Introduction

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the most common cancer in Spain, with an estimated 44,573 new cases in 2025. The standard CRC screening strategy involves the immunological faecal occult blood test (FIT), followed by colonoscopy in positive cases. However, the low specificity of FIT results in a significant number of unnecessary colonoscopies, placing a high burden on healthcare systems. There is a growing need to explore alternative screening strategies that offer better cost-effectiveness ratios. The gut microbiota plays a key role in CRC carcinogenesis, and several bacterial species involved in this process have been identified. A diagnostic tool based on the combination of FIT (cut-off 100 ng/mL – FIT100) and a bacterial signature has been designed to detect CRC and advanced lesions (AL, defined as ≥1 cm and/or high-grade dysplasia and/or a hairy component). This tool uses qPCR to analyse the relative abundance of specific bacteria in the same stool sample used for FIT testing. Previous studies, including a proof-of-concept (N=172), confirmatory study (N=327), and clinical performance study (N=2,481), have validated the tool.

Aims & Methods

This study aims to evaluate the diagnostic performance of the bacterial signature applied to FIT100 positive participants and its potential to reduce unnecessary colonoscopies in the CRC screening program in Catalonia.
A prospective observational study was conducted in a multicentre cohort across five hospitals, including participants from the CRC screening program with a positive FIT100. Blinding was applied to the FIT, bacterial signature, colonoscopy, and biopsy. Colonoscopy-biopsy was used as the reference standard. The study included 1,453 participants, of which 48 were excluded from the analysis mainly because of poor sample conditions, resulting in a final sample of 1,405 participants. Sensitivity was defined as the proportion of true positives detected by the FIT that the bacterial signature also identifies as positive. Specificity was defined as the proportion of false positives of FIT that the bacterial signature correctly identifies as true negatives.

Results

From the 1,405 analysed cases, 44 were CRC, 472 AL, and 889 without AL. For CRC detection, the sensitivity was 95.5%, with a specificity of 18.4%. The reduction in false positives was 18.4%. For AL and CRC combined, the sensitivity was 82.6%, with a specificity of 18.4%.

Conclusion

The bacterial signature applied to FIT100 positive participants demonstrates high sensitivity for CRC detection while reducing unnecessary colonoscopies by minimizing false positives. Its implementation in the CRC screening protocol could improve the overall efficiency of the screening process. Future studies should focus on cost minimization and assess the tool's cost-effectiveness to ensure a favourable risk-benefit ratio for broader implementation.

Introduction

Gastrointestinal (GI) hemorrhage accounts for 30% of acute decompensations in cirrhotic patients, with 60% originating from variceal bleeding. Each decompensation episode carries an in-hospital mortality rate of 13%, and a 6-week mortality rate of 20%, commonly assed using Child Pugh (CP) and MELD scores. The ALBI (Albumin-Bilirubin) score, which includes only two variables, offers a simplified evaluation of liver function. However, there is limited data on its utility in predicting short-term mortality in cirrhotic patients with GI hemorrhage.

Aims & Methods

This study aimed to evaluate the association between ALBI Score with short-term mortality in cirrhotic patients with GI hemorrhage. We conducted a prospective, cross-sectional study between January and December of 2023 at Hospital Roosevelt, Guatemala, including cirrhotic patients admitted for GI hemorrhage. Informed consent was obtained from all participants. Categorical variables were analyzed using the chi-square test, normally distributed continuous variables with Student’s t-test, and non-normally distributed variables with the Mann-Whitney U test. Logistic binary regression and AUROC analysis were used to assess associations with short-term mortality. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS.

Results

A total of 187 patients were included: 50.8% female and 49.2% male, with a mean age of 56 among survivors and 58 among non-survivors. Of these, 52.9% had a prior diagnosis of cirrhosis, while 47.1% were newly diagnosed. Cirrhosis etiology was metabolic in 50.2%, alcoholic in 42.7%, autoimmune in 4.3%, HCV in 1.6%, and HBV in 1.1%. At admission, 80.8% had no ascites and 97.3% had no hepatic encephalopathy. he causes of GI hemorrhage were 86.1% esophageal varices, 3.2% gastric varices, 9.1% gastric ulcers, and 1.6% esophagitis.
Non-survivors had significantly lower systolic blood pressure (93.90 ± 16.3 mmHg vs. 107.92 ± 17.4 mmHg; p = 0.002) and mean arterial pressure (69.50 ± 14.5 mmHg vs. 79.67 ± 11.7 mmHg; p = 0.005) compared to survivors. Non-survivors exhibited significantly higher INR (1.79 ± 0.56 vs. 1.52 ± 0.41; p = 0.026) and total bilirubin (5.85 ± 8.73 mg/dL vs. 2.02 ± 2.82 mg/dL; p = 0.031), and lower serum albumin levels (2.40 ± 0.43 g/dL vs. 3.10 ± 0.54 g/dL; p < 0.001).

Prognostic scores were significantly higher among non-survivors: MELD (19.25 ± 10.09 vs. 13.57 ± 5.47; p = 0.002), MELD-Na (20.35 ± 9.76 vs. 14.44 ± 6.42; p = 0.002), Child-Pugh (9.15 ± 2.21 vs. 7.18 ± 1.90; p < 0.001), and ALBI score (-0.96 ± 0.51 vs. -1.76 ± 0.58; p < 0.001). Additionally, the length of hospital stay was significantly shorter among non-survivors (3.90 ± 3.82 days) compared to survivors (6.59 ± 5.58 days; p = 0.001).

• Higher ALBI score was significantly associated with mortality (Risk Ratio 25.80; 95% CI: 6.75–98.67; p < 0.001),
• Hospital stay <5 days (RR 9.91; 95% CI: 2.07–47.47; p = 0.004),
• Endoscopy performed within 12 hours (RR 7.53; 95% CI: 2.01–28.15; p = 0.003).

Conclusion

The ALBI score outperforms CP and MELD scores in predicting short-term mortality (in-hospital, 4 weeks, and 6 weeks) in cirrhotic patients with GI hemorrhage. Observed mortality was 10% in-hospital, 13% at 4 weeks, and 16% at 6 weeks.

Introduction

No clinical trial has previously assessed the best therapeutic strategy between switching to another anti-TNF or swapping to another class of biologic class after the failure of a first anti-TNF in ulcerative colitis (UC). The aim of the EFFICACI trial was to compare the efficacy of vedolizumab to infliximab in patients who had failed a first sub-cutaneous anti-TNF (golimumab and/or adalimumab).

Aims & Methods

EFFICACI was a French double-blind multicenter randomized controlled trial (1:1) comparing intravenous vedolizumab 300 mg at weeks 0-2-6 to intravenous infliximab 5 mg/kg at weeks 0-2-6. Eligible patients had moderate-to-severe UC, defined by a total Mayo score ≥ 6 with an endoscopy subscore ≥ 2, despite at least 12 weeks (W) of treatment with adalimumab or golimumab as first line of advanced therapy. The primary endpoint was steroid free clinical remission at W14 (total Mayo score ≤2 without subscore >1 including an endoscopic subscore ≤ 1). Clinical response was defined as a decrease in partial Mayo score ≥3 points and ≥30% from inclusion and a decrease in rectal bleeding score ≥1. The number of patients (N=150) was estimated for a 20% difference in favor of vedolizumab with a type 1 risk of 5% and a power of 80%. Patients were subsequently followed in an open-label fashion until week 54. The analysis was performed on an intention-to-treat basis. Only results at W14 will be presented. (CPP: 2018-002673-21; ClinicalTrial: 35RC17_8841_EFFICACI)

Results

From January 2018 to December 2023, 151 patients were randomized among 19 centers: 78 in the vedolizumab arm and 73 in the infliximab arm. One patient randomized to the infliximab arm did not receive treatment and considered as failure regarding the ITT analysis. Characteristics and demographics at inclusion were similar between groups, with 102/151 (67.5%) patients failing adalimumab and 49/151 (32.5%) failing golimumab. Concomitant immunosuppressive treatment with thiopurine or methotrexate was associated with infliximab and vedolizumab for 37/72 (51.4%) patients and 43/78 (55.1%) patients, respectively. At W14, proportions of patients in clinical remission (primary endpoint) were 34.6% (27/78) with vedolizumab and 19.2% (14/73) with infliximab (p=0.033). The clinical response rates were 46/78 (59.0%) with vedolizumab and 36/72 (50.0%) with infliximab (p=0.27). Proportions of patients in clinical response at W2, W6 and W14 are shown in Figure 1. At W14, endoscopic improvement (Mayo endoscopic subscore 0 or 1) was observed in 36/77 (46.8%) patients in the vedolizumab arm and 21/72 (29.2%) in the infliximab arm (p=0.027). No factor at inclusion was predictive of remission at week 14, including pharmacokinetic data for the first-line anti-TNF. Adverse event rates were similar in both groups - 46 (63.9%) infliximab arm, 55/78 (70.51%) vedolizumab arm. Before week 14, a colectomy was indicated in one patient in the vedolizumab arm; eight patients were hospitalized for a severe flare (5 in the infliximab arm and 3 in the vedolizumab arm). At W54, proportions of patients in clinical remission and still treated with the treatment allocated after randomization were 34 (46.6%) with vedolizumab and 25 (36.2%) with infliximab (p=0.21). Data at W54 are still under investigation at the time of abstract submission.

Conclusion

After failure of a first subcutaneous anti-TNF, induction therapy with vedolizumab was superior to infliximab in achieving steroid free clinical remission at week 14 in patients with UC.

Disclosure

National grant by the French PHRC, grant from takeda

Introduction

Post endoscopy upper gastrointestinal cancers (PEUGIC) are often missed opportunities to diagnose earlier or even prevent cancer. Up to 71% of PEUGIC are potentially avoidable, but identifying and investigating them can be challenging. A national process for identifying all PEUGIC in the English National Health Service and performing root cause analysis was developed.

Aims & Methods

Potential PEUGIC between 2017 and 2023 occurring 3-36 months after an index endoscopy which did not result in a cancer diagnosis were identified from National Cancer Registration Dataset and Hospital Episode Statistics held by the National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service. Data from local root cause analysis were uploaded onto a secure portal for national analysis. PEUGIC following surveillance endoscopies were excluded from this analysis. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify associations with outcomes of interest.

Results

3151 potential PEUGIC were examined by local reviewers in 144 English hospitals. 635 (20%) were excluded on local review and data were available for 2516 PEUGIC. 1897 (75.4%) PEUGIC followed diagnostic, follow-up or screening endoscopies. PEUGIC sites were oesophagus 61%, stomach 34% and duodenum 5%.
Table 1 shows the summary PEUGIC root cause results analysis based on the World Endoscopy Organisation categorisation. Categories C and D were associated with poor outcomes with 29% and 23% of cases receiving curative treatment, respectively. Compared to categories A and B receiving curative treatment in 53% and 37% of cases, respectively. Squamous cell cancers accounted for 37.5% of oesophageal PEUGIC and were associated with no lesion being detected (category C or D) in the PEUGIC segment OR 1.71 (95% CI 1.21-2.43).
Findings on index endoscopy (category A or B) at later oesophageal PEUGIC: pre-malignant lesion 23% (e.g. Barrett’s), cancer associated lesion 20% (e.g. ulcer) and other oesophageal focal lesions 15%. Findings on index endoscopy in gastric PEUGIC: cancer associated lesion 26%, pre-malignant lesion 7% and other gastric focal lesions 18%. 45% of the index endoscopies were classified as inadequate. Patient harm and adverse treatment outcomes were associated with an inadequate index endoscopy OR 1.56 (95% CI 1.28-1.91). The most common reason for inadequate endoscopy was inadequate management of lesions identified, which were most likely to be cancer associated lesions OR 1.43 (95% CI 1.11-1.69), specifically oesophageal strictures (24%) and gastric ulcers (23%).
Gastric diagnostic PEUGIC were diagnosed with more advanced cancer (40% stage 4 at diagnosis vs 30% oesophageal PEUGIC). Treatment following cancer diagnosis was adversely affected in 42% of PEUGIC. Reviewers considered that 57% of PEUGIC were at least possibly avoidable and 9% led to premature death.

Table 1 Root causes of all diagnostic PEUGIC

Conclusion

Abnormalities in the area of the later cancer were detected at index endoscopy in 59% of PEUGIC. Inadequate lesion assessment, endoscopy and/or decision making was noted in 45% of PEUGIC, which adversely affected treatment outcome. Oesophageal squamous cell cancer was a common cause of PEUGIC, suggesting issues with lesion recognition in this cancer. Many patients had incurable disease when diagnosed and treatment was adversely affected in 42%.

Introduction

The urea breath test (UBT) is the clinic's most popular and accurate non-invasive diagnostic method for H. pylori infection. Yet, it is time-consuming and unavailable to some individuals. The oral rapid urease test (RUT) is an emerging non-invasive convenience method but lacks clinical data support.

Aims & Methods

A double-center, double-blind, methodological comparative design experiment is invited to evaluate the consistency of the oral RUT with UBT. 247 participants were enrolled. Their Dental plaque and tongue coating samples were collected, blind and tested with RUT.

Results

The significant association between the RUT and UBT was analyzed.A total of 247 participants were included in the study. The oral RUT showed a high level of agreement with the UBT. The sensitivity of the test reagent was 98.63% (95% CI: 92.64%, 99.76%), and the specificity was 96.34% (95% CI: 92.25%, 98.31%). The overall conformity rate was 97.05% (95% CI: 94.03%, 98.56%). The positive predictive value was 92.31%, and the negative predictive value was 99.37%. The positive likelihood ratio was 26.96, and the negative likelihood ratio was 0.01. The Kappa value was 0.97.

Conclusion

The efficacy of oral RUT for Helicobacter pylori infection diagnosis is extremely consistent with the UBT.