Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 120
Filter
1.
Am J Gastroenterol ; 117(11): 1871-1873, 2022 11 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2155855

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
Adenoma , Adenomatous Polyps , Colonic Polyps , Colorectal Neoplasms , Humans , Colonic Polyps/diagnosis , Artificial Intelligence , Colonoscopy/methods , Adenoma/diagnosis , Adenomatous Polyps/diagnosis , Colorectal Neoplasms/diagnosis
2.
J Gen Intern Med ; 37(13): 3525-3528, 2022 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2060019

ABSTRACT

Shared decision-making (SDM) can help patients make good decisions about preventive health interventions such as cancer screening. We illustrate the use of SDM in the case of a 53-year-old man who had a new patient visit with a primary care physician and had never been screened for colorectal cancer (CRC). The patient had recently recovered from a serious COVID-19 infection requiring weeks of mechanical ventilation. When the primary care physician initially offered a screening colonoscopy, the man expressed great reluctance to return to the hospital for the exam. The PCP then offered a stool test, which could be completed at home, but emphasized that if it were positive, a colonoscopy would be required. He agreed to complete the stool test, and unfortunately, it was positive. He then agreed to undergo colonoscopy, which uncovered a large rectal cancer. The carcinoma had invaded the mesorectal fat but there were no metastases. After undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by a low anterior resection of the tumor, he has no evidence of recurrence so far. Many clinicians favor colonoscopy for CRC screening, but evidence suggests that patients who are offered more than one reasonable option are more likely to undergo screening. If screening had been delayed in this patient until he was willing to accept a screening colonoscopy, there was the potential the cancer may have been more advanced when diagnosed, with a worse outcome. Shared decision-making was a key approach to understanding the patient's feelings related to this screening decision and making a decision consistent with his preferences.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Colorectal Neoplasms , Colonoscopy , Colorectal Neoplasms/diagnosis , Early Detection of Cancer , Humans , Male , Mass Screening , Middle Aged , Occult Blood , Pandemics/prevention & control
4.
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
7.
Am J Gastroenterol ; 117(9): 1437-1443, 2022 09 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1994584

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
Adenoma , COVID-19 , Colonic Polyps , Adenoma/diagnosis , Artificial Intelligence , Cathartics , Colonic Polyps/diagnostic imaging , Colonoscopy/methods , Humans , Neural Networks, Computer , Prospective Studies
8.
J Korean Med Sci ; 37(32): e251, 2022 Aug 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1993762

ABSTRACT

Anaphylaxis to polyethylene glycol (PEG) is rare and mainly occurs with the use of laxatives containing PEG. Recently, an increasing number of PEG allergies have been reported, particularly those related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines. mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, such as the BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) and mRNA-1273 (Moderna) vaccines, contain PEG2000 as an excipient and are contraindicated when allergy to a vaccine component exist. We report a 55-year-old woman's history as a case of successful mRNA COVID-19 vaccination and colonoscopy after oral desensitization to PEG in a patient with PEG allergy who required both COVID-19 vaccination and colon evaluation. Allergy to PEG was diagnosed based on clinical history, skin test results, and basophil histamine release testing. Oral desensitization effectively suppressed histamine release from basophils in response to PEG stimulation, suggesting that oral desensitization using PEG-based laxatives may be an effective treatment option for patients with allergy to the substance.


Subject(s)
Anaphylaxis , COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Anaphylaxis/chemically induced , BNT162 Vaccine , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , Colonoscopy/methods , Female , Humans , Laxatives , Middle Aged , Polyethylene Glycols/adverse effects , RNA, Messenger , Vaccination
9.
Intern Emerg Med ; 17(8): 2229-2235, 2022 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1971816

ABSTRACT

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the leading causes of cancer death worldwide. Many communities remain under the 80% CRC screening goal. We aimed to identify factors associated with non-adherence to CRC screening and to describe the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic in CRC screening patterns. A retrospective review of patients aged 50-75 years seen at the Griffin Faculty Physicians primary care offices between January 2019 and December 2020 was performed. Logistic regression models were used to identify factors associated with CRC screening non-adherence. Of 12,189 patients, 66.2% had an updated CRC screen. On univariable logistic regression, factors associated with CRC screening non-adherence included age ≤ 55 years [odds ratio (OR) 2.267, p < 0.001], White/Caucasian race (OR 0.858, p = 0.030), Medicaid insurance (OR 2.097, p < 0.001), morbid obesity (OR 1.436, p < 0.001), current cigarette smoking (OR 1.849, p < 0.001), and elevated HbA1c (OR 1.178, p = 0.004). Age, Medicaid insurance, morbid obesity, current smoking, and HbA1c ≥ 6.5% remained significant in the final multivariable model. Compared to 2019, there was an 18.2% decrease in the total number of CRC screening tests in 2020. The proportion of colonoscopy procedures was lower in 2020 compared to the proportion of colonoscopy procedures conducted in 2019 (65.9% vs 81.7%, p < 0.001), with a concurrent increase in stool-based tests. CRC screening rates in our population are comparable to national statistics but below the 80% goal. COVID-19 affected CRC screening. Our results underscore the need to identify patient groups most vulnerable to missing CRC screening and highlight the importance of stool-based testing to bridge screening gaps.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Colorectal Neoplasms , Obesity, Morbid , United States , Humans , Early Detection of Cancer/methods , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , Connecticut/epidemiology , Glycated Hemoglobin A , Pandemics , Occult Blood , Colonoscopy , Colorectal Neoplasms/diagnosis , Colorectal Neoplasms/epidemiology , Mass Screening/methods
11.
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
12.
Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol ; 19(8): 521-531, 2022 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1921620

ABSTRACT

Despite strong evidence of effectiveness, colorectal cancer (CRC) screening remains underused. Currently, there are several options for CRC screening, each with its own performance characteristics and considerations for practice. This Review aims to cover current CRC screening guidelines and highlight future blood-based and imaging-based options for screening. In current practice, the leading non-invasive option is the faecal immunochemical test (FIT) based on its high specificity, good sensitivity, low cost and ease of use in mailed outreach programmes. There are currently five blood-based CRC screening tests in varying stages of evaluation, including one that is currently sold in the USA as a laboratory-developed test. There are ongoing studies on the diagnostic accuracy and longitudinal performance of blood tests and they have the potential to disrupt the CRC screening landscape. Imaging-based options, including the colon capsule, MR colonography and the CT capsule, are also being tested in active studies. As the world attempts to recover from the COVID-19 pandemic and adapts to the start of CRC screening among people at average risk starting at age 45 years, non-invasive options will become increasingly important.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Colorectal Neoplasms , Colonoscopy , Colorectal Neoplasms/diagnosis , Early Detection of Cancer , Humans , Mass Screening , Middle Aged , Occult Blood , Pandemics
13.
Cancer Epidemiol ; 80: 102212, 2022 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1914199

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has increased barriers to accessing preventive healthcare. This study identifies populations disproportionately underrepresented in screening and surveillance colonoscopies during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: In this single-center cohort study, colonoscopy procedures were reviewed during 6-month intervals before the pandemic (July 1, 2019 - December 31, 2019) and during the pandemic (July 1, 2020 - December 31, 2020 and January 1, 2021 - June 30, 2021). 7095 patients were categorized based on procedure indication, demographics, Charlson Comorbidity Index and Social Vulnerability Index (SVI). Statistics performed using VassarStats. RESULTS: 2387 (2019) colonoscopies pre-pandemic and 2585 (2020) and 2123 (2021) during the pandemic were identified. There was a decrease in colonoscopies performed during months when COVID-19 cases peaked. The total number of average CRC risk patients presenting for first colonoscopy declined during the pandemic: 232 (10 %) pre-pandemic to 190 (7 %) in 2020, 145 (7 %) in 2021 (p < 0.001). Fewer of these patients presented from highly vulnerable communities, SVI > 0.8, during the pandemic, 39 in 2019 vs 16 in 2020 and 22 in 2021. Of all screening and surveillance patients, fewer presented from communities with SVI > 0.8 during the pandemic, 106 in 2019 versus 67 in 2020 and 77 in 2021. CONCLUSION: It is important to address the decline in CRC preventive care during this pandemic among average CRC risk first-time screeners and vulnerable community patients. An emphasis on addressing social determinants of health and establishing patients in gastroenterology clinics is imperative to promote future health in these populations.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Colorectal Neoplasms , COVID-19/epidemiology , Cohort Studies , Colonoscopy , Colorectal Neoplasms/diagnosis , Colorectal Neoplasms/epidemiology , Colorectal Neoplasms/prevention & control , Early Detection of Cancer/methods , Humans , Mass Screening/methods , Pandemics , Retrospective Studies
14.
PLoS One ; 17(6): e0270223, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1910673

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: The COVID-19 pandemic forced colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs to downscale their colonoscopy capacity. In this study, we assessed strategies to deal with temporary restricted colonoscopy capacity in a FIT-based CRC screening program while aiming to retain the maximum possible preventive effect of the screening program. DESIGN: We simulated the Dutch national CRC screening program inviting individuals between ages 55 and 75 for biennial FIT using the MISCAN-Colon model including the 3-month disruption in the first half of 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. For the second half of 2020 and 2021, we simulated three different strategies for the total target population: 1) increasing the FIT cut-off, 2) skipping one screening for specific screening ages, and 3) extending the screening interval. We estimated the impact on required colonoscopy capacity in 2020-2021 and life years (LYs) lost in the long-term. RESULTS: Increasing the FIT cut-off, skipping screening ages and extending the screening interval resulted in a maximum reduction of 25,100 (-17.0%), 16,100(-10.9%) and 19,000 (-12.9%) colonoscopies, respectively. Modelling an increased FIT cut-off, the number of LYs lost ranged between 1,400 and 4,400. Skipping just a single screening age resulted in approximately 2,700 LYs lost and this was doubled in case of skipping two screening ages. Extending the screening interval up to 34 months had the smallest impact on LYs lost (up to 1,100 LYs lost). CONCLUSION: This modelling study shows that to anticipate on restricted colonoscopy capacity, temporarily extending the screening interval retains the maximum possible preventive effect of the CRC screening program.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Colorectal Neoplasms , Aged , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , Child, Preschool , Colonoscopy , Colorectal Neoplasms/diagnosis , Colorectal Neoplasms/epidemiology , Early Detection of Cancer/methods , Humans , Mass Screening/methods , Middle Aged , Occult Blood , Pandemics
15.
Ulster Med J ; 91(2): 79-84, 2022 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1898241

ABSTRACT

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic is an evolving healthcare challenge causing secondary disruption of cancer services. Quantitative Faecal Immunochemical Testing (qFIT) has been established as a screening method in asymptomatic patients. We aim to assess its utility as a triage tool to prioritise investigations in symptomatic patients with suspected colorectal cancer. Methods: At the commencement of the COVID-19 pandemic a database was established to include patients awaiting red flag outpatient consultation or colonic investigations and new red flag referrals from March to June 2020. Patients were supplied with qFIT kits and returned results categorised into 3 priority groups according to the qFIT value. Group 1 >150µg Hb/g, Group 2 ≥10 to ≤150µg Hb/g and Group 3 <10µg Hb/g. Subsequent colonic evaluation was offered by colonoscopy or cross-sectional imaging with urgency determined by qFIT priority group. When identified colorectal cancer, inflammatory bowel disease or high-risk polyps were recorded as "significant colorectal pathology." Findings: Three hundred and seventeen patients were identified with data analysed on 290 patients. Colorectal malignancy was identified in 17 patients; 94% of these patients were in Group 1. A qFIT result >150 µg Hb/g had a sensitivity and specificity for colorectal cancer of 94.12% (95% CI 71.31-99.85) and 91.21% (95% CI 87.20-94.29) respectively. No malignancy was detected in Priority Group 3; negative predictive value of 100% (95% CI 98.06-100). Conclusions: In symptomatic, suspect lower GI cancer patients qFIT is a useful adjunct for prioritising patients and can be used to determine the urgency of colorectal investigations.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Colorectal Neoplasms , COVID-19/diagnosis , Colonoscopy , Colorectal Neoplasms/diagnosis , Colorectal Neoplasms/pathology , Early Detection of Cancer , Humans , Occult Blood , Pandemics , Referral and Consultation , Sensitivity and Specificity
16.
Pol Przegl Chir ; 94(4): 15-19, 2022 Feb 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1893241

ABSTRACT

<b>Aim:</b> Colorectal cancers are common cancers. Colonoscopy procedure, which is applied in the early diagnosis and treatment of this disease, has a very important role. In this study, we aimed to examine the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic period on our colonoscopic procedures. </br></br> <b> Material and methods:</b> In this observational study, the data of the patients who underwent colonoscopy in our General Surgery Endoscopy Unit, between March 11, 2019 and March 12, 2021 were scanned retrospectively. Patients under 18 years of age were excluded. The patients were divided into 2 groups. 1. Group patients between 11 March 2019-11 March 2020; patients in the pre-COVID-19 period, Group 2, on March 12, 2020-March 12, 2021; Grouped as the COVID-19 era. </br></br> <b>Results:</b> Data of 8285 patients were analyzed. A total of 4889 patients in Group 1 and 3396 patients in Group 2 were included in the study. The detection of precancerous polyps between the groups was found to be significantly higher in group 1 (p < 0.05) (4.3% vs 2.1). Similarly, the presence of precancerous polyps over the age of 65 was found to be significantly higher in the pre-covid group. In group 1, no significant difference was found in the evaluation of cancer patients according to gender (p > 0.05) (F/M: 1.2%/1.6%). In group 2, cancer patients were found to be significantly higher in males. </br></br> <b>Conclusions:</b> The COVID-19 pandemic has had negative effects in many areas, as well as on our colonoscopic procedures. Experienced centers continue to work to minimize these negative effects.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Precancerous Conditions , Adolescent , COVID-19/epidemiology , Colonoscopy , Humans , Male , Pandemics , Retrospective Studies
17.
Acta Gastroenterol Belg ; 85(2): 269-275, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1887473

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
Adenoma , COVID-19 , Colonic Polyps , Colorectal Neoplasms , Adenoma/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Cecum , Colonic Polyps/diagnosis , Colonoscopy/adverse effects , Colonoscopy/methods , Colorectal Neoplasms/diagnosis , Humans , Pain/etiology , Pain/prevention & control , Pandemics , Personal Protective Equipment
18.
Ann Surg ; 275(5): 933-939, 2022 05 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1883081

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a modified CAL-WR. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: The use of segmental colectomy in patients with endoscopically unresectable colonic lesions results in significant morbidity and mortality. CAL-WR is an alternative procedure that may reduce morbidity. METHODS: This prospective multicenter study was performed in 13 Dutch hospitals between January 2017 and December 2019. Inclusion criteria were (1) colonic lesions inaccessible using current endoscopic resection techniques (judged by an expert panel), (2) non-lifting residual/recurrent adenomatous tissue after previous polypectomy or (3) an undetermined resection margin after endoscopic removal of a low-risk pathological T1 (pT1) colon carcinoma. Thirty-day morbidity, technical success rate and radicality were evaluated. RESULTS: Of the 118 patients included (56% male, mean age 66 years, standard deviation ± 8 years), 66 (56%) had complex lesions unsuitable for endoscopic removal, 34 (29%) had non-lifting residual/recurrent adenoma after previous polypectomy and 18 (15%) had uncertain resection margins after polypectomy of a pT1 colon carcinoma. CAL-WR was technically successful in 93% and R0 resection was achieved in 91% of patients. Minor complications (Clavien-Dindo i-ii) were noted in 7 patients (6%) and an additional oncologic segmental resection was performed in 12 cases (11%). Residual tissue at the scar was observed in 5% of patients during endoscopic follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: CAL-WR is an effective, organ-preserving approach that results in minor complications and circumvents the need for major surgery. CAL-WR, therefore, deserves consideration when endoscopic excision of circumscribed lesions is impossible or incomplete.


Subject(s)
Adenoma , Carcinoma , Colonic Neoplasms , Colonic Polyps , Laparoscopy , Aged , Carcinoma/surgery , Colonic Neoplasms/pathology , Colonic Neoplasms/surgery , Colonic Polyps/pathology , Colonic Polyps/surgery , Colonoscopy/methods , Female , Humans , Laparoscopy/methods , Male , Margins of Excision , Prospective Studies , Retrospective Studies
19.
World J Gastroenterol ; 28(16): 1722-1724, 2022 Apr 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1862963

ABSTRACT

Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) was introduced nearly two decades ago. Initially, it was limited by poor image quality and short battery time, but due to technical improvements, it has become an equal diagnostic alternative to optical colonoscopy (OC). Hastened by the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, CCE has been introduced in clinical practice to relieve overburdened endoscopy units and move investigations to out-patient clinics. A wider adoption of CCE would be bolstered by positive patient experience, as it offers a diagnostic investigation that is not inferior to other modalities. The shortcomings of CCE include its inability to differentiate adenomatous polyps from hyperplastic polyps. Solving this issue would improve the stratification of patients for polyp removal. Artificial intelligence (AI) has shown promising results in polyp detection and characterization to minimize incomplete CCEs and avoid needless examinations. Onboard AI appears to be a needed application to enable near-real-time decision-making in order to diminish patient waiting times and avoid superfluous subsequent OCs. With this letter, we discuss the potential and role of AI in CCE as a diagnostic tool for the large bowel.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Capsule Endoscopy , Colonic Polyps , Colorectal Neoplasms , Gastroenterology , Artificial Intelligence , Capsule Endoscopy/methods , Colonic Polyps/diagnostic imaging , Colonoscopy/methods , Colorectal Neoplasms/diagnosis , Humans
20.
Surg Oncol Clin N Am ; 31(2): xv-xvi, 2022 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1852070
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL