Elisabeth Waldmann

A Greater Proportion of Liver Transplant Candidates Have Colorectal Neoplasia Than in the Healthy Screening Population

BACKGROUND & AIMS Various types of liver disease are associated with an increased prevalence of colorectal adenomas. We investigated whether cirrhosis is a risk factor for colorectal neoplasia by analyzing colonoscopy findings from 2 cohorts of patients awaiting liver transplantation. METHODS We performed a retrospective analysis to compare findings from colorectal cancer screenings of 567 adult patients with cirrhosis placed on the waitlist for liver transplantation with those from controls (matched for age, sex, body mass index, smoking, and diabetes). Rates of adenoma and advanced adenoma detection were adjusted owing to differences in rates of polypectomies performed in the 2 cohorts. RESULTS Adenomas were detected in a significantly higher percentage of patients with cirrhosis (29.3%) than in controls (21.5%) (P = .0057; relative risk [RR], 1.36; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09-1.69); and patients with cirrhosis had a higher rate of advanced adenoma detection than controls (13.9% vs 7.7%; P = .0015; relative risk, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.25-2.64). A greater percentage of patients with alcoholic cirrhosis had neoplasias (34.3%) than controls (25.3%; P = .0350; RR, 1.36), and rates of advanced adenoma detection were 16.7% vs 10.2% (P = .0409; RR, 1.63). Adenomas were detected in 27.8% of patients with viral cirrhosis vs 15.9% of controls (P = .0061; RR, 1.74), with rates of advanced adenoma detection of 13.6% vs 5.0% (P = .0041; RR, 2.73). Similar proportions of patients with cirrhosis of other etiologies and controls were found to have colorectal neoplasias. CONCLUSIONS Based on a retrospective analysis of colonoscopy findings from patients awaiting liver transplantation, those with alcoholic or viral cirrhosis are at higher risk of developing colorectal neoplasia and should be considered for earlier colonoscopy examination.

High quality of screening colonoscopy in Austria is not dependent on endoscopist specialty or setting

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIM International studies have shown differences in the outcome of screening colonoscopies related to the endoscopists specialty and setting of colonoscopy. The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of these two factors on quality parameters for screening colonoscopy in a quality-assured screening program. METHODS Adenoma detection rate (ADR), cecal intubation rate (CIR), polypectomy rate, flat polyp detection rate, carcinoma detection rate, sedation rate, complication rates, and other parameters of 59 901 screening colonoscopies performed by 178 endoscopists were analyzed in relation to specialty (35 gastroenterologists: 10 066 colonoscopies [16.8 %]; 84 nongastroenterologists: 26 271 colonoscopies [43.9 %]; 59 surgeons: 23 564 [39.3 %]), and setting (hospital: 12 580 [21.6 %] colonoscopies; office: 45 781 [78.4 %] colonoscopies). RESULTS The overall ADR was 20.5 % and the CIR was 95.6 %. The ADR did not show any statistical significance, either in relation to specialty or to setting. A significant difference in the CIR was found between hospital-based and office-based internists (98.5 % vs. 96.8 %, respectively; P  = 0.0005; odds ratio [OR] 2.2, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.4 - 3.4). Hospital-based internists had a significantly higher flat polyp detection rate (7.5 % vs. 4.1 %; P  = 0.02; OR 1.9, 95 %CI 1.1 - 3.2) and a significantly lower carcinoma detection rate (0.4 % vs. 0.6 %; P  = 0.03; OR 0.7, 95 %CI 0.5 - 1.0) compared with office-based internists. Complication rates were significantly lower among surgeons than among internists (0.1 % vs. 0.2 %; P  = 0.03; OR 0.5, 95 %CI 0.3 - 1.0). CONCLUSION Endoscopists participating in the Austrian quality assurance program offered high quality screening colonoscopy regardless of their specialty and setting. The implementation of a standardized quality program is therefore a decisive factor in quality improvement of screening colonoscopy.

Risk factors cannot explain the higher prevalence rates of precancerous colorectal lesions in men

Background:Prevalence of (pre)cancerous colorectal lesions are higher in men than in women, although transition rates from advanced lesions to cancer is similar in both sexes. Our aim was to investigate whether the sex-specific difference in incidence of premalignant colorectal lesions might be explained by the impact of risk factors.Methods:A cross-sectional study analysing health check-up examinations and screening colonoscopies performed within a national quality assurance program.Results:A total of 25 409 patients were included in this study, 50.8% were women. Median age for both sexes was 60 years (interquartile range (IQR) 54–67). A multivariable model showed that risk factors mediated only 0.6 of the 10.4% gender gap in adenoma and 0.47 of the 3.2% gender gap in advanced adenoma detection rate. Smoking was the only independent risk factor with a varying sex-specific effect (men OR 1.46, CI 1.29, 1.64, women OR 1.76, CI 1.53, 2.06) and advanced adenomas (men OR 1.06, CI 0.80–1.42; women OR 2.08, CI 1.52–2.83). Independent risk factors for adenomas were BMI (OR 1.35 per IQR, CI 1.25–1.47) and triglyceride level (OR 1.03 per IQR, CI 1.00–1.06); for advanced adenomas physical activity (none vs regular: OR 1.54, CI 1.18–2.00, occasional vs regular: OR 1.17, CI 1.00–1.38), cholesterol level (OR 1.13 per IQR, CI 1.02–1.25), blood glucose level (OR 1.05 per IQR, CI 1.01–1.09) and alcohol score (OR 1.09 per IQR, CI 1.01–1.18).Conclusions:Risk factors cannot explain higher prevalence rates in men. Results of this study strongly underline the need for sex-specific screening recommendations.

Surveillance colonoscopy in Austria: Are we following the guidelines?

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIM The European guidelines for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis contain postpolypectomy surveillance recommendations. They recommend follow-up intervals depending on the findings at index colonoscopy, and divide patients into a low-, intermediate- or high-risk group. The aim of this study was to assess the adherence of Austrian endoscopists to the European guidelines and to determine whether sending a reminder letter resulted in better adherence. METHODS A single reminder letter containing the guidelines was sent to all endoscopists who participated in the Certificate of Quality for Screening Colonoscopy program in Austria. Adherence was assessed before and after the letter had been sent. Factors associated with adherence were investigated. RESULTS We found poor baseline adherence to the guidelines. After the reminder letter, the adherence slightly improved in the low-risk group, but did not change in the intermediate-risk or high-risk groups. An adenoma detection rate of at least 20 % was associated with higher adherence rates. Generally, internists and hospitals showed better adherence compared with surgeons and private practices, respectively, both before and after the reminder letter. CONCLUSION A single reminder letter was not enough to improve the poor adherence to the European postpolypectomy surveillance guidelines. Thus, future studies are required to identify and eliminate all factors responsible for nonadherence to postpolypectomy guidelines in order to reach the goal of a safe, effective, and cost-effective colorectal cancer prevention tool in the near future.

Tumor and patient characteristics of individuals with mismatch repair deficient colorectal cancer

Aims: To investigate tumor and patient characteristics of individuals with mismatch repair (MMR)-deficient colorectal carcinomas. Methods: We immunhistochemically investigated tissue samples of 307 consecutive patients with colorectal cancer for defects in DNA MMR proteins (hMLH1, hMSH2, hMSH6, hPMS2) and those with mutations further for microsatellite instability (MSI) and BRAF V600E mutations. Results: 32/308 (10.4%) tumors showed MMR deficiency. Seventy five percent (n = 24) had loss of hMLH1 and hPMS2 expression, 3% (n = 1) of hPMS2 alone, 18.8% (n = 6) of hMSH6 and hMSH2, 3% (n = 1) of hMSH2 alone. All MMR-deficient tumors showed high MSI. These tumors occurred preferably in the right-sided colon, in women and showed specific histological features. We obtained the family history of 18/32 patients; 2 (11.1%) met Amsterdam Criteria, 5 (27.8%) Bethesda Guidelines and 6 (33.3%) revised Bethesda Guidelines. BRAF V600E mutations were found in 16 (67%) of hMLH1 and none of the hMSH2 deficient tumors. Conclusion: We suggest using immunhistochemical testing of tumor tissues with subsequent MSI analysis, which may be justified as a screening method for MMR deficiency in colorectal cancer, since it identifies patients with possibly hereditary defects and unalike response to chemotherapy.

Contents Vol. 91, 2015

Founded as ‘Archiv für Verdauungskrankheiten’ 1895 by I. Boas Continued as ‘Gastroenterologia’ 1939–1967 Former Editors: P. Morawitz (1934–1936), R. Staehelin (1937–1943), A. Hurst (1940–1945), W. Löffler (1943–1961), T.C. Hunt (1947–1967), N. Henning (1953–1962), B. Ihre (1953–1967), H. Bartelheimer (1963–1967), M. Demole (1963–1971), H. Kapp (1968–1970), R. Lambert (1972–1978), W. Creutzfeldt (1979–1992), R. Arnold (1993–2003), C. Beglinger (2004–2011), B. Göke (2004–2014)