-
Digestive Diseases and Sciences Jun 2023Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common malignancy in the US. Several factors are associated with increased/decreased CRC risk and often linked to adenomatous... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common malignancy in the US. Several factors are associated with increased/decreased CRC risk and often linked to adenomatous colorectal polyps (CRP). Recent studies suggest a lower risk of neoplastic lesions among irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) patients. We aimed to systematically assess the occurrence of CRC and CRP in IBS patients.
METHODS
Searches of the Medline, Cochrane, and EMBASE databases were performed, blindly and independently, by two investigators. Studies of CRC or CRP incidence in IBS patients (diagnosed by Rome or other symptom-based criteria) were eligible for inclusion. CRC and CRP effect estimates were pooled in meta-analyses using random models.
RESULTS
Of 4941 non-duplicate studies, 14 were included, comprising 654,764 IBS patients and 2,277,195 controls in 8 cohort studies, and 26,641 IBS patients and 87,803 controls in 6 cross-sectional studies. Pooled analysis revealed a significantly decreased prevalence of CRP in IBS subjects vs. controls, with a pooled odds ratio (OR) of 0.29 (95% CI (0.15, 0.54)). There was significant heterogeneity between studies (I = 96%, p < 0.01). This finding persisted when studies which did not report pre-cancerous polyps separately were excluded (OR 0.23, 95% CI (0.15, 0.35), I = 85%, p < 0.01). CRC prevalence was lower in IBS subjects, but this did not reach statistical significance (OR 0.40, 95% CI (0.09, 1.77]).
CONCLUSION
Our analyses reveal a decreased incidence of colorectal polyps in IBS, although CRC did not reach significance. Mechanistic studies with detailed genotypic analysis and clinical phenotyping are needed to better elucidate the potentially protective effect of IBS on CRC development.
Topics: Colonic Polyps; Irritable Bowel Syndrome; Colorectal Neoplasms; Incidence; Humans
PubMed: 36871131
DOI: 10.1007/s10620-023-07885-6 -
Journal of Medical Imaging and... Mar 2021Gallbladder adenoma (GA) is a precancerous neoplasm and needs surgical resection. It is difficult to differentiate adenoma from other gallbladder polyps using imaging... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Gallbladder adenoma (GA) is a precancerous neoplasm and needs surgical resection. It is difficult to differentiate adenoma from other gallbladder polyps using imaging examinations. The aim of present systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the diagnosis of gallbladder adenoma.
METHODS
The searches were conducted by two independent researchers to find the relevant studies published from 1/1/2009 until end of 30/06/2019. The search included published literature in the English language in MEDLINE via PubMed, EMBASE via Ovid, The Cochrane Library, and Trip databases. For literature published in other languages, national databases (Magiran and SID), KoreaMed, and LILACS were searched. The risk of bias of every article was evaluated by using QUADAS-2. On the basis of the results from the 2 × 2 tables, pooled measures for sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and area under the curves (AUC) along with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using the DerSimonian Lair methodology.
RESULTS
Overall, 868 patients were studied in the 10 studies chosen for inclusion. Of these 10 studies, 5 (50%) were retrospective and 5 (50%) were prospective. The total prevalence of gallbladder adenoma in 10 studies was 16% (95% CI 13%, 18%). The sensitivity and specificity of contrast-enhanced ultrasound were 0.846 (95% CI 0.818-0.871) and 0.870 (95% CI: 0.844-0.894), respectively. The diagnostic odds ratio was 40.807 (95% CI 18.838-88.393).
CONCLUSION
CEUS is a reliable, non-invasive, and no-radiation-exposure imaging modality with a high sensitivity and specificity for detection of gallbladder adenoma. Nonetheless, it should be applied cautiously, and large scale, well-designed trials are necessary to assess its clinical value.
Topics: Adenoma; Contrast Media; Diagnosis, Differential; Gallbladder Neoplasms; Humans; Ultrasonography
PubMed: 33129756
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmir.2020.09.014 -
Surgical Endoscopy Sep 2020Colonoscopies are effective means of detecting and removing precancerous adenomatous polyps. The adenoma detection rate (ADR) is a marker of colonoscopy quality and an... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Colonoscopies are effective means of detecting and removing precancerous adenomatous polyps. The adenoma detection rate (ADR) is a marker of colonoscopy quality and an independent predictor of colorectal cancer incidence. Focused training interventions may improve an endoscopist's ADR, but the supporting research is limited. This systematic review and meta-analysis identified, critically appraised, and meta-analyzed data from randomized trials (RCTs) evaluating the effect of training interventions on ADRs.
METHODS
Ovid Medline, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Eric, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for RCTs investigating the effect of an educational intervention on ADRs. Two reviewers independently screened, identified, and extracted trial-level data. Internal validity was assessed in duplicate using the Risk of Bias tool. Our primary outcome was the ADR. Secondary outcomes were advanced ADR, adenocarcinoma detection rate, polyp detection rate, and withdrawal times. Safety outcomes were post-polypectomy bleeding rate and colonoscopy-related perforation rate.
RESULTS
From 2837 screened citations, we identified 3 trials (119 endoscopists) meeting our inclusion criteria. Training interventions were associated with a trend toward increased ADRs (odds ratio 1.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00-1.34; I 83%; 3 trials; 119 endoscopists). When limited to screening colonoscopies, the odds ratio for ADRs associated with training interventions was 1.17 (95% CI 1.00-1.36; I 80%; 3 trials; 119 endoscopists). There was a high level of heterogeneity between the trials' training interventions. Training intervention improved the advanced ADR, adenocarcinoma detection rate, polyp detection rate, and withdrawal times. Safety outcomes were not reported.
CONCLUSIONS
A focused training intervention was associated with a strong trend toward increased ADRs among certified endoscopists. While the described training interventions definitely show promise, further efforts around continuing professional developments activities are needed to more consistently improve ADRS among certified endoscopists.
Topics: Adenoma; Clinical Trials as Topic; Colonic Neoplasms; Colonoscopy; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Odds Ratio; Polyps; Publication Bias; Risk; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31595401
DOI: 10.1007/s00464-019-07153-7 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2016Although conventional colonoscopy is the most accurate test available for the investigation of the colorectum for polyps, data exist that raise concerns about its... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Although conventional colonoscopy is the most accurate test available for the investigation of the colorectum for polyps, data exist that raise concerns about its sensitivity. Chromoscopy (spraying dye onto the surface of the colon to make polyps more visible) may be one way of enhancing the ability of colonoscopy to detect polyps, particularly diminutive flat lesions, which otherwise may be difficult to detect.
OBJECTIVES
To determine whether the use of chromoscopy enhances the detection of polyps and neoplasia during endoscopic examination of the colon and rectum.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases: Cochrane Colorectal Cancer Group Specialised Register (October 2015), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Cochrane Library; Issue 10, 2015), MEDLINE (January 1950 to October 2015), EMBASE (January 1974 to October 2015), and ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (both November 2015). We also handsearched abstracts from relevant meetings from 1980 to 2015. Search terms included 'randomised trials' containing combinations of the following: 'chromoscopy' 'colonoscopy' 'dye-spray' 'chromo-endoscopy' 'indigo-carmine' 'magnifying endoscopy'.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all prospective randomised trials comparing chromoscopic with conventional endoscopic examination of the whole of the colon and rectum. We excluded studies of people with inflammatory bowel disease or polyposis syndromes and any studies that combined chromoscopy with additional interventions (cap assistance, water-perfused, etc.).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed the methodological quality of potentially eligible trials, and two review authors independently extracted data from the included trials. Outcome measures included the detection of polyps (neoplastic and non-neoplastic), the detection of diminutive lesions, the number of participants with multiple neoplastic lesions, and the extubation time.
MAIN RESULTS
We included seven trials (2727 participants) in this update. Five trials were of sufficiently similar design to allow for pooled results. Two trials differed substantially in design and were included in a subgroup analysis. All the trials had some methodological drawbacks. However, combining the results showed a significant difference in favour of chromoscopy for all detection outcomes. In particular, chromoscopy was likely to yield significantly more people with at least one neoplastic lesion (odds ratio (OR) 1.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.31 to 1.79; 7 trials; 2727 participants), and at least one diminutive neoplastic lesion (OR 1.51, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.92; 4 trials; 1757 participants). Significantly more people with three or more neoplastic lesions were also detected, but only when studies that used high-definition colonoscopy in the control group were excluded (OR 4.63, 95% CI 1.99 to 10.80; 2 trials; 519 participants). None of the included studies reported any adverse events related to the use of the contrast dye.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is strong evidence that chromoscopy enhances the detection of neoplasia in the colon and rectum. People with neoplastic polyps, particularly those with multiple polyps, are at increased risk of developing colorectal cancer. Such lesions, which presumably would be missed with conventional colonoscopy, could contribute to the interval cancer numbers on any surveillance programme.
Topics: Colonic Polyps; Colonoscopy; Humans; Indicators and Reagents; Indigo Carmine; Intestinal Polyps; Precancerous Conditions; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rectal Diseases
PubMed: 27056645
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006439.pub4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2010Although conventional colonoscopy is the most sensitive test available for the investigation of the colorectum for polyps, there are data that raise concerns about its... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Although conventional colonoscopy is the most sensitive test available for the investigation of the colorectum for polyps, there are data that raise concerns about its sensitivity. Chromoscopy may be one way of enhancing the ability for colonoscopy to detect polyps particularly diminutive flat lesions that may be otherwise difficult to detect.
OBJECTIVES
To determine whether the use of chromoscopy enhances detection of polyps and neoplasia during endoscopic examination of the colon and rectum.
SEARCH STRATEGY
MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library databases were searched (April 2010) along with a hand search of abstracts from relevant meetings. Search terms included randomised trials containing combinations of the following: 'chromoscopy' 'colonoscopy' 'dye-spray' 'chromo-endoscopy' 'indigo-carmine' 'magnifying endoscopy'.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All prospective randomised trials comparing chromoscopic with conventional endoscopic examination of the lower gastrointestinal tract were included. Patients with inflammatory bowel disease or polyposis syndromes were excluded.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two reviewers assessed the methodological quality of potentially eligible trials and independently extracted data from the included trials. Outcome measures included the detection of polyps (neoplastic and non-neoplastic), the detection of diminutive lesions, the number of patients with multiple neoplastic lesions and the extubation time.
MAIN RESULTS
Five trials were included in this update, and although there were some methodological drawbacks and differences in study design, combining the results showed a significant difference in favour of chromoscopy for all detection outcomes. In particular, chromoscopy is likely to yield significantly more patients with at least one neoplastic lesion (OR 1.67 (CI 1.29-2.15)) and significantly more patients with three or more neoplastic lesions (OR 2.55 (CI 1.49-4.36)). Not surprisingly the withdrawal times were significantly slower for the chromoscopy group.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There appears to be strong evidence that chromoscopy enhances the detection of neoplasia in the colon and rectum. Patients with neoplastic polyps, particularly those with multiple polyps, are at increased risk of developing colorectal cancer. Such lesions, which presumably would be missed with conventional colonoscopy, could contribute to the interval cancer numbers on any surveillance programme.
Topics: Colonic Polyps; Colonoscopy; Humans; Indicators and Reagents; Indigo Carmine; Intestinal Polyps; Precancerous Conditions; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rectal Diseases
PubMed: 20927746
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006439.pub3 -
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers &... May 2003The Apc(Min/+) mouse model and the azoxymethane (AOM) rat model are the main animal models used to study the effect of dietary agents on colorectal cancer. We reviewed... (Review)
Review
The Apc(Min/+) mouse model and the azoxymethane (AOM) rat model are the main animal models used to study the effect of dietary agents on colorectal cancer. We reviewed recently the potency of chemopreventive agents in the AOM rat model (D. E. Corpet and S. Tache, Nutr. Cancer, 43: 1-21, 2002). Here we add the results of a systematic review of the effect of dietary and chemopreventive agents on the tumor yield in Min mice. The review is based on the results of 179 studies from 71 articles and is displayed also on the internet http://corpet.net/min.(2) We compared the efficacy of agents in the Min mouse model and the AOM rat model, and found that they were correlated (r = 0.66; P < 0.001), although some agents that afford strong protection in the AOM rat and the Min mouse small bowel increase the tumor yield in the large bowel of mutant mice. The agents included piroxicam, sulindac, celecoxib, difluoromethylornithine, and polyethylene glycol. The reason for this discrepancy is not known. We also compare the results of rodent studies with those of clinical intervention studies of polyp recurrence. We found that the effect of most of the agents tested was consistent across the animal and clinical models. Our point is thus: rodent models can provide guidance in the selection of prevention approaches to human colon cancer, in particular they suggest that polyethylene glycol, hesperidin, protease inhibitor, sphingomyelin, physical exercise, epidermal growth factor receptor kinase inhibitor, (+)-catechin, resveratrol, fish oil, curcumin, caffeate, and thiosulfonate are likely important preventive agents.
Topics: Animals; Anticarcinogenic Agents; Azoxymethane; Chemoprevention; Colonic Neoplasms; Diet; Disease Models, Animal; Humans; Mice; Mice, Mutant Strains; Precancerous Conditions; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rats
PubMed: 12750232
DOI: No ID Found -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2007Although conventional colonoscopy is the most sensitive test available for the investigation of the colorectum for polyps, there are data that raise concerns about its... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Although conventional colonoscopy is the most sensitive test available for the investigation of the colorectum for polyps, there are data that raise concerns about its sensitivity. Chromoscopy may be one way of enhancing the ability for colonoscopy to detect polyps particularly diminutive flat lesions that may be otherwise difficult to detect.
OBJECTIVES
To determine whether the use of chromoscopy enhances detection of polyps and neoplasia during endoscopic examination of the colon and rectum.
SEARCH STRATEGY
MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library databases were searched along with a hand search of abstracts from relevant meetings. Search terms included randomised trials containing combinations of the following: 'chromoscopy' 'colonoscopy' 'dye-spray' 'chromo-endoscopy' 'indigo-carmine' 'magnifying endoscopy'.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All prospective randomised trials comparing chromoscopic with conventional endoscopic examination of the lower gastrointestinal tract were included. Patients with inflammatory bowel disease or polyposis syndromes were excluded.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three reviewers assessed the methodological quality of potentially eligible trials and independently extracted data from the included trials. Outcome measures included the detection of polyps (neoplastic and non-neoplastic), the detection of diminutive lesions, the number of patients with multiple neoplastic lesions and the extubation time.
MAIN RESULTS
Four trials were include that met the inclusion criteria and although there were some methodological drawbacks and differences in study design, combining the results showed a significant difference in favour of chromoscopy for all detection outcomes. In particular, chromoscopy is likely to yield significantly more patients with at least one neoplastic lesion (OR 1.61 (CI 1.24-2.09)) and significantly more patients with three or more neoplastic lesions (OR 2.55 (CI 1.49-4.36)). Not surprisingly the withdrawal times were significantly slower for the chromoscopy group.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There appears to be strong evidence that chromoscopy enhances the detection of neoplasia in the colon and rectum. Patients with neoplastic polyps, particularly those with multiple polyps, are at increased risk of developing colorectal cancer. Such lesions, which presumably would be missed with conventional colonoscopy, could contribute to the interval cancer numbers on any surveillance programme.
Topics: Colonic Polyps; Colonoscopy; Humans; Indicators and Reagents; Polyps; Precancerous Conditions; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rectal Diseases
PubMed: 17943910
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006439.pub2 -
Annals of Gastroenterology 2023Add-on devices with projections, e.g., Endocuff, Endocuff Vision, EndoRings, and Wingcap, placed on the distal tip of the colonoscope promise to improve the detection of...
BACKGROUND
Add-on devices with projections, e.g., Endocuff, Endocuff Vision, EndoRings, and Wingcap, placed on the distal tip of the colonoscope promise to improve the detection of precancerous lesions. We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the performance of these devices exclusively among individuals undergoing colonoscopy for screening purpose.
METHODS
A computerized literature search was performed across MEDLINE and Cochrane Library databases for randomized controlled trials that compared standard colonoscopy (SC) to procedures using add-on devices. The primary outcome was adenoma detection rate (ADR), while secondary outcomes included polyp detection rate (PDR), advanced ADR (AADR), and sessile serrated lesion detection rate (SSLDR). The effect size on study outcomes was calculated using a random-effects model and presented as the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI).
RESULTS
Seven studies enrolling a total of 5785 patients were included. The use of add-on-devices with projections was associated with a higher ADR compared to SC: 45.9% vs. 41.1%; RR 1.18, 95%CI 1.02-1.37; P=0.03; =79%. Although PDR was higher in screening colonoscopies assisted by add-on devices as compared to SC, the difference failed to reach significance: 55.1% vs. 50.8%; RR 1.10, 95%CI 0.96-1.26; P=0.17; =75%. No difference was found between procedures assisted by add-on devices with projections and SC colonoscopies in terms of AADR (18.5% vs. 17.6%; RR 1.00, 95%CI 0.79-1.27; P=0.98; =56%) or SSLDR (6.8% vs. 5.8%; RR 1.17, 95%CI 0.95-1.44; P=0.15; =0%).
CONCLUSION
Colonoscopy assisted by add-on devices with projections achieves a better ADR compared to SC among individuals undergoing screening for bowel cancer.
PubMed: 37664236
DOI: 10.20524/aog.2023.0820 -
The Surgeon : Journal of the Royal... Oct 2016There are no evidence-based guidelines to dictate when Gallbladder Polyps (GBPs) of varying sizes should be resected. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
There are no evidence-based guidelines to dictate when Gallbladder Polyps (GBPs) of varying sizes should be resected.
AIM
To identify factors that accurately predict malignant disease in GBP; to provide an evidence-based algorithm for management.
METHODS
A systematic review following PRISMA guidelines was performed using terms "gallbladder polyps" AND "polypoid lesion of gallbladder", from January 1993 and September 2013. Inclusion criteria required histopathological report or follow-up of 2 years. RTI-IB tool was used for quality analysis. Correlation with GBP size and malignant potential was analysed using Euclidean distance; a logistics mixed effects model was used for assessing independent risk factors for malignancy.
RESULTS
Fifty-three articles were included in review. Data from 21 studies was pooled for analysis. Optimum size cut-off for resection of GBPs was 10 mm. Probability of malignancy is approximately zero at size <4.15 mm. Patient age >50 years, sessile and single polyps were independent risk factors for malignancy. For polyps sized 4 mm-10 mm, a risk assessment model was formulated.
CONCLUSIONS
This review and analysis has provided an evidence-based algorithm for the management of GBPs. Longitudinal studies are needed to better understand the behaviour of polyps <10 mm, that are not at a high risk of malignancy, but may change over time.
Topics: Age Factors; Algorithms; Cholecystectomy; Diagnosis, Differential; Disease Progression; Evidence-Based Medicine; Gallbladder Diseases; Guidelines as Topic; Humans; Polyps; Precancerous Conditions; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 26825588
DOI: 10.1016/j.surge.2015.12.001