| 1. |
- Spada, Cristiano, et al.
(författare)
-
Clinical indications for computed tomographic colonography: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) Guideline.
- 2014
-
Ingår i: Endoscopy. - : Georg Thieme Verlag KG. - 1438-8812 .- 0013-726X. ; 46:10, s. 897-915
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- This is an official guideline of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and the European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR). It addresses the clinical indications for the use of computed tomographic colonography (CTC). A targeted literature search was performed to evaluate the evidence supporting the use of CTC. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system was adopted to define the strength of recommendations and the quality of evidence. Main recommendations 1 ESGE/ESGAR recommend computed tomographic colonography (CTC) as the radiological examination of choice for the diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia. ESGE/ESGAR do not recommend barium enema in this setting (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). 2 ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC, preferably the same or next day, if colonoscopy is incomplete. Delay of CTC should be considered following endoscopic resection. In the case of obstructing colorectal cancer, preoperative contrast-enhanced CTC may also allow location or staging of malignant lesions (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). 3 When endoscopy is contraindicated or not possible, ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an acceptable and equally sensitive alternative for patients with symptoms suggestive of colorectal cancer (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). 4 ESGE/ESGAR recommend referral for endoscopic polypectomy in patients with at least one polyp ≥ 6 mm in diameter detected at CTC. CTC surveillance may be clinically considered if patients do not undergo polypectomy (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). 5 ESGE/ESGAR do not recommend CTC as a primary test for population screening or in individuals with a positive first-degree family history of colorectal cancer (CRC). However, it may be proposed as a CRC screening test on an individual basis providing the screenee is adequately informed about test characteristics, benefits, and risks (weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence).
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Spada, Cristiano, et al.
(författare)
-
Factors Associated with Polyp Detection Rate in European Colonoscopy Practice : Findings of The European Colonoscopy Quality Investigation (ECQI) Group
- 2022
-
Ingår i: International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. - : MDPI AG. - 1661-7827 .- 1660-4601. ; 19:6
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: The European Colonoscopy Quality Investigation (ECQI) Group aims to raise awareness for improvement in colonoscopy standards across Europe. We analysed data collected on a sample of procedures conducted across Europe to evaluate the achievement of the polyp detection rate (PDR) target. We also investigated factors associated with PDR, in the hope of establishing areas that could lead to a quality improvement. Methods: 6445 form completions from 12 countries between 2 June 2016 and 30 April 2018 were considered for this analysis. We performed an exploratory analysislooking at PDR according to European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) definition. Stepwise multivariable logistic regression analysis was conducted to determine the most influential associated factors after adjusting for the other pre-specified variables. Results: In our sample therewere 3365 screening and diagnostic procedures performed in those over 50 years. The PDR was 40.5%, which is comparable with the ESGE minimum standard of 40%. The variables found to be associated with PDR were in descending order: Use of high-definition equipment, body mass index (BMI), patient gender, age group, and the reason for the procedure. Use of HD equipment was associated with a significant increase in the reporting of flat lesions (14.3% vs. 5.7%, p < 0.0001) and protruded lesions (34.7% vs. 25.4%, p < 0.0001). Conclusions: On average, the sample of European practice captured by the ECQI survey meets the minimum PDR standard set by the ESGE. Our findings support the ESGE recommendation for routine use of HD colonoscopy.
|
|
| 4. |
- Spada, Cristiano, et al.
(författare)
-
Factors Associated with Withdrawal Time in European Colonoscopy Practice : Findings of the European Colonoscopy Quality Investigation (ECQI) Group
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Diagnostics. - : MDPI AG. - 2075-4418. ; 12:2
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The European Colonoscopy Quality Investigation (ECQI) Group aims to raise awareness for improvement in colonoscopy standards across Europe. We analyzed data collected on a sample of procedures conducted across Europe to evaluate the achievement of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) mean withdrawal time (WT) target. We also investigated factors associated with WT, in the hope of establishing areas that could lead to a quality improvement. Methods: 6445 form completions from 12 countries between 2 June 2016 and 30 April 2018 were considered for this analysis. We performed an exploratory analysis looking at WT according to the ESGE definition. Stepwise multivariable logistic regression analysis was conducted to determine the most influential associated factors after adjusting for the other pre-specified variables. Results: In 1150 qualifying colonoscopies, the mean WT was 7.8 min. Stepwise analysis, including 587 procedures where all inputs were known, found that the variables most associated with mean WT were a previous total colonoscopy in the last five years (p = 0.0011) and the time of day the colonoscopy was performed (p = 0.0192). The main factor associated with a WT < 6 min was the time of day that a colonoscopy was performed. Use of sedation was the main factor associated with a higher propor-tion of WT > 10 min, along with a previous colonoscopy. Conclusions: On average, the sample of European practice captured by the ECQI survey met the minimum standard set by the ESGE. How-ever, there was variation and potential for improvement.
|
|
| 5. |
- Spada, Cristiano, et al.
(författare)
-
Second-generation colon capsule endoscopy compared with colonoscopy
- 2011
-
Ingår i: Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. - : Elsevier BV. - 1097-6779 .- 0016-5107. ; 74:3, s. 581-589
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) represents a noninvasive technology that allows visualization of the colon without requiring sedation and air insufflation. A second-generation colon capsule endoscopy system (PillCam Colon 2) (CCE-2) was developed to increase sensitivity for colorectal polyp detection compared with the first-generation system. Objective: To assess the feasibility, accuracy, and safety of CCE-2 in a head-to-head comparison with colonoscopy. Design and Setting: Prospective, multicenter trial including 8 European sites. Patients: This study involved 117 patients (mean age 60 years). Data from 109 patients were analyzed. Intervention: CCE-2 was prospectively compared with conventional colonoscopy as the criterion standard for the detection of colorectal polyps that are >= 6 mm or masses in a cohort of patients at average or increased risk of colorectal neoplasia. Colonoscopy was independently performed within 10 hours after capsule ingestion or on the next day. Main Outcome Measurements: CCE-2 sensitivity and specificity for detecting patients with polyps >= 6 mm and >= 10 mm were assessed. Capsule-positive but colonoscopy-negative cases were counted as false positive. Capsule excretion rate, level of bowel preparation, and rate of adverse events also were assessed. Results: Per-patient CCE-2 sensitivity for polyps >= 6 mm and >= 10 mm was 84% and 88%, with specificities of 64% and 95%, respectively. All 3 invasive carcinomas were detected by CCE-2. The capsule excretion rate was 88% within 10 hours. Overall colon cleanliness for CCE-2 was adequate in 81% of patients. Limitations: Not unblinding the CCE-2 results at colonoscopy; heterogenous patient population; nonconsecutive patients. Conclusion: In this European, multicenter study, CCE-2 appeared to have a high sensitivity for the detection of clinically relevant polypoicl lesions, and it might be considered an adequate tool for colorectal imaging. (Gastrointest Enclose 201174:581-9.)
|
|
