Preference for colonoscopy versus computerized tomographic colonography: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.

In recent years, colorectal cancer (CRC) screening using computerized tomographic colonography (CTC) has attracted considerable attention. In order to better understand patient preferences for CTC versus colonoscopy, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the available literature. Data sources included published studies, abstracts and book chapters, in any language, with publication dates from 1995 through February 2012, and with prospective or retrospective enrollment of diagnostic or screening patients who had undergone both procedures and explicit assessment of their preference for colonoscopy versus CTC. A predefined algorithm identified eligible studies using computer and hand searches performed by two independent investigators. We used a mixed effects model to pool preference differences (defined as the proportion of subjects who preferred CTC minus the proportion who preferred colonoscopy for each study). Twenty-three studies met inclusion criteria, totaling 5616 subjects. In 16 of these studies, patients preferred CTC over colonoscopy, while colonoscopy was preferred in three studies. Due to the high degree of heterogeneity, an overall pooled preference difference was not calculated. Stratified analysis revealed that studies published in radiology journals (preference difference 0.590 [95 % CI 0.485, 0.694]) seemed more likely than studies in gastroenterology (0.218 [-0.015-0.451]) or general medicine journals (-0.158 [-0.389-0.072]) to report preference for CTC (p<0.001). Studies by radiology authors showed a trend towards stronger preference for CTC compared with studies by gastroenterology authors. Symptomatic patients expressed no preference, but screening patients preferred CTC. There was no difference in preferences between studies using "masked" and "unmasked" preference ascertainment methods. Three studies featuring limited bowel preparations for CTC reported marked preference for CTC. There was no evidence of publication bias, while cumulative and exclusion analysis did not show any temporal trend or dominant study. Limitations included data heterogeneity and preference ascertainment limitations. In conclusion, most included studies reported preference for CTC. On stratified analysis, screening patients preferred CTC while diagnostic patients showed no preference. Studies published in radiology journals showed significantly stronger preference for CTC compared with studies in gastroenterology or general medicine journals.

Explosion from argon cautery during proctoileoscopy of a patient with a colectomy.

We report a unique case of a 70-year-old woman with Gardner's syndrome who had a subtotal colectomy with ileoproctostomy. Since then, she has undergone 12 uncomplicated proctoileoscopies, each time with argon plasma coagulation ablation of small polyps without any bowel preparation. However, during the most recent procedure, when we attempted to cauterize some rectal polyps, an immediate explosion occurred, leading to multiple rectal and ileal perforations that required surgical repair with a temporary end ileostomy. This event suggests that bacterial fermentation of colonic content or visible feces is not necessary for combustion because we observed a cautery-related explosion in the absence of a colon. This case shows the need for adequate bowel preparation if cautery is to be used, even in patients who have undergone a colectomy.

The effect of periodic monitoring and feedback on screening colonoscopy withdrawal times, polyp detection rates, and patient satisfaction scores.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies showed a correlation between mean withdrawal times during screening colonoscopy and polyp/neoplasia detection rates. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of a monitoring and feedback program on withdrawal times, polyp/neoplasia detection rates, and patient satisfaction. DESIGN: Comparison of retrospective and prospective data. SETTING: Teaching hospital. PATIENTS: Asymptomatic adults undergoing screening colonoscopy. INTERVENTIONS: Monitoring and feedback program. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Withdrawal times, polyp and neoplasia detection rates, and patient satisfaction scores. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 850 screening colonoscopies, recording withdrawal times, polyp findings, and patient satisfaction scores. All procedures were performed by 10 experienced gastroenterologists who were then informed that periodic confidential monitoring and feedback of withdrawal times, polyp detection rates, and satisfaction scores would be started. We then prospectively collected data on another 541 screening colonoscopies. We compared pre- and postmonitoring outcome measures. RESULTS: Overall, after monitoring had begun, there was an increase in mean withdrawal times (from 6.57 to 8.07 minutes; P < .0001), and polyp detection rates (from 33.1% to 38.1%; P = .04, significance removed by Bonferroni correction). Nine of the 10 endoscopists increased their withdrawal times significantly. There was a small, nonsignificant increase in the neoplasia detection rate (from 19.6% to 22.7%; P = .17), but no significant change in mean satisfaction scores. Across endoscopists, there was a moderate correlation (r = 0.63; P = .04, significance removed by Bonferroni correction) between withdrawal times and polyp detection rates, but not between withdrawal times and satisfaction scores. LIMITATIONS: No randomization, possible response bias, confounding of intervention effects, and sample size limitations. CONCLUSIONS: Monitoring and feedback are associated with increases in mean withdrawal times and polyp detection rates, but not patient satisfaction scores. Neoplasia detection rates showed a statistically nonsignificant trend toward an increase.

The association between cholecystectomy and gastroesophageal reflux symptoms: a prospective controlled study.

OBJECTIVE: A large controlled prospective observational study to compare pre- and postsurgery changes in reflux symptoms between cholecystectomy and hernia repair surgery patients. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Six studies have suggested that gastroesophageal reflux worsens after cholecystectomy. However, all these studies had design limitations. METHODS: We recruited 302 patients scheduled to undergo elective cholecystectomy (study group) or hernia repair (controls) at 2 hospitals. Both groups filled out the validated Reflux Symptom Score (RSS) and Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale (GSRS) questionnaires 1 to 15 days prior to and 4 to 12 weeks after the operation. Changes in symptom scores between the pre and postsurgery assessments were measured, and compared between the 2 groups. RESULTS: Baseline RSS and GSRS reflux subscores were higher in the study group than controls (1.44 vs. 1.02 and 1.91 vs. 1.43, respectively; P < 0.05). There were no significant differences in any of the symptom score changes between the 2 groups except for the GSRS pain subscore, which decreased more in the study group than the control group (-0.59 vs. -0.10; P < 0.001). With regard to reflux, the RSS decreased by -0.34 in the study group and -0.14 in controls (P = 0.27), while the GSRS reflux subscore decreased by -0.32 in the study group and -0.05 in controls (P = 0.12). GSRS diarrhea and constipation subscores decreased slightly after surgery, to the same extent in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: This large prospective controlled study, the only one using validated reflux symptom questionnaires, shows that cholecystectomy does not lead to an increase in reflux symptoms. As expected, GSRS pain subscores were decreased in the cholecystectomy group but not the controls.

Blinded comparison of esophageal capsule endoscopy versus conventional endoscopy for a diagnosis of Barrett's esophagus in patients with chronic gastroesophageal reflux.

BACKGROUND: Esophageal capsule endoscopy (ECE) is an alternative to EGD for Barrett's esophagus screening. A multicenter study found ECE to be safe, well tolerated, and accurate; however, a post hoc adjudication process was used that may have biased results. OBJECTIVE: To assess the accuracy of ECE for the diagnosis of Barrett's esophagus. DESIGN: Prospective and blinded, with no adjudication. PATIENTS: Screening patients with chronic gastroesophageal reflux and surveillance patients with known Barrett's esophagus. INTERVENTIONS: ECE followed by EGD in each subject. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of ECE for Barrett's esophagus by using EGD results, with histologic confirmation as the criterion standard. RESULTS: Ninety-six subjects were enrolled, of whom 90 (94%) completed the study, including 66 screening and 24 surveillance patients. ECE was 67% sensitive and 84% specific for identifying Barrett's esophagus, diagnosing 14 of 21 cases of biopsy-confirmed Barrett's esophagus. Positive and negative predictive values were 22% and 98%, respectively (calculated for screening patients only). Sensitivity for short- and long-segment Barrett's esophagus was similar. CONCLUSIONS: Our blinded, unadjudicated study shows that ECE had only moderate sensitivity and specificity for identifying Barrett's esophagus. ECE in its present form is not suitable as a primary screening tool for Barrett's esophagus but may be used in patients unwilling to undergo EGD. Inadequate visualization of the gastroesophageal junction may be the cause of suboptimal ECE accuracy; this may be improved by advances in ingestion protocol and capsule calibration.

Risk of proximal colorectal neoplasia among asymptomatic patients with distal hyperplastic polyps.

PURPOSE: Many guidelines on colorectal cancer screening do not consider distal hyperplastic polyps to be a marker for proximal neoplasia. However, 11 of 17 published studies have shown an increased risk of proximal neoplasia in patients with distal hyperplastic polyps. Our goal is to assess the risk of proximal neoplasia in asymptomatic patients with distal hyperplastic polyps, compared to those with distal tubular adenomas or no distal polyps. METHODS: We assessed proximal (cecum, ascending, transverse colon and splenic flexure) and distal polyps in patients undergoing screening colonoscopy, classifying them into 3 groups: distal hyperplastic polyps only; distal adenomas with or without hyperplastic polyps; no distal polyps. The prevalence of proximal neoplasia and advanced neoplasia (polyps > or =1 cm, villous adenomas, or cancer) was compared among these groups. RESULTS: Of 2357 patients, 427 (18%) had neoplasia, including 103 (4%) with advanced neoplasia. Proximal neoplasia occurred in 175 (9%) of 1896 patients with no distal polyps, compared with 28 (12%) of 237 with distal hyperplastic polyps (P = 0.20) and 64 (29%) of 224 with distal adenomas (P <0.0001). Proximal advanced neoplasia occurred in 39 (2%) patients with no distal polyps, compared with 4 (2%) with distal hyperplastic polyps (P = 0.70) and 9 (4%) with distal adenomas (P = 0.13). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with distal hyperplastic polyps, unlike those with distal adenomas, do not exhibit an increased risk for proximal neoplasia or proximal advanced neoplasia compared to those with no distal polyps. The discovery of hyperplastic polyps on screening sigmoidoscopy should not prompt colonoscopy.