Fecalomas are a rare potential etiology for constipation experienced in children and the elderly. Large bowel obstructions due to fecalomas are preferably treated conservatively with laxatives and bowel rest. However, in the setting of severe corporostasis, more invasive procedures are required to prevent bowel ischemia and perforation. This case report describes a patient who presented to the emergency department with symptoms of large bowel obstruction and constipation, and she was found to have a fecaloma. Conservative interventions, including bowel rest and the administration of laxatives failed, prompting the need for more invasive therapies. During her admission, multiple flexible sigmoidoscopies were required to alleviate the obstruction. Ultimately, this case demonstrates an encounter of a patient with a sigmoid fecaloma from an unlikely demographic with few risk factors that required endoscopic intervention for treatment.

UNASSIGNED: In 2022, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) updated its draft guidance for drug development in ulcerative colitis, replacing the version from 2016. Several changes from the 2016 version merit further discussion as they impact clinical trial design and the interpretation of trial results.
UNASSIGNED: We compared both documents and critically appraised the changes and implications for future clinical trials.
UNASSIGNED: The 2022 guidance recommends full colonoscopy, rather than flexible sigmoidoscopy, to document disease activity in all involved segments of the colon. The concordance between the findings of the 2 procedures is very high and there is little evidence to support colonoscopy over sigmoidoscopy. The use of colonoscopy, rather than sigmoidoscopy, is also associated with a higher burden to trial participants who must undergo full bowel preparation, cost, and a potential for more adverse events. The definition of the Mayo endoscopic score of 0 was changed from the original publication to \"normal appearance of mucosa,\" which suggests that endoscopic signs of prior disease, such as pseudopolyps and scarring, are incompatible with a score 0, even though they are not associated with active disease. The term \"mucosal healing\" has been abolished and histologic outcomes defined as exploratory. A welcome change is that shorter washout periods than 5 half-lives will be considered to reduce patient exposure to corticosteroids as bridging therapy.
UNASSIGNED: The 2022 FDA draft guidance includes changes which for the most part are not informed by empirical evidence, which may ultimately complicate interpretation of future trials and preclude comparisons with past trials.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a malignant tumor of the colon and rectum. It can be cured if detected in the early stage through established screening programs. CRC screening is the best way to improve cancer morbidity and mortality. Various approaches such as stool tests, virtual colonoscopy, and sigmoidoscopy are available for early detection. On average, a person after reaching the age of 45 should begin the screening process for CRC periodically for 5 years. Our study aims to measure the population\'s awareness and knowledge of the effect of CRC screening on CRC outcomes. A cross-sectional study questionnaire was designed and distributed among Saudi residents of the Al-Qunfudah region. A total of 385 participants replied: 55.8% of the participants were males, 78.8% of the study participants mentioned that they had heard about CRC, and 27.3% reported that CRC is common in Al-Qunfudah. In addition, 62.1% knew that CRC is more common in men but only 32.2% had a good awareness level. Moreover, 16.4% of the participants reported that they had received a colonoscopy/sigmoidoscopy; 69.9% did not think of the colonoscopy/sigmoidoscopy procedure as the main barrier to undergoing early screening for CRC. Good awareness regarding CRC was demonstrated in 34.4% of highly educated participants, which was directly associated with levels of education. In conclusion, much more awareness regarding CRC screening is needed in the Al-Qunfudah region. Educational seminars and programs should be made mandatory, and the healthcare system should focus on high-risk individuals.

Introduction Anorectal diseases are prevalent in the general population and may vary from benign disorders to malignant lesions that can metastasize. There is a variety of proctologic symptoms associated with each disease. The incidence of proctologic disease varies in different cultures due to dietary habits and variations in lifestyle. The present study was conducted to determine the spectrum of different proctologic diseases in female patients presenting with proctologic symptoms. Methods This cross-sectional study was conducted in the Surgery Department of Mardan Medical Complex, Mardan, and Khyber Teaching Hospital, Peshawar, from January 2022 to January 2023. Female patients with proctologic symptoms were included, while non-consenting patients were excluded. After obtaining a detailed history and examination by the experienced surgeon, digital rectal examination and proctoscopy/sigmoidoscopy were performed where necessary. Diagnoses were made, and the data regarding proctologic symptoms and their corresponding diagnoses was analyzed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 20.0 (IBM SPSS Statistics, Armonk, NY) using mean and standard deviation for quantitative variables and frequency and percentage for qualitative variables. Results The mean age of 500 female study participants was 38.35±16.305 (range: 7-108) years. Bleeding per rectum, constipation, and pain per rectum were the commonest proctologic symptoms seen in 341 (68.2%), 287 (57.4%), and 272 (54.4%) cases, respectively. Anal fissures and hemorrhoids were the commonest proctologic diseases seen in 264 (52.8%) and 60 (12%) cases, respectively. Conclusion Bleeding per rectum is the commonest proctologic symptom in patients. Anal fissures and hemorrhoids are the commonest proctologic diseases in our setup. Bleeding per rectum and hemorrhoids in the female population cause loss of blood, which in turn will aggravate the clinical picture of underlying anemia, if any.

Flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS), which is less invasive, resource intensive and costly than colonoscopy, is among the recommended screening options for colorectal cancer (CRC). Four large randomized trials consistently reported statistically significant, albeit modest effects of screening by FS on CRC incidence. However, their effect estimates included cancers that were already prevalent at recruitment and could not have been prevented by screening. We performed a re-analysis and meta-analysis of two of the trials (including the largest one) to estimate reduction of truly incident cases by a single FS offered between 55 and 64 years of age among the \"at risk study population\" without prevalent CRC at recruitment. In meta-analyses of data reported after more than 15 years of follow-up, relative risk (95% CI) in intention-to-screen and per-protocol analyses were 0.71 (0.66-0.76) and 0.59 (0.55-0.65) for any CRC, and 0.52 (0.47-0.57) and 0.34 (0.30-0.39) for distal CRC, respectively. These results indicate much stronger effects than those suggested by the original reports and imply that a single screening FS can prevent approximately two out of three distal incident CRC cases within 15 + years of follow-up.

For ulcerative colitis (UC), the variability in inflammatory activity along the colon poses a challenge in management. The focus on achieving endoscopic healing in UC is evident, where the UC Endoscopic Index of Severity and Mayo Endoscopic Subscore are commonly used for evaluation. However, these indices primarily consider the most severely affected region. Liu et al recent study validates the Toronto Inflammatory Bowel Disease Global Endoscopic Reporting (TIGER) score offering a comprehensive assessment of inflammatory activity across diverse segments of the colon and rectum and a reliable index correlating strongly with UC Endoscopic Index of Severity and moderately with Mayo Endoscopic Subscore (MES). Despite recommendation, certain aspects warrant further investigation. Fecal calprotectin, an intermediate target, correlates with TIGER and should be explored. Determining TIGER scores defining endoscopic remission and response, evaluating agreement with histological activity, and assessing inter-endoscopist agreement for TIGER require scrutiny. Exploring the correlation between TIGER and intestinal ultrasound, akin to MES, adds value.

Colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer-related mortality in adults in the United States. Despite compelling evidence of improved outcomes in colorectal cancer, screening rates are not optimal. This study aimed to characterize colorectal cancer screening trends over the last two decades and assess the impact of various screening modalities on overall colorectal cancer screening rates. Using National Health Interview Survey data from 2005 to 2021, we examined colorectal cancer screening [colonoscopy, multitarget stool DNA (mt-sDNA), fecal occult blood test (FOBT)/fecal immunochemical test, sigmoidoscopy, CT colonography] rates among adults ages 50-75 years (n = 85,571). A pseudo-time-series cross-sectional (pseudo-TSCS) analysis was conducted including a random effects generalized least squares regression model to estimate the relative impact of each modality on changes in colorectal cancer screening rates. Among 50 to 75 year olds, the estimated colorectal cancer screening rate increased from 47.7% in 2005 to 69.9% in 2021, with the largest increase between 2005 and 2010 (47.7%-60.7%). Rates subsequently plateaued until 2015 but increased from 63.5% in 2015 to 69.9% in 2018. This was primarily driven by the increased use of mt-sDNA (2.5% in 2018 to 6.6% in 2021). Pseudo-TSCS analysis results showed that mt-sDNA contributed substantially to the increase in overall screening rates (77.3%; P < 0.0001) between 2018 and 2021. While colorectal cancer screening rates increased from 2005 to 2021, they remain below the 80% goal. The introduction of mt-sDNA, a noninvasive screening test may have improved overall rates. Sustained efforts are required to further increase screening rates to improve patient outcomes and offering a range of screening options is likely to contribute to achieving this goal.
UNASSIGNED: This retrospective study highlights the importance of convenient stool-based colorectal cancer screening options to achieve the national goal of 80% for overall colorectal cancer screening rates. Empowering screening-eligible individuals with a choice for their colorectal cancer screening tests is imperative.

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.

As in any observational study, in a case-control study a primary concern is potential unmeasured confounders. Bias, due to unmeasured confounders, can result in a false discovery of an apparent treatment effect when there is none. Replication of an observational study, which tries to provide multiple analyses of the data where the biases affecting each analysis are thought to be different, is one way to strengthen the evidence from an observational study. Evidence factors allow for internal replication by testing a hypothesis using multiple comparisons in a way that the comparisons yield independent evidence and differ in the sources of potential bias. We construct evidence factors in a case-control study in which there are two types of cases, \"narrow\" cases which are thought to be potentially more affected by the exposure and \"marginal\" cases which are thought to have more heterogeneous causes. We develop and study an inference procedure for using such evidence factors and apply it to a study of the effect of sigmoidoscopy screening on colorectal cancer.

UNASSIGNED: Randomized clinical screening trials have shown that sigmoidoscopy screening reduces colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality. Colonoscopy has largely replaced sigmoidoscopy for CRC screening, but long-term results from randomized trials on colonoscopy screening are still lacking.
UNASSIGNED: To estimate the additional screening benefit of colonoscopy compared with sigmoidoscopy.
UNASSIGNED: This comparative effectiveness simulation study pooled data on 358 204 men and women randomly assigned to sigmoidoscopy screening or usual care in 4 randomized sigmoidoscopy screening trials conducted in Norway, Italy, the US, and UK with inclusion periods in the years 1993 to 2001. The primary analysis of the study was conducted from January 19 to December 30, 2021.
UNASSIGNED: Invitation to endoscopic screening.
UNASSIGNED: Primary outcomes were CRC incidence and mortality. Using pooled 15-year follow-up data, colonoscopy screening effectiveness was estimated assuming that the efficacy of colonoscopy in the proximal colon was similar to that observed in the distal colon in the sigmoidoscopy screening trials. The simulation model was validated using data from Norwegian participants in a colonoscopy screening trial.
UNASSIGNED: This analysis included 358 204 individuals (181 971 women [51%]) aged 55 to 64 years at inclusion with a median follow-up time ranging from 15 to 17 years. Compared with usual care, colonoscopy prevented an estimated 50 (95% CI, 42-58) CRC cases per 100 000 person-years, corresponding to 30% incidence reduction (rate ratio, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.66-0.75]), and prevented an estimated 15 (95% CI, 11-19) CRC deaths per 100 000 person-years, corresponding to 32% mortality reduction (rate ratio, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.61-0.76]). The additional benefit of colonoscopy screening compared with sigmoidoscopy was 12 (95% CI, 10-14) fewer CRC cases and 4 (95% CI, 3-5) fewer CRC deaths per 100 000 person-years, corresponding to percentage point reductions of 6.9 (95% CI, 6.0-7.9) for CRC incidence and 7.6 (95% CI, 5.7-9.6) for CRC mortality. The number needed to switch from sigmoidoscopy to colonoscopy screening was 560 (95% CI, 486-661) to prevent 1 CRC case and 1611 (95% CI, 1275-2188) to prevent 1 CRC death.
UNASSIGNED: The findings of this comparative effectiveness study assessing long-term follow-up after CRC screening suggest that there was an additional preventive effect on CRC incidence and mortality associated with colonoscopy screening compared with sigmoidoscopy screening, but the additional preventive effect was less than what was achieved by introducing sigmoidoscopy screening where no screening existed. The results probably represent the upper limit of what may be achieved with colonoscopy screening compared with sigmoidoscopy screening.