Impact of dormancy periods on some physiological and biochemical indices of potato tubers.

Background: Storage of potato tubers is an essential stage of the supply chain, from farm to consumer, to efficiently match supply and demand. However, the quality and yield of potatoes are influenced by physiological changes during storage. Methods: This study tested the physiological and biochemical indices in three potato varieties (YunSu 108, YunSu 304 and YunSu 306) during their dormancy periods. Results: Three potato varieties with different dormancy periods were used to follow changes in starch, protein and several enzymes during storage. The starch and sugar content of the long-dormant variety (YunSu 108, LDV) were stable, whereas those of the short-dormant variety (YunSu 306, SDV) were variable. Starch synthase activity in the three varieties was initially high, then decreased; the starch content of LDV was relatively stable, that of the medium-dormant variety (YunSu 304, MDV) increased with storage time and peaked at sprouting, and that of SDV was low but variable. The sucrose synthase activity of LDV was significantly higher (p < 0.05) than MDV and SDV in the middle storage period. Two spikes were observed in the invertase activity of SDV, whereas those of MDV and LDV were stable. The reducing sugar content of LDV increased significantly before sprouting, that of MDV slowly decreased and that of SDV dropped sharply. During the whole storage period, pectinase activity in LDV did not change significantly, whereas pectinase in MDV and SDV decreased. The cellulase and protein contents initially increased and then decreased in LDV, and steadily decreased in MDV and SDV. Conclusion: The metabolic indices related to starch and sugar in the LDV were relatively stable during storage, whereas those of the SDV varied greatly. SDV showed increased sucrose, reducing sugars and cellulose; LDV PCA plots clustered in the positive quadrant of PC1 and the negative quadrant of PC2, with increased protein, sucrose synthase and starch; MDV had increased soluble starch synthase.

Effect of sedated colonoscopy with different cost coverage on improving compliance with colorectal cancer screening in China.

Background: Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer worldwide. Colonoscopy is the gold standard for colorectal cancer screening. However, the colonoscopy participation rate in China is much lower than that in Europe and the United States. As only non-sedated colonoscopies are offered in colorectal cancer screening programs in China, the absence of sedation may contribute to this gap. Methods: To explore the effect of free and partially participant-paid sedated colonoscopy on improving colorectal screening participation, we conducted a cross-sectional study under the framework of the Cancer Screening Program in Urban China in Xuzhou from May 2017 to December 2020. The Quanshan district was set as the control group and provided free non-sedated colonoscopy, the Yunlong district was set as a partial cost coverage group and offered partially participant-paid sedated colonoscopy, and the Gulou district was set as the full cost coverage group and offered free sedation colonoscopies. Multivariate logistic regression was used for multivariate analysis of colonoscopy participation and colorectal lesion detection rates between the groups. Results: From May 2017 to May 2020, 81,358 participants were recruited and completed questionnaire, 7,868 subjects who met high-risk conditions for CRC were invited to undergo colonoscopy. The colonoscopy participation rates in the control group, partially cost coverage, and full cost coverage groups were 17.33% (594/3,428), 25.66% (542/2,112), and 34.41% (801/2,328), respectively. Subjects in the partial and full cost coverage groups had 1.66-fold (95% CI: 1.48-1.86) and 2.49-fold (95% CI: 2.23-2.76) increased rates compared with those in the control group. The adjusted PARs for the partially and the full cost coverage group was 9.08 (95% CI: 6.88-11.28) and 18.97 (95% CI: 16.51-21.42), respectively. The detection rates of CAN in the control, partial-cost coverage, and full-cost coverage groups were 3.54% (21/594), 2.95% (16/542), and 5.12% (41/801), respectively. There were no significant differences in the detection rates between the group. However, sedated colonoscopy increases costs. Conclusion: Sedated colonoscopy increased colonoscopy participation rates in both the partial and full cost-covered groups. A partial cost coverage strategy may be a good way to increase colorectal cancer participation rates and quickly establish a colorectal cancer screening strategy in underfunded areas.

Comparison of Colonoscopy, Fecal Immunochemical Test, and Risk-Adapted Approach in a Colorectal Cancer Screening Trial (TARGET-C).

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The screening yield and related cost of a risk-adapted screening approach compared with established screening strategies in population-based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening are not clear. METHODS: We randomly allocated 19,373 participants into 1 of the 3 screening arms in a 1:2:2 ratio: (1) one-time colonoscopy (n = 3883); (2) annual fecal immunochemical test (FIT) (n = 7793); (3) annual risk-adapted screening (n = 7697), in which, based on the risk-stratification score, high-risk participants were referred for colonoscopy and low-risk ones were referred for FIT. Three consecutive screening rounds were conducted for both the FIT and the risk-adapted screening arms. Follow-up to trace the health outcome for all the participants was conducted over the 3-year study period. The detection rate of advanced colorectal neoplasia (CRC and advanced precancerous lesions) was the main outcome. The trial was registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (number: ChiCTR1800015506). RESULTS: In the colonoscopy, FIT, and risk-adapted screening arms over 3 screening rounds, the participation rates were 42.4%, 99.3%, and 89.2%, respectively; the detection rates for advanced neoplasm (intention-to-treat analysis) were 2.76%, 2.17%, and 2.35%, respectively, with an odds ratio (OR)colonoscopy vs FIT of 1.27 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.99-1.63; P = .056), an ORcolonoscopy vsrisk-adapted screening of 1.17 (95% CI, 0.91-1.49; P = .218), and an ORrisk-adapted screeningvs FIT of 1.09 (95% CI, 0.88-1.35; P = .438); the numbers of colonoscopies needed to detect 1 advanced neoplasm were 15.4, 7.8, and 10.2, respectively; the costs for detecting 1 advanced neoplasm from a government perspective using package payment format were 6928 Chinese Yuan (CNY) ($1004), 5821 CNY ($844), and 6694 CNY ($970), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The risk-adapted approach is a feasible and cost-favorable strategy for population-based CRC screening and therefore could complement the well-established one-time colonoscopy and annual repeated FIT screening strategies. (Chinese Clinical Trial Registry; ChiCTR1800015506).

Validation of the Asia-Pacific colorectal screening score and its modified versions in predicting colorectal advanced neoplasia in Chinese population.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer is one of the most common cancers in the world. Several studies suggest using the Asia-Pacific colorectal screening (APCS) score and its modified versions to select high-risk populations for early colonoscopy, but external validation remains rare, and which score should be selected for CRC screening in China is unclear. Validation of multiple scores in the same population might help to choose the best performing score. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study under the framework of Cancer Screening Program in Urban China, data from asymptomatic colorectal cancer screening in Xuzhou was used to validate the APCS score, the colorectal neoplasia predict (CNP) score, the Korean colorectal screening (KCS) score, the Modified APCS score and the 8-point risk score in predicting colorectal advanced neoplasia (CAN). RESULTS: 1804 subjects were included in the analysis and 112 CAN (6.21%) was detected. In each score, the detection rate of CAN was higher in the high-risk group than in the non-high-risk group (P < 0.05), and the RR (95%C.I.) ranged 2.20 (1.50-3.22) [8-point risk] to 4.00 (2.41-6.65) [Modified APCS]. The c-statistics (95%C.I.) of the scoring systems ranged from 0.58 (0.53-0.62) [8-point risk] to 0.65 (0.61-0.69) [KCS]. The sensitivity (95%C.I.) of these systems ranged from 31.25 (22.83-40.70) [8-point risk] to 84.82 (76.81-90.90) [Modified APCS], while the specificity (95%C.I.) ranged from 43.50 (41.12-45.90) [Modified APCS] to 83.81 (81.96-85.53) [8-point risk]. Using the APCS scoring system as a comparator, the net reclassification improvement (NRI) of each modified version ranged from - 10.34% (95%C.I.: - 22.63 to 1.95%) [8-point risk] to 4.79% (95%C.I.: - 1.50% to 11.08) [KCS]. The colonoscopy resource load (95%C.I.) ranged from 9 [1-3] [8-point risk] to 11 [3-5] [APCS and Modified APCS]. CONCLUSIONS: The APCS score and its modified versions have certain ability to predict the risk of advanced neoplasia and reduce the resource load. The modified APCS score and the KCS score seemed the preferable systems to classify high risk subjects based on its high RR, sensitivity and predictive ability in the selected population. Future research could focus on adding risk factors or combining with laboratory test results to improve the predictive power of the scoring system.

Comparative Evaluation of Participation and Diagnostic Yield of Colonoscopy vs Fecal Immunochemical Test vs Risk-Adapted Screening in Colorectal Cancer Screening: Interim Analysis of a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial (TARGET-C).

INTRODUCTION: In colorectal cancer screening, implementing risk-adapted screening might be more effective than traditional screening strategies. We aimed to compare the effectiveness of a risk-adapted screening strategy with colonoscopy and fecal immunochemical test (FIT) in colorectal cancer screening. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial was conducted in 6 centers in China since May 2018. Nineteen thousand five hundred forty-six eligible participants aged 50-74 years were recruited and randomly allocated into 1 of the 3 screening groups in a 1:2:2 ratio: (i) one-time colonoscopy (n = 3,916), (ii) annual FIT (n = 7,854), and (iii) annual risk-adapted screening (n = 7,776). Based on the risk-stratification score, high-risk subjects were referred for colonoscopy and low-risk ones were referred for FIT. All subjects with positive FIT were referred for diagnostic colonoscopy. The detection rate of advanced neoplasm was the primary outcome. The study is registered with the China Clinical Trial Registry (www.chictr.org.cn Identifier: ChiCTR1800015506). RESULTS: For baseline screening, the participation rates of the colonoscopy, FIT, and risk-adapted screening groups were 42.5% (1,665/3,916), 94.0% (7,386/7,854), and 85.2% (6,628/7,776), respectively. For the intention-to-screen analysis, the detection rates of advanced neoplasm were 2.40% (94/3,916), 1.13% (89/7,854), and 1.66% (129/7,776), with odds ratios (95% confidence intervals) of 2.16 (1.61-2.90; P < 0.001) for colonoscopy vs FIT, 1.45 (1.10-1.90; P < 0.001) for colonoscopy vs risk-adapted screening, and 1.49 (1.13-1.97; P < 0.001) for risk-adapted screening vs FIT, respectively. The numbers of subjects who required a colonoscopic examination to detect 1 advanced neoplasm were 18 in the colonoscopy group, 10 in the FIT group, and 11 in the risk-adapted screening group. DISCUSSION: For baseline screening, the risk-adapted screening approach showed a high participation rate, and its diagnostic yield was superior to that of FIT at a similarly low load of colonoscopy.