BACKGROUND: Although young-age-of-onset colorectal cancer is increasing in incidence, lack of screening leads to symptomatic presentation, often with rectal bleeding. Because most cancers in patients younger than 50 years are left-sided, flexible sigmoidoscopy is a reasonable way of investigating bleeding in these patients.
OBJECTIVE: To predict which patients undergoing flexible sigmoidoscopy for outlet-type rectal bleeding need a full colonoscopy.
METHODS: Findings at colonoscopy were compared with published indications for colonoscopy after flexible sigmoidoscopy, which were as follows: 1) any number of advanced adenomas defined as a tubular adenoma of >9 mm diameter, a tubulovillous or villous adenoma of any size, or any adenoma with high-grade dysplasia; 2) 3 or more tubular adenomas of any size or histology; 3) any sessile serrated lesion; and 4) 20 or more hyperplastic polyps.
METHODS: Charity Hospital with volunteer specialists.
METHODS: Patients were included if they were younger than 57 years, had outlet-type rectal bleeding, and underwent flexible sigmoidoscopy at least to the descending colon followed by colonoscopy with biopsy of all resected lesions.
METHODS: Flexible sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy with excision of all removable lesions.
METHODS: Findings at colonoscopy.
RESULTS: There were 66 patients who had a colonoscopy between 5 and 811 days after sigmoidoscopy and also had complete data. There were 43 men and 23 women with a mean age of 39.5 years. Analysis of flexible sigmoidoscopy criteria for finding proximal high-risk lesions on colonoscopy showed a sensitivity of 76.9%, a specificity of 67.9%, a positive predictive value of 37%, a negative predictive value of 92.3%, and an accuracy of 69.7%.
CONCLUSIONS: A large number of exclusions for inadequate colonoscopy or inadequate data resulted in a reduced patient number in the study.
CONCLUSIONS: Our criteria for follow-up colonoscopy based on the findings at initial flexible sigmoidoscopy in young patients with outlet-type rectal bleeding are reliable enough to be used in routine clinical practice, provided this is audited. See Video Abstract.
UNASSIGNED: ANTECEDENTES:Si bien la edad de aparición temprana del cáncer colorrectal está aumentando en incidencia, la falta de pruebas de detección conduce a una presentación sintomática, a menudo con sangrado rectal. Debido a que la mayoría de los cánceres en pacientes menores de 50 años son del lado izquierdo, la sigmoidoscopia flexible es una forma razonable de investigar el sangrado en estos pacientes.OBJETIVO:Predecir qué pacientes sometidos a sigmoidoscopia flexible por rectorragia necesitan una colonoscopia completa.DISEÑO:Los resultados de la colonoscopia se compararon con las indicaciones publicadas para la colonoscopia después de una sigmoidoscopia flexible. Estos fueron: 1. Cualquier número de adenomas avanzados, definidos como un adenoma tubular > 9 mm, un adenoma tubulovelloso o velloso de cualquier tamaño, o cualquier adenoma con displasia de alto grado. 2. Tres o más adenomas tubulares de cualquier tamaño o histología. 3. Cualquier lesión serrada sésil. 4. Veinte o más pólipos hiperplásicos.ENTORNO CLINICO:Hospital de Caridad con especialistas voluntarios.PACIENTES:Menores de 57 años, con rectorragia, sometidos a sigmoidoscopia flexible al menos hasta el colon descendente, seguida de colonoscopia con biopsia de todas las lesiones resecadas.INTERVENCIONES:sigmoidoscopia flexible y colonoscopia con escisión de todas las lesiones removibles.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE VALORACIÓN:Hallazgos en la colonoscopia.RESULTADOS:66 casos a los que se les realizó una colonoscopia entre 5 y 811 días después de la sigmoidoscopia, que también tenían datos completos. 43 hombres y 23 mujeres con una edad media de 39,5 años. El análisis de los criterios de sigmoidoscopia flexible para encontrar lesiones proximales de alto riesgo en la colonoscopia mostró una sensibilidad del 76,9 %, una especificidad del 67,9 %, un valor predictivo positivo del 37 %, un valor predictivo negativo del 92,3 % y una precisión del 69,7 %.LIMITACIONES:Gran número de exclusiones por colonoscopia inadecuada o datos inadecuados que causan un número reducido de pacientes en el estudio.CONCLUSIÓN:Nuestros criterios para la colonoscopia de seguimiento basados en los hallazgos de la sigmoidoscopia flexible inicial en pacientes jóvenes con rectorragia son lo suficientemente confiables para ser utilizados en la práctica clínica habitual, siempre que se audite. (Traducción- Dr. Ingrid Melo ).

In May 2021, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force began recommending initiating colorectal cancer screening at age 45 (vs. 50) years.
We estimated prevalence of colorectal cancer screening (by colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, CT colonography, or stool-based tests) in adults ages 50 to 75 years using data from the National Health Interview Survey in 2000, 2003, 2005, 2008, 2010, 2013, 2015, and 2018. For each survey year, we estimated prevalence by age, race/ethnicity, educational attainment, family income, and health insurance. We also compared increases in prevalence of screening from 2000 to 2018 in 5-year age groups (50-54, 55-59, 60-64, 65-69, and 70-75 years).
Overall, prevalence of colorectal cancer screening increased from 36.7% in 2000 to 66.1% in 2018. Screening prevalence in 2018 was lowest for age 50 to 54 years (47.6%), Hispanics (56.5%), Asians (57.1%), and participants with less than a high school degree (53.6%), from low-income families (56.6%), or without insurance (39.7%). Increases in prevalence over time differed by five-year age group. For example, prevalence increased from 28.2% in 2000 to 47.6% in 2018 (+19.4%; 95% CI, 13.1-25.6) for age 50 to 54 years but from 46.4% to 78.0% (+31.6%; 95% CI, 25.4%-37.7%) for age 70 to 75 years. This pattern was consistent across race/ethnicity, educational attainment, family income, and health insurance.
Prevalence of colorectal cancer screening remains low in adults ages 50 to 54 years.
As new guidelines are implemented, care must be taken to ensure screening benefits are realized equally by all population groups, particularly newly eligible adults ages 45 to 49 years. See related commentary by Brawley, p. 1671.

BACKGROUND: In 2016, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) added multitarget stool DNA and computed tomography colonography (CTC) as accepted colorectal cancer screening modalities to the already recommended tests: fecal immunochemical test (FIT), sigmoidoscopy, and colonoscopy. The aim of our study was to determine trends in screening after the USPSTF update, with the effect of additional tests on the use of existing colorectal cancer screening modalities and overall screening rates.
METHODS: We prospectively compared monthly colorectal cancer overall screening rates and the mean total numbers of patients screened by multitarget stool DNA, colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, CTC, and FIT 6 months prior to the new USPSTF guidelines until 30 months after.
RESULTS: At completion of the study, 72,202 patients were eligible for screening. The overall rate of eligible patients screened for colorectal cancer did not change (80.9% vs 81.3%; P = 0.287). There was a significant increase in the percent of patients screened with multitarget stool DNA (1.6% to 15.6%; P = .001) and a significant decrease in the percent of patients screened using CTC (3.8 % to 1.5%; P = .004), FIT (9.3% to 4.9%; P = .003), and sigmoidoscopy (2.4% to 1.5%, P = .024). There was a nonsignificant decrease in the percent use of screening colonoscopy, from 82.9 % to 76.5% (P = .313).
CONCLUSIONS: While the overall colorectal cancer screening rate did not increase after the USPSTF update with additional recommended screening tests, practice patterns did change with a shift in the type of screening test used.

Paediatric acute severe colitis (ASC) management during the novel SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 pandemic is challenging due to reliance on immunosuppression and the potential for surgery. We aimed to provide COVID-19-specific guidance using the European Crohn\'s and Colitis Organisation/European Society for Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition guidelines for comparison.
We convened a RAND appropriateness panel comprising 14 paediatric gastroenterologists and paediatric experts in surgery, rheumatology, respiratory and infectious diseases. Panellists rated the appropriateness of interventions for ASC in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Results were discussed at a moderated meeting prior to a second survey.
Panellists recommended patients with ASC have a SARS-CoV-2 swab and expedited biological screening on admission and should be isolated. A positive swab should trigger discussion with a COVID-19 specialist. Sigmoidoscopy was recommended prior to escalation to second-line therapy or colectomy. Methylprednisolone was considered appropriate first-line management in all, including those with symptomatic COVID-19. Thromboprophylaxis was also recommended in all. In patients requiring second-line therapy, infliximab was considered appropriate irrespective of SARS-CoV-2 status. Delaying colectomy due to SARS-CoV-2 infection was considered inappropriate. Corticosteroid tapering over 8-10 weeks was deemed appropriate for all. After successful corticosteroid rescue, thiopurine maintenance was rated appropriate in patients with negative SARS-CoV-2 swab and asymptomatic patients with positive swab but uncertain in symptomatic COVID-19.
Our COVID-19-specific adaptations to paediatric ASC guidelines using a RAND panel generally support existing recommendations, particularly the use of corticosteroids and escalation to infliximab, irrespective of SARS-CoV-2 status. Consideration of routine prophylactic anticoagulation was recommended.

暂无摘要。

Rectal cancer requires a multidisciplinary and multimodality treatment approach. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) provide a framework for delivering consistent, evidence-based health care. We compared provincial/territorial CPGs across Canada to identify areas of variability and evaluate their quality.
We retrieved CPGs from Canadian organizations responsible for cancer care oversight and evaluated their quality and developmental methodology using the AGREE-II instrument. Recommendations for diagnostic and staging investigations, treatment by stage, and post-treatment surveillance of stage I–III rectal cancers were abstracted and compared.
We identified 7 sets of CPGs for analysis, varying in content, presentation, quality, and year last updated. Differences were noted in locoregional staging: 4 recommended magnetic resonance imaging over endorectal ultrasonography, 2 recommended either modality, and 3 specified scenarios for one over the other. Recommendations also varied for use of staging computed tomography of the chest versus chest radiography and for surgical management and indications for transanal excision. Recommendations for neoadjuvant therapy in stage II/III disease also differed: 3 guidelines recommended long-course chemoradiation over short-course radiation therapy alone, while 3 others recommended short-course radiation in specific clinical scenarios. Adjuvant chemotherapy for stage II/III disease was uniformly recommended, with variable protocols. The use of proctosigmoidoscopy and interval/duration of endoscopic post-treatment surveillance varied among guidelines.
Canadian CPGs vary in their recommendations for staging, treatment, and surveillance of rectal cancer. Some of these differences reflect areas with limited definitive evidence. Consistent guidelines with uniform implementation across provinces/territories may lead to more equitable care to patients.
Le cancer rectal requiert une approche thérapeutique multidisciplinaire et multimodalité. Les guides de pratique clinique (GPC) procurent un cadre pour assurer la prestation de soins de santé constants reposant sur des données probantes. Nous avons comparé les GPC des provinces et des territoires canadiens pour identifier les secteurs où ils varient et pour en évaluer la qualité.
Nous avons obtenu les GPC des organisations canadiennes responsables des soins oncologiques et nous avons évalué leur qualité et la méthodologie de leur élaboration au moyen de l’outil AGREE II (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation). Nous avons extrait et comparé les recommandations en ce qui concerne les épreuves diagnostiques et la stadification, les traitements en fonction du stade et la surveillance post-thérapeutique du cancer rectal de stade I à III.
Nous avons recensé 7 GPC aux fins de cette analyse; leur contenu, leur présentation, leur qualité et l’année de leur plus récente mise à jour variaient. Des différences ont été observées au plan de la stadification locorégionale : 4 recommandaient l’imagerie par résonnance magnétique plutôt que l’échographie endorectale, 2 recommandaient l’une ou l’autre et 3 précisaient des circonstances où utiliser l’une plutôt que l’autre. Les recommandations variaient aussi pour ce qui est de l’utilisation de la scintigraphie c. radiographie thoracique de stadification, de la prise en charge chirurgicale et des indications de l’excision transanale. Les recommandations variaient également en ce qui concerne le traitement néoadjuvant pour la maladie de stade II/III : 3 guides recommandaient un traitement par chimioradiothérapie à long terme plutôt qu’une brève radiothérapie seule, tandis que 3 autres recommandaient une radiothérapie brève dans certains cas particuliers. La chimiothérapie adjuvante pour la maladie de stade II/III était uniformément recommandée, mais les protocoles variaient. L’utilisation de la proctosigmoïdoscopie et l’intervalle/durée de la surveillance endoscopique post-thérapeutique variaient d’un guide à l’autre.
Les GPC canadiens varient quant à leurs recommandations pour la stadification, le traitement et la surveillance du cancer rectal. Certaines de ces différences témoignent du manque de données probantes concluantes dans certains secteurs. L’uniformisation des guides et de leur application entre les provinces et les territoires pourrait faciliter une prestation plus équitable des soins aux patients.

Family Medicine Groups, implemented in Quebec in 2002, are interprofessional primary care teams designed to improve timely access to high-quality primary care. This study investigates whether Family Medicine Groups increased rates of guideline-recommended screenings for 3 chronic diseases: colorectal cancer (colonoscopy/sigmoidoscopy), breast cancer (mammography), and osteoporosis (bone mineral density testing).
Using population-based administrative health data from the provincial insurer (2000-2010), the authors examined elderly and chronically ill patients who registered with a general practitioner in the first 15 months of the Family Medicine Group policy. Propensity score weighting and a difference-in-differences model estimated differential change in biennial screening rates among Family Medicine Group and non-Family Medicine Group patients over 5 years of follow-up (analysis, 2016-2018).
Rates of mammography, colonoscopy/sigmoidoscopy, and bone mineral density testing increased after patient registration with a general practitioner, similarly for both Family Medicine Group and non-Family Medicine Group patients. Colonoscopy/sigmoidoscopy rates increased by 9.7% and 10.4% for Family Medicine Group and non-Family Medicine Group patients, mammography rates by 5.3% and 3.4%, and bone mineral density testing by 4.2% and 7.1%. Difference-in-differences estimates showed no detectable effect of Family Medicine Groups on disease screening rates: -0.06 percentage points (95% CI= -0.32, 0.20) for colonoscopy/sigmoidoscopy, 1.01 percentage points (95% CI= -0.25, 2.27) for mammography, and -0.32 (95% CI= -0.71, -0.07) for bone mineral density testing.
This study found no evidence that Family Medicine Groups affected screening rates for these 3 chronic diseases. Limitations in the implementation of the Family Medicine Group policy in its early years may have contributed to this lack of impact. Interprofessional primary care teams may need to include elements other than organizational changes to increase disease prevention efforts.

OBJECTIVE: Recent 15-year updates of sigmoidoscopy screening trials provide new evidence on the effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening. Prompted by the new evidence, we asked: \"Does colorectal cancer screening make an important difference to health outcomes in individuals initiating screening at age 50 to 79? And which screening option is best?\"
BACKGROUND: Numerous guidelines recommend screening, but vary on recommended test, age and screening frequency. This guideline looks at the evidence and makes recommendations on screening for four screening options: faecal immunochemical test (FIT) every year, FIT every two years, a single sigmoidoscopy, or a single colonoscopy.
CONCLUSIONS: These recommendations apply to adults aged 50-79 years with no prior screening, no symptoms of colorectal cancer, and a life expectancy of at least 15 years. For individuals with an estimated 15-year colorectal cancer risk below 3%, we suggest no screening (weak recommendation). For individuals with an estimated 15-year risk above 3%, we suggest screening with one of the four screening options: FIT every year, FIT every two years, a single sigmoidoscopy, or a single colonoscopy (weak recommendation). With our guidance we publish the linked research, a graphic of the absolute harms and benefits, a clear description of how we reached our value judgments, and linked decision aids.
UNASSIGNED: A guideline panel including patients, clinicians, content experts and methodologists produced these recommendations using GRADE and in adherence with standards for trustworthy guidelines. A linked systematic review of colorectal cancer screening trials and microsimulation modelling were performed to inform the panel of 15-year screening benefits and harms. The panel also reviewed each screening option\'s practical issues and burdens. Based on their own experience, the panel estimated the magnitude of benefit typical members of the population would value to opt for screening and used the benefit thresholds to inform their recommendations.
UNASSIGNED: Overall there was substantial uncertainty (low certainty evidence) regarding the 15-year benefits, burdens and harms of screening. Best estimates suggested that all four screening options resulted in similar colorectal cancer mortality reductions. FIT every two years may have little or no effect on cancer incidence over 15 years, while FIT every year, sigmoidoscopy, and colonoscopy may reduce cancer incidence, although for FIT the incidence reduction is small compared with sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy. Screening related serious gastrointestinal and cardiovascular adverse events are rare. The magnitude of the benefits is dependent on the individual risk, while harms and burdens are less strongly associated with cancer risk.
UNASSIGNED: Based on benefits, harms, and burdens of screening, the panel inferred that most informed individuals with a 15-year risk of colorectal cancer of 3% or higher are likely to choose screening, and most individuals with a risk of below 3% are likely to decline screening. Given varying values and preferences, optimal care will require shared decision making.

Ulcerative colitis and Crohn\'s disease are the principal forms of inflammatory bowel disease. Both represent chronic inflammation of the gastrointestinal tract, which displays heterogeneity in inflammatory and symptomatic burden between patients and within individuals over time. Optimal management relies on understanding and tailoring evidence-based interventions by clinicians in partnership with patients. This guideline for management of inflammatory bowel disease in adults over 16 years of age was developed by Stakeholders representing UK physicians (British Society of Gastroenterology), surgeons (Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland), specialist nurses (Royal College of Nursing), paediatricians (British Society of Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition), dietitians (British Dietetic Association), radiologists (British Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology), general practitioners (Primary Care Society for Gastroenterology) and patients (Crohn\'s and Colitis UK). A systematic review of 88 247 publications and a Delphi consensus process involving 81 multidisciplinary clinicians and patients was undertaken to develop 168 evidence- and expert opinion-based recommendations for pharmacological, non-pharmacological and surgical interventions, as well as optimal service delivery in the management of both ulcerative colitis and Crohn\'s disease. Comprehensive up-to-date guidance is provided regarding indications for, initiation and monitoring of immunosuppressive therapies, nutrition interventions, pre-, peri- and postoperative management, as well as structure and function of the multidisciplinary team and integration between primary and secondary care. Twenty research priorities to inform future clinical management are presented, alongside objective measurement of priority importance, determined by 2379 electronic survey responses from individuals living with ulcerative colitis and Crohn\'s disease, including patients, their families and friends.

In the United States, colorectal cancer (CRC) is the fourth most common cancer diagnosed among adults and the second leading cause of death from cancer. For this guideline update, the American Cancer Society (ACS) used an existing systematic evidence review of the CRC screening literature and microsimulation modeling analyses, including a new evaluation of the age to begin screening by race and sex and additional modeling that incorporates changes in US CRC incidence. Screening with any one of multiple options is associated with a significant reduction in CRC incidence through the detection and removal of adenomatous polyps and other precancerous lesions and with a reduction in mortality through incidence reduction and early detection of CRC. Results from modeling analyses identified efficient and model-recommendable strategies that started screening at age 45 years. The ACS Guideline Development Group applied the Grades of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria in developing and rating the recommendations. The ACS recommends that adults aged 45 years and older with an average risk of CRC undergo regular screening with either a high-sensitivity stool-based test or a structural (visual) examination, depending on patient preference and test availability. As a part of the screening process, all positive results on noncolonoscopy screening tests should be followed up with timely colonoscopy. The recommendation to begin screening at age 45 years is a qualified recommendation. The recommendation for regular screening in adults aged 50 years and older is a strong recommendation. The ACS recommends (qualified recommendations) that: 1) average-risk adults in good health with a life expectancy of more than 10 years continue CRC screening through the age of 75 years; 2) clinicians individualize CRC screening decisions for individuals aged 76 through 85 years based on patient preferences, life expectancy, health status, and prior screening history; and 3) clinicians discourage individuals older than 85 years from continuing CRC screening. The options for CRC screening are: fecal immunochemical test annually; high-sensitivity, guaiac-based fecal occult blood test annually; multitarget stool DNA test every 3 years; colonoscopy every 10 years; computed tomography colonography every 5 years; and flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5 years. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68:250-281. © 2018 American Cancer Society.