Background and aim: This Guideline is an official statement of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE). It addresses the choice amongst regimens available for cleansing the colon in preparation for colonoscopy. Methods: This Guideline is based on a targeted literature search to evaluate the evidence supporting the use of bowel preparation for colonoscopy. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system was adopted to define the strength of recommendation and the quality of evidence. Results: The main recommendations are as follows. (1) The ESGE recommends a low-fiber diet on the day preceding colonoscopy (weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence). (2) The ESGE recommends a split regimen of 4?L of polyethylene glycol (PEG) solution (or a same-day regimen in the case of afternoon colonoscopy) for routine bowel preparation. A split regimen (or same-day regimen in the case of afternoon colonoscopy) of 2?L PEG plus ascorbate or of sodium picosulphate plus magnesium citrate may be valid alternatives, in particular for elective outpatient colonoscopy (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). In patients with renal failure, PEG is the only recommended bowel preparation. The delay between the last dose of bowel preparation and colonoscopy should be minimized and no longer than 4 hours (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). (3) The ESGE advises against the routine use of sodium phosphate for bowel preparation because of safety concerns (strong recommendation, low quality evidence).

Importance Colorectal cancer is a major health burden. Screening is recommended in many countries. Objective Estimate the effectiveness of flexible sigmoidoscopy screening on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality in a population-based trial. Design Randomized controlled trial in individuals aged 50–64 years. Screening was performed in 1999–2000 (55–64 year age-group) and 2001 (50–54 year age-group). End of follow-up: Dec 31st 2011. Setting Population of Oslo city and Telemark County, Norway. Participants 100,210 individuals were identified in the screening areas. 1,415 individuals were excluded due to prior colorectal cancer, emigration, or death. Three individuals could not be traced in the population registry. Intervention Individuals randomized to the screening group were invited to screening. Within the screening group, individuals were randomized 1:1 to once-only flexible sigmoidoscopy or combination of once-only flexible sigmoidoscopy and fecal occult blood-testing (FOBT). Individuals with positive screening test (cancer, adenoma, polyp ≥10 mm, or positive FOBT) were offered colonoscopy. The control group received no intervention. Main outcome measures Colorectal cancer incidence and mortality. Results 98,792 individuals were included in the intention to screen analyses; 78,220 in the control group and 20,572 in the screening group (10,283 randomized to flexible sigmoidoscopy and 10,289 to flexible sigmoidoscopy and FOBT). Compliance with screening was 63%. After median 10.9 years, 71 individuals had died from colorectal cancer in the screening group, and 330 in the control group (31.4 vs. 43.1 deaths, absolute rate difference 11.7 (95% CI 3.0–20.4) per 100,000 person-years); hazard ratio [HR] 0.73 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.56–0.94). Colorectal cancer was diagnosed in 253 individuals in the screening group, and 1,086 in the control group (112.6 vs. 141.0 cases, absolute rate difference: 28.4 (95% CI 12.1–44.7) per 100,000 person-years); HR 0.80 (95% CI 0.70–0.92). Colorectal cancer incidence was reduced in both the 50–54 year age-group (HR 0.68; 95% CI 0.49–0.94) and the 55–64 year age-group (HR 0.83; 95% CI 0.71–0.96). There was no difference between the flexible sigmoidoscopy only and the flexible sigmoidoscopy/FOBT screening groups. Conclusion and relevance In Norway, once-only flexible sigmoidoscopy screening or flexible sigmoidoscopy and FOBT reduced colorectal cancer incidence and mortality on a population level compared with no screening. Screening was effective both in the 50–54 and the 55–64 year age-group. Trial registration ClinicalTrials identifier NTC00119912, http://clinicaltrials.gov

After a median of 7.7 years of follow-up, colorectal-cancer mortality was lower among patients who had had low-risk adenomas removed and moderately higher among those who had had high-risk adenomas removed, as compared with the general population. (Funded by the Norwegian Cancer Society and others.).

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Background and study aims: Artificial intelligence (AI)-based polyp detection systems during colonoscopy aim at increasing lesion detection and improving colonoscopy quality. Patients and methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective trials to determine the value of AI-based polyp detection systems for detection of polyps and colorectal cancer. We performed systematic searches in MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane CENTRAL. Independent reviewers screened studies and assessed eligibility, certainty of evidence, and risk of bias. We compared colonoscopy with and without AI by calculating relative and absolute risk and mean differences for detection of polyps, adenomas, and colorectal cancer. Results: Five randomized trials were eligible for analyses. Colonoscopy with AI increased adenoma detection rates (ADRs) and polyp detection rates (PDRs) compared to colonoscopy without AI: ADR with AI 29.6% [95% confidence interval, 22.2-37.0], versus 19.3% [12.7-25.9] without AI (relative risk (RR) 1.52, [1.31-1.77], high certainty); PDR 45.4% [41.1-49.8] with AI, versus 30.6% [26.5-34.6] without AI (RR 1.48, [1.37-1.60], high certainty). There was no difference in detection of advanced adenomas between the two groups (mean number of advanced adenomas per colonoscopy 0.03 for each, high certainty). Mean number of adenomas per colonoscopy were higher for small adenomas (≤5 mm) with AI compared to non-AI colonoscopy (mean difference 0.15, [0.12-0.18]), but not for larger adenomas (>5-≤10mm: mean difference 0.03, [0.01-0.05]; >10 mm: mean difference 0.01, [0.00-0.02], high certainty). Data on cancer are unavailable. Conclusions: AI-based polyp detection systems during colonoscopy increase detection of small, non-advanced adenomas and polyps, but not advanced adenomas.