Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 90
Filter
2.
Gastroenterol Hepatol ; 47(2): 140-148, 2024 Feb.
Article in English, Spanish | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36934841

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic created a backlog in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and surveillance colonoscopies. The real impact in Argentina is not fully known. GOAL: To estimate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on CRC prevention by comparing the number of CRC screening and surveillance consults in a clinical decision support-tool used in Argentina before, during and after pandemic lockdown. METHODS: We analyzed data from May 2019 to December 2021 from CaPtyVa, a clinical decision support tool for CRC screening and surveillance. Queries were divided in pre-pandemic (May 2019 to March 2020), lockdown (April 2020 to December 2020), and post-lockdown (January 2021 to December 2021). The number of CRC monthly screening and surveillance visits were compared among the three periods and stratified according to CRC risk. RESULTS: Overall, 27,563 consults were analyzed of which 9035 were screening and 18,528 were surveillance. Pre-pandemic, the median number of screening consults was 346 per month (IQR25-75 280-410). There was a decrease to 156 (80-210)/month (p<0.005) during lockdown that partially recovered during post-lockdown to 230 (170-290)/month (p=0.05). Pre-pandemic, the median number of surveillance consults was 716 (560-880)/month. They decreased to 354 (190-470)/month during lockdown (p<.05) and unlike screening, completely recovered during post-lockdown to 581 (450-790)/month. CONCLUSIONS: There was a >50% decrease in the number of CRC screening and surveillance consults registered in CaPtyVa during lockdown in Argentina. Post-lockdown, surveillance consults recovered to pre-pandemic levels, but screening consults remained at 66% of pre-pandemic levels. This has implications for delays in CRC diagnoses and patient outcomes.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Colorectal Neoplasms , Decision Support Systems, Clinical , Neoplasms , Humans , Early Detection of Cancer , COVID-19/epidemiology , Argentina/epidemiology , Communicable Disease Control , Pandemics/prevention & control , Retrospective Studies , Colorectal Neoplasms/diagnosis , Colorectal Neoplasms/epidemiology
3.
Am J Gastroenterol ; 119(2): 251-261, 2024 Feb 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37782262

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: The coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) pandemic disrupted endoscopy practices, creating unprecedented decreases in cancer screening and surveillance services. We aimed to assess the impact of the pandemic on the proportion of patients diagnosed with Barrett's esophagus (BE) and BE-related dysplasia and adherence to established quality indicators. METHODS: Data from all esophagogastroduodenoscopies in the GI Quality Improvement Consortium, a national repository of matched endoscopy and pathology data, were analyzed from January 2018 to December 2022. Four cohorts were created based on procedure date and COVID-19 data: pre-pandemic (January 2018 to February 2020), pandemic-phase I (March 2020 to July 2020), pandemic-phase II (August 2020 to May 2021), and pandemic-phase III (June 2021 to December 2022). Observed and expected number of BE and BE-related dysplasia cases per month and adherence to the Seattle biopsy protocol and recommended surveillance intervals for nondysplastic BE (NDBE) were evaluated. RESULTS: Among 2,446,857 esophagogastroduodenoscopies performed during the study period, 104,124 (4.3%) had pathology-confirmed BE. The histologic distribution was 87.4% NDBE, 1.8% low-grade dysplasia, 2.4% indefinite for dysplasia, and 1.4% high-grade dysplasia. The number of monthly BE (-47.9% pandemic-phase I, -21.5% pandemic-phase II, and -19.0% pandemic-phase III) and BE-related dysplasia (high-grade dysplasia: 41.2%, -27.7%, and -19.0%; low-grade dysplasia: 49.1%, -35.3%, and -26.5%; any dysplasia: 46.7%, -32.3%, and -27.9%) diagnoses were significantly reduced during the pandemic phases compared with pre-pandemic data. Adherence rates to the Seattle protocol and recommended surveillance intervals for NDBE did not decline during the pandemic. DISCUSSION: There was a significant decline in the number of BE and BE-related dysplasia diagnoses during the COVID-19 pandemic, with an approximately 50% reduction in the number of cases of dysplasia diagnosed in the early pandemic. The absence of a compensatory increase in diagnoses in the pandemic-phase II and III periods may result in deleterious downstream effects on esophageal adenocarcinoma morbidity and mortality.


Subject(s)
Barrett Esophagus , COVID-19 , Esophageal Neoplasms , Humans , Barrett Esophagus/diagnosis , Barrett Esophagus/epidemiology , Barrett Esophagus/pathology , Pandemics , Esophagoscopy , Biopsy , COVID-19/epidemiology , Esophageal Neoplasms/diagnosis , Esophageal Neoplasms/epidemiology , Esophageal Neoplasms/pathology , Hyperplasia , COVID-19 Testing
4.
Arch Womens Ment Health ; 26(6): 785-791, 2023 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37632568

ABSTRACT

Medical training occurs during peak childbearing years for most medical students. Many factors influence specialty selection. The aims of this study were (i) to determine whether being a parent is a major deciding factor when picking a specialty and (ii) whether parents are more drawn to family-friendly specialties than non-parents. The authors performed a multicenter web-based survey study of medical students enrolled in Oregon Health and Science University, Dartmouth's Geisel School of Medicine, and University of Michigan Medical School. The 27-item instrument assessed parenthood status, specialty preference, specialty perceptions, and factors influencing specialty choice. A total of 537 out of 2236 (24.0%) students responded. Among respondents, 59 (10.9%) were current or expecting parents. The majority (359, 66.8%) were female and 24-35 years old (430, 80.1%). Of the students who were parents or expecting, 30 (50.9%) were female, and the majority (55, 93.2%) were partnered. Top specialties preferred by both parents and non-parents were family medicine, emergency medicine, obstetrics and gynecology (OB/GYN), internal medicine, psychiatry, and pediatrics. Specialties rated most family-friendly included family medicine, dermatology, pediatrics, psychiatry, radiology, emergency medicine, and pathology. The specialties rated least family-friendly were surgery, neurosurgery, orthopedic surgery, plastic surgery, and OB/GYN. These rankings were the same between groups. Passion for the field, culture of the specialty, and quality of life were the top three factors students considered when choosing a specialty. Being a parent or future parent ranked more highly for parents than non-parents, but was not in the top three factors for either group. US Medical School parents report that being a parent influenced their medical specialty choice "strongly" or "very strongly." However, being a parent was not weighed as heavily as passion for the field, culture of the specialty, and quality of life. These student-parents are entering perceived "non-family friendly" specialties at similar rates as their peers. US Medical school training and simultaneous parenting is daunting, yet student parents are putting their passion first when making a career choice. They must be supported.


Subject(s)
Gynecology , Obstetrics , Students, Medical , Humans , Male , Female , Child , Quality of Life , Surveys and Questionnaires , Parents
5.
J Clin Gastroenterol ; 57(9): 855-862, 2023 10 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37436836

ABSTRACT

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide and its incidence increases with age. The proportion of older adults in the United States continues to rise, making CRC prevention a key health priority for our aging population. CRC is a largely preventable disease through screening and polyp surveillance, and noninvasive modalities represent an important option for older adults in whom the burdens and risks of invasive testing are higher compared with younger adults. This review highlights the evidence, risks, and benefits of noninvasive CRC screening and surveillance options in older adults and discusses the challenges of CRC prevention in this cohort.


Subject(s)
Colorectal Neoplasms , Humans , United States , Aged , Colorectal Neoplasms/diagnosis , Colorectal Neoplasms/epidemiology , Colorectal Neoplasms/prevention & control , Incidence , Age Factors , Early Detection of Cancer , Mass Screening
6.
Gastrointest Endosc ; 98(3): 285-305.e38, 2023 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37498265

ABSTRACT

This document from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) provides a full description of the methodology used in the review of the evidence used to inform the final guidance outlined in the accompanying Summary and Recommendations document regarding the role of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in the management of early esophageal and gastric cancers. This guideline used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework and specifically addresses the role of ESD versus EMR and/or surgery, where applicable, for the management of early esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), and gastric adenocarcinoma (GAC) and their corresponding precursor lesions. For ESCC, the ASGE suggests ESD over EMR for patients with early-stage, well-differentiated, nonulcerated cancer >15 mm, whereas in patients with similar lesions ≤15 mm, the ASGE suggests either ESD or EMR. The ASGE suggests against surgery for such patients with ESCC, whenever possible. For EAC, the ASGE suggests ESD over EMR for patients with early-stage, well-differentiated, nonulcerated cancer >20 mm, whereas in patients with similar lesions measuring ≤20 mm, the ASGE suggests either ESD or EMR. For GAC, the ASGE suggests ESD over EMR for patients with early-stage, well or moderately differentiated, nonulcerated intestinal type cancer measuring 20 to 30 mm, whereas for patients with similar lesions <20 mm, the ASGE suggests either ESD or EMR. The ASGE suggests against surgery for patients with such lesions measuring ≤30 mm, whereas for lesions that are poorly differentiated, regardless of size, the ASGE suggests surgical evaluation over endosic approaches.


Subject(s)
Adenocarcinoma , Endoscopic Mucosal Resection , Esophageal Neoplasms , Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma , Stomach Neoplasms , Humans , Adenocarcinoma/surgery , Adenocarcinoma/pathology , Endoscopic Mucosal Resection/methods , Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal/methods , Esophageal Neoplasms/surgery , Esophageal Neoplasms/pathology , Retrospective Studies , Stomach Neoplasms/surgery , Stomach Neoplasms/pathology , Treatment Outcome
7.
Gastrointest Endosc ; 98(3): 271-284, 2023 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37498266

ABSTRACT

This clinical practice guideline from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) provides an evidence-based summary and recommendations regarding the role of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in the management of early esophageal and gastric cancers. It is accompanied by the document subtitled "Methodology and Review of Evidence," which provides a detailed account of the methodology used for the evidence review. This guideline was developed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework and specifically addresses the role of ESD versus EMR and/or surgery, where applicable, for the management of early esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), and gastric adenocarcinoma (GAC) and their corresponding precursor lesions. For ESCC, the ASGE suggests ESD over EMR for patients with early-stage, well-differentiated, nonulcerated cancer >15 mm, whereas in patients with similar lesions ≤15 mm, the ASGE suggests either ESD or EMR. The ASGE suggests against surgery for such patients with ESCC, whenever possible. For EAC, the ASGE suggests ESD over EMR for patients with early-stage, well-differentiated, nonulcerated cancer >20 mm, whereas in patients with similar lesions measuring ≤20 mm, the ASGE suggests either ESD or EMR. For GAC, the ASGE suggests ESD over EMR for patients with early-stage, well- or moderately differentiated, nonulcerated intestinal type cancer measuring 20 to 30 mm, whereas for patients with similar lesions <20 mm, the ASGE suggests either ESD or EMR. The ASGE suggests against surgery for patients with such lesions measuring ≤30 mm, whereas for lesions that are poorly differentiated, regardless of size, we suggest surgical evaluation over endoscopic approaches.


Subject(s)
Adenocarcinoma , Endoscopic Mucosal Resection , Esophageal Neoplasms , Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma , Stomach Neoplasms , Humans , Esophageal Neoplasms/surgery , Esophageal Neoplasms/pathology , Stomach Neoplasms/surgery , Stomach Neoplasms/pathology , Endoscopic Mucosal Resection/methods , Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal , Adenocarcinoma/surgery , Adenocarcinoma/pathology , Treatment Outcome , Retrospective Studies
8.
Gastrointest Endosc ; 98(5): 685-693, 2023 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37307900

ABSTRACT

This clinical practice guideline from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy provides an evidence-based approach for the diagnosis of malignancy in patients with biliary strictures of undetermined etiology. This document was developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework and addresses the role of fluoroscopic-guided biopsy sampling, brush cytology, cholangioscopy, and EUS in the diagnosis of malignancy in patients with biliary strictures. In the endoscopic workup of these patients, we suggest the use of fluoroscopic-guided biopsy sampling in addition to brush cytology over brush cytology alone, especially for hilar strictures. We suggest the use of cholangioscopic and EUS-guided biopsy sampling especially for patients who undergo nondiagnostic sampling, cholangioscopic biopsy sampling for nondistal strictures and EUS-guided biopsy sampling distal strictures or those with suspected spread to surrounding lymph nodes and other structures.

9.
Gastrointest Endosc ; 98(5): 694-712.e8, 2023 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37307901

ABSTRACT

Biliary strictures of undetermined etiology pose a diagnostic challenge for endoscopists. Despite advances in technology, diagnosing malignancy in biliary strictures often requires multiple procedures. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework was used to rigorously review and synthesize the available literature on strategies used to diagnose undetermined biliary strictures. Using a systematic review and meta-analysis of each diagnostic modality, including fluoroscopic-guided biopsy sampling, brush cytology, cholangioscopy, and EUS-guided FNA or fine-needle biopsy sampling, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Standards of Practice Committee provides this guideline on modalities used to diagnose biliary strictures of undetermined etiology. This document summarizes the methods used in the GRADE analysis to make recommendations, whereas the accompanying article subtitled "Summary and Recommendations" contains a concise summary of our findings and final recommendations.

10.
Gastrointest. endosc ; 98(5): 694-712, 20230610. tab
Article in English | BIGG - GRADE guidelines | ID: biblio-1524147

ABSTRACT

Biliary strictures of undetermined etiology pose a diagnostic challenge for endoscopists. Despite advances in technology, diagnosing malignancy in biliary strictures often requires multiple procedures. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework was used to rigorously review and synthesize the available literature on strategies used to diagnose undetermined biliary strictures. Using a systematic review and meta-analysis of each diagnostic modality, including fluoroscopic-guided biopsy sampling, brush cytology, cholangioscopy, and EUS-guided FNA or fine-needle biopsy sampling, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Standards of Practice Committee provides this guideline on modalities used to diagnose biliary strictures of undetermined etiology. This document summarizes the methods used in the GRADE analysis to make recommendations, whereas the accompanying article subtitled "Summary and Recommendations" contains a concise summary of our findings and final recommendations.


Subject(s)
Bile Duct Diseases/diagnostic imaging , Evidence-Based Medicine , Bile Duct Diseases/etiology , Biopsy , Endoscopy
11.
J Gen Intern Med ; 38(12): 2761-2767, 2023 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37225959

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Little is known about patient or provider experience and perceptions of stopping surveillance among older adults with a history of colon polyps. While guidelines recommend ceasing routine colorectal cancer screening in adults > 75 years and those with limited life expectancy, guidance for ceasing surveillance colonoscopy in those with prior colon polyps suggests individualizing recommendations. OBJECTIVE: Identify processes, experiences, and gaps around individualizing decisions to stop or continue surveillance colonoscopy for older adults and areas for improvement. DESIGN: Phenomenological qualitative study design using recorded semi-structured interviews from May 2020 through March 2021. PARTICIPANTS: 15 patients aged ≥ 65 in polyp surveillance, 12 primary care providers (PCPs), and 13 gastroenterologists (GIs). APPROACH: Data were analyzed using a mixed deductive (directed content analysis) and inductive (grounded theory) approach to identify themes related to stopping or continuing surveillance colonoscopies. KEY RESULTS: Analysis resulted in 24 themes and were clustered into three main categories: health and clinical considerations; communication and roles; and system-level processes or structures. Overall, the study found support for discussions around age 75-80 on stopping surveillance colonoscopy with considerations for health and life expectancy and that PCPs should take a primary role. However, systems and processes for scheduling surveillance colonoscopies largely bypass PCPs which reduces opportunities to both individualize recommendations and facilitate patients' decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified gaps in processes to implement current guidelines for individualizing surveillance colonoscopy as adults grow older, including opportunities to discuss stopping. Increasing the role of PCPs in polyp surveillance as patients grow older provides more opportunities for individualized recommendations, so patients can consider their own preferences, ask questions, and make a more informed choice for themselves. Changing existing systems and processes and creating supportive tools for shared decision-making specific to older adults with polyps would improve how surveillance colonoscopy is individualized in this population.


Subject(s)
Colonoscopy , Colorectal Neoplasms , Humans , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Colorectal Neoplasms/diagnosis , Qualitative Research
12.
Gastrointest Endosc ; 98(4): 482-491, 2023 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37245720

ABSTRACT

This clinical practice guideline from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy provides an evidence-based approach to strategies to prevent endoscopy-related injury (ERI) in GI endoscopists. It is accompanied by the article subtitled "Methodology and Review of Evidence," which provides a detailed account of the methodology used for the evidence review. This document was developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. The guideline estimates the rates, sites, and predictors of ERI. Additionally, it addresses the role of ergonomics training, microbreaks and macrobreaks, monitor and table positions, antifatigue mats, and use of ancillary devices in decreasing the risk of ERI. We recommend formal ergonomics education and neutral posture during the performance of endoscopy, achieved through adjustable monitor and optimal procedure table position, to reduce the risk of ERI. We suggest taking microbreaks and scheduled macrobreaks and using antifatigue mats during procedures to prevent ERI. We suggest the use of ancillary devices in those with risk factors predisposing them to ERI.


Subject(s)
Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal , Ergonomics , Humans , Posture , Risk Factors
14.
JAMA Intern Med ; 183(5): 426-434, 2023 05 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36912828

ABSTRACT

Importance: Surveillance after prior colon polyps is the most frequent indication for colonoscopy in older adults. However, to our knowledge, the current use of surveillance colonoscopy, clinical outcomes, and follow-up recommendations in association with life expectancy, factoring in both age and comorbidities, have not been studied. Objective: To evaluate the association of estimated life expectancy with surveillance colonoscopy findings and follow-up recommendations among older adults. Design, Setting, and Participants: This registry-based cohort study used data from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry (NHCR) linked with Medicare claims data and included adults in the NHCR who were older than 65 years, underwent colonoscopy for surveillance after prior polyps between April 1, 2009, and December 31, 2018, and had full Medicare Parts A and B coverage and no Medicare managed care plan enrollment in the year prior to colonoscopy. Data were analyzed from December 2019 to March 2021. Exposures: Life expectancy (<5 years, 5 to <10 years, or ≥10 years), estimated using a validated prediction model. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were clinical findings of colon polyps or colorectal cancer (CRC) and recommendations for future colonoscopy. Results: Among 9831 adults included in the study, the mean (SD) age was 73.2 (5.0) years and 5285 (53.8%) were male. A total of 5649 patients (57.5%) had an estimated life expectancy of 10 or more years, 3443 (35.0%) of 5 to less than 10 years, and 739 (7.5%) of less than 5 years. Overall, 791 patients (8.0%) had advanced polyps (768 [7.8%]) or CRC (23 [0.2%]). Among the 5281 patients with available recommendations (53.7%), 4588 (86.9%) were recommended to return for future colonoscopy. Those with longer life expectancy or more advanced clinical findings were more likely to be told to return. For example, among patients with no polyps or only small hyperplastic polyps, 132 of 227 (58.1%) with life expectancy of less than 5 years were told to return for future surveillance colonoscopy vs 940 of 1257 (74.8%) with life expectancy of 5 to less than 10 years and 2163 of 2272 (95.2%) with life expectancy of 10 years or more (P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, the likelihood of finding advanced polyps and CRC on surveillance colonoscopy was low regardless of life expectancy. Despite this observation, 58.1% of older adults with less than 5 years' life expectancy were recommended to return for future surveillance colonoscopy. These data may help refine decision-making about pursuing or stopping surveillance colonoscopy in older adults with a history of polyps.


Subject(s)
Colonic Polyps , Colorectal Neoplasms , Humans , Male , Aged , Female , Cohort Studies , Follow-Up Studies , Colonoscopy , Life Expectancy , Colorectal Neoplasms/epidemiology
15.
Dig Dis Sci ; 68(5): 1718-1727, 2023 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36436154

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Despite regular need for colonoscopy in patients with Crohn's disease (CD), the efficacy and tolerability of bowel preparation (BP) agents is rarely assessed in this population. Assessing BP quality with existing scales may be challenging in CD due to presence of inflammation, bowel resection, and strictures. AIMS: To provide recommendations for assessing BP quality in clinical trials for CD using a modified Research and Development/University of California, Los Angeles appropriateness process. METHODS: Based on systematic reviews and a literature search, 110 statements relating to BP quality assessment in CD were developed. A panel of 15 gastroenterologists rated the statements as appropriate, uncertain, or inappropriate using a 9-point Likert scale. RESULTS: Panelists considered it appropriate that central readers, either alone or with local assessment, score BP quality in clinical trials. Central readers should be trained on scoring BP quality and local endoscopists on performing high-quality video recording. Both endoscope insertion and withdrawal phases should be reviewed to score BP quality in each colonic segment and segments should align with endoscopic disease activity indices. The Harefield Cleansing Scale and the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale were considered appropriate. The final score should be calculated as the average of all visualized segments. Both total and worst segment scores should also be assessed. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a framework for assessing BP quality in patients with CD based on expert feedback. This framework could support the development or refinement of BP quality scales and the integration of BP quality assessment in future CD studies.


Subject(s)
Colon , Colonoscopy , Crohn Disease , Humans , Consensus , Constriction, Pathologic , Crohn Disease/diagnosis , Crohn Disease/drug therapy
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...