We observed a small but significant increase in the risk of AAs in people with LRAs compared with those with a normal baseline colonoscopy, but compared with the general population, people with LRAs have significantly lower risks of CRC and of CRC-related mortality.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of cancerrelated death worldwide [1]. CRC is amenable to early detection with earlier diagnosis improving prognosis [2-4]. Like many regions around the world, Canadian provincial screening programs use fecal occult blood tests (FOBTs)-guaiac or immunochemical, depending on the province-as the initial CRC screening test [5]. When FOBTs are positive (FOBT+), colonoscopy is required for a definitive CRC diagnosis [6]. Delays in obtaining follow-up colonoscopy increase the risk of CRC, including advanced-stage disease [7, 8], while non-adherence considerably increases the risk of CRC death [9]. Timely receipt of follow-up colonoscopy is therefore critical to reducing the burden of CRC at the population level. Colon Cancer Check (CCC) is Ontario's organized CRC screening program and Canada's largest CRC screening program, serving just over 4 million eligible individuals [6]. CCC recommends biennial guaiac FOBT (Hema-Screen, Immunostics Inc., NJ, USA) for persons ages 50-74 at average CRC risk [10]. Primary care providers (PCPs) facilitate screening by dispensing FOBT kits, receiving test results and arranging follow-up colonoscopy for persons with FOBT + results. While a follow-up colonoscopy rate of 85-90%

Key Points Question Did the delivery of services within a cancer system change during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic? Findings This population-based cohort study conducted in Ontario, Canada, found a total of 4 476 693 cancer care services during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, compared with 5 644 105 services in the year prior, representing a reduction of 20.7% and suggesting a backlog of 1 167 412 cancer services during the first pandemic year. Limited change was observed in systemic treatments and emergency or urgent imaging examinations and surgical procedures, while major reductions were observed in cancer screening tests, biopsies, surgical treatments, and new consultations for systemic and radiation treatment. Meaning These findings provide evidence on the deficits in cancer care that occurred during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic that are likely to inform continued delivery of care, recovery, and future pandemic planning.

No abstract

Introduction. The objectives of this systematic review were to evaluate the evidence for different CRC screening tests and to determine the most appropriate ages of initiation and cessation for CRC screening and the most appropriate screening intervals for selected CRC screening tests in people at average risk for CRC. Methods. Electronic databases were searched for studies that addressed the research objectives. Meta-analyses were conducted with clinically homogenous trials. A working group reviewed the evidence to develop conclusions. Results. Thirty RCTs and 29 observational studies were included. Flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) prevented CRC and led to the largest reduction in CRC mortality with a smaller but significant reduction in CRC mortality with the use of guaiac fecal occult blood tests (gFOBTs). There was insufficient or low quality evidence to support the use of other screening tests, including colonoscopy, as well as changing the ages of initiation and cessation for CRC screening with gFOBTs in Ontario. Either annual or biennial screening using gFOBT reduces CRC-related mortality. Conclusion. The evidentiary base supports the use of FS or FOBT (either annual or biennial) to screen patients at average risk for CRC. This work will guide the development of the provincial CRC screening program.

No abstract

ObjectiveAlthough sedation improves patient experience during colonoscopy, there is great jurisdictional variability in sedative practices. The objective of this study was to develop practice recommendations for the use of moderate and deep sedation in routine hospital-based colonoscopy to facilitate standardisation of practice.DesignWe recruited 32 multidisciplinary panellists to participate in a modified Delphi process to establish consensus-based recommendations for the use of sedation in colonoscopy. Panel members participated in a values assessment survey followed by two rounds of anonymous online voting on preliminary practice recommendations. An inperson meeting was held between voting rounds to facilitate consensus-building. Consensus was defined as >60% agreement/disagreement with recommendation statements; >80% agreement/disagreement was considered indicative of strong consensus.ResultsTwenty-nine panellists participated in the values assessment survey. Panellists ranked all factors presented as important to the development of practice recommendations. The factor considered most important was patient safety. Patient satisfaction, procedural efficiency, and cost were considered less important. Strong consensus was achieved for all nine practice recommendations presented to the panel. These recommendations included that all endoscopists be able to perform colonoscopy with moderate sedation, that an endoscopist and a single trained nurse are sufficient for performing colonoscopy with moderate sedation, and that anaesthesia-provided deep sedation be used for select patients.ConclusionThe recommendations presented in this study were agreed on by a multidisciplinary group and provide guidance for the use of sedation in routine hospital-based colonoscopy. Standardised sedation practices will promote safe, effective, and efficient colonoscopy for all patients.

The CanScreen5 project is a global cancer screening data repository that aims to report the status and performance of breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screening programs using a harmonized set of criteria and indicators. Data collected mainly from the Ministry of Health in each country underwent quality validation and ultimately became publicly available through a Web-based portal. Until September 2022, 84 participating countries reported data for breast (n = 57), cervical (n = 75) or colorectal (n = 51) cancer screening programs in the repository. Substantial heterogeneity was observed regarding program organization and performance. Reported screening coverage ranged from 1.7% (Bangladesh) to 85.5% (England, United Kingdom) for breast cancer, from 2.1% (Côte d’Ivoire) to 86.3% (Sweden) for cervical cancer, and from 0.6% (Hungary) to 64.5% (the Netherlands) for colorectal cancer screening programs. Large variability was observed regarding compliance to further assessment of screening programs and detection rates reported for precancers and cancers. A concern is lack of data to estimate performance indicators across the screening continuum. This underscores the need for programs to incorporate quality assurance protocols supported by robust information systems. Program organization requires improvement in resource-limited settings, where screening is likely to be resource-stratified and tailored to country-specific situations.