a colonoscopy for minor symptoms. RESULTS: The prevalence of large adenomas and cancers was 8.4% and 4.2%, in relatives and controls, respectively. Odds ratios (ORs) associated with a history of large adenomas in relatives were 2.27 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-5.09) for cancers or large adenomas, 1.21 (95% CI, 0.68-2.15) for small adenomas, and 1.56 (95% CI, 0.96-2.53) for all colorectal neoplasia. The risk of large adenomas and cancers was higher in relatives of index cases younger than 60 years (OR, 3.82; 95% CI, 0.92-15.87) and when the index case had large distal adenomas (OR, 3.14; 95% CI, 1.27-7.73). CONCLUSIONS: First-degree relatives of patients with large adenomas are at increased risk of developing colorectal cancers or large adenomas. This result has implications for screening in this high-risk population.     

First-degree relatives of patients with advanced colorectal adenomas have an increased prevalence of colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The risk of colorectal cancer in relatives of patients with adenomatous colonic polyps is not well defined. This study assessed whether finding colonic neoplasia during screening colonoscopy was related to the family history of colorectal cancer among the participants' parents and siblings. METHODS: Self-reported family history of colorectal cancer was recorded for all participants in a screening colonoscopy study. The size and location of all polyps were recorded before their removal and histologic examination. Participants were grouped according to the most advanced lesion detected. RESULTS: Three thousand one hundred twenty-one patients underwent complete colonoscopic examination. Subjects with adenomas were more likely to have a family history of colorectal cancer than were subjects without polyps (odds ratio [OR], 1.36; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09-1.70). The finding of a small (<1 cm) tubular adenoma as the most advanced lesion was associated with only a modest increase in the OR of colorectal cancer in family members (OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 0.99-1.61), but the presence of an advanced adenoma was associated with a higher OR (OR, 1.62;5% CI, 1.16-2.26). Younger age of adenoma diagnosis was not related to a higher prevalence of a family history of colorectal cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Relatives patients with advanced colorectal adenomas have an increased risk of colorectal cancer. Individuals with advanced colorectal adenomas should be counseled about the increased risk of colorectal cancer among their relatives.     

Sporadic duodenal adenoma and the association with colorectal neoplasia: a case-control study

OBJECTIVES: Sporadic duodenal adenomas are an uncommon finding. It is not clear whether patients with sporadic duodenal adenoma have a greater risk for colorectal neoplasia and should undergo colonoscopy. The aims of the present study were to estimate the prevalence of colorectal neoplasia in patients with sporadic duodenal adenoma, and to compare colorectal neoplasia rates in patients with sporadic duodenal adenomas versus those without them.
METHODS: A retrospective case-control study was conducted to identify sporadic duodenal adenoma patients using the databases of two academic and one regional hospital in the Netherlands. Colonoscopic findings in the sporadic duodenal adenoma patients were compared with those of a control group of patients who underwent both gastroduodenoscopy and colonoscopy. Furthermore, the frequency of colorectal cancer in the sporadic duodenal adenoma patients was compared with the population incidence of colorectal cancer.
RESULTS: During the period 1991–2006, 102 patients in total with sporadic duodenal adenomas were identified. Colonoscopy was performed in 49 patients (48%), and colorectal neoplasia was present in 21 of these patients (43%). There was a significantly higher rate of both colorectal neoplasia (43% vs 17%, odds ratio [OR] 3.6, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.7–7.4) and advanced colorectal adenoma (18% vs 3%, OR 7.8, 95% CI 2.1–29.4) in the patients with sporadic duodenal adenoma compared to that in the control group. Also, the incidence of colorectal cancer was higher in sporadic duodenal adenoma patients compared to that in the population ( P = 0.02).
CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with sporadic duodenal adenomas appear to be at a significantly higher risk of colorectal neoplasia, and therefore should undergo colonoscopy.     

Improved detection of colorectal neoplasms with selective use of chromoendoscopy in 2005 consecutive patients

Background Colorectal cancer mortality is decreased by endoscopic polypectomy, but conventional colonoscopy may be inadequate for detecting subtle colonic lesions. Methods We selectively performed chromoendoscopy in all patients undergoing colonoscopy between January 1999 and December 2005 at the International Health Union of Rome. Patients with a history of colorectal polyps, inflammatory bowel disease, colorectal surgery or coagulopathy and those with poor bowel preparation were excluded from this analysis. Whenever colonoscopy revealed suspicious mucosal areas, dye-spraying with 0.2% indigo carmine solution was also performed. Findings from conventional and dyespraying views were classified morphologically, and specimens were analyzed histologically. Non-adenomatous lesions were classified as negative findings. Results A total of 2005 patients underwent conventional colonoscopy and in 305 cases (15%) chromoendoscopy was also performed. Conventional colonoscopy identified 508 neoplasms in 381 patients (19%). Selective chromoendoscopy found an additional 244 neoplasms in 212 patients (11%). Thus, chromoendoscopy was positive in 212 (70%) of 305 patients in whom the examination was performed. Overall, 56 large, ulcerated, advanced cancers and 696 non-advanced neoplasms were found. Of the 696 nonadvanced neoplasms, 448 (65%) were polypoid and 248 (35%) were non-polypoid. All but 4 non-polypoid lesions were only detected with chromoendoscopy. Of the 248 non-polypoid lesions, 12 (5%) were depressed and 236 (95%) were flat. Advanced histology was present in 39 non-polypoid lesions (15%) and was more common in depressed lesions than in flat ones (58% vs. 13%; p<0.001). Conclusions Our study confirms the existence of flat and depressed neoplasms in an Italian population. The vast majority of non-polypoid lesions were only detected by chromoendoscopy, and many lesions with advanced histology were missed by conventional colonoscopy. We therefore recommend selectively performing chromoendoscopy when conventional colonoscopy provides clues for non-polypoid lesions. Therefore, endoscopists should be trained in the detection of these subtle mucosal clues, as well as in the use of chromoendoscopy to enhance their detection. An erratum to this article is available at .     

Five-year colon surveillance after screening colonoscopy

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Outcomes of colon surveillance after colorectal cancer screening with colonoscopy are uncertain. We conducted a prospective study to measure incidence of advanced neoplasia in patients within 5.5 years of screening colonoscopy. METHODS: Three thousand one hundred twenty-one asymptomatic subjects, age 50 to 75 years, had screening colonoscopy between 1994 and 1997 in the Department of Veterans Affairs. One thousand one hundred seventy-one subjects with neoplasia and 501 neoplasia-free controls were assigned to colonoscopic surveillance over 5 years. Cohorts were defined by baseline findings. Relative risks for advanced neoplasia within 5.5 years were calculated. Advanced neoplasia was defined as tubular adenoma greater than > or =10 mm, adenoma with villous histology, adenoma with high-grade dysplasia, or invasive cancer. RESULTS: Eight hundred ninety-five (76.4%) patients with neoplasia and 298 subjects (59.5%) without neoplasia at baseline had colonoscopy within 5.5 years; 2.4% of patients with no neoplasia had interval advanced neoplasia. The relative risk in patients with baseline neoplasia was 1.92 (95% CI: 0.83-4.42) with 1 or 2 tubular adenomas <10 mm, 5.01 (95% CI: 2.10-11.96) with 3 or more tubular adenomas <10 mm, 6.40 (95% CI: 2.74-14.94) with tubular adenoma > or =10 mm, 6.05 (95% CI: 2.48-14.71) for villous adenoma, and 6.87 (95% CI: 2.61-18.07) for adenoma with high-grade dysplasia. CONCLUSIONS: There is a strong association between results of baseline screening colonoscopy and rate of serious incident lesions during 5.5 years of surveillance. Patients with 1 or 2 tubular adenomas less than 10 mm represent a low-risk group compared with other patients with colon neoplasia.     

Risk of colorectal neoplasia in patients with celiac disease: A multicenter study

Background and aimsThe association of celiac disease with colorectal neoplasia is controversial. The aim of this study was to determine the risk of colorectal neoplasia among patients with celiac disease.MethodsWe carried out a multicenter, retrospective case–control study, within four community hospitals. Celiac disease patients with a complete colonoscopy were regarded as cases and those without celiac disease as controls. For each case, two controls matched for age, sex, indication for colonoscopy and colorectal cancer family history, were randomly selected. The main outcome evaluated was risk of colorectal polyps, adenomas, advanced neoplastic lesions and cancer.ResultsWe identified 118 patients with celiac disease and 236 controls. The risk of polyps, adenomas and advanced neoplastic lesions was similar in both groups (OR 1.25, CI 0.71–2.18, p = 0.40; OR 1.39, CI 0.73–2.63, p = 0.31; and OR 1.00, CI 0.26–3.72, p = 1.00, respectively). On multivariate analysis, age > 75 years old, and first-grade CRC family history were associated with adenomas (OR 2.68 CI 1.03–6.98, OR 6.68 CI 1.03–47.98 respectively) and advanced neoplastic lesions (OR 15.03, CI 2.88–78.3; OR 6.46 CI 1.23–33.79, respectively). With respect to celiac disease characteristic, a low adherence to a gluten free diet was independently associated with the presence of adenomas (OR 6.78 CI 1.39–33.20 p = 0.01).ConclusionsCeliac disease was not associated with an increased risk of colorectal neoplasia. Nonadherence to a strict gluten free diet was associated with the presence of adenomas. Further studies addressing celiac disease characteristics are needed to confirm this observation.     

Computed virtual chromoendoscopy for classification of small colorectal lesions: a prospective comparative study

OBJECTIVES: Standard colonoscopy offers no reliable discrimination between neoplastic and nonneoplastic colorectal lesions. Computed virtual chromoendoscopy with the Fujinon intelligent color enhancement (FICE) system is a new dyeless imaging technique that enhances mucosal and vascular patterns. This prospective trial compared the feasibility of FICE, standard colonoscopy, and conventional chromoendoscopy with indigo carmine in low- and high-magnification modes for determination of colonic lesion histology. METHODS: Sixty-three patients with 150 flat or sessile lesions less than 20 mm in diameter were enrolled. At colonoscopy, each lesion was observed with six different endoscopic modalities: standard colonoscopy, FICE, and conventional chromoendoscopy with indigo carmine (0.2%) dye spraying in both low- and high-magnification modes. Histopathology of all lesions was confirmed by evaluation of endoscopic resection or biopsy specimens. Endoscopic images were stored electronically and randomly allocated to a blinded reader. RESULTS: Of the 150 polyps, 89 were adenomas and 61 were hyperplastic polyps with an average size of 7 mm. For identifying adenomas, the FICE system with low and high magnifications revealed a sensitivity of 89.9% and 96.6%, specificity of 73.8% and 80.3%, and diagnostic accuracy of 83% and 90%, respectively. Compared with standard colonoscopy, the sensitivity and diagnostic accuracy achieved by FICE were significantly better under both low (P < 0.02) and high (P < 0.03) magnification and were comparable to that of conventional chromoendoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: The FICE system identified morphological details that efficiently predict adenomatous histology. For distinguishing neoplastic from nonneoplastic lesions, FICE was superior to standard colonoscopy and equivalent to conventional chromoendoscopy.     

Association between lifestyle and site-specific advanced colorectal lesions in screening with faecal immunochemical test and sigmoidoscopy

BackgroundLifestyle factors may help to identify individuals at high-risk for colorectal cancer (CRC).AimsTo examine the association between lifestyle, referral for follow-up colonoscopy and proximal neoplasia detection in CRC screening.MethodsIn this observational study, 14,832 individuals aged 50–74 years were invited to faecal immunochemical test (FIT) or sigmoidoscopy screening. Advanced lesions (AL), including advanced adenomas, advanced serrated lesions and CRC were divided according to location: distal-only, or proximal with or without distal AL. We collected information on smoking habit, body mass index and alcohol intake through a questionnaire.ResultsOut of 3,318 FIT and 2,988 sigmoidoscopy participants, 516 (16%) and 338 (11%), respectively, were referred for follow-up colonoscopy after a positive screening test. Two-hundred-and-fifty-six (4%) had distal-only and 119 (2%) proximal AL. In FIT participants, obesity and high alcohol intake were associated with proximal AL; odds ratio (95% confidence interval) 2.68 (1.36–5.26) and 2.16 (1.08–4.30), respectively. In sigmoidoscopy participants, current smoking was associated with proximal AL; 4.58 (2.24–9.38), and current smoking and obesity were associated with referral for colonoscopy; 2.80 (2.02–3.89) and 1.42 (1.01–2.00), respectively.ConclusionCurrent smoking, obesity and high alcohol intake were associated with screen-detected proximal colorectal AL. Current smoking and obesity were associated with referral for follow-up colonoscopy in sigmoidoscopy screening.     

Clinical impact of colonoscopy for patients with early gastric cancer treated by endoscopic submucosal dissection: A matched case–control study

BackgroundGastric cancer frequently occurs synchronously with colorectal cancer (CRC).AimsThe aim of the present study was to assess the value of colonoscopy in patients with primariy early gastric cancer (EGC) indicated for endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and to identify predictors for the risk of high-risk adenomas.MethodsA total of 130 patients with EGC, who underwent both colonoscopy and gastric ESD, and 260 controls matched for age and sex, who underwent a colonoscopy as part of our institutional health check-up program.The prevalence of high-risk adenomas in EGC patients vs. controls was evaluated.ResultsHigh-risk adenomas were found in 43 (33%) EGC patients and 37 (14%) controls (P < 0.01). Multivariate analysis showed the presence of EGC was significantly associated with high-risk adenoma [odds ratio (OR) 2.8, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.7–4.9]. Among EGC patients, high serum CEA level (OR 2.4, 95% CI: 1.2–5.0) was an independent predictor for high-risk adenoma.ConclusionsPatients with EGC had a significant risk for colorectal cancer. When endoscopists detected an early gastric cancer indicated for ESD, colonoscopy should be considered for EGC patients with high serum CEA levels.     

Impact of colonoscopy preparation quality on detection of suspected colonic neoplasia

BACKGROUND: Suboptimal bowel preparation for colonoscopy can lead to missed colonic lesions. The aim of this study was to describe the impact of preparation quality on detection of suspected colonic neoplasia. METHODS: Data from the Clinical Outcomes Research Initiative national endoscopic database for the period January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2001, were analyzed. Patient demographics, quality of preparation, and colonoscopy findings were abstracted from the database. RESULTS: Overall, 93,004 colonoscopies with adequate documentation were reviewed. Preparation was adequate for 71,501 (76.9%) of these procedures. On multivariate analysis, preparation adequacy was associated with colonic lesion detection, odds ratio (OR) 1.21: 95% CI [1.16, 1.25]. Adequate preparation demonstrated a closer association with identification of "nonsignificant" lesions (polyps 9 mm), OR 1.05: 95% CI [0.98, 1.11]. CONCLUSIONS: Bowel preparation is inadequate for almost a quarter of patients undergoing colonoscopy. These results suggest that inadequate preparation quality only hinders detection of smaller lesions, while having negligible impact on detection of larger lesions. These results should be confirmed in prospective studies.     

Sporadic duodenal adenoma is associated with colorectal neoplasia

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the association between colorectal neoplasia and sporadic duodenal adenoma. METHODS: A retrospective case control study was conducted using the databases of two major teaching hospitals in Western Australia. The frequency of colorectal neoplasia in patients with sporadic duodenal adenomas was compared with that in a control group of patients presenting for endoscopies. The frequency of colorectal cancer in duodenal adenoma patients was also compared with the population incidence. RESULTS: Of 56 sporadic duodenal adenoma patients, 34 (61%) had been colonoscoped. When comparing the findings between patients with sporadic duodenal adenoma and an endoscoped control group, all colorectal neoplasias were significantly more common in the duodenal adenoma group (56% v 33%; odds ratio (OR) 2.4 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.1-5.4)). Although finding either advanced colorectal adenoma or cancer was also more common in duodenal adenoma patients (38% v 19%; OR 2.3 (95% CI 1.0-5.2)), as was finding colorectal cancer alone (21% v 8%; OR 3.0 (95% CI 1.0-9.1)), the results were not statistically significant. However, the incidence of colorectal cancer was much greater in duodenal adenoma patients than in the population (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Sporadic duodenal adenoma has a clinically important association with colorectal neoplasia. Thus patients with duodenal adenomas should undergo colonoscopy to detect colorectal neoplasia.     

Predictors of proximal neoplasia in patients without distal adenomatous pathology

BACKGROUND: Previous colorectal cancer screening studies have observed that some patients may have advanced proximal neoplasia without distal findings. Since these studies have included only gender, age, and family history as risk factors, they are limited in their ability to identify predictors of isolated proximal neoplasia. METHODS: Data were collected from the charts of 1,988 patients who presented for colonoscopy. Information gathered included endoscopic findings, histology, known risk factors for colorectal neoplasia, and smoking pattern. Our main outcome was the presence of proximal adenomatous neoplasia in patients who had no distal adenomas. We defined significant neoplasia as adenocarcinoma, high-grade dysplasia, villous polyps, adenomas 1 cm or greater or more than two adenomas of any size. RESULTS: Fifty-five patients had isolated significant proximal neoplasia that would have been missed on a flexible sigmoidoscopy. While patients older than 60 yr had a greater risk for this neoplasia (odds ratio = 3.01: 95% CI = 1.66-4.23; p < 0.001), those who took a daily aspirin had a reduced risk (OR = 0.60; 95% CI = 0.30-0.88; p < 0.05). A family history of colorectal cancer increased the patient's risk of having any adenomas (OR = 2.01; 95% CI = 1.33-3.40; p < 0.01) or villous tissue (OR = 2.03; 95% CI = 1.27-3.51; p < 0.05) in the proximal colon without distal findings. Smoking was associated with an increased risk of large (> 1 cm) isolated proximal tubular polyps (OR = 2.71; 95% CI = 1.64-4.46; p < 0.01) as well as isolated significant proximal neoplasia (OR = 2.30; 95% CI = 1.59-3.31; p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Age greater than 60 yr, a history of at least 10 pack-years of smoking, and a family history of colorectal cancer increased the risk of finding significant proximal polyps in patients without distal pathology.     

Sporadic Duodenal Adenoma and Association with Colorectal Neoplasia: A Case–Control Study

Background

Sporadic duodenal adenomas are uncommon. Prior studies show that patients with sporadic duodenal adenoma have increased risk of colorectal neoplasia and should undergo colorectal screening. However, the nature of the risk, location, and type of colorectal neoplasia are not well studied.

Aim

We aimed to identify the risk of colorectal neoplasia in patients who have duodenal adenomas.

Methods

A retrospective case–control study was conducted to identify sporadic duodenal adenoma patients using the databases at one academic center. Colonoscopic findings including histology and location of colorectal cancer neoplasia in sporadic duodenal adenoma patients were compared with a control group of patients without duodenal adenomas who underwent both gastroduodenoscopy and colonoscopy.

Results

Hundred and two patients with sporadic duodenal adenomas or adenocarcinomas were identified. Colonoscopy was performed in 47 patients (46 %), and colorectal neoplasia was present in 22 (46 %). There was a significantly higher rate of colorectal neoplasia in patients with sporadic duodenal adenoma (43 %) compared to the control group (24 %) odds ratio 4.8, 95 % confidence interval (1.7–7.4), but not for advanced colorectal adenoma (9 vs. 26 %, p = 0.17). Case patients had significantly more right-sided lesions than matched controls (p = 0.02).

Limitations

Single-center, retrospective study.

Conclusions

Individuals with sporadic duodenal adenomas have a significantly higher risk of colorectal neoplasia and proximal location of neoplasia. Therefore, these patients should undergo colonoscopy with particular attention to the right colon.     

染色放大内镜下大肠黏膜表面微细结构改变及其临床病理意义

目的通过染色放大内镜观察不同大肠黏膜病变的Pitpattern形态,探讨其在早期大肠癌诊断中的应用价值。方法应用染色放大内镜对146例患者的大肠黏膜进行细微结构形态学观察,并与观察部位活检所得的病理组织学改变进行比较分析。结果 146例患者中放大内镜检出息肉172枚,经0.2%的靛胭脂染色放大后又发现0.1～0.5cm大小的息肉84枚,共计息肉样病变256枚。染色放大内镜可明显提高息肉病变的检出率。各种腺管开口分型的病理诊断结果构成差异有显著性,Ⅰ～Ⅴ分型与病变严重程度之间呈明显正相关。染色放大内镜对大肠肿瘤性病变诊断符合率89.5%、敏感性82.2%、特异性92.3%,放大内镜诊断符合率71.5%、敏感性61.8%、特异性77.9%,染色放大内镜对大肠肿瘤性疾病诊断与放大内镜相比差异具有统计学意义（P〈0.01）。结论染色放大内镜对大肠肿瘤的诊断优于放大内镜,能够提高大肠癌的早期诊断率,从而为大肠癌及其癌前病变的内镜下正确处理提供快速而准确的依据。