Acceptability of alternative technologies compared with Faecal Immunochemical Test and/or colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening : A systematic review

Peer reviewedPostprin

Multi-disciplinary decision-making strategies may reduce the need for secondary surgery in complex colonic polyps - a systematic review and pooled analysis

Aim The recognition of complex colonic polyps is increasing. Management varies considerably and the impact of this on clinical outcomes is unclear. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the impact of group decision-making strategies and defined selection criteria on the treatment outcomes of complex colonic polyps. Method A systematic literature review identified studies reporting complex polyp treatment outcomes and describing their decision-making strategies. Databases searched included PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL and Scopus. Articles were identified by two blinded reviewers using defined inclusion criteria. The review protocol was registered on PROSPERO and performed in line with PRISMA guidelines. Results There were 303 identified articles describing treatment outcomes of complex colonic polyps. Only nine of these fully described the decision-making strategy and met the inclusion criteria. Adverse events ranged from 1.3% to 10% across the studies. Unsuspected malignancy and secondary surgery rates ranged from 2.4% to 15.4% and 3.3% to 43.9%, respectively. Grouping of articles into a hierarchy of decision-making strategies demonstrated a sequential reduction in secondary surgery rates with improving strategies. There were no differences in comparisons of adverse event or unsuspected malignancy rates. Conclusions There is limited description of decision-making strategies and variability in reporting of studies describing complex polyp treatment outcomes. The use of multidisciplinary decision-making and defined selection criteria may reduce the need for secondary surgical intervention in complex colonic polyps, but further evidence is required to draw definite conclusions

Comparison of recommendations for surveillance of advanced colorectal polyps: a systematic review of guidelines

Background and Aim: Patients diagnosed with advanced colorectal lesions have a higher risk of developing colorectal cancer. International polyp surveillance guidelines have recently been updated. The aim of this systematic review was to assess surveillance recommendations for advanced colorectal polyps and compare the patient, polyp, and colonoscopy quality factors considered in their recommendations. Methods: Guidelines with surveillance recommendations for colorectal polyps were identified. Databases searched included PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, TripPro, and guidelines identified by two blinded reviewers. The review protocol was registered on PROSPERO and performed in line with PRISMA guidelines. Results: Six guidelines from the US Multi‐Society Task Force, British Society of Gastroenterology, Cancer Council Australia, European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society, and Asia‐Pacific Working Group on Colorectal Cancer Screening were included. The recommended surveillance interval of 3 years was consistent, but the criteria used for advanced polyps were variable. Polyp factors were the key determinant for when surveillance should be performed. Although all guidelines recognized their importance, the application of and evidence underlying patient characteristics and the quality of baseline colonoscopy were limited. All included guidelines were rated of average to high quality by the AGREE II instrument. Conclusion: Surveillance guidelines for advanced colorectal polyps are of good quality but limited by their underlying evidence. Standardization of definitions would be valuable for both research and clinical application. Better knowledge of colonoscopist quality indicators and patient factors is recommended to further economize surveillance recommendations, minimize patient risk, and achieve optimal outcomes without increasing pressure on services

Participants' experiences of the management of screen-detected complex polyps within a structured bowel cancer screening programme

Background The Bowel Screening Wales complex polyp removal service was introduced to address variations in surgery rates for screen-detected complex benign colorectal polyps, to improve the quality of the screening service and to make management of these polyps more equitable across Wales. Little is known about patient experiences and the potential impact on quality of life when undergoing complex polyp removal. This study is part of a wider research programme evaluating the decision-making, pathways and outcomes from complex polyp removal. Objective This study aimed to understand experiences of having a complex polyp removed and how this may influence quality of life. Design Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted, and a thematic approach was used for data analysis. Setting and Participants All participants had a complex polyp removed after a positive stool test and review by Bowel Screening Wales' Network Multi-Disciplinary Team. Results Twenty-one participants were interviewed. Most participants had their complex polyps removed endoscopically and reported no or minor problems or negative outcomes following their procedure. For a small minority, worse problems (e.g., pain, bowel dysfunction) and negative outcomes (e.g., cancer) followed their procedures. Most participants felt supported and reassured throughout their procedures. Any physical and emotional changes to quality of life were mainly linked to procedure outcomes. Discussion Experiences of complex polyp removal were generally positive, with minimal changes in quality of life. Conclusions While most people had a positive experience of having a complex polyp removed, support initiatives, such as counselling or signposting to coping strategies, may be helpful to reduce any potential negative effects of procedures on quality of life

Planning management for complex colorectal polyps: a qualitative assessment of factors influencing decision-making among colonoscopists

Objective: Endoscopic therapy is the recommended primary treatment for most complex colorectal polyps, but high colonic resection rates are reported. The aim of this qualitative study was to understand and compare between specialities, the clinical and non-clinical factors influencing decision making when planning management. Design: Semi-structured interviews were performed among colonoscopists across the UK. Interviews were conducted virtually and transcribed verbatim. Complex polyps were defined as lesions requiring further management planning rather than those treatable at the time of endoscopy. A thematic analysis was performed. Findings were coded to identify themes and reported narratively. Results: Twenty colonoscopists were interviewed. Four major themes were identified including gathering information regarding the patient and their polyp, aids to decision making, barriers in achieving optimal management and improving services. Participants advocated endoscopic management where possible. Factors such as younger age, suspicion of malignancy, right colon or difficult polyp location lead towards surgical intervention and were similar between surgical and medical specialties. Availability of expertise, timely endoscopy and challenges in referral pathways were reported barriers to optimal management. Experiences of team decision-making strategies were positive and advocated in improving complex polyp management. Recommendations based on these findings to improve complex polyp management are provided. Conclusion: The increasing recognition of complex colorectal polyps requires consistency in decision making and access to a full range of treatment options. Colonoscopists advocated the availability of clinical expertise, timely treatment and education in avoiding surgical intervention and providing good patient outcomes. Team decision-making strategies for complex polyps may provide an opportunity to coordinate and improve these issues

Perceptions of the impact of comorbidity on the Bowel Cancer Screening Programme: qualitative study with bowel screening participants and staff

Introduction: The impact of multiple health conditions on bowel cancer screening is currently unknown. We explored the impact of multiple health conditions on bowel cancer screening perceptions, experience and clinical management decisions following a positive stool test. Methods: Semi‐structured qualitative interviews were conducted remotely with Bowel Screening Wales staff (n = 16) stratified by regional location and role and with screening participants (n = 19) stratified by age, gender and comorbidity. Interview topics were guided by the Common‐Sense Model. Results: Screening participants, regardless of comorbidity status, placed great emphasis on the importance of early detection of cancer and completing the bowel screening process. Screening staff emphasised comorbidities in the clinical decision‐making process; however, screening participants had low awareness of the impact that comorbidities can have on bowel screening. Participants describe how the presence of multiple health conditions can mask potential bowel symptoms and influence beliefs about follow‐up. Conclusion: Bowel screening staff try to individualise the service to meet participant needs. The potential mismatch in screening staff and participant awareness and expectations of the bowel screening and diagnostic process needs to be addressed. Clearer and more regular communication with screening participants could support the screening process, particularly for those with significant coexisting health conditions or facing time delays. The possible masking effects and misattribution of symptoms because of comorbidities highlight an opportunity for education and raising awareness for screening participants and a potential area of focus for discussions in clinical consultations and staff training. Patient and Public Contribution: Project funding included costs for patients and public contributors to be compensated for their contributions to the project, in line with current standards. A patient and public contributor was involved in the design of the study, including protocol development, and the interpretation of key findings and implications for patients, which are subsequently reflected within the manuscript

Development and user-testing of a brief decision aid for aspirin as a preventive approach alongside colorectal cancer screening.

Background Several epidemiological and cohort studies suggest that regular low-dose aspirin use independently reduces the long-term incidence and risk of colorectal cancer deaths by approximately 20%. However, there are also risks to aspirin use, mainly gastrointestinal bleeding and haemorrhagic stroke. Making informed decisions depends on the ability to understand and weigh up benefits and risks of available options. A decision aid to support people to consider aspirin therapy alongside participation in the NHS bowel cancer screening programme may have an additional impact on colorectal cancer prevention. This study aims to develop and user-test a brief decision aid about aspirin to enable informed decision-making for colorectal screening-eligible members of the public. Methods We undertook a qualitative study to develop an aspirin decision aid leaflet to support bowel screening responders in deciding whether to take aspirin to reduce their risk of colorectal cancer. The iterative development process involved two focus groups with public members aged 60–74 years (n = 14) and interviews with clinicians (n = 10). Interviews (n = 11) were used to evaluate its utility for decision-making. Analysis was conducted using a framework approach. Results Overall, participants found the decision aid acceptable and useful to facilitate decision-making. They expressed a need for individualised risk information, more detail about the potential risks of aspirin, and preferred risk information presented in pictograms when offered different options. Implementation pathways were discussed, including the possibility of involving different clinicians in the process such as GPs and/or community pharmacists. A range of potentially effective timepoints for sending out the decision aid were identified. Conclusion An acceptable and usable decision aid was developed to support decisions about aspirin use to prevent colorectal cancer

Assessment of technical parameters and skills training to inform a simulation-based training program for semi-automated robotic colonoscopy

Background and study aims Video-colonoscopy, despite being the gold-standard for diagnosis of colorectal lesions, has limitations including patient discomfort and risk of complications. This study assessed training characteristics and acceptability in operators of a new robotic colonoscope (RC). Materials and methods Participants (n = 9) with varying degrees of skill and background knowledge in colonoscopy performed colonoscopies with a RC on a simulation-based training model. Quantitative procedure-related and qualitative operator-related parameters were recorded. Results Polyp detection rate was highest in the novice group (91.67 %) followed by experts (86.11 %), then equally, trainees and video gamers (79.17 %). Four participants repeated the procedure at a follow-up session. Each participant improved cecal intubation time and had the same or higher polyp detection rate. The potential role for RC was identified for an out-of-hospital environment and as a novel diagnostic tool. Conclusions Results from this pilot suggest that operators at all skill levels found the RC acceptable and potentially useful as a diagnostic tool. Acquisition of skills with RC seems to improve rapidly to a clinically relevant level with simulation-based trainin

Aspirin and cancer treatment: systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evidence: for and against

Aspirin as a possible treatment of cancer has been of increasing interest for over 50 years, but the balance of the risks and benefits remains a point of contention. We summarise the valid published evidence ‘for’ and ‘against’ the use of aspirin as a cancer treatment and we present what we believe are relevant ethical implications. Reasons for aspirin include the benefits of aspirin taken by patients with cancer upon relevant biological cancer mechanisms. These explain the observed reductions in metastatic cancer and vascular complications in cancer patients. Meta-analyses of 118 observational studies of mortality in cancer patients give evidence consistent with reductions of about 20% in mortality associated with aspirin use. Reasons against aspirin use include increased risk of a gastrointestinal bleed though there appears to be no valid evidence that aspirin is responsible for fatal gastrointestinal bleeding. Few trials have been reported and there are inconsistencies in the results. In conclusion, given the relative safety and the favourable effects of aspirin, its use in cancer seems justified, and ethical implications of this imply that cancer patients should be informed of the present evidence and encouraged to raise the topic with their healthcare team