Systematic review with meta-analysis: the comparative effectiveness of aspirin vs. screening for colorectal cancer prevention.

BACKGROUND: Both aspirin use and screening with flexible sigmoidoscopy or guaiac faecal occult blood testing (FOBT) may reduce mortality from colorectal cancer, but comparative effectiveness of these interventions is unknown. AIM: To compare aspirin to guaiac FOBT screening with regard to incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer in a network meta-analysis. METHODS: We searched Medline, EMBASE and the COCHRANE central register (CENTRAL) for relevant randomised trials identified until 31 October 2015. Randomised trials in average-risk populations that reported colorectal cancer mortality, colorectal cancer incidence, or both, with a minimum follow-up of 2 years, and more than 100 randomised individuals were included. Three investigators independently extracted data. We calculated relative risks [RR with 95% predictive intervals (PrIs)] for the comparison of the interventions by frequentist network meta-analyses. RESULTS: The effect of aspirin on colorectal cancer mortality was similar to FOBT (RR 1.03; 95% PrI 0.76-1.39) and flexible sigmoidoscopy (RR 1.16; 95% PrI 0.84-1.60). Aspirin was more effective than FOBT (RR 0.36; 95% PrI 0.22-0.59) and flexible sigmoidoscopy (RR 0.37; 95% PrI 0.22-0.62) in preventing death from or cancer in the proximal colon. Aspirin was equally effective as screening in reducing colorectal cancer incidence, while flexible sigmoidoscopy was superior to FOBT (RR 0.84; 95% PrI 0.72-0.97). CONCLUSIONS: Low-dose aspirin seems to be equally effective as flexible sigmoidoscopy or guaiac FOBT screening to reduce colorectal cancer incidence and mortality, and more effective for cancers in the proximal colon. A randomised comparative effectiveness trial of aspirin vs. screening is warranted.

Current status of screening for colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a leading cause of cancer morbidity and mortality. A well-defined precursor lesion (adenoma) and a long preclinical course make CRC a candidate for screening. This paper reviews the current evidence for the most important tests that are widely used or under development for population-based screening. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this narrative review, we scrutinized all papers we have been aware of, and carried out searches in PubMed and Cochrane library for relevant literature. RESULTS: Two screening methods have been shown to reduce CRC mortality in randomised trials: repetitive faecal occult blood testing (FOBT) reduces CRC mortality by 16%; once-only flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) by 28%. FS screening also reduces CRC incidence (by 18%), FOBT does not. Colonoscopy screening has a potentially larger effect on CRC incidence and mortality, but randomised trials are lacking. New screening methods are on the horizon but need to be tested in large clinical trials before implementation in population screening. CONCLUSIONS: FS screening reduces CRC incidence and CRC mortality by removal of adenomas; FOBT reduces CRC mortality by early detection of cancer. Several other tests are available, but none has been evaluated in randomised trials. Screening strategies differ considerably across countries.

Bowel preparation for colonoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: This Guideline is an official statement of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE). It addresses the choice amongst regimens available for cleansing the colon in preparation for colonoscopy. METHODS: This Guideline is based on a targeted literature search to evaluate the evidence supporting the use of bowel preparation for colonoscopy. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system was adopted to define the strength of recommendation and the quality of evidence. RESULTS: The main recommendations are as follows. (1) The ESGE recommends a low-fiber diet on the day preceding colonoscopy (weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence). (2) The ESGE recommends a split regimen of 4 L of polyethylene glycol (PEG) solution (or a same-day regimen in the case of afternoon colonoscopy) for routine bowel preparation. A split regimen (or same-day regimen in the case of afternoon colonoscopy) of 2 L PEG plus ascorbate or of sodium picosulphate plus magnesium citrate may be valid alternatives, in particular for elective outpatient colonoscopy (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). In patients with renal failure, PEG is the only recommended bowel preparation. The delay between the last dose of bowel preparation and colonoscopy should be minimized and no longer than 4 hours (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). (3) The ESGE advises against the routine use of sodium phosphate for bowel preparation because of safety concerns (strong recommendation, low quality evidence).

Reduced pain during screening colonoscopy with an ultrathin colonoscope: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Screening colonoscopy for colorectal cancer (CRC) is recommended in several countries, but uptake rates are often low. Fear of pain and also time-consuming costly sedation are barriers for colonoscopy, and thus development of colonoscopy equipment that decreases patient discomfort is worthwhile. This randomized controlled trial investigated the performance of an ultrathin colonoscope in CRC screening. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Consecutive participants in a colonoscopy screening trial were randomized to examination with an ultrathin prototype colonoscope or a standard colonoscope. The main outcome measure was pain during the examination. Participants rated pain (no, slight, moderate, severe) using a validated questionnaire. RESULTS: From 187 enrolled participants (80 women [43 %]), 162 (87 %) responded to the questionnaire. The study groups were similar regarding baseline characteristics. Pain scores were significantly lower in the prototype instrument group compared with the standard group (78 % vs. 29 % of patients with no pain in prototype and standard groups, respectively; odds ratio [OR] 0.11; 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.06 - 0.23; P < 0.001). Cecal intubation rate was 98 % in the prototype group and 92 % in the standard group (P = 0.085). Sedation was used in 2 % and 7 % in the prototype and standard groups respectively (P = 0.12). Adenoma detection rate was 13 % in the prototype group vs. 24 % in the standard group (P = 0.052). CONCLUSION: The new ultrathin Olympus colonoscope decreases patient pain during screening colonoscopy. This feature may improve uptake and patient satisfaction in screening colonoscopy. Further study is needed to evaluate the lower adenoma detection rate.