METHODS: Stool samples were collected prospectively from symptomatic adults who had elective colonoscopy from September 2014 to January 2016 and were analyzed with the ScheBo M2-PK Quick test and laboratory detection of fecal hemoglobin.
RESULTS: The results were correlated to the colonoscopy findings and/or histopathology report. Eighty-five subjects (age of 56.8 ± 15.3 years [mean ± standard deviation]) were recruited with a total of 17 colorectal cancer (20.0%) and 10 colorectal adenoma patients (11.8%). The sensitivity of M2-PK test in colorectal cancer detection was higher than gFOBT (100% vs. 64.7%). M2-PK test had a lower specificity when compared to gFOBT (72.5% vs. 88.2%) in colorectal cancer detection. The positive and negative predictive values were 47.2% and 100% for M2-PK test and 57.9% and 90.9% for gFOBT.
CONCLUSION: Fecal M2-PK Quick test has a high sensitivity for detection of colorectal cancer when compared to gFOBT, making it the potential choice for colorectal tumor screening biomarker in the future.
METHODS: This study enrolled 100 patients in a single-center tertiary teaching hospital. Patients presented for screening colonoscopy, and those with suspicious colorectal lesions were included in this study. During colonoscopy, the most suspicious lesion in each patient was analyzed using the NBI system based on Sano's classification. Each lesion was biopsied for histopathological analysis, the gold standard. Endoscopic images were captured electronically. The sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy of NBI colonoscopy were assessed. Other associated factors related to neoplastic and non-neoplastic lesions were analyzed accordingly.
RESULTS: The sensitivity and specificity of the NBI were 88.2% and 71.9%, respectively. The area under the receiver-operator curve was 0.801, indicating that NBI has a good ability to differentiate between disease and non-disease. There are significant associations between histopathological examination outcomes and both presenting symptoms, especially weight loss, and lesion site, even after other variables were controlled (P
AIM: To systematically review all available evidence to describe the incidence, clinical course with management and propose a definition.
METHODS: The databases PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane databases were searched using with the keywords up to June 2020. Additional manual search was performed and cross-checked for additional references. Data collected included demographics, reason for colonoscopy, time to diagnosis, method of diagnosis (clinical vs imaging) and management outcomes.
RESULTS: A total of nine studies were included in the final systematic review with a total of 339 cases. The time to diagnosis post-colonoscopy ranged from 2 h to 30 d. Clinical presentation for these patients were non-specific including abdominal pain, nausea/vomiting, per rectal bleeding and chills/fever. Majority of the cases were diagnosed based on computed tomography scan. The management for these patients were similar to the usual patients presenting with diverticulitis where most resolve with non-operative intervention (i.e., antibiotics and bowel rest).
CONCLUSION: The entity of post-colonoscopy diverticulitis remains contentious where there is a wide duration post-procedure included. Regardless of whether this is a true complication post-colonoscopy or a de novo event, early diagnosis is vital to guide appropriate treatment. Further prospective studies especially registries should include this as a complication to try to capture the true incidence.
METHODS: A professional group was formed by 36 experts of the Asian Novel Bio-Imaging and Intervention Group (ANBI2 G) members. Representatives from 12 Asia-Pacific countries participated in the meeting. The group organized three consensus meetings focusing on diagnostic endoscopy for gastrointestinal neoplasia. The Delphi method was used to develop the consensus statements.
RESULTS: Through the three consensus meetings with debating, reviewing the literature and regional data, a consensus was reached at third meeting in 2016. The consensus was reached on a total of 10 statements. Summary of statements is as follows: (i) Adequate bowel preparation for high-quality colonoscopy; (ii) Antispasmodic agents for lesion detection; (iii) Image-enhanced endoscopy (IEE) for polyp detection; (iv) Adenoma detection rate for quality indicators; (v) Good documentation of colonoscopy findings; (vi) Complication rates; (vii) Cecal intubation rate; (viii) Cap-assisted colonoscopy (CAC) for polyp detection; (ix) Macroscopic classification using indigocarmine spray for characterization of colorectal lesions; and (x) IEE and/or magnifying endoscopy for prediction of histology.
CONCLUSION: This consensus provides guidance for carrying out endoscopic diagnosis and characterization for early-stage colorectal neoplasia based on the evidence. This will enhance the quality of endoscopic diagnosis and improve detection of early-stage colorectal neoplasia.
METHODS: We collected data from 7954 asymptomatic subjects (age, 50-75 y) who received screening colonoscopy examinations at 14 sites in Asia. We randomly assigned 5303 subjects to the derivation cohort and the remaining 2651 to the validation cohort. We collected data from the derivation cohort on age, sex, family history of colorectal cancer, smoking, drinking, body mass index, medical conditions, and use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or aspirin. Associations between the colonoscopic findings of APN and each risk factor were examined using the Pearson χ2 test, and we assigned each participant a risk score (0-15), with scores of 0 to 3 as average risk and scores of 4 or higher as high risk. The scoring system was tested in the validation cohort. We used the Cochran-Armitage test of trend to compare the prevalence of APN among subjects in each group.
RESULTS: In the validation cohort, 79.5% of patients were classified as average risk and 20.5% were classified as high risk. The prevalence of APN in the average-risk group was 1.9% and in the high-risk group was 9.4% (adjusted relative risk, 5.08; 95% CI, 3.38-7.62; P < .001). The score included age (61-70 y, 3; ≥70 y, 4), smoking habits (current/past, 2), family history of colorectal cancer (present in a first-degree relative, 2), and the presence of neoplasia in the distal colorectum (nonadvanced adenoma 5-9 mm, 2; advanced neoplasia, 7). The c-statistic of the score was 0.74 (95% CI, 0.68-0.79), and for distal findings alone was 0.67 (95% CI, 0.60-0.74). The Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test statistic was greater than 0.05, indicating the reliability of the validation set. The number needed to refer was 11 (95% CI, 10-13), and the number needed to screen was 15 (95% CI, 12-17).
CONCLUSIONS: We developed and validated a scoring system to identify persons at risk for APN. Screening participants who undergo flexible sigmoidoscopy screening with a score of 4 points or higher should undergo colonoscopy evaluation.
METHODS: A multi-center, prospective colonoscopy study involving 16 Asia-Pacific regions was performed from 2008 to 2015. Consecutive self-referred CRC screening participants aged 40-70 years were recruited, and each subject received one direct optical colonoscopy. The prevalence of CRC, ACN, and colorectal adenoma was compared among subjects with different FDRs affected using Pearson's χ2 tests. Binary logistic regression analyses were performed to evaluate the risk of these lesions, controlling for recognized risk factors including age, gender, smoking habits, alcohol drinking, body mass index, and the presence of diabetes mellitus.
RESULTS: Among 11,797 asymptomatic subjects, the prevalence of CRC was 0.6% (none: 0.6%; siblings: 1.1%; mother: 0.5%; father: 1.2%; ≥2 members: 3.1%, P<0.001), that of ACN was 6.5% (none: 6.1%; siblings: 8.3%; mother: 7.7%; father: 8.7%; ≥2 members: 9.3%, P<0.001), and that of colorectal adenoma was 29.3% (none: 28.6%; siblings: 33.5%; mother: 31.8%; father: 31.1%; ≥2 members: 38.1%, P<0.001). In multivariate regression analyses, subjects with at least one FDR affected were significantly more likely to have CRC (adjusted odds ratio (AOR)=2.02-7.89), ACN (AOR=1.55-2.06), and colorectal adenoma (AOR=1.31-1.92) than those without a family history. The risk of CRC (AOR=0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34-2.35, P=0.830), ACN (AOR=1.07, 95% CI 0.75-1.52, P=0.714), and colorectal adenoma (AOR=0.96, 95% CI 0.78-1.19, P=0.718) in subjects with either parent affected was similar to that of subjects with their siblings affected.
CONCLUSIONS: The risk of colorectal neoplasia was similar among subjects with different FDRs affected. These findings do not support the need to discriminate proband identity in screening participants with affected FDRs when their risks of colorectal neoplasia were estimated.
Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 7329 colonoscopy procedures performed by 12 endoscopists between January 2012 and February 2014. The PDR, actual ADR, and estimated ADR of the entire, proximal, and distal colon, and within each colonic segment, in two patient age groups: <50 and ≥50 years, were calculated for each endoscopist.
Results: The overall polyp and adenoma prevalence rates were 19.1 and 9.3%, respectively. The average age of adenoma-positive patients was significantly higher than that of adenoma-negative patients (54 ± 12.6 years vs 42.9 ± 13.2 years, respectively). A total of 1739 polyps were removed, among which 826 were adenomas. More adenomatous polyps were found in the proximal colon (60.4%, 341/565) than in the distal colon (40.9%, 472/1154). Overall, both actual and estimated ADR correlated strongly at the entire colon level and within most colonic segments, except for the cecum and rectum. In both age groups, these parameters correlated strongly within the traverse colon and descending colon.
Conclusion: Caution should be exercised when predicting ADR within the sigmoid colon and rectum.
Case Presentation: A 36-years old man presented with five weeks history of intractable diarrhea. Colonoscopy was normal, but abdominal computed tomography (CT) scan revealed mural thickening at duodenojejunal junction, and subsequent jejunofiberoscopy showed a circumferential ulceration at the jejunum. Histo-immunopathology confirmed the diagnosis of enteropathyassociated T-cell lymphoma (EATL) type II. His disease course proved to be aggressive and refractory to standard front-line chemotherapy, and eventually progressed through second-line salvage regimen with CNS and intracranial involvement. He died nine months after the initial diagnosis.
Conclusion: EATL with brain metastasis is a very rare occurrence with dismal prognosis.
BACKGROUND: No study has directly compared the risk factors associated with subclinical coronary atherosclerosis and CRA.
STUDY: This was a cross-sectional study using multinomial logistic regression analysis of 4859 adults who participated in a health screening examination (2010 to 2011; analysis 2014 to 2015). CAC scores were categorized as 0, 1 to 100, or >100. Colonoscopy results were categorized as absent, low-risk, or high-risk CRA.
RESULTS: The prevalence of CAC>0, CAC 1 to 100 and >100 was 13.0%, 11.0%, and 2.0%, respectively. The prevalence of any CRA, low-risk CRA, and high-risk CRA was 15.1%, 13.0%, and 2.1%, respectively. The adjusted odds ratios (95% confidence interval) for CAC>0 comparing participants with low-risk and high-risk CRA with those without any CRA were 1.35 (1.06-1.71) and 2.09 (1.29-3.39), respectively. Similarly, the adjusted odds ratios (95% confidence interval) for any CRA comparing participants with CAC 1 to 100 and CAC>100 with those with no CAC were 1.26 (1.00-1.6) and 2.07 (1.31-3.26), respectively. Age, smoking, diabetes, and family history of CRC were significantly associated with both conditions.
CONCLUSIONS: We observed a graded association between CAC and CRA in apparently healthy individuals. The coexistence of both conditions further emphasizes the need for more evidence of comprehensive approaches to screening and the need to consider the impact of the high risk of coexisting disease in individuals with CAC or CRA, instead of piecemeal approaches restricted to the detection of each disease independently.