Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Introduction
The pandemic caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus has had a serious impact on the functioning of gastrointestinal endoscopy Units. The Asociación Española de Gastroenterología [Spanish Association of Gastroenterology] (AEG) and the Sociedad Española de Endoscopia Digestiva [Spanish Association of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy] (SEED) have proposed the EPAGE guidelines for managing postponed colonoscopies. Objective
To evaluate the EPAGE guidelines as a management tool compared to the immunologic faecal occult blood test (iFOBT) and compared to risk score (RS) that combines age, sex and the iFOBT for the detection of colorectal cancer (CRC) and significant bowel disease (SBD). Methods
A prospective, single-centre study enrolling 743 symptomatic patients referred for a diagnostic colonoscopy. Each order was classified according to the EPAGE guidelines as appropriate, indeterminate or inappropriate. Patients underwent an iFOBT and had their RS calculated. Results
The iFOBT (P < .001), but not the EPAGE guidelines (P = .742), was an independent predictive factor of risk of CRC. The ROC AUCs for the EPAGE guidelines, the iFOBT and the RS were 0.61 (95%CI 0.49−0.75), 0.95 (0.93−0.97) and 0.90 (0.87−0.93) for CRC, and 0.55 (0.49−0.61), 0.75 (0.69−0.813) and 0.78 (0.73−0.83) for SBD, respectively. The numbers of colonoscopies needed to detect a case of CRC and a case of SBD were 38 and 7 for the EPAGE guidelines, 7 and 2 for the iFOBT, and 19 and 4 for a RS ≥ 5 points, respectively. Conclusion
The EPAGE guidelines, unlike the iFOBT, is not suitable for screening candidate patients for a diagnostic colonoscopy to detect CRC. The iFOBT, in combination with age and sex, is the most suitable strategy for managing demand for endoscopy in a restricted-access situation.
SUBMITTER: Rodriguez-Alonso L
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8730761 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature