UNASSIGNED: We conducted a comprehensive analysis to compare colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy with standard care or fecal immunochemistry regarding colorectal cancer incidence and mortality risk.
UNASSIGNED: Until August 2023, literature from PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane was systematically reviewed. We examined the impact of colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy versus standard care on colorectal cancer outcomes, including incidence, cancer-specific mortality, and overall mortality.
UNASSIGNED: Among 4,265 screened articles, data from seven randomized controlled trials (involving 663,319 participants) were analyzed. The intervention group (colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy) consisted of 258,938 participants, while the control group received standard care or fecal immunochemical testing, totaling 404,381 participants, with both groups having average colorectal cancer risk, without confounders. Pooled analyses indicated a 20% reduction in colorectal cancer incidence (RR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.77-0.83) and a 26% decrease in colorectal cancer mortality (RR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.69-0.80) in the intervention group compared to standard care. All-cause mortality remained unchanged (RR: 1.03, 95% CI: 0.99-1.07). Subgroup analysis favored sigmoidoscopy in reducing colorectal cancer morbidity and mortality.
UNASSIGNED: This meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials underscores the effectiveness of colonoscopy and, notably, sigmoidoscopy in reducing colorectal cancer incidence and mortality among average-risk populations. In comparison to fecal immunochemical testing, both colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy did not significantly impact colorectal cancer incidence and mortality in this population.
UNASSIGNED: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42023460007.

UNASSIGNED: This study aimed to investigate the role of endoscopy screening in colorectal cancer (CRC).
UNASSIGNED: Up to January 2023, databases were searched for studies related to sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy screening. The incidence of CRC, and/or CRC mortality were the main observation outcomes.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 5 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published from 2017 to 2022 were included. Among them, four studies used sigmoidoscopy screening and one study involved colonoscopy screening. Statistical results showed that the incidence (RR: 0.78, p < 0.001) and mortality (RR: 0.75, p < 0.001) of CRC were significantly lower in the screening group than in the control group. Further, a subgroup analysis of CRC site indicated that the incidence and mortality of CRC in the screening group were significantly lower than those in the non-screened group, regardless of distal CRC (Incidence: RR: 0.66, p < 0.001; Mortality: RR: 0.62, p < 0.001) or proximal CRC (Incidence: RR: 0.94, p = 0.038; Mortality: RR: 0.89, p = 0.038). In terms of gender, compared with the non-screening group, both males (Incidence: RR: 0.73, p < 0.001; Mortality: RR: 0.68, p < 0.001) and females (Incidence: RR: 0.85, p < 0.001; Mortality: RR: 0.85, p = 0.017), the screening group had a significant decrease in the incidence and mortality of CRC.
UNASSIGNED: This meta-analysis demonstrated that sigmoidoscopy screening (including colonoscopy) could effectively reduce the incidence and mortality of CRC.

Our objective was to estimate the effect of flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS)-based screening on colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality by conducting an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library searched for RCTs from database inception to December 2022. The methodological quality of the RCTs was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool. RevMan 5.4 was used for this meta-analysis.
Four RCTs involving 457, 871 patients were included. This meta-analysis revealed that FS-based screening was associated with a 20% relative risk reduction in CRC incidence [RR = 0.80; 95% CI (0.75, 0.86); P < 0.00001], and a 24% reduction in CRC mortality [RR = 0.76; 95% CI (0.70, 0.82); P < 0.00001]. In addition, this meta-analysis revealed that FS-based screening reduced the incidence[RR = 0.68; 95% CI (0.60, 0.77); P < 0.00001] and mortality[RR = 0.64; 95% CI (0.49, 0.83); P = 0.0007] of distal CRC, but had no significant effect on proximal colon cancer.
FS-based screening appeared to be effective in reducing distal CRC incidence and mortality in patients at average risk compared to no intervention, but had no significant effect on proximal colon cancer.

Despite recommendations to increase the uptake of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, trends in CRC screening vary with sociodemographic status. We aimed to evaluate trends in CRC screening in the US population and subpopulations.
A total of 1,082,924 participants aged 50 to 75 from five cycles (2012, 2014, 2016, 2018, and 2020) of the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System were involved. Multivariable logistic regression models were performed to evaluate linear trends in CRC screening utilization from 2012 to 2018. Rao-Scott chi-square tests were used to assess the differences in CRC screening utilization between 2018 and 2020.
The estimated percentage reporting up-to-date with CRC screening increased significantly (P for trend <0.001), from 62.8% (95% CI, 62.4%-63.2%) in 2012 to 66.7% (95% CI, 66.3%-67.2%) in 2018 and 70.4% (95% CI, 69.8%-71.0%) in 2020, in accordance with 2008 US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations. Trends followed similar patterns in most subgroups, although with different magnitudes in several subgroups, primarily those underweight showed a stable percentage over time (P for trend  =  0.170). In 2020, 72.4% of participants reported they were up to date with CRC screening, including the utilization of stool DNA tests and virtual colonoscopy. Colonoscopy was the most commonly used test in 2020 (64.5%), followed by FOBT (12.6%), stool DNA test (5.8%), sigmoidoscopy (3.8%), and virtual colonoscopy (2.7%).
In this nationally representative survey of the US population from 2012 through 2020, the percentage reporting up to date with CRC screening has increased, but not equally among all subgroups.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to systematically evaluate adherence to colonoscopy and related factors in cascade screening of colorectal cancer (CRC) among average-risk populations, which is crucial to achieve the effectiveness of CRC screening.
METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library for studies published in English up to October 16, 2020, and reporting the adherence to colonoscopy following positive results of initial screening tests. A random-effects meta-analysis was applied to estimate pooled adherence and 95% confidence intervals. Subgroup analysis and mixed-effects meta-regression analysis were performed to evaluate heterogeneous factors for adherence level.
RESULTS: A total of 245 observational and 97 experimental studies were included and generated a pooled adherence to colonoscopy of 76.6% (95% confidence interval: 74.1-78.9) and 80.4% (95% confidence interval: 77.2-83.1), respectively. The adherence varied substantially by calendar year of screening, continents, CRC incidence, socioeconomic status, recruitment methods, and type of initial screening tests, with the initial tests as the most modifiable heterogeneous factor for adherence across both observational (Q = 162.6, P < 0.001) and experimental studies (Q = 23.2, P < 0.001). The adherence to colonoscopy was at the highest level when using flexible sigmoidoscopy as an initial test, followed by using guaiac fecal occult blood test, quantitative or qualitative fecal immunochemical test, and risk assessment. The pooled estimate of adherence was positively associated with specificity and positive predictive value of initial screening tests, but negatively with sensitivity and positivity rate.
CONCLUSIONS: Colonoscopy adherence is at a low level and differs by study-level characteristics of programs and populations. Initial screening tests with high specificity or positive predictive value may be followed by a high adherence to colonoscopy.

Natural orifice specimen extraction is the next step in minimally invasive colorectal surgery but can be technically challenging, with additional risks, especially for oncologic surgery. For several key reasons, sigmoid volvulus is well suited for natural orifice specimen extraction surgery. We describe our method and experience with double-stapled anastomosis transrectal natural orifice specimen extraction for sigmoid volvulus.
Using 3- or 4-port laparoscopy, the mesentery is separated from the long sigmoid loop. After the distal bowel is tied off and washed out, the rectum is completely transected and the proximal bowel delivered transrectally through a wound protector. Proximal transection is performed externally, and the circular stapler anvil is set before the bowel is returned into the abdominal cavity. The rectum stump is closed with an endoscopic linear stapler, and a circular-stapled anastomosis is performed.
After successful endoscopic decompression, 6 patients underwent elective laparoscopic sigmoidectomy with natural orifice specimen extraction for volvulus at China Medical University Hospital from 2015 to 2020. The median operative time was 179 minutes (range, 151-236 min). No intraoperative complications were encountered. The median postoperative length of stay was 4 days (range, 2-9 d). One patient experienced postoperative small-bowel ileus resulting in readmission. The median follow-up duration was 12 months (range, 2-49 mo). One recurrence of volvulus was recorded 27 months postsurgery.
Uncomplicated sigmoid volvulus can be treated effectively with sigmoidectomy and natural orifice specimen extraction. Surgeons who attempt this procedure should be well versed with conventional laparoscopy but do not necessarily need to be experienced with natural orifice specimen extraction for successful surgery.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to investigate the association between enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) nursing program and stoma-related complications (SRCs) and prognosis in patients with low rectal cancer (LRC) undergoing abdominoperineal resection with sigmoidostomy.
METHODS: LRC patients who underwent elective abdominoperineal resection with sigmoidostomy between May 2016 and May 2019 were retrospectively enrolled. The occurrence of early major or minor SRCs (within postoperative 30 days) was set as the primary end-point. Clinicopathological variables and laboratory tests were compared between patients with or without SRCs. The univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to investigate risk factors for SRCs. Hospitalization satisfaction-related and prognosis-related variables were compared between LRC patients with or without ERAS nursing program.
RESULTS: A total of 288 patients were enrolled and the incidence of SRCs was 26.7% (77/288). ERAS nursing program was the only independent risk factor for SRCs in LRC patients (OR 2.04, 95%CI 1.31-3.12, P = 0.016) by the multivariate logistic regression analysis. Moreover, ERAS nursing program was associated with higher hospitalization satisfaction rate, faster bowel function recovery, better psychological status, and higher quality of life.
CONCLUSIONS: ERAS nursing program was a protective factor for SRCs and associated with improved prognosis in LRC patients undergoing elective abdominoperineal resection with sigmoidostomy.

Endoscopic screening reduces incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer (CRC) because precursor lesions, such as conventional adenomas or serrated polyps, are removed. Individuals with polypectomies are advised to undergo colonoscopy surveillance to prevent CRC. However, guidelines for surveillance intervals after diagnosis of a precursor lesion, particularly for individuals with serrated polyps, vary widely, and lack sufficient supporting evidence. Consequently, some high-risk patients do not receive enough surveillance and lower-risk subjects receive excessive surveillance.
We examined the association between findings from first endoscopy and CRC risk among 122,899 participants who underwent flexible sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy in the Nurses\' Health Study 1 (1990-2012), Nurses\' Health Study 2 (1989-2013), or the Health Professionals Follow-up Study (1990-2012). Endoscopic findings were categorized as no polyp, conventional adenoma, or serrated polyp (hyperplastic polyp, traditional serrated adenoma, or sessile serrated adenoma, with or without cytological dysplasia). Conventional adenomas were classified as advanced (≥10 mm, high-grade dysplasia, or tubulovillous or villous histology) or nonadvanced, and serrated polyps were assigned to categories of large (≥10 mm) or small (<10 mm). We used a Cox proportional hazards regression model to calculate the hazard ratios (HRs) of CRC incidence, after adjusting for various potential risk factors.
After a median follow-up period of 10 years, we documented 491 incident cases of CRC: 51 occurred in 6161 participants with conventional adenomas, 24 in 5918 participants with serrated polyps, and 427 in 112,107 participants with no polyp. Compared with participants with no polyp detected during initial endoscopy, the multivariable HR for incident CRC in individuals with an advanced adenoma was 4.07 (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.89-5.72) and the HR for CRC in individuals with a large serrated polyp was 3.35 (95% CI 1.37-8.15). In contrast, there was no significant increase in risk of CRC in patients with nonadvanced adenomas (HR 1.21; 95% CI 0.68-2.16, P = .52) or small serrated polyps (HR 1.25; 95% CI 0.76-2.08; P = .38).
These findings provide support for guidelines that recommend repeat lower endoscopy within 3 years of a diagnosis of advanced adenoma and large serrated polyps. In contrast, patients with nonadvanced adenoma or small serrated polyps may not require more intensive surveillance than patients without polyps.

OBJECTIVE: A proper colonoscopy referral criterion is essential for flexible sigmoidoscopy-based colorectal cancer screening. We aimed to compare the predictive capability of four existing criteria to detect proximal neoplasia (PN) and advanced proximal neoplasia (APN) in a Chinese population.
METHODS: Asymptomatic Chinese participants aged 50-75 years, who received screening colonoscopy, were consecutively recruited. The four criteria included (i) UK flexible sigmoidoscopy; (ii) Italian Screening for COlon REctum; (iii) NORwegian Colorectal Cancer Prevention trial; and (iv) US clinical index. The sensitivity, specificity, positive/negative predictive value, and the number of subjects needed to screen (NNS)/refer (NNR) to detect one APN/PN were examined. The area under receiver operating characteristic curve was evaluated.
RESULTS: Among 5833 subjects, 749 (12.8%) and 151 (2.6%) cases were found to have PN and APN, respectively. US criteria achieved the highest sensitivity for PN (49%) and APN (66%), while UK criteria attained the highest specificity (93%) for PN/APN. The lowest NNS was required by US criteria for PN (16 vs 19-38) and APN (58 vs 69-86), while the lowest NNR was required by UK criteria for PN (3.2 vs 4.0-4.8) and APN (7 vs 10-16). The receiver operating characteristic of all four criteria was 0.57-0.61 for PN and 0.68-0.70 for APN.
CONCLUSIONS: Among all the four criteria, US criteria had the highest sensitivity and lowest NNS, while UK criteria achieved the highest specificity and lowest NNR. Their limited discriminatory capability highlighted the need for a new score to predict PN/APN in Chinese populations.

The aim of the study was to evaluate on the effectiveness of screening modalities in the prevention of colorectal cancer (CRC) occurrence and deaths. General meta-analysis was performed to produce pooled estimates of the effect of CRC incidence and mortality using a search of PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library for eligible studies from January 1992 to March 2016. A network meta-analysis was performed to synthetically compare the effectiveness of 5 frequently used screening modalities. A total of 44 studies with a focus on mortality from CRC using different screening methods were included. General meta-analysis showed that fecal immunohistochemical testing (FIT), flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS), colonoscopy, combination of fecal occult blood testing and FS screening respectively reduced CRC mortality by 59% (relative risk [RR], 0.41; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.29-0.59), 33% (RR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.58-0.78), 61% (RR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.31-0.50), 38% (RR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.42-0.91) compared with no screening, whereas guaiac fecal occult blood testing (gFOBT) reduced CRC-related mortality by 14% (RR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.82-0.90). Subgroup analysis showed that summary estimates of reduction in distal CRC mortality and proximal CRC mortality were 26% (95% CI, 62%-89%) and 10% (95% CI, 83%-98%). A network meta-analysis revealed rank probability analysis in which the colonoscopy had a 94.6% probability of being the most effective examination to reduce CRC mortality. In addition, the network meta-analysis estimated odds ratio, which was a 79% reduction (95% CI, 0.09-0.60) in CRC mortality when screening with FIT was compared with annual or biennial gFOBT and colonoscopy was approximately 80% more effective than gFOBT for reducing CRC mortality (RR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.13-0.54). Analysis of the effects of different screening methods showed that there was a significant reduction in the incidence of colon cancer, excluding gFOBT. This meta-analysis confirmed that gFOBT, FIT, FS, and colonoscopy were all effective in preventing CRC deaths and a major reduction in distal but not proximal CRC mortality was found. In addition, they were more effective in preventing CRC incidence in addition to gFOBT. The network meta-analysis suggests that colonoscopy is the most effective screening for preventing CRC deaths.