Matt Rutter

Guidelines for the management of inflammatory bowel disease in adults

The management of inflammatory bowel disease represents a key component of clinical practice for members of the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG). There has been considerable progress in management strategies affecting all aspects of clinical care since the publication of previous BSG guidelines in 2004, necessitating the present revision. Key components of the present document worthy of attention as having been subject to re-assessment, and revision, and having direct impact on practice include: The data generated by the nationwide audits of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) management in the UK in 2006, and 2008. The publication of ‘Quality Care: service standards for the healthcare of people with IBD’ in 2009. The introduction of the Montreal classification for Crohns disease and ulcerative colitis. The revision of recommendations for the use of immunosuppressive therapy. The detailed analysis, guidelines and recommendations for the safe and appropriate use of biological therapies in Crohns disease and ulcerative colitis. The reassessment of the role of surgery in disease management, with emphasis on the importance of multi-disciplinary decision-making in complex cases. The availablity of new data on the role of reconstructive surgery in ulcerative colitis. The cross-referencing to revised guidelines for colonoscopic surveillance, for the management of metabolic bone disease, and for the care of children with inflammatory bowel disease. Use of the BSG discussion forum available on the BSG website to enable ongoing feedback on the published document http://www.bsg.org.uk/forum (accessed Oct 2010). The present document is intended primarily for the use of clinicians in the United Kingdom, and serves to replace the previous BSG guidelines in IBD, while complementing recent consensus statements published by the European Crohns and Colitis Organisation (ECCO) https://www.ecco-ibd.eu/index.php (accessed Oct 2010).

Outcomes of the Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) in England after the first 1 million tests

Introduction The Bowel Cancer Screening Programme in England began operating in 2006 with the aim of full roll out across England by December 2009. Subjects aged 60–69 are being invited to complete three guaiac faecal occult blood tests (6 windows) every 2 years. The programme aims to reduce mortality from colorectal cancer by 16% in those invited for screening. Methods All subjects eligible for screening in the National Health Service in England are included on one database, which is populated from National Health Service registration data covering about 98% of the population of England. This analysis is only of subjects invited to participate in the first (prevalent) round of screening. Results By October 2008 almost 2.1 million had been invited to participate, with tests being returned by 49.6% of men and 54.4% of women invited. Uptake ranged between 55–60% across the four provincial hubs which administer the programme but was lower in the London hub (40%). Of the 1.08 million returning tests 2.5% of men and 1.5% of women had an abnormal test. 17 518 (10 608 M, 6910 F) underwent investigation, with 98% having a colonoscopy as their first investigation. Cancer (n=1772) and higher risk adenomas (n=6543) were found in 11.6% and 43% of men and 7.8% and 29% of women investigated, respectively. 71% of cancers were ‘early’ (10% polyp cancer, 32% Dukes A, 30% Dukes B) and 77% were left-sided (29% rectal, 45% sigmoid) with only 14% being right-sided compared with expected figures of 67% and 24% for left and right side from UK cancer registration. Conclusion In this first round of screening in England uptake and fecal occult blood test positivity was in line with that from the pilot and the original European trials. Although there was the expected improvement in cancer stage at diagnosis, the proportion with left-sided cancers was higher than expected.

Definition and taxonomy of interval colorectal cancers: a proposal for standardising nomenclature.

Objective Interval colorectal cancers (interval CRCs), that is, cancers occurring after a negative screening test or examination, are an important indicator of the quality and effectiveness of CRC screening and surveillance. In order to compare incidence rates of interval CRCs across screening programmes, a standardised definition is required. Our goal was to develop an internationally applicable definition and taxonomy for reporting on interval CRCs. Design Using a modified Delphi process to achieve consensus, the Expert Working Group on interval CRC of the Colorectal Cancer Screening Committee of the World Endoscopy Organization developed a nomenclature for defining and characterising interval CRCs. Results We define an interval CRC as a “colorectal cancer diagnosed after a screening or surveillance exam in which no cancer is detected, and before the date of the next recommended exam”. Guidelines and principles for describing and reporting on interval CRCs are provided, and clinical scenarios to demonstrate the practical application of the nomenclature are presented. Conclusions The Working Group on interval CRC of the World Endoscopy Organization endorses adoption of this standardised nomenclature. A standardised nomenclature will facilitate benchmarking and comparison of interval CRC rates across programmes and regions.

Development and validation of a novel method for assessing competency in polypectomy: direct observation of polypectomy skills

BACKGROUND Despite its ubiquitous use over the past 4 decades, there is no structured, formal method with which to assess polypectomy. OBJECTIVE To develop and validate a new method with which to assess competency in polypectomy. DESIGN Polypectomy underwent task deconstruction, and a structured checklist and global assessment scale were developed (direct observation of polypectomy skills [DOPyS]). Sixty bowel cancer screening polypectomy videos were randomly chosen for analysis and were scored independently by 7 expert assessors by using DOPyS. Each parameter and the global rating were scored from 1 to 4 (scores ≥3 = competency). The scores were analyzed by using generalizability theory (G theory). SETTING Multicenter. RESULTS Fifty-nine of the 60 videos were assessable and scored. The majority of the assessors agreed across the pass/fail divide for the global assessment scale in 58 of 59 (98%) polyps. For G-theory analysis, 47 of the 60 videos were analyzed. G-theory analysis suggested that DOPyS is a reliable assessment tool, provided that it is used by 2 assessors to score 5 polypectomy videos all performed by 1 endoscopist. DOPyS scores obtained in this format would reflect the endoscopists competence. LIMITATIONS Small sample and polyp size. CONCLUSIONS This study is the first attempt to develop and validate a tool designed specifically for the assessment of technical skills in performing polypectomy. G-theory analysis suggests that DOPyS could reliably reflect an endoscopists competence in performing polypectomy provided a requisite number of assessors and cases were used.

UK key performance indicators and quality assurance standards for colonoscopy

Colonoscopy should be delivered by endoscopists performing high quality procedures. The British Society of Gastroenterology, the UK Joint Advisory Group on GI Endoscopy, and the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland have developed quality assurance measures and key performance indicators for the delivery of colonoscopy within the UK. This document sets minimal standards for delivery of procedures along with aspirational targets that all endoscopists should aim for.

Management and short‐term outcome of malignant colorectal polyps in the north of England1

Aim  Management of malignant colorectal polyps (MCP) is contentious, with no randomized controlled trials comparing endoscopic with surgical management. This study reviews the management and outcomes of MCPs across a UK region.

Risk stratification of Barrett's oesophagus using a non-endoscopic sampling method coupled with a biomarker panel: a cohort study

BACKGROUND Barretts oesophagus predisposes to adenocarcinoma. However, most patients with Barretts oesophagus will not progress and endoscopic surveillance is invasive, expensive, and fraught by issues of sampling bias and the subjective assessment of dysplasia. We investigated whether a non-endoscopic device, the Cytosponge, could be coupled with clinical and molecular biomarkers to identify a group of patients with low risk of progression suitable for non-endoscopic follow-up. METHODS In this multicentre cohort study (BEST2), patients with Barretts oesophagus underwent the Cytosponge test before their surveillance endoscopy. We collected clinical and demographic data and tested Cytosponge samples for a molecular biomarker panel including three protein biomarkers (P53, c-Myc, and Aurora kinase A), two methylation markers (MYOD1 and RUNX3), glandular atypia, and TP53 mutation status. We used a multivariable logistic regression model to compute the conditional probability of dysplasia status. We selected a simple model with high classification accuracy and applied it to an independent validation cohort. The BEST2 study is registered with ISRCTN, number 12730505. FINDINGS The discovery cohort consisted of 468 patients with Barretts oesophagus and intestinal metaplasia. Of these, 376 had no dysplasia and 22 had high-grade dysplasia or intramucosal adenocarcinoma. In the discovery cohort, a model with high classification accuracy consisted of glandular atypia, P53 abnormality, and Aurora kinase A positivity, and the interaction of age, waist-to-hip ratio, and length of the Barretts oesophagus segment. 162 (35%) of 468 of patients fell into the low-risk category and the probability of being a true non-dysplastic patient was 100% (99% CI 96-100) and the probability of having high-grade dysplasia or intramucosal adenocarcinoma was 0% (0-4). 238 (51%) of participants were classified as of moderate risk; the probability of having high-grade dysplasia was 14% (9-21). 58 (12%) of participants were classified as high-risk; the probability of having non-dysplastic endoscopic biopsies was 13% (5-27), whereas the probability of having high-grade dysplasia or intramucosal adenocarcinoma was 87% (73-95). In the validation cohort (65 patients), 51 were non-dysplastic and 14 had high-grade dysplasia. In this cohort, 25 (38%) of 65 patients were classified as being low-risk, and the probability of being non-dysplastic was 96·0% (99% CI 73·80-99·99). The moderate-risk group comprised 27 non-dysplastic and eight high-grade dysplasia cases, whereas the high-risk group (8% of the cohort) had no non-dysplastic cases and five patients with high-grade dysplasia. INTERPRETATION A combination of biomarker assays from a single Cytosponge sample can be used to determine a group of patients at low risk of progression, for whom endoscopy could be avoided. This strategy could help to avoid overdiagnosis and overtreatment in patients with Barretts oesophagus. FUNDING Cancer Research UK.

British Society of Gastroenterology position statement on serrated polyps in the colon and rectum

Serrated polyps have been recognised in the last decade as important premalignant lesions accounting for between 15% and 30% of colorectal cancers. There is therefore a clinical need for guidance on how to manage these lesions; however, the evidence base is limited. A working group was commission by the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) Endoscopy section to review the available evidence and develop a position statement to provide clinical guidance until the evidence becomes available to support a formal guideline. The scope of the position statement was wide-ranging and included: evidence that serrated lesions have premalignant potential; detection and resection of serrated lesions; surveillance strategies after detection of serrated lesions; special situations—serrated polyposis syndrome (including surgery) and serrated lesions in colitis; education, audit and benchmarks and research questions. Statements on these issues were proposed where the evidence was deemed sufficient, and re-evaluated modified via a Delphi process until >80% agreement was reached. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) tool was used to assess the strength of evidence and strength of recommendation for finalised statements. Key recommendation: we suggest that until further evidence on the efficacy or otherwise of surveillance are published, patients with sessile serrated lesions (SSLs) that appear associated with a higher risk of future neoplasia or colorectal cancer (SSLs ≥10 mm or serrated lesions harbouring dysplasia including traditional serrated adenomas) should be offered a one-off colonoscopic surveillance examination at 3 years (weak recommendation, low quality evidence, 90% agreement).

Achieving high quality colonoscopy: using graphical representation to measure performance and reset standards

Aim  Completeness and thoroughness of colonoscopy are measured by the caecal intubation rate (CIR) and the adenoma detection rate (ADR). National standards are ≥ 90% and ≥ 10% respectively. Variability in CIR and ADR have been demonstrated but comparison between individuals and units is difficult. We aimed to assess the performance of colonoscopy in endoscopy units in the northeast of England.

A novel method for determining the difficulty of colonoscopic polypectomy

Introduction Endoscopists are now expected to perform polypectomy routinely. Colonic polypectomy varies in difficulty, depending on polyp morphology, size, location and access. The measurement of the degree of difficulty of polypectomy, based on polyp characteristics, has not previously been described. Objective To define the level of difficulty of polypectomy. Methods Consensus by nine endoscopists regarding parameters that determine the complexity of a polyp was achieved through the Delphi method. The endoscopists then assigned a polyp complexity level to each possible combination of parameters. A scoring system to measure the difficulty level of a polyp was developed and validated by two different expert endoscopists. Results Through two Delphi rounds, four factors for determining the complexity of a polypectomy were identified: size (S), morphology (M), site (S) and access (A). A scoring system was established, based on size (1–9 points), morphology (1–3 points), site (1–2 points) and access (1–3 points). Four polyp levels (with increasing level of complexity) were identified based on the range of scores obtained: level I (4–5), level II (6–9), level III (10–12) and level IV (>12). There was a high degree of interrater reliability for the polyp scores (interclass correlation coefficient of 0.93) and levels (κ=0.888). Conclusions The scoring system is feasible and reliable. Defining polyp complexity levels may be useful for planning training, competency assessment and certification in colonoscopic polypectomy. This may allow for more efficient service delivery and referral pathways.