How does perception of the bowel cancer screening colonoscopy service differ between Screening and Non-Screening Colonoscopists and what are the differences in quality and productivity?

Introduction Quality assurance and performance management of colonoscopy in Wales appears to be more robust within the screening programme than the non-screening service. It is uncertain if these processes lead to improved quality or productivity and if the assessment process for potential screening colonoscopists deters colonoscopists from applying. Method A mixed methods study comprising of analysis of individual colonoscopists, and endoscopy units’ key performance indicator (KPI) data was conducted. KPI data from 6 of the 7 Welsh health boards was analysed and data used to develop interview guides for semi structured interviews. 10 Screening Colonoscopists, 10 Non-Screening Colonoscopists, 3 Specialist Screening Practitioners and 3 Endoscopy Unit Managers were interviewed to explore perceptions of quality and productivity of the screening and non- screening colonoscopy services and acceptability of assessment and accreditation processes. Results The study showed a statistically significant variation in polyp detection rate with Screening Colonoscopists achieving 62% and Non-Screening Colonoscopists a mean of 32% (p=.00). The rate of procedures undertaken without sedation was also statistically significant between the groups with Screening Colonoscopists performing more unsedated procedures (35% compared to 19% in Non-Screening Colonoscopists p=.005). All other KPI’s analysed revealed no significant difference. Qualitative data suggested a strong perception of increased quality and productivity within the screening programme and although some interviewees considered the assessment process to be a deterrent to potential Screening Colonoscopists, it was considered necessary. Conclusions The screening colonoscopy service in Wales is perceived to be associated with higher quality and increased productivity compared to the non-screening colonoscopy service and there is some quantitative data to support this. The Screening Colonoscopist assessment process is considered necessary, although some improvements have been suggested including shorter timeframes and greater mentorship

Feasibility and economic assessment of chromocolonoscopy for detection of proximal serrated neoplasia within a population-based colorectal cancer screening programme (CONSCOP): an open-label, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial

Background Most post-colonoscopy interval colorectal cancers are proximal; serrated polyps are often precursors to these cancers and are considered difficult to detect. We assessed the safety, feasibility, and economic effect of chromocolonoscopy on detection of proximal serrated neoplasia. Methods We did an open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled non-inferiority trial including patients from Bowel Screening Wales centres. Participants who tested positive for faecal occult blood and who were eligible for and considered fit to have colonoscopy (patients with known cases of polyposis syndromes, Lynch syndrome, and chronic inflammatory disease were excluded) were randomly assigned (1:1; with the use of minimisation, stratified by centre with an 80:20 random element) to either standard white light colonoscopy (standard group) or chromocolonoscopy (indigo carmine dye [0·2%]; chromocolonoscopy group) using a secure, internet-based, computerised, randomisation system that used centralised, dynamic allocation. Participants were followed up for 1 year and data from index colonoscopies and associated clearance procedures were analysed. All proximal polyps were reviewed by an expert pathologist panel. The main outcome on which power was based was time taken to perform the colonoscopy procedure, defined as from the time when the scope was inserted to withdrawal from the anus, assessed in the per-protocol population. The non-inferiority margin was 15 min. This trial is complete and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01972451. Findings Between Nov 20, 2014, and June 16, 2016, 741 (72%) of 1031 patients screened were eligible and consented: 360 were randomly assigned to white light colonoscopy and 381 to chromocolonoscopy. In the chromocolonoscopy group, the procedure took a mean of 36·8 min (SD 15·0), compared with a mean of 30·6 min (13·7) in the standard group (mean difference 6·3 min [95% CI 4·2–8·4] longer with chromocolonoscopy than in the standard group). The mean difference was within the prespecified non-inferiority margin. Detection rates for proximal serrated lesions were significantly higher in the chromocolonoscopy group than in the control group (45 [12%] of 381 patients vs 23 [6%] of 360 patients; odds ratio 1·96 [95% CI 1·16–3·32]; p=0·012). Serious adverse events (four cases of postpolypectomy bleeding [two in each group], and one case of anxiety and hyperventilation [in the chromocolonoscopy group]), colonoscopy quality measures, comfort scores, and sedation were similar between groups. Interpretation Chromocolonoscopy is feasible within a population-based colorectal cancer screening programme, is safe, and has significantly increased detection of proximal serrated neoplasia and other polyp types compared with standard colonoscopy. Larger randomised trials of chromocolonoscopy, powered for improved detection of significant serrated polyps and for longer-term follow-up to investigate the effect on reduction of interval cancers within screening populations, are warrante

Red hot frogs:Identifying the Australian frogs most at risk of extinction

More than a third of the world’s amphibian species are listed as Threatened or Extinct, with a recent assessment identifying 45 Australian frogs (18.4% of the currently recognised species) as ‘Threatened’ based on IUCN criteria. We applied structured expert elicitation to 26 frogs assessed as Critically Endangered and Endangered to estimate their probability of extinction by 2040. We also investigated whether participant experience (measured as a self-assigned categorical score, i.e. ‘expert’ or ‘non-expert’) influenced the estimates. Collation and analysis of participant opinion indicated that eight species are at high risk (>50% chance) of becoming extinct by 2040, with the disease chytridiomycosis identified as the primary threat. A further five species are at moderate–high risk (30–50% chance), primarily due to climate change. Fourteen of the 26 frog species are endemic to Queensland, with many species restricted to small geographic ranges that are susceptible to stochastic events (e.g. a severe heatwave or a large bushfire). Experts were more likely to rate extinction probability higher for poorly known species (those with <10 experts), while non-experts were more likely to rate extinction probability higher for better-known species. However, scores converged following discussion, indicating that there was greater consensus in the estimates of extinction probability. Increased resourcing and management intervention are urgently needed to avert future extinctions of Australia’s frogs. Key priorities include developing and supporting captive management and establishing or extending in-situ population refuges to alleviate the impacts of disease and climate change

Feasibility and economic assessment of chromocolonoscopy for detection of proximal serrated neoplasia within a population-based colorectal cancer screening programme (CONSCOP): an open-label, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial

Background Most post-colonoscopy interval colorectal cancers are proximal; serrated polyps are often precursors to these cancers and are considered difficult to detect. We assessed the safety, feasibility, and economic effect of chromocolonoscopy on detection of proximal serrated neoplasia. Methods We did an open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled non-inferiority trial including patients from Bowel Screening Wales centres. Participants who tested positive for faecal occult blood and who were eligible for and considered fit to have colonoscopy (patients with known cases of polyposis syndromes, Lynch syndrome, and chronic inflammatory disease were excluded) were randomly assigned (1:1; with the use of minimisation, stratified by centre with an 80:20 random element) to either standard white light colonoscopy (standard group) or chromocolonoscopy (indigo carmine dye [0·2%]; chromocolonoscopy group) using a secure, internet-based, computerised, randomisation system that used centralised, dynamic allocation. Participants were followed up for 1 year and data from index colonoscopies and associated clearance procedures were analysed. All proximal polyps were reviewed by an expert pathologist panel. The main outcome on which power was based was time taken to perform the colonoscopy procedure, defined as from the time when the scope was inserted to withdrawal from the anus, assessed in the per-protocol population. The non-inferiority margin was 15 min. This trial is complete and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01972451. Findings Between Nov 20, 2014, and June 16, 2016, 741 (72%) of 1031 patients screened were eligible and consented: 360 were randomly assigned to white light colonoscopy and 381 to chromocolonoscopy. In the chromocolonoscopy group, the procedure took a mean of 36·8 min (SD 15·0), compared with a mean of 30·6 min (13·7) in the standard group (mean difference 6·3 min [95% CI 4·2–8·4] longer with chromocolonoscopy than in the standard group). The mean difference was within the prespecified non-inferiority margin. Detection rates for proximal serrated lesions were significantly higher in the chromocolonoscopy group than in the control group (45 [12%] of 381 patients vs 23 [6%] of 360 patients; odds ratio 1·96 [95% CI 1·16–3·32]; p=0·012). Serious adverse events (four cases of postpolypectomy bleeding [two in each group], and one case of anxiety and hyperventilation [in the chromocolonoscopy group]), colonoscopy quality measures, comfort scores, and sedation were similar between groups. Interpretation Chromocolonoscopy is feasible within a population-based colorectal cancer screening programme, is safe, and has significantly increased detection of proximal serrated neoplasia and other polyp types compared with standard colonoscopy. Larger randomised trials of chromocolonoscopy, powered for improved detection of significant serrated polyps and for longer-term follow-up to investigate the effect on reduction of interval cancers within screening populations, are warrante

Health-status outcomes with invasive or conservative care in coronary disease

BACKGROUND In the ISCHEMIA trial, an invasive strategy with angiographic assessment and revascularization did not reduce clinical events among patients with stable ischemic heart disease and moderate or severe ischemia. A secondary objective of the trial was to assess angina-related health status among these patients. METHODS We assessed angina-related symptoms, function, and quality of life with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) at randomization, at months 1.5, 3, and 6, and every 6 months thereafter in participants who had been randomly assigned to an invasive treatment strategy (2295 participants) or a conservative strategy (2322). Mixed-effects cumulative probability models within a Bayesian framework were used to estimate differences between the treatment groups. The primary outcome of this health-status analysis was the SAQ summary score (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better health status). All analyses were performed in the overall population and according to baseline angina frequency. RESULTS At baseline, 35% of patients reported having no angina in the previous month. SAQ summary scores increased in both treatment groups, with increases at 3, 12, and 36 months that were 4.1 points (95% credible interval, 3.2 to 5.0), 4.2 points (95% credible interval, 3.3 to 5.1), and 2.9 points (95% credible interval, 2.2 to 3.7) higher with the invasive strategy than with the conservative strategy. Differences were larger among participants who had more frequent angina at baseline (8.5 vs. 0.1 points at 3 months and 5.3 vs. 1.2 points at 36 months among participants with daily or weekly angina as compared with no angina). CONCLUSIONS In the overall trial population with moderate or severe ischemia, which included 35% of participants without angina at baseline, patients randomly assigned to the invasive strategy had greater improvement in angina-related health status than those assigned to the conservative strategy. The modest mean differences favoring the invasive strategy in the overall group reflected minimal differences among asymptomatic patients and larger differences among patients who had had angina at baseline

Initial invasive or conservative strategy for stable coronary disease

BACKGROUND Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, whether clinical outcomes are better in those who receive an invasive intervention plus medical therapy than in those who receive medical therapy alone is uncertain. METHODS We randomly assigned 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia to an initial invasive strategy (angiography and revascularization when feasible) and medical therapy or to an initial conservative strategy of medical therapy alone and angiography if medical therapy failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. A key secondary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or myocardial infarction. RESULTS Over a median of 3.2 years, 318 primary outcome events occurred in the invasive-strategy group and 352 occurred in the conservative-strategy group. At 6 months, the cumulative event rate was 5.3% in the invasive-strategy group and 3.4% in the conservative-strategy group (difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8 to 3.0); at 5 years, the cumulative event rate was 16.4% and 18.2%, respectively (difference, 121.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 124.7 to 1.0). Results were similar with respect to the key secondary outcome. The incidence of the primary outcome was sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction; a secondary analysis yielded more procedural myocardial infarctions of uncertain clinical importance. There were 145 deaths in the invasive-strategy group and 144 deaths in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.32). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events or death from any cause over a median of 3.2 years. The trial findings were sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction that was used