Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 6 de 6
Filter
1.
Ir Med J ; 116(No.1): 3, 2023 01 19.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2278357

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
Adenoma , COVID-19 , Colorectal Neoplasms , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Pandemics/prevention & control , Early Detection of Cancer , Colorectal Neoplasms/diagnosis , Colorectal Neoplasms/epidemiology , Colonoscopy , Mass Screening , Adenoma/diagnosis , Adenoma/epidemiology
2.
Gut ; 71(11): 2152-2166, 2022 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2020114

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
Adenoma , Colonic Polyps , Colorectal Neoplasms , Adenoma/diagnosis , Adenoma/epidemiology , Adenoma/surgery , Asia/epidemiology , Colonoscopy , Colorectal Neoplasms/diagnosis , Colorectal Neoplasms/epidemiology , Colorectal Neoplasms/pathology , Consensus , Early Detection of Cancer , Humans
3.
Br J Cancer ; 127(8): 1525-1533, 2022 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1991565

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
Adenoma , COVID-19 , Colorectal Neoplasms , Adenoma/diagnosis , Adenoma/epidemiology , Colorectal Neoplasms/diagnosis , Colorectal Neoplasms/epidemiology , Early Detection of Cancer/methods , England , Hemoglobins/analysis , Humans , Pandemics , Pilot Projects
4.
Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol ; 34(7): 739-743, 2022 07 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1922401

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
Adenoma , COVID-19 , Colorectal Neoplasms , Adenoma/diagnosis , Adenoma/epidemiology , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , Colonoscopy/methods , Colorectal Neoplasms/diagnosis , Colorectal Neoplasms/epidemiology , Colorectal Neoplasms/prevention & control , Early Detection of Cancer/methods , Humans , Mass Screening/methods , Social Determinants of Health , United States/epidemiology
5.
Surg Endosc ; 36(12): 9364-9373, 2022 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1802727

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
Adenoma , COVID-19 , Colorectal Neoplasms , Humans , Pandemics/prevention & control , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Colorectal Neoplasms/diagnosis , Colorectal Neoplasms/epidemiology , Colorectal Neoplasms/prevention & control , Colonoscopy/methods , Adenoma/diagnosis , Adenoma/epidemiology , Adenoma/prevention & control , Early Detection of Cancer/methods
6.
J Gastroenterol Hepatol ; 37(6): 1067-1075, 2022 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1735941

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
Adenoma , COVID-19 , Colorectal Neoplasms , Adenoma/diagnosis , Adenoma/epidemiology , Adenoma/prevention & control , Colonoscopy/methods , Colorectal Neoplasms/diagnosis , Colorectal Neoplasms/epidemiology , Colorectal Neoplasms/prevention & control , Early Detection of Cancer/methods , Humans , Occult Blood , Pandemics , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL