Fecal microbiota transplantation: current challenges and future landscapes.

SUMMARYGiven the importance of gut microbial homeostasis in maintaining health, there has been considerable interest in developing innovative therapeutic strategies for restoring gut microbiota. One such approach, fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT), is the main "whole gut microbiome replacement" strategy and has been integrated into clinical practice guidelines for treating recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection (rCDI). Furthermore, the potential application of FMT in other indications such as inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), metabolic syndrome, and solid tumor malignancies is an area of intense interest and active research. However, the complex and variable nature of FMT makes it challenging to address its precise functionality and to assess clinical efficacy and safety in different disease contexts. In this review, we outline clinical applications, efficacy, durability, and safety of FMT and provide a comprehensive assessment of its procedural and administration aspects. The clinical applications of FMT in children and cancer immunotherapy are also described. We focus on data from human studies in IBD in contrast with rCDI to delineate the putative mechanisms of this treatment in IBD as a model, including colonization resistance and functional restoration through bacterial engraftment, modulating effects of virome/phageome, gut metabolome and host interactions, and immunoregulatory actions of FMT. Furthermore, we comprehensively review omics technologies, metagenomic approaches, and bioinformatics pipelines to characterize complex microbial communities and discuss their limitations. FMT regulatory challenges, ethical considerations, and pharmacomicrobiomics are also highlighted to shed light on future development of tailored microbiome-based therapeutics.

Improvement of Endoscopic Reports with Implementation of a Dictation Template.

AIMS: Completeness of procedure reports is an important quality indicator in endoscopy. A dictation template was developed to ensure key elements were included in colonoscopy and esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) reports. Endoscopy reports were reviewed prior to and following implementation of the dictation templates to determine whether report completeness improved. METHODS: Key elements in an endoscopic report were identified from published guidelines and posted at dictation stations. Colonoscopy and EGD reports were reviewed for the nine physicians performing endoscopy at St. Paul's Hospital prior to and following implementation of dictation templates. Dictation completeness was defined as inclusion of all key elements. Dictation completeness and inclusion of individual key elements at the two time points were compared using the t-test and Chi-square test. RESULTS: Reports for 4648 procedures undertaken by nine endoscopists were reviewed for completeness at each time point (2008 and 2014). Colonoscopy report completeness increased from 65.8% to 83.2% (P < 0.001). Items that improved included documentation of consent, endoscope used, complications, withdrawal time and rectal retroflexion. EGD report completeness increased from 72.7% to 77.3% (P < 0.001) with improvement in documentation of consent and complications. Items consistently underreported for colonoscopy and EGD at both time points included: patient age, comorbidities, current medications and patient comfort. CONCLUSION: There was an association between the use of a posted dictation template at dictation stations and the improved completeness of endoscopic reports.

Internet-Based Patient Education Prior to Colonoscopy: Prospective, Observational Study of a Single Center's Implementation, with Objective Assessment of Bowel Preparation Quality and Patient Satisfaction.

BACKGROUND: Nonpharmacologic factors, including patient education, affect bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Optimal cleansing increases quality and reduces repeat procedures. This study prospectively analyzes use of an individualized online patient education module in place of traditional patient education. AIMS: To determine the effectiveness of online education for patients, measured by the proportion achieving sufficient bowel preparation. Secondary measures include assessment of patient satisfaction. METHODS: Prospective, single-center, observational study. Adults aged 19 years and over, with an e-mail account, scheduled for nonurgent colonoscopy, with English proficiency (or someone who could translate for them) were recruited. Demographics and objective bowel preparation quality were collected. Patient satisfaction was assessed via survey to assess clarity and usefulness of the module. RESULTS: Nine hundred consecutive patients completed the study. 84.6% of patients achieved adequate bowel preparation as measured by Boston bowel preparation score ≥ 6 and 90.1% scored adequately using Ottawa bowel preparation score ≤7. 94.2% and 92.1% of patients rated the web-education module as 'very useful' and 'very clear', respectively (≥8/10 on respective scales). CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis suggests that internet-based patient education prior to colonoscopy is a viable option and achieves adequate bowel preparation. Preparation quality is comparable to previously published trials. Included patients found the process clear and useful. Pragmatic benefits of a web-based protocol such as time and cost savings were not formally assessed but may contribute to greater satisfaction for endoscopists and patients.

Recognition of Lynch Syndrome Amongst Newly Diagnosed Colorectal Cancers at St. Paul's Hospital.

BACKGROUND: Lynch Syndrome (LS) is the most common cause of inherited colorectal cancer (CRC). In British Columbia, most centres still use clinical criteria (Amsterdam II, Revised Bethesda, or the BC Cancer Agency's criteria) to determine who should undergo further first-line testing in the form of microsatellite instability or immunohistochemistry staining. Given the limitations with this strategy, LS is thought to be underrecognized. OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether LS is truly underrecognized when compared to the reported prevalence. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of all CRC cases diagnosed at St. Paul's Hospital from 2010 to 2013 was conducted. RESULTS: 246 patients met inclusion criteria. 76% (83/109) with a family history of malignancy were unable to recall the specific malignancy or age of diagnosis. 18% (43/235) were only asked about a history of gastrointestinal related malignancy and 26% (65/246) met at least one of the three criteria but only 21% (13/63) received further investigation. Only 1.6% (4/246) had LS compared to the reported prevalence of 2-5% of all CRC cases. CONCLUSION: This data supports our hypothesis that LS is underrecognized. Issues at the patient, physician, and systems level need to be evaluated to determine where the limitations preventing appropriate testing are occurring.

Time to Endoscopy in Patients with Colorectal Cancer: Analysis of Wait-Times.

Objective. The Canadian Association of Gastroenterology Wait Time Consensus Group recommends that patients with symptoms associated with colorectal cancer (CRC) should have an endoscopic examination within 2 months. However, in a recent survey of Canadian gastroenterologists, wait-times for endoscopy were considerably longer than the current guidelines recommend. The purpose of this study was to evaluate wait-times for colonoscopy in patients who were subsequently found to have CRC through the Division of Gastroenterology at St. Paul's Hospital (SPH). Methods. This study was a retrospective chart review of outpatients seen for consultation and endoscopy ultimately diagnosed with CRC. Subjects were identified through the SPH pathology database for the inclusion period 2010 through 2013. Data collected included wait-times, subject characteristics, cancer characteristics, and outcomes. Results. 246 subjects met inclusion criteria for this study. The mean wait-time from primary care referral to first office visit was 63 days; the mean wait-time to first endoscopy was 94 days. Patients with symptoms waited a mean of 86 days to first endoscopy, considerably longer than the national recommended guideline of 60 days. There was no apparent effect of length of wait-time on node positivity or presence of distant metastases at the time of diagnosis. Conclusion. Wait-times for outpatient consultation and endoscopic evaluation at the St. Paul's Hospital Division of Gastroenterology exceed current guidelines.