Subjects in the FIT group were more likely to participate in screening than were those in the colonoscopy group. On the baseline screening examination, the numbers of subjects in whom colorectal cancer was detected were similar in the two study groups, but more adenomas were identified in the colonoscopy group. (Funded by Instituto de Salud Carlos III and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00906997.).

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most commonly diagnosed cancer in the world. The incidence and mortality show wide geographical variations. Screening is recommended to reduce both incidence and mortality. However, there are significant differences among studies in implementation strategies and detection. This review aimed to present the results and strategies of different screening programs worldwide. We reviewed the literature on national and international screening programs published in PubMed, on web pages, and in clinical guidelines. CRC Screening programs are currently underway in most European countries, Canada, specific regions in North and South America, Asia, and Oceania. The most extensive screening strategies were based on fecal occult blood testing, and more recently, the fecal immunochemical test (FIT). Participation in screening has varied greatly among different programs. The Netherlands showed the highest participation rate (68.2%) and some areas of Canada showed the lowest (16%). Participation rates were highest among women and in programs that used the FIT test. Men exhibited the greatest number of positive results. The FIT test has been the most widely used screening program worldwide. The advent of this test has increased participation rates and the detection of positive results. Core tip: Colorectal cancer is the third most commonly diagnosed cancer worldwide. The incidence and mortality show wide geographical variations across the world. Screening is recommended to reduce both, however, there are significant differences among studies in implementation strategies and detection. This review aimed to present the results and strategies of different screening programs worldwide.

No abstract

Queries are meant to draw your attention to edits, inconsistencies or issues that are unclear. If we just ask you to confirm edits are correct, a simple yes/ok between the brackets will do [Au: OK? Is this what you meant? Edits OK? yes]. If questions are asked, please rephrase/update the manuscript text when addressing queries, so that the message is conveyed to the reader (do NOT just type your answer to our query).] [Au: Throughout the manuscript, please use consistent terminology. For example, acute diverticulitis is diverticular disease and in several instances, they are mentioned separately. For clearer understanding, please use consistent terminology and define cleary what diverticular disease refers to. Similarly, there is a slight ambiguity between the terms diverticulosis and asymptomatic diverticulosis. My understanding is that diverticulosis is always asymptomatic. Please refer to them consistently if they are used to refer to the same condition. Is acute uncomplicated diverticulitis as in some instances, its refered to as uncomplicated acute diverticulitis? Please also use the abbreviation, AUD, if this terminology is widely accepted in the field. Just wanted to flag these here to make it easier for you to address.][Au: Important! As I am managing the references for this manuscript, it is essential that changes to references are noted to me in a comment rather than edited manually (as this will likely unlink the references and cause much confusion). If a reference needs to be added, include the full reference details (at a minimum, PMID or DOI are needed) and precise location to be cited. If a reference needs to be deleted, state which reference (author, year) and not just the reference number (as this will change with every change to the references).You can move text around, including the references associated with any given statement, but please don't edit the reference list at the end of the document.

COVID-19 was initially considered to be a respiratory disease but soon after the pandemic established it became clear that the SARS-CoV-2 virus which caused the disease could lead to serious systemic consequences affecting most of the major organs including the digestive tract, liver and pancreas. This review brings together the new information which is clinically relevant to the gastroenterologist including the origins of the disease, mechanisms of tissue damage and how this affects specific patient groups, including those with inflammatory bowel disease, comorbidities and the role of immunosuppression, chronic liver disease and the risk of decompensation for those with cirrhosis. The impact of COVID-19 for gastrointestinal emergencies is addressed together with the implications for the conduct of endoscopic and other interventional and diagnostic procedures. The importance of fully understanding the pharmacology and therapeutic implications of drugs commonly used by the gastroenterologist and their relationship with COVID-19 are also highlighted. The risk for drug-drug interactions is considerable in patients seriously ill with COVID-19 who are often requiring mechanical ventilation and life-support. Some re-purposed drugs used against SARS-CoV-2 can cause or aggravate some of the COVID-19 GI symptoms and also can induce iatrogenic liver injury. Ongoing clinical studies will hopefully identify effective drugs with a risk-benefit ratio which will be more favorable than many recently tried treatments.

No abstract

Our results show that, at least in some white populations, the contribution of the cytokine gene polymorphisms evaluated in this study (IL-1B, IL-1RN, IL-12p40, LTA, IL-10, IL-4, and TGF-B1) to GC susceptibility may be less relevant than previously reported.

The statements produced by the Chairmen and Speakers of the 3rd International Symposium on Diverticular Disease, held in Madrid on April 11th-13th 2019, are reported. Topics such as current and evolving concepts on the pathogenesis, the course of the disease, the news in diagnosing, hot topics in medical and surgical treatments, and finally, critical issues on the disease were reviewed by the Chairmen who proposed 39 statements graded according to level of evidence and strength of recommendation. Each topic was explored focusing on the more relevant clinical questions. The vote was conducted on a 6-point scale and consensus was defined a priori as 67% agreement of the participants. The voting group consisted of 124 physicians from 18 countries, and agreement with all statements was provided. Comments were added explaining some controversial areas.