Browsing by Author "Lieberman, David"

Now showing 1 - 7 of 7
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    AGA White Paper: Roadmap for the Future of Colorectal Cancer Screening in the United States
    (Elsevier, 2020) Melson, Joshua E.; Imperiale, Thomas F.; Itzkowitz, Steven H.; Llor, Xavier; Kochman, Michael L.; Grady, William M.; Schoen, Robert E.; Burke, Carol; Shaukat, Aasma; Rabeneck, Linda; Ladabaum, Uri; Bresalier, Robert; Spiegel, Brennan; Yee, Judy; Wang, Thomas; Lieberman, David; Komanduri, Srinadh; Muthusamy, V. Raman; Dey, Neelendu; Medicine, School of Medicine
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Baseline Features and Reasons for Nonparticipation in the Colonoscopy Versus Fecal Immunochemical Test in Reducing Mortality From Colorectal Cancer (CONFIRM) Study, a Colorectal Cancer Screening Trial
    (American Medical Association, 2023-07-03) Robertson, Douglas J.; Dominitz, Jason A.; Beed, Alexander; Boardman, Kathy D.; Del Curto, Barbara J.; Guarino, Peter D.; Imperiale, Thomas F.; LaCasse, Andrew; Larson, Meaghan F.; Gupta, Samir; Lieberman, David; Planeta, Beata; Shaukat, Aasma; Sultan, Shanaz; Menees, Stacy B.; Saini, Sameer D.; Schoenfeld, Philip; Goebel, Stephan; von Rosenvinge, Erik C.; Baffy, Gyorgy; Halasz, Ildiko; Pedrosa, Marcos C.; Kahng, Lyn Sue; Cassim, Riaz; Greer, Katarina B.; Kinnard, Margaret F.; Bhatt, Divya B.; Dunbar, Kerry B.; Harford, William V.; Mengshol, John A.; Olson, Jed E.; Patel, Swati G.; Antaki, Fadi; Fisher, Deborah A.; Sullivan, Brian A.; Lenza, Christopher; Prajapati, Devang N.; Wong, Helen; Beyth, Rebecca; Lieb, John G.; Manlolo, Joseph; Ona, Fernando V.; Cole, Rhonda A.; Khalaf, Natalia; Kahi, Charles J.; Kohli, Divyanshoo Rai; Rai, Tarun; Sharma, Prateek; Anastasiou, Jiannis; Hagedorn, Curt; Fernando, Ronald S.; Jackson, Christian S.; Jamal, M. Mazen; Lee, Robert H.; Merchant, Farrukh; May, Folasade P.; Pisegna, Joseph R.; Omer, Endashaw; Parajuli, Dipendra; Said, Adnan; Nguyen, Toan D.; Tombazzi, Claudio Ruben; Feldman, Paul A.; Jacob, Leslie; Koppelman, Rachel N.; Lehenbauer, Kyle P.; Desai, Deepak S.; Madhoun, Mohammad F.; Tierney, William M.; Ho, Minh Q.; Hockman, Heather J.; Lopez, Christopher; Carter Paulson, Emily; Tobi, Martin; Pinillos, Hugo L.; Young, Michele; Ho, Nancy C.; Mascarenhas, Ranjan; Promrat, Kirrichai; Mutha, Pritesh R.; Pandak, William M.; Shah, Tilak; Schubert, Mitchell; Pancotto, Frank S.; Gawron, Andrew J.; Underwood, Amelia E.; Ho, Samuel B.; Magno-Pagatzaurtundua, Priscilla; Toro, Doris H.; Beymer, Charles H.; Kaz, Andrew M.; Elwing, Jill; Gill, Jeffrey A.; Goldsmith, Susan F.; Yao, Michael D.; Protiva, Petr; Pohl, Heiko; Kyriakides, Tassos; CONFIRM Study Group; Medicine, School of Medicine
    Importance: The Colonoscopy Versus Fecal Immunochemical Test in Reducing Mortality From Colorectal Cancer (CONFIRM) randomized clinical trial sought to recruit 50 000 adults into a study comparing colorectal cancer (CRC) mortality outcomes after randomization to either an annual fecal immunochemical test (FIT) or colonoscopy. Objective: To (1) describe study participant characteristics and (2) examine who declined participation because of a preference for colonoscopy or stool testing (ie, fecal occult blood test [FOBT]/FIT) and assess that preference's association with geographic and temporal factors. Design, setting, and participants: This cross-sectional study within CONFIRM, which completed enrollment through 46 Department of Veterans Affairs medical centers between May 22, 2012, and December 1, 2017, with follow-up planned through 2028, comprised veterans aged 50 to 75 years with an average CRC risk and due for screening. Data were analyzed between March 7 and December 5, 2022. Exposure: Case report forms were used to capture enrolled participant data and reasons for declining participation among otherwise eligible individuals. Main outcomes and measures: Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the cohort overall and by intervention. Among individuals declining participation, logistic regression was used to compare preference for FOBT/FIT or colonoscopy by recruitment region and year. Results: A total of 50 126 participants were recruited (mean [SD] age, 59.1 [6.9] years; 46 618 [93.0%] male and 3508 [7.0%] female). The cohort was racially and ethnically diverse, with 748 (1.5%) identifying as Asian, 12 021 (24.0%) as Black, 415 (0.8%) as Native American or Alaska Native, 34 629 (69.1%) as White, and 1877 (3.7%) as other race, including multiracial; and 5734 (11.4%) as having Hispanic ethnicity. Of the 11 109 eligible individuals who declined participation (18.0%), 4824 (43.4%) declined due to a stated preference for a specific screening test, with FOBT/FIT being the most preferred method (2820 [58.5%]) vs colonoscopy (1958 [40.6%]; P < .001) or other screening tests (46 [1.0%] P < .001). Preference for FOBT/FIT was strongest in the West (963 of 1472 [65.4%]) and modest elsewhere, ranging from 199 of 371 (53.6%) in the Northeast to 884 of 1543 (57.3%) in the Midwest (P = .001). Adjusting for region, the preference for FOBT/FIT increased by 19% per recruitment year (odds ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.14-1.25). Conclusions and relevance: In this cross-sectional analysis of veterans choosing nonenrollment in the CONFIRM study, those who declined participation more often preferred FOBT or FIT over colonoscopy. This preference increased over time and was strongest in the western US and may provide insight into trends in CRC screening preferences.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    GA White Paper: Challenges and Gaps in Innovation for the Performance of Colonoscopy for Screening and Surveillance of Colorectal Cancer
    (Elsevier, 2022) Komanduri, Srinadh; Dominitz, Jason A.; Rabeneck, Linda; Kahi, Charles; Ladabaum, Uri; Imperiale, Thomas F.; Byrne, Michael F.; Lee, Jeffrey K.; Lieberman, David; Wang, Andrew Y.; Sultan, Shahnaz; Pohl, Heiko; Muthusamy, V. Raman; Medicine, School of Medicine
    In 2018 the American Gastroenterological Association’s (AGA) Center for GI Innovation and Technology (CGIT) convened a consensus conference, entitled, “Colorectal Cancer Screening and Surveillance: Role of Emerging Technology and Innovation to Improve Outcomes.” The conference participants, which included more than 60 experts in colorectal cancer (CRC), considered recent improvements in CRC screening rates and polyp detection, persistent barriers to colonoscopy uptake, and opportunities for performance improvement and innovation. This white paper originates from that conference. It aims to summarize current patient- and physician-centered gaps and challenges in colonoscopy, diagnostic and therapeutic challenges affecting colonoscopy uptake, and the potential use of emerging technologies and quality metrics to improve patient outcomes.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Recommendations for Follow-Up After Colonoscopy and Polypectomy: A Consensus Update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer
    (Elsevier, 2020-03) Gupta, Samir; Lieberman, David; Anderson, Joseph C.; Burke, Carol A.; Dominitz, Jason A.; Kaltenbach, Tonya; Robertson, Douglas J.; Shaukat, Aasma; Syngal, Sapna; Rex, Douglas K.; Medicine, School of Medicine
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Recommendations on Surveillance and Management of Biallelic Mismatch Repair Deficiency (BMMRD) Syndrome: A Consensus Statement by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer
    (Elsevier, 2017-05) Durno, Carol; Boland, C. Richard; Cohen, Shlomi; Dominitz, Jason A.; Giardiello, Frank M.; Johnson, David A.; Kaltenbach, Tonya; Levin, T. R.; Lieberman, David; Robertson, Douglas J.; Rex, Douglas K.; Department of Medicine, School of Medicine
    The US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, with invited experts, developed a consensus statement and recommendations to assist health care providers with appropriate management of patients with biallelic mismatch repair deficiency (BMMRD) syndrome, also called constitutional mismatch repair deficiency syndrome. This position paper outlines what is known about BMMRD, the unique genetic and clinical aspects of the disease, and reviews the current management approaches to this disorder. This article represents a starting point from which diagnostic and management decisions can undergo rigorous testing for efficacy. There is a lack of strong evidence and a requirement for further research. Nevertheless, providers need direction on how to recognize and care for BMMRD patients today. In addition to identifying areas of research, this article provides guidance for surveillance and management. The major challenge is that BMMRD is rare, limiting the ability to accumulate unbiased data and develop controlled prospective trials. The formation of effective international consortia that collaborate and share data is proposed to accelerate our understanding of this disease.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Spotlight: US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer Recommendations for Follow-up After Colonoscopy and Polypectomy
    (Elsevier, 2020-03) Gupta, Samir; Lieberman, David; Anderson, Joseph C.; Burke, Carol A.; Dominitz, Jason A.; Kaltenbach, Tonya; Robertson, Douglas J.; Shaukat, Aasma; Syngal, Sapna; Rex, Douglas K.; Medicine, School of Medicine
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    When and How To Use Endoscopic Tattooing in the Colon: An International Delphi Agreement
    (Elsevier, 2021) Medina-Prado, Lucía; Hassan, Cesare; Dekker, Evelien; Bisschops, Raf; Alfieri, Sergio; Bhandari, Pradeep; Bourke, Michael J.; Bravo, Raquel; Bustamante-Balen, Marco; Dominitz, Jason; Ferlitsch, Monika; Fockens, Paul; van Leerdam, Monique; Lieberman, David; Herráiz, Maite; Kahi, Charles; Kaminski, Michal; Matsuda, Takahisa; Moss, Alan; Pellisé, Maria; Pohl, Heiko; Rees, Colin; Rex, Douglas K.; Romero-Simó, Manuel; Rutter, Matthew D.; Sharma, Prateek; Shaukat, Aasma; Thomas-Gibson, Siwan; Valori, Roland; Jover, Rodrigo; Medicine, School of Medicine
    Background & Aims There is a lack of clinical studies to establish indications and methodology for tattooing, therefore technique and practice of tattooing is very variable. We aimed to establish a consensus on the indications and appropriate techniques for colonic tattoo through a modified Delphi process. Methods The baseline questionnaire was classified into 3 areas: where tattooing should not be used (1 domain, 6 questions), where tattooing should be used (4 domains, 20 questions), and how to perform tattooing (1 domain 20 questions). A total of 29 experts participated in the 3 rounds of the Delphi process. Results A total of 15 statements were approved. The statements that achieved the highest agreement were as follows: tattooing should always be used after endoscopic resection of a lesion with suspicion of submucosal invasion (agreement score, 4.59; degree of consensus, 97%). For a colorectal lesion that is left in situ but considered suitable for endoscopic resection, tattooing may be used if the lesion is considered difficult to detect at a subsequent endoscopy (agreement score, 4.62; degree of consensus, 100%). A tattoo should never be injected directly into or underneath a lesion that might be removed endoscopically at a later point in time (agreement score, 4.79; degree of consensus, 97%). Details of the tattoo injection should be stated clearly in the endoscopy report (agreement score, 4.76; degree of consensus, 100%). Conclusions This expert consensus has developed different statements about where tattooing should not be used, when it should be used, and how that should be done.