-
JAMA Internal Medicine Nov 2023Cancer screening tests are promoted to save life by increasing longevity, but it is unknown whether people will live longer with commonly used cancer screening tests. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Cancer screening tests are promoted to save life by increasing longevity, but it is unknown whether people will live longer with commonly used cancer screening tests.
OBJECTIVE
To estimate lifetime gained with cancer screening.
DATA SOURCES
A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted of randomized clinical trials with more than 9 years of follow-up reporting all-cause mortality and estimated lifetime gained for 6 commonly used cancer screening tests, comparing screening with no screening. The analysis included the general population. MEDLINE and the Cochrane library databases were searched, and the last search was performed October 12, 2022.
STUDY SELECTION
Mammography screening for breast cancer; colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, or fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) for colorectal cancer; computed tomography screening for lung cancer in smokers and former smokers; or prostate-specific antigen testing for prostate cancer.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Searches and selection criteria followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline. Data were independently extracted by a single observer, and pooled analysis of clinical trials was used for analyses.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Life-years gained by screening was calculated as the difference in observed lifetime in the screening vs the no screening groups and computed absolute lifetime gained in days with 95% CIs for each screening test from meta-analyses or single randomized clinical trials.
RESULTS
In total, 2 111 958 individuals enrolled in randomized clinical trials comparing screening with no screening using 6 different tests were eligible. Median follow-up was 10 years for computed tomography, prostate-specific antigen testing, and colonoscopy; 13 years for mammography; and 15 years for sigmoidoscopy and FOBT. The only screening test with a significant lifetime gain was sigmoidoscopy (110 days; 95% CI, 0-274 days). There was no significant difference following mammography (0 days: 95% CI, -190 to 237 days), prostate cancer screening (37 days; 95% CI, -37 to 73 days), colonoscopy (37 days; 95% CI, -146 to 146 days), FOBT screening every year or every other year (0 days; 95% CI, -70.7 to 70.7 days), and lung cancer screening (107 days; 95% CI, -286 days to 430 days).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
The findings of this meta-analysis suggest that current evidence does not substantiate the claim that common cancer screening tests save lives by extending lifetime, except possibly for colorectal cancer screening with sigmoidoscopy.
Topics: Male; Humans; Early Detection of Cancer; Prostate-Specific Antigen; Mass Screening; Prostatic Neoplasms; Lung Neoplasms; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Colorectal Neoplasms; Colonoscopy; Occult Blood
PubMed: 37639247
DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2023.3798 -
Annals of Internal Medicine Aug 2023The purpose of this updated guidance statement is to guide clinicians on screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) in asymptomatic average-risk adults. The intended audience...
DESCRIPTION
The purpose of this updated guidance statement is to guide clinicians on screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) in asymptomatic average-risk adults. The intended audience is all clinicians. The population is asymptomatic adults at average risk for CRC.
METHODS
This updated guidance statement was developed using recently published and critically appraised clinical guidelines from national guideline developers since the publication of the American College of Physicians' 2019 guidance statement, "Screening for Colorectal Cancer in Asymptomatic Average-Risk Adults." The authors searched for national guidelines from the United States and other countries published in English using PubMed and the Guidelines International Network library from 1 January 2018 to 24 April 2023. The authors also searched for updates of guidelines included in the first version of our guidance statement. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument was used to assess the quality of eligible guidelines. Two guidelines were selected for adoption and adaptation by raters on the basis of the highest average overall AGREE II quality scores. The evidence reviews and modeling studies for these 2 guidelines were also used to synthesize the evidence of diagnostic test accuracy, effectiveness, and harms of CRC screening interventions and to develop our guidance statements.
GUIDANCE STATEMENT 1
.
GUIDANCE STATEMENT 2
GUIDANCE STATEMENT 3
GUIDANCE STATEMENT 4A
GUIDANCE STATEMENT 4B
GUIDANCE STATEMENT 4C
Topics: Adult; Humans; United States; Middle Aged; Early Detection of Cancer; Colonoscopy; Sigmoidoscopy; Mass Screening; Colorectal Neoplasms; Occult Blood; Physicians
PubMed: 37523709
DOI: 10.7326/M23-0779 -
Gastroenterology Nov 2023Since the early 2000s, there has been a rapid decline in colorectal cancer (CRC) mortality, due in large part to screening and removal of precancerous polyps. Despite...
DESCRIPTION
Since the early 2000s, there has been a rapid decline in colorectal cancer (CRC) mortality, due in large part to screening and removal of precancerous polyps. Despite these improvements, CRC remains the second leading cause of cancer deaths in the United States, with approximately 53,000 deaths projected in 2023. The aim of this American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Clinical Practice Update Expert Review was to describe how individuals should be risk-stratified for CRC screening and post-polypectomy surveillance and to highlight opportunities for future research to fill gaps in the existing literature.
METHODS
This Expert Review was commissioned and approved by the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute Clinical Practice Updates Committee (CPUC) and the AGA Governing Board to provide timely guidance on a topic of high clinical importance to the AGA membership, and underwent internal peer review by the CPUC and external peer review through standard procedures of Gastroenterology. These Best Practice Advice statements were drawn from a review of the published literature and from expert opinion. Because systematic reviews were not performed, these Best Practice Advice statements do not carry formal ratings regarding the quality of evidence or strength of the presented considerations. Best Practice Advice Statements BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: All individuals with a first-degree relative (defined as a parent, sibling, or child) who was diagnosed with CRC, particularly before the age of 50 years, should be considered at increased risk for CRC. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: All individuals without a personal history of CRC, inflammatory bowel disease, hereditary CRC syndromes, other CRC predisposing conditions, or a family history of CRC should be considered at average risk for CRC. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: Individuals at average risk for CRC should initiate screening at age 45 years and individuals at increased risk for CRC due to having a first-degree relative with CRC should initiate screening 10 years before the age at diagnosis of the youngest affected relative or age 40 years, whichever is earlier. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: Risk stratification for initiation of CRC screening should be based on an individual's age, a known or suspected predisposing hereditary CRC syndrome, and/or a family history of CRC. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: The decision to continue CRC screening in individuals older than 75 years should be individualized, based on an assessment of risks, benefits, screening history, and comorbidities. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: Screening options for individuals at average risk for CRC should include colonoscopy, fecal immunochemical test, flexible sigmoidoscopy plus fecal immunochemical test, multitarget stool DNA fecal immunochemical test, and computed tomography colonography, based on availability and individual preference. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: Colonoscopy should be the screening strategy used for individuals at increased CRC risk. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: The decision to continue post-polypectomy surveillance for individuals older than 75 years should be individualized, based on an assessment of risks, benefits, and comorbidities. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: Risk-stratification tools for CRC screening and post-polypectomy surveillance that emerge from research should be examined for real-world effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in diverse populations (eg, by race, ethnicity, sex, and other sociodemographic factors associated with disparities in CRC outcomes) before widespread implementation.
PubMed: 37737817
DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2023.06.033 -
Urology Jun 2024To evaluate the incidence, management and outcomes of rectal injury (RI) and subsequent rectovaginal fistula (RVF) during gender-affirming vaginoplasty (GAV) at a...
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the incidence, management and outcomes of rectal injury (RI) and subsequent rectovaginal fistula (RVF) during gender-affirming vaginoplasty (GAV) at a high-volume transgender surgery center.
METHODS
We performed a retrospective review of pre-operative, intra-operative and post-operative findings of all patients with RI during GAV from January 2016-September 2022. Descriptive statistics were calculated using Microsoft Excel.
RESULTS
RI occurred in nine of 1011 primary GAV and colorectal surgery (CRS) consulted in five cases, which included sigmoidoscopy with an air leak test in four and with temporary bowel diversion in two. Of the nine, six proceeded with full depth GAV, and three were converted to minimal depth vaginoplasty. Two had bulbospongiosus muscle interposition and none had a concomitant urethral injury. 1/9 with RI developed a RVF which occurred in a patient with prior perineal surgery and no intraoperative sigmoidoscopy. Three (50%) with full depth GAV developed vaginal stenosis postoperatively.
CONCLUSIONS
RI during primary GAS in experienced hands is uncommon with an incidence of 0.89% in our series of 1011. Unusual tissue dissection planes were a risk factor. If injuries were identified intraoperatively, repaired with multilayer closure and evaluated by CRS, patients did well without the development of RVF despite completion of full depth GAV. It is reasonable to complete the full depth vagina, but patients should be advised of a significant risk of post-operative vaginal stenosis.
PubMed: 38851496
DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2024.05.043 -
Journal of Clinical and Translational... Jun 2023Acute ischemic colitis (IC) has been linked with the use of oral decongestants. However, clinical evidence on this association remains limited. We aim to evaluate the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND AND AIM
Acute ischemic colitis (IC) has been linked with the use of oral decongestants. However, clinical evidence on this association remains limited. We aim to evaluate the occurrence and clinical outcomes of acute IC following over-the-counter (OTC) use of pseudoephedrine and phenylephrine.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review of the MEDLINE, Google Scholar, Scopus, and Embase databases between inception and July 20, 2022. Specific search terms were used. The inclusion criteria consisted of English-language articles describing acute IC secondary to pseudoephedrine or phenylephrine.
RESULTS
A total of 18 case reports (level of clinical evidence: IV) fulfilled our inclusion criteria. The mean age of patients was 51.6 ± 15.3 years, with 14 (77.8%) cases reported in women. The clinical presentation was mainly related to abdominal pain 16 (88.9%), hematochezia 15 (83.3%), and/or abdominal tenderness 10 (55.6%). The medical background showed that 5 (27.8%) patients were previously healthy. In the 13 (72.2%) patients with comorbidities, hypertension 6 (46.2%), a history of tobacco use 5 (38.5%), and psychiatric illnesses 4 (30.8%) were commonly reported. Leukocytosis was encountered in 13 (72.2%) patients. Diagnostic investigations included a combination of computed tomography scan and colonoscopy in 10 (55.6%), colonoscopy alone in 6 (33.3%), and flexible sigmoidoscopy in 1 (5.6%) patient. Colonoscopic biopsy was the mainstay of diagnosis in 15 (83.3%) patients. Treatment was based on supportive care in 18 (100%), concurrent antibiotic use in 2 (11.1%), and surgical intervention in 1 (5.6%) patient. Recurrent episodes of IC occurred in 4 (22.2%) patients.
CONCLUSIONS
Acute IC secondary to oral decongestants remains a rare but important clinical phenomenon. Clinical suspicion and imaging findings are important for the early diagnosis.
RELEVANCE TO PATIENTS
In unexplained cases of IC, clinicians should specifically inquire about oral decongestants since they are OTC and patients commonly fail to reveal their usage. These drugs should be avoided for transient cold symptoms, especially in women.
PubMed: 37275581
DOI: No ID Found -
ANZ Journal of Surgery Sep 2023With increasing life expectancy, there is an increasing proportion of nonagenarians undergoing both elective and emergency surgical procedures. The decision as to whom...
BACKGROUND
With increasing life expectancy, there is an increasing proportion of nonagenarians undergoing both elective and emergency surgical procedures. The decision as to whom will benefit from surgical procedures is however difficult to ascertain and still remains a challenge to clinicians. This study is aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of colonoscopy in the nonagenarian population, and to determine if the outcomes are acceptable for us to continue to offer such interventions.
METHODS
Retrospective study of patients of Dr. G.R (Gastroenterologist) and Dr. W.B (Colorectal Surgeon) between 1 January 2018 and 31 November 2022. All patients who were ≥90 years old and had a colonoscopy was included in the study. Exclusion criteria were patients who were less than 90 years old, had a flexible sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy as part of their surgical procedure.
PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES
post-colonoscopy complications and length of stay.
SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES
reasons for colonoscopy, significant colonoscopy findings, 30-day morbidity and mortality.
RESULTS
Sixty patients were included in the study. Median age was 91 (90-100) years old. 33.3% of the patients were males. Seventy percent of the patients were ASA 3. Median length of hospital stay was 1 day. 11.7% of patients were found to have colorectal malignancy. There were no complications after the colonoscopy. There were no 30-day re-admission, morbidity or mortality.
CONCLUSION
Colonoscopy can be performed safely in carefully selected nonagenarian patients with acceptable low complication rates.
Topics: Male; Aged, 80 and over; Humans; Female; Nonagenarians; Retrospective Studies; Elective Surgical Procedures; Length of Stay; Colonoscopy; Colorectal Neoplasms
PubMed: 36881524
DOI: 10.1111/ans.18374 -
JAMA Network Open Feb 2024Randomized clinical screening trials have shown that sigmoidoscopy screening reduces colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality. Colonoscopy has largely replaced... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
IMPORTANCE
Randomized clinical screening trials have shown that sigmoidoscopy screening reduces colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality. Colonoscopy has largely replaced sigmoidoscopy for CRC screening, but long-term results from randomized trials on colonoscopy screening are still lacking.
OBJECTIVE
To estimate the additional screening benefit of colonoscopy compared with sigmoidoscopy.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS
This comparative effectiveness simulation study pooled data on 358 204 men and women randomly assigned to sigmoidoscopy screening or usual care in 4 randomized sigmoidoscopy screening trials conducted in Norway, Italy, the US, and UK with inclusion periods in the years 1993 to 2001. The primary analysis of the study was conducted from January 19 to December 30, 2021.
INTERVENTION
Invitation to endoscopic screening.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Primary outcomes were CRC incidence and mortality. Using pooled 15-year follow-up data, colonoscopy screening effectiveness was estimated assuming that the efficacy of colonoscopy in the proximal colon was similar to that observed in the distal colon in the sigmoidoscopy screening trials. The simulation model was validated using data from Norwegian participants in a colonoscopy screening trial.
RESULTS
This analysis included 358 204 individuals (181 971 women [51%]) aged 55 to 64 years at inclusion with a median follow-up time ranging from 15 to 17 years. Compared with usual care, colonoscopy prevented an estimated 50 (95% CI, 42-58) CRC cases per 100 000 person-years, corresponding to 30% incidence reduction (rate ratio, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.66-0.75]), and prevented an estimated 15 (95% CI, 11-19) CRC deaths per 100 000 person-years, corresponding to 32% mortality reduction (rate ratio, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.61-0.76]). The additional benefit of colonoscopy screening compared with sigmoidoscopy was 12 (95% CI, 10-14) fewer CRC cases and 4 (95% CI, 3-5) fewer CRC deaths per 100 000 person-years, corresponding to percentage point reductions of 6.9 (95% CI, 6.0-7.9) for CRC incidence and 7.6 (95% CI, 5.7-9.6) for CRC mortality. The number needed to switch from sigmoidoscopy to colonoscopy screening was 560 (95% CI, 486-661) to prevent 1 CRC case and 1611 (95% CI, 1275-2188) to prevent 1 CRC death.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
The findings of this comparative effectiveness study assessing long-term follow-up after CRC screening suggest that there was an additional preventive effect on CRC incidence and mortality associated with colonoscopy screening compared with sigmoidoscopy screening, but the additional preventive effect was less than what was achieved by introducing sigmoidoscopy screening where no screening existed. The results probably represent the upper limit of what may be achieved with colonoscopy screening compared with sigmoidoscopy screening.
Topics: Female; Humans; Male; Colonoscopy; Computer Simulation; Early Detection of Cancer; Neoplasms; Sigmoidoscopy; Comparative Effectiveness Research
PubMed: 38421651
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.0007