Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2019 Jun 13;19(1):89.
doi: 10.1186/s12876-019-0979-z.

A non-randomised single centre cohort study, comparing standard and modified bowel preparations, in adults with cystic fibrosis requiring colonoscopy

Affiliations
Comparative Study

A non-randomised single centre cohort study, comparing standard and modified bowel preparations, in adults with cystic fibrosis requiring colonoscopy

A G Matson et al. BMC Gastroenterol. .

Abstract

Background: Adults with cystic fibrosis (CF) have been reported to be at five to ten-fold risk (25 to 30 fold risk after solid organ transplant) of colorectal cancer (CRC) than the general population. Limited publications to date have reported on practical aspects of achieving adequate colonic cleanse producing good visualisation. In this study, we compared two bowel preparation regimens, standard bowel preparation and a modified CF bowel preparation.

Methods: A non-randomised study of adults with CF attending a single centre, requiring colonoscopy investigation were selected. Between 2001 and 2015, 485 adults with CF attended the clinic; 70 adults with CF had an initial colonoscopy procedure. After five exclusions, standard bowel preparation was prescribed for 27 patients, and modified CF bowel preparation for 38 patients. Demographic and clinical data were collected for all consenting patients.

Results: There was a significant difference between modified CF bowel preparation group and standard bowel preparation group in bowel visualisation outcomes, with the modified CF bowel preparation group having a higher proportion of "excellent/good" GI visualisation cleanse (50.0% versus 25.9%) and lower rates of "poor" visualisation cleanse (10.5% versus 44.5%) than standard bowel preparation (p = 0.006). Rates of "fair" GI cleanse visualisation were similar between the two groups (39.4% versus 29.6%) (Additional file 1: Table S1). Detection rates of adenomatous polyps at initial colonoscopy was higher in modified CF bowel preparation cohort than with standard preparation group (50.0% versus 18.5%, p < 0.01). Positive adenomatous polyp detection rate in patient's age > 40 years of age was higher (62.5%) than those < 40 years of age (24.3%) (p = 0.003). Colonic adenocarcinoma diagnosis was similar in both groups.

Conclusion: This study primarily highlights that standard colonoscopy bowel preparation is often inadequate in patients with CF, and that colonic lavage using modified CF bowel preparation is required to obtain good colonic visualisation. A higher rate of polyps in patients over 40 years of age (versus less than 40 years) was evident. These results support adults with CF considered for colonoscopy screening at 40 years of age, or prior to this if symptomatic; which is earlier than CRC screening in the non-CF Australian population.

Keywords: Bowel preparation; Colonic cleanse; Colonic lavage; Colonoscopy; Colonoscopy screening; Colorectal cancer screening; Cystic fibrosis; Gastrointestinal visualisation; Modified cystic fibrosis bowel preparation; Polyp detection.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

AM received TPCH private practice trust fund support to attend / present at national CF conference. AM received salaries from Griffith University and University of Sunshine Coast for delivery of Medical Nutrition Therapy sessional lectures.

DS was the Recipient of Grant Funding from Vertex Pharmaceuticals. JS and KH received TPCH private practice trust fund to finance attendance / presentation at national CF conference and funding from Vertex Pharmaceuticals to attend a Dietitian CF Interest Group Meeting. RH received Honorarium from Shire and Fresenius Kabi for expert advice and lectures. JB, AK, and SB declare that they have no competing interests.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Harness-Brumley CL, et al. Gender differences in outcomes of patients with cystic fibrosis. J Women's Health (Larchmt) 2014;23(12):1012–1020. doi: 10.1089/jwh.2014.4985. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Gelfond D, Borowitz D. Gastrointestinal complications of cystic fibrosis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2013;11(4):333–342. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2012.11.006. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Neglia JP, et al. The risk of cancer among patients with cystic fibrosis. Cystic fibrosis and Cancer study group. N Engl J Med. 1995;332(8):494–499. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199502233320803. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Maisonneuve P, et al. Cancer risk in nontransplanted and transplanted cystic fibrosis patients: a 10-year study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003;95(5):381–387. doi: 10.1093/jnci/95.5.381. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Yamada A, Komaki Y, Komaki F, Micic D, Zullow S, Sakuraba A. Risk of gastrointestinal cancers in patients with cystic fibrosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol. 2018. 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30188-8. - PubMed

Publication types