Browsing by Author "Senore, Carlo"

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Diagnostic Yield and Miss Rate of EndoRings in an Organized Colorectal Cancer Screening Program: the SMART (Study Methodology for ADR-Related Technology) Trial
    (Elsevier, 2018) Hassan, Cesare; Senore, Carlo; Manes, Gianpiero; Fuccio, Lorenzo; Iacopini, Federico; Ricciardiello, Luigi; Anderloni, Andrea; Frazzoni, Leonardo; Ballanti, Riccardo; de Nucci, Germana; Colussi, Dora; Radaelli, Davide; Lorenzetti, Roberto; Devani, Massimo; Arena, Ilaria; Grossi, Cristina; Andrei, Fabio; Balestrazzi, Eleonora; Sharma, Prateek; Rex, Douglas K.; Repici, Alessandro; Medicine, School of Medicine
    Background and aims The add-on EndoRings has been claimed to improve adenoma detection at colonoscopy, but available data are inconsistent. When testing a new technology, parallel and crossover methodologies measure different outcomes, leaving uncertainty on their correspondence. Aims of this study were to compare the diagnostic yield and miss rate of the EndoRings for colorectal neoplasia. Methods Consecutive subjects undergoing colonoscopy after a positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT) within organized screening program in 7 Italian centers, were randomized between a parallel (EndoRings or Standard) or a crossover (EndoRings/Standard or Standard/EndoRings) methodology. Outcomes measures were the detection rates of (advanced) adenomas (A-)ADR in the parallel arms and miss rate of adenomas in the crossover arms. Results Of 958 eligible subjects, 927 (317 EndoRings; 317 Standard; 142 EndoRings/Standard; 151 Standard/Endorings) were included in the final analysis. In the parallel arms (mean ADR: 51.3%; mean AADR: 25.4%), no difference between Standard and EndoRings was found for both ADR (RR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.95-1.28) and A-ADR (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.88-1.51), as well as for the mean number of adenomas and advanced adenomas per patient (EndoRings: 1.9±1.3 and 1.0±1.2; Standard 2.1±1.5 and 1.0±1.2; p=NS for both comparisons). In the crossover arms, no difference in miss rate for adenomas between EndoRings and Standard was found at per-polyp (RR, 1.43; 95% CI, 0.97-2.10), as well as at per-patient analysis (24% vs 26%; p=0.76). Conclusions No statistically significant difference in diagnostic yield and miss rate between EndoRings and Standard colonoscopy was detected in FIT+ patients. A clinically relevant correspondence between miss and detection rates was shown, supporting a cause-effect relationship.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    New and Recurrent Colorectal Cancers After Resection: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Endoscopic Surveillance Studies
    (Elsevier, 2019) Fuccio, Lorenzo; Rex, Douglas K.; Ponchon, Thierry; Frazzoni, Leonardo; Dinis-Ribeiro, Mário; Bhandari, Pradeep; Dekker, Evelien; Pellisè, Maria; Correale, Loredana; van Hooft, Jeanin; Jover, Rodrigo; Libanio, Diogo; Radaelli, Franco; Alfieri, Sergio; Bazzoli, Franco; Senore, Carlo; Regula, Jaroslaw; Seufferlein, Thomas; Rösch, Thomas; Sharma, Prateek; Repici, Alessandro; Hassan, Cesare; Medicine, School of Medicine
    Background & Aims Outcomes of endoscopic surveillance following surgery for colorectal cancer (CRC) vary with the incidence and timing of CRC detection, at anastomoses or non- anastomoses in the colorectum. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the incidence of CRCs identified during surveillance colonoscopies of patients who have already undergone surgery for this cancer. Methods We searched PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, and the Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials through January 1, 2018 to identify studies investigating rates of CRCs at anastomoses or other locations in the colorectum after curative surgery for primary CRC. We collected data from published randomized controlled, prospective, and retrospective cohort studies. Data were analyzed by multivariate meta-analytic models. Results From 2373 citations, we selected 27 studies with data on 15,803 index CRCs for analysis (89% of patients with stage 1–3 CRC). Overall, 296 CRCs at non-anastomotic locations were reported over time periods of more than 16 years (cumulative incidence, 2.2% of CRCs; 95% CI, 1.8%–2.9%). The risk of CRC at a non-anastomotic location was significantly reduced more than 36 months after resection compared with before this timepoint (odds ratio for non-anastomotic CRCs at 36–48 months vs 6–12 months after surgery, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.37–0.98; P=.031); 53.7% of all non-anastomotic CRCs were detected within 36 months of surgery. One hundred fifty-eight CRCs were detected at anastomoses (cumulative incidence of 2.7%; 95% CI, 1.9%–3.9%). The risk of CRCs at anastomoses was significantly lower 24 months after resection than before (odds ratio for CRCs at anastomoses at 25–36 months after surgery vs 6–12 months, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.32–0.98; P=.036); 90.8% of all CRCs at anastomoses were detected within 36 months of surgery. Conclusions After surgery for CRC, the highest risk of CRCs at anastomoses and at other locations in the colorectum is highest during 36 months after surgery—risk decreases thereafter. Patients who have undergone CRC resection should be evaluated by colonoscopy more closely during this time period. Longer intervals may be considered thereafter.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Optimizing the Quality of Colorectal Cancer Screening Worldwide
    (Elsevier, 2020-01) Kaminski, Michael F.; Robertson, Donald J.; Senore, Carlo; Rex, Douglas K.; Medicine, School of Medicine
    Screening, followed by colonoscopic polypectomy (or surgery for malignant lesions), prevents incident colorectal cancer and mortality. However, there are variations in effective application of nearly every aspect of the screening process. Screening is a multistep process, and failure in any single step could result in unnecessary morbidity and mortality. Awareness of variations in operator- and system-dependent performance has led to detailed, comprehensive recommendations in the United States and Europe on how colonoscopy screening should be performed and measured. Likewise, guidance has been provided on quality assurance for nonprimary colonoscopy-based screening programs, including strategies to maximize adherence. Quality improvement is now a validated science, and there is clear evidence that higher quality prevents incident cancer and cancer death. Quality must be addressed at the levels of the system, provider, and individuals, to maximize the benefits of screening for any population. We review the important aspects of measuring and improving the quality of colorectal cancer screening.