METHODS: Systematic review and NMA of randomised controlled trials were performed, and the most suitable CPA was chosen based on efficacy and the most favourable risk-benefit profile. The economic benefits of CPA alone, 3 yearly SC alone, and a combination of CPA and SC were determined using the cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) in the Malaysian health-care perspective. Outcomes were reported as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in 2018 US Dollars ($) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), and life-years (LYs) gained.
RESULTS: According to NMA, the risk-benefit profile favours the use of aspirin at very-low-dose (ASAVLD, ≤ 100 mg/day) for secondary prevention in individuals with previous ACAs. Celecoxib is the most effective CPA but the cardiovascular adverse events are of concern. According to CEA, the combination strategy (ASAVLD with 3-yearly SC) was cost-saving and dominates its competitors as the best buy option. The probability of being cost-effective for ASAVLD alone, 3-yearly SC alone, and combination strategy were 22%, 26%, and 53%, respectively. Extending the SC interval to five years in combination strategy was more cost-effective when compared to 3-yearly SC alone (ICER of $484/LY gain and $1875/QALY). However, extending to ten years in combination strategy was not cost-effective.
CONCLUSION: ASAVLD combined with 3-yearly SC in individuals with ACAs may be a cost-effective strategy for CRC prevention. An extension of SC intervals to five years can be considered in resource-limited countries.
OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of the M2PK Quick Stool Test (ScheBo®) in detecting colorectal adenoma and adenocarcinoma in high-risk Malaysian populations using colonoscopy as the comparison.
METHODS: A prospective, cross-sectional, multicenter study was conducted from December 2017 to December 2019 in four hospitals in Malaysia. Participants were eligible if they met any of the following criteria: personal or family history of colorectal polyps or cancer, inherited syndromes, altered bowel habits, rectal bleeding, unintended weight loss, loss of appetite, abdominal pain or cramps, or unexplained iron deficiency, or an Asia-Pacific Colorectal Screening score of 4-7. Participants provided a stool sample that was tested for M2PK using the M2PK Quick Test. Participants then underwent a colonoscopy, and any lesions found were biopsied and sent for histopathological examination.
RESULTS: A total of 562 participants were included in the study, of whom 89 had a positive M2PK test. Presence of adenoma and/or dysplastic lesions were confirmed in 14.4% and adenocarcinoma in 3.0% of the participants. The M2PK Quick Stool Test showed a sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of 58.8%, 85.5%, 11.2% and 98.5%, respectively in detecting colorectal adenocarcinoma. For detection of colorectal adenoma, this test yielded a sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV of 27.3%, 86.3%, 27.0% and 86.5%, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: The M2PK Quick Stool Test showed a moderate accuracy in detecting colorectal adenocarcinoma and adenomas in the studied population.
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: 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: Thirty-seven patients were randomized to receive SCEA (n = 19) or placebo (n = 18) during colonoscopy. Additional rescue sedation was administered to patients if they had pain or discomfort during the procedure. Visual analogue scale was used to quantify the intensity of pain from the beginning to end of the procedure. Other variables analysed were the amount of sedation used, duration from start to caecal intubation, length of time for completion of colonoscopy and recovery time to home discharge.
RESULTS: Patients who received SCEA had a lower median pain score of 4.6 (interquartile range 5.7) compared to the placebo group of 6.0 (interquartile range 3.2). Statistical analysis comparing the groups revealed a non-significant P-value of 0.12, although more than 90% of the patients indicated willingness for SCEA as the primary analgesia if they were to repeat the procedure. Throughout the study, there were no adverse complications that occurred during the use of SCEA.
CONCLUSIONS: Even though this study did not demonstrate, a significance in pain reduction, SCEA remains a safe modality which, more than 90% of patients favoured as a substitute for pain relief during colonoscopy.
METHODS: Patients referred to the Endoscopic Unit for colonoscopy were recruited for the study. Stool samples were collected prior to bowel preparation, and tested for occult blood with both gFOBT and FIT. Dietary restriction was not imposed. To assess the validity of either tests or in combination to detect a neoplasm or cancer in the colon, their false positive rates, their sensitivity (true positive rate) and the specificity (true negative rate) were analyzed and compared.
RESULTS: One hundred and three patients were analysed. The sensitivity for picking up any neoplasia was 53% for FIT, 40% for gFOBT and 23.3% for the combination. The sensitivities for picking up only carcinoma were 77.8% , 66.7% and 55.5%, respectively. The specificity for excluding any neoplasia was 91.7% for FIT, 74% for gFOBT and 94.5% for a combination, whereas for excluding only carcinomas they were 84%, 73.4% and 93.6%. Of the 69 with normal colonoscopic findings, FOBT was positive in 4.3%, 23.2 %and 2.9% for FIT, gFOBT, or combination of tests respectively.
CONCLUSION: FIT is the recommended method if we are to dispense with dietary restriction in our patients because of its relatively low-false positivity and better sensitivity and specificity rates.
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: This was a multicenter retrospective-cohort study. We collected HGD and T1 lesions of ≤ 10 mm resected by CSP among 15 520 patients receiving CSP from 2014 to 2019 at nine related institutions, and we extracted only cases receiving definite follow-up colonoscopy after CSP of HGD and T1 lesions. We analyzed these tumor's characteristics and therapeutic results such as R0 resection and local recurrence and risk factors of recurrence.
RESULTS: We collected 103 patients (0.63%) and extracted 80 lesions in 74 patients receiving follow-up colonoscopy for CSP scar. Mean age was 68.4 ± 12.0, and male rate was 68.9% (51/80). The mean tumor size (mm) was 6.6 ± 2.5, and the rate of polypoid morphology and rectum location was 77.5% and 25.0%. The rate of magnified observation was 53.8%. The rates of en bloc resection and R0 resection were 92.5% and 37.5%. The local recurrence rate was 6.3% (5/80, median follow-up period: 24.0 months). The recurrence developed within 3 months after CSP for four out of five recurrent cases. Comparing five recurrent lesions to 75 non-recurrent lesions, a positive horizontal margin was a significant risk factor (60.0% vs 10.7%, P
METHODS: We reviewed retrospectively the performance of pediatric colonoscopies in a training center in Malaysia over 5 years (January 2010-December 2015), benchmarked against five quality indicators: appropriateness of indications, bowel preparations, cecum and ileal examination rates, and complications. The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline for pediatric endoscopy and North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition training guidelines were used as benchmarks.
RESULTS: Median (± SD) age of 121 children [males = 74 (61.2%)] who had 177 colonoscopies was 7.0 (± 4.6) years. On average, 30 colonoscopies were performed each year (range: 19-58). Except for investigations of abdominal pain (21/177, 17%), indications for colonoscopies were appropriate in the remaining 83%. Bowel preparation was good in 87%. One patient (0.6%) with severe Crohn's disease had bowel perforation. Cecum examination and ileal intubation rate was 95% and 68.1%. Ileal intubation rate was significantly higher in diagnosing or assessing inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) than non-IBD (72.9% vs 50.0% P = 0.016). Performance of four trainees was consistent throughout the study period. Average cecum and ileal examination rate among trainees were 97% and 77%.
CONCLUSION: Benchmarking against established guidelines helps units with a low-volume of colonoscopies to identify area for further improvement.