Association of obesity with colonic findings in screening colonoscopy in a large population-based study.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Kobiela J
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6297925 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Obesity is a risk factor for colorectal neoplasia. We examined the influence of obesity and metabolic syndrome (MetS) on prevalence of neoplasia at screening colonoscopy.We evaluated 2020 subjects undergoing first screening colonoscopy. Body mass index (BMI) was calculated at enrolment. Hyperlipidemia (HL), hypertension (HT), and diabetes mellitus (DM) were identified. Details of colonoscopy, polypectomy, and histology were recorded. Odds for adenomas (A) and advanced adenomas (ADV) in overweight (BMI 25.1-30) and obese (BMI > 30) subjects were assessed by multinomial regression, adjusted for covariates. Analyses included relationships between HL, HT, DM, age, tobacco usage, and neoplasia. Discriminatory power of HT, HL, DM, and BMI for neoplasia was assessed by binary logistic regression. Odds were calculated for neoplasia in each colonic segment related to BMI.A and ADV were commoner in overweight and obese males, obese females, older subjects, and smokers. HL, HT, and DM were associated with increased odds for neoplasia, significantly for A with hypertension. BMI alone predicted neoplasia as well as HT, HL, DM, or combinations thereof. All segments of the colon were affected. Multiple polyps were particularly prevalent in the obese.Obesity and MetS are risk factors for colonic neoplasia in a Canadian population.
| S-EPMC5525097 | biostudies-other
Project description:Fecal samples and colon biopsies collected 2000-2006 in 2 parishes in Stockholm, comprising Swedish-born inhabitants aged 18-70 years
| PRJEB31817 | ENA
Project description:BACKGROUND:Screening colonoscopy for the detection of colorectal carcinoma is provided by several specialties. Few studies have assessed geographic variation in the delivery of this care. Our objective was to investigate how geographic and socioeconomic factors affect who provides screening colonoscopy in Canada. METHODS:This was a population-based cohort of all screening colonoscopy procedures performed at publicly funded Canadian health care facilities (excluding those in Quebec) between April 2008 and March 2015. The main outcome of interest was the proportion of colonoscopy procedures performed by surgeons versus gastroenterologists at the neighbourhood level. Predictors of interest included socioeconomic and geographic variables. We used spatial analysis to evaluate significant clustering of practitioner services and multinomial logistic regression to model predictors. RESULTS:We identified 658 113 screening colonoscopy procedures performed by 1886 providers (1169 surgeons and 717 gastroenterologists) over the study period, of which 353 165 (53.7%) were performed by surgeons. A total of 24.2% of neighbourhoods were located within clusters predominantly served by gastroenterologists, and 19.5% were within surgeon clusters; the remainder were in mixed clusters. Rural neighbourhoods had a significantly increased relative risk of being within a surgeon cluster (relative risk [RR] 5.38, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.48-8.01) compared to mixed clusters and nearly 100 times higher relative risk of being in a surgeon cluster compared to gastroenterologist clusters (RR 98.95, 95% CI 15.3-427.2). Neighbourhoods with the highest socioeconomic status were 1.74 (95% CI 1.14-2.56) times likelier to be in gastroenterologist clusters than in mixed clusters. INTERPRETATION:Surgeons provide a large proportion of colonoscopy procedures in Canada and are essential for access to care, particularly in rural regions. Most Canadians are served relatively equally by surgeons and gastroenterologists. This emphasizes the importance of both specialties to the delivery of colonoscopy care across the country.
| S-EPMC5878955 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe risks associated with colonoscopy performed through the British Columbia Colon Screening Program (BCCSP) are not known. We aimed to determine the rate of colonoscopy-related serious adverse events within this program.MethodsFor this prospective observational study, we used the BCCSP database to identify participants 50 to 74 years of age who had a positive result on fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) between Nov. 15, 2013, and Dec. 31, 2017, followed by colonoscopy. Unplanned medical events were recorded at the time of colonoscopy and 14 days later. We reviewed the unplanned events and defined them as serious adverse events if they resulted in death, hospital admission or intervention; we also classified them as probably, possibly or unlikely related to the colonoscopy. The primary outcome was the overall rate of serious adverse events; the secondary outcomes were 14-day post-colonoscopy rates of perforation, bleeding and death.ResultsDuring the study period, a total of 96 192 colonoscopies were performed by 308 physicians at 50 sites. The median age of patients was 62 (10th-90th percentile 52-71) years, and 56% were male. Of these, 78 831 patients were contacted after the colonoscopy. Serious adverse events were deemed to have occurred in 350 colonoscopies (44 per 10 000, 95% confidence interval [CI] 39-50 per 10 000), with a number needed to harm of 225. Of the 332 (94.9%) serious adverse events that were probably or possibly related to colonoscopy, perforation occurred in 6 (95% CI 5-8) per 10 000 colonoscopies, bleeding in 26 (95% CI 22-30) per 10 000 colonoscopies and death in 3 (95% CI 1-10) per 100 000 colonoscopies.InterpretationThe rate of serious adverse events associated with colonoscopy in the BCCSP was in keeping with previous publications and met accepted benchmarks. The findings of this study inform stakeholders of the risks associated with colonoscopy in an FIT-based colon screening program.
| S-EPMC8513602 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PopCol is a cohort study in Stockholm, Sweden that includes a data-rich set of individuals with data available from bowel symptoms questionnaires, gastroenterology visits and biospecimens (genotype and 16S sequencing from blood and stool samples, respectively). Genotyping was carried out using the Illumina HumanOmniExpressExome-8v1 arrays at the SciLifeLab NGI facility in Uppsala, Sweden. Fecal DNA was extracted from samples kept at -80°C using Qiagen 5 QIAamp DNA Stool Mini Kits and analyzed using 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing (in the V1-V2 hypervariable region). This was performed on the Illumina MiSeq platform at the Institute of Clinical Molecular Biology (IKMB) in Kiel, Germany. Of these, six PopCol participants were PPI users and 12 used antibiotics. The study was approved by the local Committee of Research Ethics (Forskningskommitté Syd) at Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, in November 2001. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants
| EGAS00001004869 | EGA
Project description:ImportanceAlthough some countries have implemented widespread colonoscopy screening, most European countries have not introduced it because of uncertainty regarding participation rates, procedure-related pain and discomfort, endoscopist performance, and effectiveness. To our knowledge, no randomized trials on colonoscopy screening currently exist.ObjectiveTo investigate participation rate, adenoma yield, performance, and adverse events of population-based colonoscopy screening in several European countries.Design, setting, and populationA population-based randomized clinical trial was conducted among 94 959 men and women aged 55 to 64 years of average risk for colon cancer in Poland, Norway, the Netherlands, and Sweden from June 8, 2009, to June 23, 2014.InterventionsColonoscopy screening or no screening.Main outcomes and measuresParticipation in colonoscopy screening, cancer and adenoma yield, and participant experience. Study outcomes were compared by country and endoscopist.ResultsOf 31 420 eligible participants randomized to the colonoscopy group, 12 574 (40.0%) underwent screening. Participation rates were 60.7% in Norway (5354 of 8816), 39.8% in Sweden (486 of 1222), 33.0% in Poland (6004 of 18 188), and 22.9% in the Netherlands (730 of 3194) (P < .001). The cecum intubation rate was 97.2% (12 217 of 12 574), with 9726 participants (77.4%) not receiving sedation. Of the 12 574 participants undergoing colonoscopy screening, we observed 1 perforation (0.01%), 2 postpolypectomy serosal burns (0.02%), and 18 cases of bleeding owing to polypectomy (0.14%). Sixty-two individuals (0.5%) were diagnosed with colorectal cancer and 3861 (30.7%) had adenomas, of which 1304 (10.4%) were high-risk adenomas. Detection rates were similar in the proximal and distal colon. Performance differed significantly between endoscopists; recommended benchmarks for cecal intubation (95%) and adenoma detection (25%) were not met by 6 (17.1%) and 10 of 35 endoscopists (28.6%), respectively. Moderate or severe abdominal pain after colonoscopy was reported by 601 of 3611 participants (16.7%) examined with standard air insufflation vs 214 of 5144 participants (4.2%) examined with carbon dioxide (CO2) insufflation (P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceColonoscopy screening entails high detection rates in the proximal and distal colon. Participation rates and endoscopist performance vary significantly. Postprocedure abdominal pain is common with standard air insufflation and can be significantly reduced by using CO2.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00883792.
| S-EPMC5333856 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Colonoscopy is currently regarded as the gold standard and preferred method of screening for colorectal cancer (CRC). However, the benefit of colonoscopy screening may be blunted by low participation rates in population-based screening programs. Harmful effects of population-based colonoscopy screening may include complications induced by colonoscopy itself and by sedation, psychosocial distress, potential over-diagnosis, and socioeconomic burden. In addition, harmful effects of colonoscopy may increase with age and comorbidities. As the risk of adverse events in population-based colonoscopy screening may offset the benefit, the adverse events should be managed and monitored. To adopt population-based colonoscopy screening, consensus on the risks and benefits should be developed, focusing on potential harm, patient preference, socioeconomic considerations, and quality improvement of colonoscopy, as well as efficacy for CRC prevention. As suboptimal colonoscopy quality is a major pitfall of population-based screening, adequate training and regulation of screening colonoscopists should be the first step in minimizing variations in quality. Gastroenterologists should promote quality improvement, auditing, and training for colonoscopy in a population-based screening program.
| S-EPMC5797271 | biostudies-other
Project description:Colonoscopy is currently regarded as the gold standard and preferred method of screening for colorectal cancer (CRC). However, the benefit of colonoscopy screening may be blunted by low participation rates in population-based screening programs. Harmful effects of population-based colonoscopy screening may include complications induced by colonoscopy itself and by sedation, psychosocial distress, potential over-diagnosis, and socioeconomic burden. In addition, harmful effects of colonoscopy may increase with age and comorbidities. As the risk of adverse events in population-based colonoscopy screening may offset the benefit, the adverse events should be managed and monitored. To adopt population-based colonoscopy screening, consensus on the risks and benefits should be developed, focusing on potential harm, patient preference, socioeconomic considerations, and quality improvement of colonoscopy, as well as efficacy for CRC prevention. As suboptimal colonoscopy quality is a major pitfall of population-based screening, adequate training and regulation of screening colonoscopists should be the first step in minimizing variations in quality. Gastroenterologists should promote quality improvement, auditing, and training for colonoscopy in a population-based screening program.
| S-EPMC5806913 | biostudies-other
Project description:BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: The adenoma detection rate (ADR) is one of the quality measures in screening colonoscopy and is crucial for reducing colorectal cancer morbidity and mortality. Up to 25 % of adenomas are missed during colonoscopy. Endocuff is an easy-to-use device that is attached like a cap to the distal tip of the colonoscope in order to optimize visualization behind the folds of the colon and increase the ADR. This is the first prospective study of Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy (EC) in a screening population with follow-up to determine the ADR and adverse events of EC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We prospectively enrolled asymptomatic patients referred for screening colonoscopy during the 4-month study period. We documented the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score, cecal intubation rate, polyp detection rate, ADR, number of advanced adenomas, and number of adverse events. Colonoscopies were performed by five board-certified gastroenterologists. During follow-up, the patients were called 4 to 12 weeks after EC. RESULTS: A total of 104 EC procedures were performed. Cecal intubation was achieved in 99 % of the patients, with a median intubation time of 6 minutes. The polyp detection rate and ADR in our study were 72 % and 47 %, respectively, and 13.5 % of the lesions were advanced adenomas. A significant number of adenomas were detected in the right side of the colon. Considering all the adenomas and hyperplastic polyps above the sigmoid, we recommended that nearly 60 % of our patients repeat an endoscopic follow-up according to the existing Swiss guidelines. We noted no perforations or other serious adverse events, even in the patients with extensive diverticulosis. CONCLUSIONS: EC is feasible with the most commonly available colonoscopes without severe adverse events. EC seems to be a safe and effective device for increasing the ADR, including small adenomas in the right side of the colon. Therefore, this technique may be recommended in the future to increase the ADR in a screening population.
| S-EPMC4486025 | biostudies-other
Project description:IntroductionOver the past decade obesity prevalence has been increasing rapidly in the Gulf region (GR) including Qatar, becoming one of the major health issues in the region. Concomitantly, waterpipe (WP) smoking is increasing worldwide especially in the GR, and although the effect of cigarette smoking on body weight is well-established, studies indicating an association between WP smoking and obesity are scarce. Thus, we explored the association between WP smoking and obesity in comparison with cigarette smokers and healthy population in Qatar.MethodsWe performed a cross-sectional study using data from Qatar Biobank and analyzed anthropometric measurements among 879 adults (aged 18-65 years) that included WP smokers, cigarette smokers, dual smokers and never smokers. Body composition was measured using bioelectrical impedance analysis and reported as lean mass, fat mass, and body fat percentage.ResultsOverall, 12% (n=108) were WP smokers, 22% (n=196) were cigarette smokers, 9% (n=77) smoked both WP and cigarettes and 57% (n=498) were never smokers. Age, sex, history of diabetes, and hypertension, in addition to nationality were considered as confounding factors. Our analysis revealed that WP smokers had a significantly higher BMI (kg/m2) and fat mass when compared with cigarette smokers (p<0.05). Moreover, compared to cigarette smoking, WP smoking had a higher significant effect on BMI (β=3.8, SE=0.38; and β=5.5, SE=0.46; respectively), and fat mass (β=5.1, SE=0.79; and β=9.0, SE=0.97; respectively). However, WP users were similar to never-smokers in terms of body fat percent.ConclusionsOur data indicate that compared to never smokers, daily WP users have higher BMI and fat mass, and are likely to be obese.
| S-EPMC8788307 | biostudies-literature