Patients' perception of colonoscopy: patients with inflammatory bowel disease and irritable bowel syndrome experience the largest burden

Colonoscopy is a frequently performed procedure worldwide with a negative perception, leading to reluctance to undergo the procedure. Perceptions could differ depending on the specific indication for the colonoscopy. To compare patient satisfaction with the colonoscopy procedure between five different patient groups: inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), familial predisposition for cancer, adenoma/carcinoma surveillance, symptoms suggestive of cancer, and irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). A prospective questionnaire study was carried out in two regional hospitals and two tertiary teaching hospitals in the Netherlands. A total of 797 consecutive patients scheduled for colonoscopy between October 2009 and June 2010, 146 (18%) IBD, 153 (19%) adenoma or carcinoma surveillance, 104 (13%) familial predisposition, 280 (35%) symptoms suggestive of cancer, and 114 (14%) IBS-like symptoms, were included. Two questionnaires were administered: one on the day of the procedure and another 6 weeks after the procedure. The main outcome measurements were embarrassment, pain, burden, most burdensome aspect, and overall level of satisfaction. Patients with IBD and IBS reported significantly more embarrassment and burden from the bowel preparation phase (P=0.040 and 0.018, respectively) and more pain during the colonoscopy procedure (P=0.018). This difference in pain was also observed when adjusting for volume of sedation administered, familiarity with the endoscopist, duration of the colonoscopy, or whether or not an intervention was performed. All patient groups were less satisfied with the procedure at 6 weeks than directly after the colonoscopy; they recalled more embarrassment and burden, but less pain. Patient groups, defined by indication for colonoscopy, experience the colonoscopy procedure differentl

No Difference in Colorectal Cancer Incidence or Stage at Detection by Colonoscopy Among 3 Countries With Different Lynch Syndrome Surveillance Policies

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Patients with Lynch syndrome are at high risk for developing colorectal cancer (CRC). Regular colonoscopic surveillance is recommended, but there is no international consensus on the appropriate interval. We investigated whether shorter intervals are associated with lower CRC incidence and detection at earlier stages by comparing the surveillance policies in Germany, which evaluates patients by colonoscopy annually, in the Netherlands (patients evaluated at 1-2-year intervals), and Finland (patients evaluated at 2-3-year intervals). METHODS: We collected data from 16,327 colonoscopic examinations (conducted from 1984 through 2015) of 2747 patients with Lynch syndrome (pathogenic variants in the MLH1, MSH2, or MSH6 genes) from the German HNPCC Consortium, the Dutch Lynch Syndrome Registry, and the Finnish Lynch Syndrome Registry. Our analysis included 23,309 person-years of cumulative observation time. Time from the index colonoscopy to incident CRC or adenoma was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method; groups were compared using the log-rank test. We performed multivariable Cox regression analyses to identify factors associated with CRC risk (diagnosis of CRC before the index colonoscopy, sex, mutation, age, and presence of adenoma at the index colonoscopy). RESULTS: The 10-year cumulative CRC incidence ranged from 4.1% to 18.4% in patients with low-and high-risk profiles, respectively, and varied with age, sex, mutation, and prior detection of CRC or adenoma. Observed colonoscopy intervals were largely in accordance with the country-specific recommendations. We found no significant differences in cumulative CRC incidence or CRC stage at detection among countries. There was no significant association between CRC stage and [GRAPHICS] time since last colonoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: We did not find a significant reduction in CRC incidence or stage of detection in Germany (annual colonoscopic surveillance) than in countries with longer surveillance intervals (the Netherlands, with 1-2-year intervals, and Finland, with 2-3-year intervals). Overall, we did not find a significant association of the interval with CRC risk, although age, sex, mutation, and prior neoplasia were used to individually modify colonoscopy intervals. Studies are needed to develop and validate risk-adapted surveillance strategies and to identify patients who benefit from shorter surveillance intervals

Associations of Pathogenic Variants in MLH1, MSH2, and MSH6 With Risk of Colorectal Adenomas and Tumors and With Somatic Mutations in Patients With Lynch Syndrome

Background & Aims. Lynch syndrome is caused by variants in DNA mismatch repair (MMR) genes and associated with an increased risk of colorectal cancer (CRC). In patients with Lynch syndrome, CRCs can develop via different pathways. We studied associations between Lynch syndrome-associated variants in MMR genes and risks of adenoma and CRC and somatic mutations in APC and CTNNB1 in tumors in an international cohort of patients. Methods. We combined clinical and molecular data from 3 studies. We obtained clinical data from 2747 patients with Lynch syndrome associated with variants in MLH1, MSH2, or MSH6 from Germany, the Netherlands, and Finland who received at least 2 surveillance colonoscopies and were followed for a median time of 7.8 years for development of adenomas or CRC. We performed DNA sequence analyses of 48 colorectal tumors (from 16 patients with mutations in MLH1, 29 patients with mutations in MSH2, and 3 with mutations in MSH6) for somatic mutations in APC and CTNNB1. Results. Risk of advanced adenoma in 10 y was 17.8% in patients with pathogenic variants in MSH2 vs 7.7% in MLH1 (P<.001). Higher proportions of patients with pathogenic variants in MLH1 or MSH2 developed CRC in 10 y (11.3% and 11.4%) than patients with pathogenic variants in MSH6 (4.7%) (P=.001 and P=.003 for MLH1 and MSH2 vs MSH6, respectively). Somatic mutations in APC were found in 75% of tumors from patients with pathogenic variants in MSH2 vs 11% in MLH1 (P=.015). Somatic mutations in CTNNB1 were found in 50% of tumors from patients with pathogenic variants in MLH1 vs 7% in MSH2 (P=.002). None of the 3 tumors with pathogenic variants in MSH6 had a mutation in CTNNB1, but all had mutations in APC. Conclusions. In an analysis of clinical and DNA sequence data from patients with Lynch syndrome from 3 countries, we associated pathogenic variants in MMR genes with risk of adenoma and CRC, and somatic mutations in APC and CTNNB1 in colorectal tumors. If these findings are confirmed, surveillance guidelines might be adjusted based on MMR gene variants.peerReviewe

Associations of Pathogenic Variants in MLH1, MSH2, and MSH6 With Risk of Colorectal Adenomas and Tumors and With Somatic Mutations in Patients With Lynch Syndrome

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Lynch syndrome is caused by variants in DNA mismatch repair (MMR) genes and associated with an increased risk of colorectal cancer (CRC). In patients with Lynch syndrome, CRCs can develop via different pathways. We studied associations between Lynch syndrome-associated variants in MMR genes and risks of adenoma and CRC and somatic mutations in APC and CTNNB1 in tumors in an international cohort of patients. METHODS: We combined clinical and molecular data from 3 studies. We obtained clinical data from 2747 patients with Lynch syndrome associated with variants in MLH1, MSH2, or MSH6 from Germany, the Netherlands, and Finland who received at least 2 surveillance colonoscopies and were followed for a median time of 7.8 years for development of adenomas or CRC. We performed DNA sequence analyses of 48 colorectal tumors (from 16 patients with mutations in MLH1, 29 patients with mutations in MSH2, and 3 with mutations in MSH6) for somatic mutations in APC and CTNNB1. RESULTS: Risk of advanced adenoma in 10 years was 17.8% in patients with pathogenic variants in MSH2 vs 7.7% in MLH1 (P <.001). Higher proportions of patients with pathogenic variants in MLH1 or MSH2 developed CRC in 10 years (11.3% and 11.4%) than patients with pathogenic variants in MSH6 (4.7%) (P = .001 and P = .003 for MLH1 and MSH2 vs MSH6, respectively). Somatic mutations in APC were found in 75% of tumors from patients with pathogenic variants in MSH2 vs 11% in MLH1 (P = .015). Somatic mutations in CTNNB1 were found in 50% of tumors from patients with pathogenic variants in MLH1 vs 7% in MSH2 (P = .002). None of the 3 tumors with pathogenic variants in MSH6 had a mutation in CTNNB1, but all had mutations in APC. CONCLUSIONS: In an analysis of clinical and DNA sequence data from patients with Lynch syndrome from 3 countries, we associated pathogenic variants in MMR genes with risk of adenoma and CRC, and somatic mutations in APC and CTNNB1 in colorectal tumors. If these findings are confirmed, surveillance guidelines might be adjusted based on MMR gene variants