The Impact of SARS-COV-2 on two Colorectal Cancer screening centres.

BowelScreen paused activity in March 2020 to prioritise the response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The aim of this study was to examine the impact of this delay. Cases affected by the pause and subsequently completed were compared to the same period in 2019. Endoscopy and histology data were obtained from the BowelScreen database and patient records. One-hundred and seven colonoscopies were performed during the study period. This compared with 224 colonoscopies during the same period in 2019. Median lead time to colonoscopy in 2020 was 74 days compared to 34 days in 2019. Adenoma detection rate was 59% for both periods. Advanced adenoma and cancer detection rates were similar in both periods. While there was a marked reduction in activity and significant delays for BowelScreen patients during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, this does not appear to have impacted on clinical outcomes for patients who attended for screening colonoscopy.

Artificial Intelligence-Aided Colonoscopy Does Not Increase Adenoma Detection Rate in Routine Clinical Practice.

The performance of artificial intelligence-aided colonoscopy (AIAC) in a real-world setting has not been described. We compared adenoma and polyp detection rates (ADR/PDR) in a 6-month period before (pre-AIAC) and after introduction of AIAC (GI Genius, Medtronic) in all endoscopy suites in our large-volume center. The ADR and PDR in the AIAC group was lower compared with those in the pre-AIAC group (30.3% vs 35.2%, P < 0.001; 36.5% vs 40.9%, P = 0.004, respectively); procedure time was significantly shorter in the AIAC group. In summary, introduction of AIAC did not result in performance improvement in our large-center cohort, raising important questions on AI-human interactions in medicine.

Third Asia-Pacific consensus recommendations on colorectal cancer screening and postpolypectomy surveillance.

The Asia-Pacific region has the largest number of cases of colorectal cancer (CRC) and one of the highest levels of mortality due to this condition in the world. Since the publishing of two consensus recommendations in 2008 and 2015, significant advancements have been made in our knowledge of epidemiology, pathology and the natural history of the adenoma-carcinoma progression. Based on the most updated epidemiological and clinical studies in this region, considering literature from international studies, and adopting the modified Delphi process, the Asia-Pacific Working Group on Colorectal Cancer Screening has updated and revised their recommendations on (1) screening methods and preferred strategies; (2) age for starting and terminating screening for CRC; (3) screening for individuals with a family history of CRC or advanced adenoma; (4) surveillance for those with adenomas; (5) screening and surveillance for sessile serrated lesions and (6) quality assurance of screening programmes. Thirteen countries/regions in the Asia-Pacific region were represented in this exercise. International advisors from North America and Europe were invited to participate.

A Novel Convolutional Neural Network Model as an Alternative Approach to Bowel Preparation Evaluation Before Colonoscopy in the COVID-19 Era: A Multicenter, Single-Blinded, Randomized Study.

INTRODUCTION: Adequate bowel preparation is key to a successful colonoscopy, which is necessary for detecting adenomas and preventing colorectal cancer. We developed an artificial intelligence (AI) platform using a convolutional neural network (CNN) model (AI-CNN model) to evaluate the quality of bowel preparation before colonoscopy. METHODS: This was a colonoscopist-blinded, randomized study. Enrolled patients were randomized into an experimental group, in which our AI-CNN model was used to evaluate the quality of bowel preparation (AI-CNN group), or a control group, which performed self-evaluation per routine practice (control group). The primary outcome was the consistency (homogeneity) between the results of the 2 methods. The secondary outcomes included the quality of bowel preparation according to the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS), polyp detection rate, and adenoma detection rate. RESULTS: A total of 1,434 patients were enrolled (AI-CNN, n = 730; control, n = 704). No significant difference was observed between the evaluation results ("pass" or "not pass") of the groups in the adequacy of bowel preparation as represented by BBPS scores. The mean BBPS scores, polyp detection rate, and adenoma detection rate were similar between the groups. These results indicated that the AI-CNN model and routine practice were generally consistent in the evaluation of bowel preparation quality. However, the mean BBPS score of patients with "pass" results were significantly higher in the AI-CNN group than in the control group, indicating that the AI-CNN model may further improve the quality of bowel preparation in patients exhibiting adequate bowel preparation. DISCUSSION: The novel AI-CNN model, which demonstrated comparable outcomes to the routine practice, may serve as an alternative approach for evaluating bowel preparation quality before colonoscopy.

Impact of changes to the interscreening interval and faecal immunochemical test threshold in the national bowel cancer screening programme in England: results from the FIT pilot study.

INTRODUCTION: The NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) faces endoscopy capacity challenges from the COVID-19 pandemic and plans to lower the screening starting age. This may necessitate modifying the interscreening interval or threshold. METHODS: We analysed data from the English Faecal Immunochemical Testing (FIT) pilot, comprising 27,238 individuals aged 59-75, screened for colorectal cancer (CRC) using FIT. We estimated screening sensitivity to CRC, adenomas, advanced adenomas (AA) and mean sojourn time of each pathology by faecal haemoglobin (f-Hb) thresholds, then predicted the detection of these abnormalities by interscreening interval and f-Hb threshold. RESULTS: Current 2-yearly screening with a f-Hb threshold of 120 µg/g was estimated to generate 16,092 colonoscopies, prevent 186 CRCs, detect 1142 CRCs, 7086 adenomas and 4259 AAs per 100,000 screened over 15 years. A higher threshold at 180 µg/g would reduce required colonoscopies to 11,500, prevent 131 CRCs, detect 1077 CRCs, 4961 adenomas and 3184 AAs. A longer interscreening interval of 3 years would reduce required colonoscopies to 10,283, prevent 126 and detect 909 CRCs, 4796 adenomas and 2986 AAs. CONCLUSION: Increasing the f-Hb threshold was estimated to be more efficient than increasing the interscreening interval regarding overall colonoscopies per screen-benefited cancer. Increasing the interval was more efficient regarding colonoscopies per cancer prevented.

Impact of social determinants of health on colorectal cancer screening and surveillance in the COVID reopening phase.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Procedural delays due to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic may exacerbate disparities in colorectal cancer (CRC) preventive care. We aimed to measure racial and socioeconomic disparities in the prioritization of CRC screening or adenoma surveillance during the COVID reopening period. METHODS: We identified CRC screening or surveillance colonoscopies performed during two time periods: (1) 9 June 2019-30 September 2019 (pre-COVID) and (2) 9 June 2020-30 September 2020 (COVID reopening). We recorded the procedure indication, patient age, sex, race/ethnicity, primary language, insurance status and zip code. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine factors independently associated with undergoing colonoscopy in the COVID reopening era. RESULTS: We identified 1473 colonoscopies for CRC screening or adenoma surveillance; 890 occurred in the pre-COVID period and 583 occurred in the COVID reopening period. In total 342 (38.4%) pre-COVID patients underwent adenoma surveillance and 548 (61.6%) underwent CRC screening; in the COVID reopening cohort, 257 (44.1%) underwent adenoma surveillance and 326 (55.9%) underwent CRC screening (P = 0.031). This increased proportion of surveillance procedures in the reopening cohort was statistically significant on multivariable analysis [odds ratio (OR), 1.26; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.001-1.58]. Black patients comprised 17.4% of the pre-COVID cohort, which declined to 15.3% (P = 0.613). There was a trend toward an inverse association between reopening phase colonoscopy and Medicaid insurance compared with commercial insurance (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.49-1.04). No significant associations were found between reopening phase colonoscopy and the remaining variables. CONCLUSIONS: During the COVID reopening period, colonoscopies for CRC fell by over one-third with significantly more surveillance than screening procedures. Nonwhite patients and non-English speakers comprised a shrinking proportion in the COVID reopening period.

Effect of enhanced personal protective equipment on colonoscopy performance and pain linked to procedure during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Background and study aim: During the COVID-19 pandemic, the use of standard personal protective equipment (SPPE) reduces transmission risks during endoscopic procedures. Our aim was to assess the effect of enhanced personal protective equipment (EPPE) on colonoscopy performance and pain linked to the procedure compared with SPPE. Patients and methods: During two similar periods with three-month duration (in 2019 and in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic), electronic medical records and colonoscopy reports were investigated for sequential patients undergoing colonoscopy. SPPE was used in 2019 and EPPE in 2020. The patients' clinical data and information related to the procedure were collected and analyzed. Primary outcomes were the duration to intubate the cecum, total procedure duration and patient pain score at the end of the procedure. Secondary outcomes were adenoma detection rate (ADR), polyp detection rate (PDR) and cecal intubation rate (CIR). Results: A total of 426 patients with colonoscopy performed were analyzed. The demographic features and indications for colonoscopy were similar for patients in both groups. The EPPE group had higher values for the parameters assessed as primary endpoints of cecal intubation time, withdrawal time, total procedure time and pain at the end of the procedure compared to the SPPE group and the differences were statistically significant. Conclusion: Our findings show that though the use of EPPE negatively affected colonoscopy performance and patient pain at the end of the procedure, it had no effect on the colonoscopy quality indices such as ADR, PDR and CIR.

The impact of delaying colonoscopies during the COVID-19 pandemic on colorectal cancer detection and prevention.

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a partial to total shutdown of endoscopy in many healthcare centers. This study aims to quantify the impact of the reduction in colonoscopies on colorectal cancer (CRC) detection and screening. METHODS: After institutional ethics board approval, the endoscopy database at an academic tertiary-care center in Montreal, Canada, was searched for all colonoscopies performed from during the first wave locally (March-June 2020), and during the ramp up period where endoscopy service resumed (July to August 2020). We compared these periods to the same periods in 2019, the pre-pandemic periods. The indications, CRC and adenoma detection rates, as well as the prioritization of urgent procedures were compared. RESULTS: In the first wave, only 462 colonoscopies were performed, compared to 2515 in the same period in 2019, an 82% reduction. The ramp up period saw 843 colonoscopies performed compared to 1328 in 2019, a 35% reduction. Urgent and inpatient colonoscopies numbers increased (324 (24.8%) vs. 220 (5.7%)) while surveillance and high-risk screening colonoscopies fell (376 (28.8%) vs 1869 (48.6%)). Emergency access to colonoscopy was preserved with a median time to endoscopy of < 1 day (IQR 0,1) in both pandemic periods. During the pandemic periods, there was an absolute reduction in CRC diagnosis of 28, despite the CRC detection per colonoscopy rate increasing slightly in the first wave from 1.7% (44) to 3.9% (18), and in the ramp up period from 2.5% (33) to 3.6% (31). The rate of adenoma detection per colonoscopy did not increase significantly between the pre- and pandemic periods, resulting in reduction in adenoma removal in 723 patients. DISCUSSION: The restriction of access to colonoscopy resulted in a significant reduction in screening and surveillance of high-risk patients, adenomas removed, and CRCs diagnosed. Clinicians and patients will face the oncologic ramifications this the coming years.

Faecal immunochemical test mitigates risk of delayed colonoscopy in people with elevated risk of colorectal neoplasia.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Surveillance colonoscopies may be delayed because of pressure on resources, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. This study aimed to determine whether delayed surveillance colonoscopy increases the risk for advanced neoplasia and whether interval screening with faecal immunochemical tests (FITs) and other known risk factors can mitigate this risk. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of individuals undergoing surveillance colonoscopy for personal or family history of colorectal neoplasia was being provided with FIT between colonoscopies. Colonoscopy ≥ 6 months after the guideline-recommended interval was considered "delayed." Individuals were stratified based on prime colonoscopy findings to nonneoplastic findings, non-advanced adenoma, and advanced adenoma. The relative risk (RR) for developing advanced neoplasia was determined using a robust multivariable modified Poisson regression. RESULTS: Of 2548 surveillance colonoscopies, 1457 (57.18%) were delayed. Prior advanced adenoma, older age (> 60 years) and nonparticipation in interval FIT were associated with increased risk for advanced neoplasia (P < 0.05). There was a trend to increased risk in those with prior advanced adenoma with an increasing colonoscopy delay (P trend = 0.01). In participants who did not complete interval FIT and having advanced adenoma in the prime colonoscopy, risk of advanced neoplasia was 2.48 times higher (RR = 2.48, 95% confidence interval: 1.20-5.13) in participants who had beyond 2 years of delayed colonoscopy compared with those with on-time colonoscopy. Colonoscopy delay did not increase the risk of advanced neoplasia in participants with negative interval FIT results. CONCLUSION: Surveillance colonoscopy can be safely extended beyond 6 months in elevated colorectal cancer risk patients who do not have prior advanced adenoma diagnosis, particularly if interval FIT is negative.

The Influence of Face Shields on the Quality of Colonoscopy in the Era of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Background/Aims: The worldwide coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has led endoscopists to use personal protective equipment (PPE) for infection prevention. This study aimed to investigate whether wearing a face shield as PPE affects the quality of colonoscopy. Methods: We reviewed the medical records and colonoscopy findings of patients who underwent colonoscopies at Asan Medical Center, Korea from March 10 to May 31, 2020. The colonoscopies in this study were performed by five gastroenterology fellows and four expert endoscopists. We compared colonoscopy quality indicators, such as withdrawal time, adenoma detection rate (ADR), mean number of adenomas per colonoscopy (APC), polypectomy time, and polypectomy adverse events, both before and after face shields were added as PPE on April 13, 2020. Results: Of the 1,344 colonoscopies analyzed, 715 and 629 were performed before and after the introduction of face shields, respectively. The median withdrawal time was similar between the face shield and no-face shield groups (8.72 minutes vs 8.68 minutes, p=0.816), as was the ADR (41.5% vs 39.8%, p=0.605) and APC (0.72 vs 0.77, p=0.510). Polypectomy-associated quality indicators, such as polypectomy time and polypectomy adverse events were also not different between the groups. Quality indicators were not different between the face shield and no-face shield groups of gastroenterology fellows, or of expert endoscopists. Conclusions: Colonoscopy performance was not unfavorably affected by the use of a face shield. PPE, including face shields, can be recommended without a concern about colonoscopy quality deterioration.

Apoplexy in a previously undiagnosed pituitary macroadenoma in the setting of recent COVID-19 infection.

Pituitary apoplexy is an endocrine emergency, which commonly presents as hypopituitarism. Prompt diagnosis and treatment can be both life and vision saving. There are a growing number of published case reports postulating a link between COVID-19 and pituitary apoplexy. We report the case of a 75-year-old man who presented with a headache and was later diagnosed with hypopituitarism secondary to pituitary apoplexy. This occurred 1 month following a mild-to-moderate COVID-19 infection with no other risk factors commonly associated with pituitary apoplexy. This case, therefore, supplements an emerging evidence base supporting a link between COVID-19 and pituitary apoplexy.

Neuro-ophthalmic presentation of COVID-19 disease: A case report.

COVID-19 is a respiratory virus, which has affected various organ systems as well. Here we report a neuro-ophthalmic presentation of pituitary apoplexy under the setting of COVID-19 infection in a middle-aged man who presented to ophthalmic emergency with sudden bilateral loss of vision along with a history of fever past 10 days. There was sluggishly reacting pupils and RT-PCR for COVID was positive. Imaging pointed the diagnosis as pituitary macroadenoma with apopexy. In view of pandemic situation, patient was given symptomatic treatment as per the protocols and stabilized. Vision also showed improvement to some extent and the patient is awaiting neurosurgery.

ENDOCRINOLOGY IN THE TIME OF COVID-19: Management of Cushing's syndrome.

Clinical evaluation should guide those needing immediate investigation. Strict adherence to COVID-19 protection measures is necessary. Alternative ways of consultations (telephone, video) should be used. Early discussion with regional/national experts about investigation and management of potential and existing patients is strongly encouraged. Patients with moderate or severe clinical features need urgent investigation and management. Patients with active Cushing's syndrome, especially when severe, are immunocompromised and vigorous adherence to the principles of social isolation is recommended. In patients with mild features or in whom a diagnosis is less likely, clinical re-evaluation should be repeated at 3 and 6 months or deferred until the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 has significantly decreased; however, those individuals should be encouraged to maintain social distancing. Diagnostic pathways may need to be very different from usual recommendations in order to reduce possible exposure to SARS-CoV-2. When extensive differential diagnostic testing and/or surgery is not feasible, it should be deferred and medical treatment should be initiated. Transsphenoidal pituitary surgery should be delayed during high SARS-CoV-2 viral prevalence. Medical management rather than surgery will be the used for most patients, since the short- to mid-term prognosis depends in most cases on hypercortisolism rather than its cause; it should be initiated promptly to minimize the risk of infection in these immunosuppressed patients. The risk/benefit ratio of these recommendations will need re-evaluation every 2-3 months from April 2020 in each country (and possibly local areas) and will depend on the local health care structure and phase of pandemic.

Endocrinology in the time of COVID-19: Management of pituitary tumours.

Patients with pituitary tumours, ensuing hormonal abnormalities and mass effects are usually followed in multidisciplinary pituitary clinics and can represent a management challenge even during the times of non-pandemic. The COVID-19 pandemic has put on hold routine medical care for hundreds of millions of patients around the globe, while many pituitary patients' evaluations cannot be delayed for too long. Furthermore, the majority of patients with pituitary tumours have co-morbidities potentially impacting the course and management of COVID-19 (e.g. hypopituitarism, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, obesity and cardiovascular disease). Here, we summarize some of the diagnostic and management dilemmas encountered, and provide guidance on safe and as effective as possible delivery of care in the COVID-19 era. We also attempt to address how pituitary services should be remodelled in the event of similar crises, while maintaining or even improving patient outcomes. Regular review of these recommendations and further adjustments are needed, depending on the evolution of the COVID-19 pandemic status. We consider that the utilization of successful models of pituitary multidisciplinary care implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic should continue after the crisis is over by using the valuable and exceptional experience gained during these challenging times.