Michael Bretthauer

• Helsingen, Lise Mørkved; Langeland, Eline Aurvoll; Pisani, Synne Eline Rotihaug; Vandvik, Per Olav; Haavardsholm, Espen A. & Malt, Ulrik Fredrik [Vis alle 10 forfattere av denne artikkelen] (2024). Glansbilder av nasjonale faglige retningslinjer fra Helsedirektoratet. Tidsskrift for Den norske legeforening. ISSN 0029-2001. 144(5). doi: 10.4045/tidsskr.24.0141.
• Juul, Frederik Emil; Cross, Amanda J.; Schoen, Robert E.; Senore, Carlo; Pinsky, Paul F. & Miller, Eric A. [Vis alle 17 forfattere av denne artikkelen] (2024). Effectiveness of Colonoscopy Screening vs Sigmoidoscopy Screening in Colorectal Cancer. JAMA Network Open. ISSN 2574-3805. 7(2). doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.0007. Vis sammendrag

  Importance: Randomized clinical screening trials have shown that sigmoidoscopy screening reduces colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality. Colonoscopy has largely replaced sigmoidoscopy for CRC screening, but long-term results from randomized trials on colonoscopy screening are still lacking. Objective: To estimate the additional screening benefit of colonoscopy compared with sigmoidoscopy. Design, setting, and participants: This comparative effectiveness simulation study pooled data on 358 204 men and women randomly assigned to sigmoidoscopy screening or usual care in 4 randomized sigmoidoscopy screening trials conducted in Norway, Italy, the US, and UK with inclusion periods in the years 1993 to 2001. The primary analysis of the study was conducted from January 19 to December 30, 2021. Intervention: Invitation to endoscopic screening. Main outcomes and measures: Primary outcomes were CRC incidence and mortality. Using pooled 15-year follow-up data, colonoscopy screening effectiveness was estimated assuming that the efficacy of colonoscopy in the proximal colon was similar to that observed in the distal colon in the sigmoidoscopy screening trials. The simulation model was validated using data from Norwegian participants in a colonoscopy screening trial. Results: This analysis included 358 204 individuals (181 971 women [51%]) aged 55 to 64 years at inclusion with a median follow-up time ranging from 15 to 17 years. Compared with usual care, colonoscopy prevented an estimated 50 (95% CI, 42-58) CRC cases per 100 000 person-years, corresponding to 30% incidence reduction (rate ratio, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.66-0.75]), and prevented an estimated 15 (95% CI, 11-19) CRC deaths per 100 000 person-years, corresponding to 32% mortality reduction (rate ratio, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.61-0.76]). The additional benefit of colonoscopy screening compared with sigmoidoscopy was 12 (95% CI, 10-14) fewer CRC cases and 4 (95% CI, 3-5) fewer CRC deaths per 100 000 person-years, corresponding to percentage point reductions of 6.9 (95% CI, 6.0-7.9) for CRC incidence and 7.6 (95% CI, 5.7-9.6) for CRC mortality. The number needed to switch from sigmoidoscopy to colonoscopy screening was 560 (95% CI, 486-661) to prevent 1 CRC case and 1611 (95% CI, 1275-2188) to prevent 1 CRC death. Conclusions and relevance: The findings of this comparative effectiveness study assessing long-term follow-up after CRC screening suggest that there was an additional preventive effect on CRC incidence and mortality associated with colonoscopy screening compared with sigmoidoscopy screening, but the additional preventive effect was less than what was achieved by introducing sigmoidoscopy screening where no screening existed. The results probably represent the upper limit of what may be achieved with colonoscopy screening compared with sigmoidoscopy screening.

• Bretthauer, Michael; Wieszczy, Paulina; Løberg, Magnus; Kamiński, Michał Filip; Werner, Tarjei Fiskergård & Helsingen, Lise Mørkved [Vis alle 10 forfattere av denne artikkelen] (2023). Estimated Lifetime Gained with Cancer Screening Tests: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials. JAMA Internal Medicine. ISSN 2168-6106. 183(11), s. 1196–1203. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2023.3798.
• Langeland, Eline Aurvoll; Pisani, Synne E. R.; Kalager, Mette; Bretthauer, Michael & Helsingen, Lise Mørkved (2023). Følger Helsedirektoratets retningslinjer internasjonale standarder for troverdighet? Tidsskrift for Den norske legeforening. ISSN 0029-2001. 143(14). doi: 10.4045/tidsskr.23.0110. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Everett, Simon M.; Triantafyllou, Konstantinos; Hassan, Cesare; Mergener, Klaus; Tham, Tony C. & Almeida, Nuno [Vis alle 21 forfattere av denne artikkelen] (2023). Informed consent for endoscopic procedures: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Position Statement. Endoscopy. ISSN 0013-726X. 55(10), s. 952–966. doi: 10.1055/a-2133-3365.
• Zeng, Linan; Helsingen, Lise Mørkved; Bretthauer, Michael; Agoritsas, Thomas; Vandvik, Per Olav & Mustafa, Reem A. [Vis alle 15 forfattere av denne artikkelen] (2023). A novel framework for incorporating patient values and preferences in making guideline recommendations: guideline panel surveys. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. ISSN 0895-4356. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.07.003.
• Zeng, Linan; Li, Shelly-Anne; Yang, Mengting; Yan, Lijiao; Helsingen, Lise Mørkved & Bretthauer, Michael [Vis alle 15 forfattere av denne artikkelen] (2023). Qualitative study of guideline panelists: innovative surveys provided valuable insights regarding patient values and preferences. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. ISSN 0895-4356. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.07.014.
• Bretthauer, Michael & Kalager, Mette (2023). What is my risk, doctor? How to convey disease risk and treatment effects. The BMJ. ISSN 1756-1833. doi: 10.1136/bmj-2022-075289.
• Bretthauer, Michael; Gerke, Sara; Hassan, Cesare; Ahmad, Omer F. & Mori, Yuichi (2023). The New European Medical Device Regulation: Balancing Innovation and Patient Safety. Annals of Internal Medicine. ISSN 0003-4819. 176(6), s. 844–848. doi: 10.7326/M23-0454. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Jodal, Henriette C.; Wieszczy, Paulina; Klotz, Dagmar; Herfindal, Magnhild; Barua, Ishita & Tag, Petter [Vis alle 13 forfattere av denne artikkelen] (2023). A Comparison of Risk Classification Systems of Colorectal Adenomas: A Case-Cohort Study. Gastroenterology. ISSN 0016-5085. 165, s. 483–491. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2023.04.028. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Holme, Øyvind; Kalager, Mette; Bretthauer, Michael; Adami, Hans Olov; Helsingen, Lise Mørkved & Løberg, Magnus (2023). Ongoing Trials Will Not Determine the Comparative Effectiveness of Colorectal Cancer Screening Tests. Gastroenterology. ISSN 0016-5085. 164(6), s. 856–860. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.02.071.
• Spadaccini, Marco; Hassan, Cesare; Rondonotti, Emanuele; Antonelli, Giulio; Andrisani, Gianluca & Lollo, Gianluca [Vis alle 40 forfattere av denne artikkelen] (2023). Combination of Mucosa-Exposure Device and Computer-Aided Detection for Adenoma Detection During Colonoscopy: A Randomized Trial. Gastroenterology. ISSN 0016-5085. 165(1), s. 244–251. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2023.03.237.
• Yu, Jingru; Refsum, Erle; Wieszczy, Paulina; Helsingen, Lise Mørkved; Perrin, Vera & Högdén, Amanda [Vis alle 12 forfattere av denne artikkelen] (2023). Risk of malignant lymphomas in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: a population-based cohort study. BMJ open gastroenterology. ISSN 2054-4774. 10(1). doi: 10.1136/bmjgast-2022-001037.
• Tønnesen, Christer Julseth; Hjelmesæth, Jøran Sture; Aabakken, Lars; Lund, Randi Størdal; Johnson, Line Kristin & Hertel, Jens Kristoffer [Vis alle 9 forfattere av denne artikkelen] (2023). A pilot study of implementation of endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) in Norway. Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology. ISSN 0036-5521. 58(10), s. 1180–1184. doi: 10.1080/00365521.2023.2204389. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv Vis sammendrag

  Bariatric surgery is the most effective treatment for obesity but is invasive and associated with serious complications. Endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) is a less invasive weight loss procedure to reduce the stomach volume by full-thickness sutures. ESG has been adopted in many countries, but implementation at Scandinavian centres has not yet been documented. We performed a clinical pilot trial at a Norwegian centre with the primary objective to assess the feasibility of the ESG procedure. Patients and methods We included the first 10 patients treated with ESG at a Norwegian centre in a single-arm pilot study. The eligibility criteria were either a body mass index (BMI) of 40–49.9 kg/m2, BMI 35–39.9 kg/m2 and at least one obesity-related comorbidity, or BMI 30–34.9 kg/m2 and type 2 diabetes. Patient follow-up resembled the scheme used for bariatric surgery at the center, including dietary plans and outpatient visits. Results All procedures were technically successful except for one patient who had adhesions between the stomach and anterior abdominal wall, related to a prior hernia repair, resulting in less-than-intended stomach volume reduction. Mean total body weight loss (TBWL) after 26 and 52 weeks was 12.2% (95% CI 8.1–16.2) and 9.1% (95% CI 3.3 − 15.0). One patient experienced a minor suture-induced diaphragmatic injury, which was successfully managed conservatively. Conclusions This first Scandinavian clinical trial of ESG, documenting the implementation of the procedure at a Norwegian center, demonstrated acceptable feasibility and safety, with large variations in individual weight loss during the 52-week follow-up period.

• Hassan, Cesare; Piovani, Daniele; Spadaccini, Marco; Parigi, Tommaso; Khalaf, Kareem & Facciorusso, Antonio [Vis alle 14 forfattere av denne artikkelen] (2023). Variability in adenoma detection rate in control groups of randomized colonoscopy trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. ISSN 0016-5107. 97(2), s. 212–225.e7. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2022.10.009.
• Barua, Ishita; Bretthauer, Michael & Mori, Yuichi (2022). Computer-aided quality assessment (CAQ): the next step for artificial intelligence in colonoscopy? Mini-invasive Surgery. 6. doi: 10.20517/2574-1225.2022.05.
• Baile-Maxia, Sandra; Mangas-Sanjuan, Carolina; Ladabaum, Uri; Hassan, Cecare; Rutter, Matthew D. & Bretthauer, Michael [Vis alle 11 forfattere av denne artikkelen] (2022). Risk Factors for Metachronous Colorectal Cancer or Advanced Adenomas After Endoscopic Resection of High-risk Adenomas. Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. ISSN 1542-3565. 21(3), s. 630–643. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2022.12.005.
• Mori, Yuichi; Wang, Pu; Løberg, Magnus; Misawa, Masashi; Repici, Alessandro & Spadaccini, Marco [Vis alle 26 forfattere av denne artikkelen] (2022). Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Colonoscopy Surveillance After Polyp Removal: A Pooled Analysis of Randomized Trials. Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. ISSN 1542-3565. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2022.08.022. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv Vis sammendrag

  Background and Aims Artificial intelligence (AI) tools aimed at improving polyp detection have been shown to increase the adenoma detection rate during colonoscopy. However, it is unknown how increased polyp detection rates by AI affect the burden of patient surveillance after polyp removal. Methods We conducted a pooled analysis of 9 randomized controlled trials (5 in China, 2 in Italy, 1 in Japan, and 1 in the United States) comparing colonoscopy with or without AI detection aids. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients recommended to undergo intensive surveillance (ie, 3-year interval). We analyzed intervals for AI and non-AI colonoscopies for the U.S. and European recommendations separately. We estimated proportions by calculating relative risks using the Mantel-Haenszel method. Results A total of 5796 patients (51% male, mean 53 years of age) were included; 2894 underwent AI-assisted colonoscopy and 2902 non-AI colonoscopy. When following U.S. guidelines, the proportion of patients recommended intensive surveillance increased from 8.4% (95% CI, 7.4%–9.5%) in the non-AI group to 11.3% (95% CI, 10.2%–12.6%) in the AI group (absolute difference, 2.9% [95% CI, 1.4%–4.4%]; risk ratio, 1.35 [95% CI, 1.16–1.57]). When following European guidelines, it increased from 6.1% (95% CI, 5.3%–7.0%) to 7.4% (95% CI, 6.5%–8.4%) (absolute difference, 1.3% [95% CI, 0.01%–2.6%]; risk ratio, 1.22 [95% CI, 1.01–1.47]). Conclusions The use of AI during colonoscopy increased the proportion of patients requiring intensive colonoscopy surveillance by approximately 35% in the United States and 20% in Europe (absolute increases of 2.9% and 1.3%, respectively). While this may contribute to improved cancer prevention, it significantly adds patient burden and healthcare costs.

• Barua, Ishita; Misawa, Masashi; Glissen Brown, Jeremy R.; Walradt, Trent; Kudo, Shin-ei & Sheth, Sunil G. [Vis alle 19 forfattere av denne artikkelen] (2022). Speedometer for withdrawal time monitoring during colonoscopy: a clinical implementation trial. Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology. ISSN 0036-5521. doi: 10.1080/00365521.2022.2154616.
• Juul, Frederik Emil; Garborg, Kjetil Kjeldstad; Nesbakken, Philip Eugen; Løberg, Magnus; Wieszczy, Paulina & Cubiella, Joaquín [Vis alle 19 forfattere av denne artikkelen] (2022). Rates of repeated colonoscopies to clean the colon from low-risk and high-risk adenomas: Results from the EPoS trials. Gut. ISSN 0017-5749. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2022-327696. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv Vis sammendrag

  Objective High-quality colonoscopy (adequate bowel preparation, whole-colon visualisation and removal of all neoplastic polyps) is a prerequisite to start polyp surveillance, and is ideally achieved in one colonoscopy. In a large multinational polyp surveillance trial, we aimed to investigate clinical practice variation in number of colonoscopies needed to enrol patients with low-risk and high-risk adenomas in polyp surveillance. Design We retrieved data of all patients with low-risk adenomas (one or two tubular adenomas <10 mm with low-grade dysplasia) and high-risk adenomas (3–10 adenomas, ≥1 adenoma ≥10 mm, high-grade dysplasia or villous components) in the European Polyp Surveillance trials fulfilling certain logistic and methodologic criteria. We analysed variations in number of colonoscopies needed to achieve high-quality colonoscopy and enter polyp surveillance by endoscopy centre, and by endoscopists who enrolled ≥30 patients. Results The study comprised 15 581 patients from 38 endoscopy centres in five European countries; 6794 patients had low-risk and 8787 had high-risk adenomas. 961 patients (6.2%, 95% CI 5.8% to 6.6%) underwent two or more colonoscopies before surveillance began; 101 (1.5%, 95% CI 1.2% to 1.8%) in the low-risk group and 860 (9.8%, 95% CI 9.2% to 10.4%) in the high-risk group. Main reasons were poor bowel preparation (21.3%) or incomplete colonoscopy/polypectomy (14.4%) or planned second procedure (27.8%). Need of repeat colonoscopy varied between study centres ranging from 0% to 11.8% in low-risk adenoma patients and from 0% to 63.9% in high-risk adenoma patients. On the second colonoscopy, the two most common reasons for a repeat (third) colonoscopy were piecemeal resection (26.5%) and unspecified reason (23.9%). Conclusion There is considerable practice variation in the number of colonoscopies performed to achieve complete polyp removal, indicating need for targeted quality improvement to reduce patient burden. Trial registration number NCT02319928.

• Ichimasa, Katsuro; Nakahara, Kenta; Kudo, Shin-ei; Misawa, Masashi; Bretthauer, Michael & Shimada, Shoji [Vis alle 14 forfattere av denne artikkelen] (2022). Novel “resect and analysis” approach for T2 colorectal cancer with use of artificial intelligence. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. ISSN 0016-5107. 96(4), s. 665–672.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2022.04.1305.
• Bretthauer, Michael; Løberg, Magnus; Wieszczy, Paulina; Kalager, Mette; Emilsson, Louise & Garborg, Kjetil Kjeldstad [Vis alle 21 forfattere av denne artikkelen] (2022). Effect of Colonoscopy Screening on Risks of Colorectal Cancer and Related Death. New England Journal of Medicine. ISSN 0028-4793. 387(17), s. 1547–1556. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2208375. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv Vis sammendrag

  Background: Although colonoscopy is widely used as a screening test to detect colorectal cancer, its effect on the risks of colorectal cancer and related death is unclear. Methods: We performed a pragmatic, randomized trial involving presumptively healthy men and women 55 to 64 years of age drawn from population registries in Poland, Norway, Sweden, and the Netherlands between 2009 and 2014. The participants were randomly assigned in a 1:2 ratio to either receive an invitation to undergo a single screening colonoscopy (the invited group) or to receive no invitation or screening (the usual-care group). The primary end points were the risks of colorectal cancer and related death, and the secondary end point was death from any cause. Results: Follow-up data were available for 84,585 participants in Poland, Norway, and Sweden - 28,220 in the invited group, 11,843 of whom (42.0%) underwent screening, and 56,365 in the usual-care group. A total of 15 participants had major bleeding after polyp removal. No perforations or screening-related deaths occurred within 30 days after colonoscopy. During a median follow-up of 10 years, 259 cases of colorectal cancer were diagnosed in the invited group as compared with 622 cases in the usual-care group. In intention-to-screen analyses, the risk of colorectal cancer at 10 years was 0.98% in the invited group and 1.20% in the usual-care group, a risk reduction of 18% (risk ratio, 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.70 to 0.93). The risk of death from colorectal cancer was 0.28% in the invited group and 0.31% in the usual-care group (risk ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.64 to 1.16). The number needed to invite to undergo screening to prevent one case of colorectal cancer was 455 (95% CI, 270 to 1429). The risk of death from any cause was 11.03% in the invited group and 11.04% in the usual-care group (risk ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.04). Conclusions: In this randomized trial, the risk of colorectal cancer at 10 years was lower among participants who were invited to undergo screening colonoscopy than among those who were assigned to no screening. (Funded by the Research Council of Norway and others; NordICC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00883792.).

• Juul, Frederik Emil; Cross, Amanda J.; Schoen, Robert E.; Senore, Carlo; Pinsky, Paul & Miller, Eric [Vis alle 17 forfattere av denne artikkelen] (2022). 15-Year Benefits of Sigmoidoscopy Screening on Colorectal Cancer Incidence and Mortality : A Pooled Analysis of Randomized Trials. Annals of Internal Medicine. ISSN 0003-4819. 175(11), s. 1525–1533. doi: 10.7326/M22-0835. Vis sammendrag

  Background: The effectiveness of screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) by sex and age in randomized trials is uncertain. Objective: To evaluate the 15-year effect of sigmoidoscopy screening on CRC incidence and mortality. Design: Pooled analysis of 4 large-scale randomized trials of sigmoidoscopy screening. Setting: Norway, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Italy. Participants: Women and men aged 55 to 64 years at enrollment. Intervention: Sigmoidoscopy screening. Measurements: Primary end points were cumulative incidence rate ratio (IRR) and mortality rate ratio (MRR) and rate differences after 15 years of follow-up comparing screening versus usual care in intention-to-treat analyses. Stratified analyses were done by sex, cancer site, and age at screening. Results: Analyses comprised 274 952 persons (50.7% women), 137 493 in the screening and 137 459 in the usual care group. Screening attendance was 58% to 84%. After 15 years, the rate difference for CRC incidence was 0.51 cases (95% CI, 0.40 to 0.63 cases) per 100 persons and the IRR was 0.79 (CI, 0.75 to 0.83). The rate difference for CRC mortality was 0.13 deaths (CI, 0.07 to 0.19 deaths) per 100 persons, and the MRR was 0.80 (CI, 0.72 to 0.88). Women had less benefit from screening than men for CRC incidence (IRR for women, 0.84 [CI, 0.77 to 0.91]; IRR for men, 0.75 [CI, 0.70 to 0.81]; P = 0.032 for difference) and mortality (MRR for women, 0.91 [CI, 0.77 to 1.17]; MRR for men, 0.73 [CI, 0.64 to 0.83]; P = 0.025 for difference). There was no statistically significant difference in screening effect between persons aged 55 to 59 years and those aged 60 to 64 years. Limitation: Data from the U.K. trial were less granular because of privacy regulations. Conclusion: This pooled analysis of all large randomized trials of sigmoidoscopy screening demonstrates a significant and sustained effect of sigmoidoscopy on CRC incidence and mortality for 15 years.

• Rodríguez De Santiago, Enrique; Dinis-Ribeiro, Mario; Pohl, Heiko; Agrawal, Deepak; Arvanitakis, Marianna & Baddeley, Robin [Vis alle 33 forfattere av denne artikkelen] (2022). Reducing the environmental footprint of gastrointestinal endoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates (ESGENA) Position Statement. Endoscopy. ISSN 0013-726X. 54(8), s. 797–826. doi: 10.1055/a-1859-3726.
• Mori, Yuichi; Misawa, Masashi; Bernal, Jorge; Bretthauer, Michael; Kudo, Shin-ei & Rastogi, Amit [Vis alle 7 forfattere av denne artikkelen] (2022). Artificial intelligence for disease diagnosis: the criterion standard challenge. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. ISSN 0016-5107. 96(2), s. 370–372. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2022.04.057.
• Ainechi, Diba; Misawa, Masashi; Barua, Ishita; Larsen, Solveig; Paulsen, Vemund & Garborg, Kjetil Kjeldstad [Vis alle 21 forfattere av denne artikkelen] (2022). Impact of artificial intelligence on colorectal polyp detection for early-career endoscopists: an international comparative study. Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology. ISSN 0036-5521. doi: 10.1080/00365521.2022.2070436. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Areia, Miguel; Mori, Yuichi; Correale, Loredana; Repici, Alessandro; Bretthauer, Michael & Sharma, Prateek [Vis alle 18 forfattere av denne artikkelen] (2022). Cost-effectiveness of artificial intelligence for screening colonoscopy: a modelling study. The Lancet Digital Health. ISSN 2589-7500. 4(6), s. e436–e444. doi: 10.1016/S2589-7500(22)00042-5. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv Vis sammendrag

  Background Artificial intelligence (AI) tools increase detection of precancerous polyps during colonoscopy and might contribute to long-term colorectal cancer prevention. The aim of the study was to investigate the incremental effect of the implementation of AI detection tools in screening colonoscopy on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality, and the cost-effectiveness of such tools. Methods We conducted Markov model microsimulation of using colonoscopy with and without AI for colorectal cancer screening for individuals at average risk (no personal or family history of colorectal cancer, adenomas, inflammatory bowel disease, or hereditary colorectal cancer syndrome). We ran the microsimulation in a hypothetical cohort of 100 000 individuals in the USA aged 50–100 years. The primary analysis investigated screening colonoscopy with versus without AI every 10 years starting at age 50 years and finishing at age 80 years, with follow-up until age 100 years, assuming 60% screening population uptake. In secondary analyses, we modelled once-in-life screening colonoscopy at age 65 years in adults aged 50–79 years at average risk for colorectal cancer. Post-polypectomy surveillance followed the simplified current guideline. Costs of AI tools and cost for downstream treatment of screening detected disease were estimated with 3% annual discount rates. The main outcome measures included the incremental effect of AI-assisted colonoscopy versus standard (no-AI) colonoscopy on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality, and cost-effectiveness of screening projected for the average risk screening US population. Findings In the primary analyses, compared with no screening, the relative reduction of colorectal cancer incidence with screening colonoscopy without AI tools was 44·2% and with screening colonoscopy with AI tools was 48·9% (4·8% incremental gain). Compared with no screening, the relative reduction in colorectal cancer mortality with screening colonoscopy with no AI was 48·7% and with screening colonoscopy with AI was 52·3% (3·6% incremental gain). AI detection tools decreased the discounted costs per screened individual from $3400 to $3343 (a saving of $57 per individual). Results were similar in the secondary analyses modelling once-in-life colonoscopy. At the US population level, the implementation of AI detection during screening colonoscopy resulted in yearly additional prevention of 7194 colorectal cancer cases and 2089 related deaths, and a yearly saving of US$290 million. Interpretation Our findings suggest that implementation of AI detection tools in screening colonoscopy is a cost-saving strategy to further prevent colorectal cancer incidence and mortality. Funding European Commission and Japan Society of Promotion of Science.

• Jodal, Henriette C.; Juul, Frederik Emil; Barua, Ishita; Bretthauer, Michael; Kalager, Mette & Løberg, Magnus [Vis alle 7 forfattere av denne artikkelen] (2022). Emergency hospital admissions, prognosis, and population mortality in Norway during the first wave of the Covid-19 epidemic. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health. ISSN 1403-4948. 50(6), s. 795–802. doi: 10.1177/14034948221082959. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Barua, Ishita; Wieszczy, Paulina; Kudo, Shin-ei; Masashi, Misawa; Holme, Øyvind & Gulati, Shraddha [Vis alle 34 forfattere av denne artikkelen] (2022). Real-Time Artificial Intelligence–Based Optical Diagnosis of Neoplastic Polyps during Colonoscopy. NEJM Evidence. ISSN 2766-5526. 1(6). doi: 10.1056/EVIDoa2200003.
• Yu, Jingru; Refsum, Erle; Perrin, Vera; Helsingen, Lise Mørkved; Wieszczy, Paulina & Løberg, Magnus [Vis alle 11 forfattere av denne artikkelen] (2022). Inflammatory bowel disease and risk of adenocarcinoma and neuroendocrine tumors in the small bowel. Annals of Oncology. ISSN 0923-7534. s. 1–8. doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2022.02.226.
• Yu, Jingru; Refsum, Erle; Helsingen, Lise Mørkved; Folseraas, Trine; Ploner, Alexander & Wieszczy, Paulina [Vis alle 15 forfattere av denne artikkelen] (2022). Risk of hepato-pancreato-biliary cancer is increased by primary sclerosing cholangitis in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: A population-based cohort study. United European Gastroenterology Journal (UEG Journal). ISSN 2050-6406. 10(2), s. 212–224. doi: 10.1002/ueg2.12204. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Pedersen, Ina Borgenheim; Rawa-Goleblewska, Anna; Calderwood, Audrey H.; Brix, Lone D.; Grode, Louise B. & Botteri, Edoardo [Vis alle 17 forfattere av denne artikkelen] (2022). Complete Polyp Resection with Cold versus Hot snare Polypectomy for Polyps sized 4-9 mm: A randomized controlled trial. Endoscopy. ISSN 0013-726X. 54(10), s. 961–969. doi: 10.1055/a-1734-7952. Vis sammendrag

  Background: Endoscopic screening with polypectomy reduces the incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC). Incomplete polyp removal may attenuate the effect of screening. This randomized trial compared cold snare polypectomy (CSP) with hot snare polypectomy (HSP) in terms of complete polyp resection. Methods: We included patients ≥ 40 years of age at eight hospitals in four countries who had at least one non-pedunculated polyp of 4-9 mm detected at colonoscopy. Patients were randomized 1:1 to CSP or HSP. Biopsies from the resection margins were obtained systematically after polypectomy in both groups. We hypothesized that CSP would be non-inferior to HSP, with a non-inferiority margin of 5 %. Logistic regression models were fitted to identify the factors explaining incomplete resection. Results: 425 patients, with 601 polyps, randomized to either CSP or HSP were included in the analysis. Of 318 polyps removed by CSP and 283 polyps removed by HSP, 34 (10.7 %) and 21 (7.4 %) were incompletely resected, respectively, with an adjusted risk difference of 3.2 % (95 %CI -1.4 % to 7.8 %). There was no difference between the groups in terms of post-polypectomy bleeding, perforation, or abdominal pain. Independent risk factors for incomplete removal were serrated histology (odds ratio [OR] 3.96; 95 %CI 1.63 to 9.66) and hyperplastic histology (OR 2.52; 95 %CI 1.30 to 4.86) in adjusted analyses. Conclusion: In this randomized trial, non-inferiority for CSP could not be demonstrated. Polyps with serrated histology are more prone to incomplete resection compared with adenomas. CSP can be used safely for small polyps in routine colonoscopy practice.

• Wieszczy, Paulina; Waldmann, Elisabeth; Løberg, Magnus; Regula, Jaroslaw; Rupinski, Maciej & Bugajski, Marek [Vis alle 11 forfattere av denne artikkelen] (2021). Colonoscopist Performance and Colorectal Cancer Risk After Adenoma Removal to Stratify Surveillance: Two Nationwide Observational Studies. Gastroenterology. ISSN 0016-5085. 160(4), s. 1067–1074.e6. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.10.009.
• Usher-Smith, Juliet A.; Mills, Katie M.; Riedinger, Christiane; Saunders, Catherine L.; Helsingen, Lise Mørkved & Lytvyn, Lyubov [Vis alle 11 forfattere av denne artikkelen] (2021). The impact of information about different absolute benefits and harms on intention to participate in colorectal cancer screening: A think-aloud study and online randomised experiment. PLOS ONE. ISSN 1932-6203. 16(2). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0246991.
• Helsingen, Lise Mørkved; Løberg, Magnus; Refsum, Erle; Gjøstein, Dagrun Kyte; Wieszczy, Paulina & Olsvik, Ørjan [Vis alle 16 forfattere av denne artikkelen] (2021). Covid-19 transmission in fitness centers in Norway - a randomized trial. BMC Public Health. ISSN 1471-2458. 21, s. 1–9. doi: 10.1186/s12889-021-12073-0. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Jodal, Henriette C.; Klotz, Dagmar; Herfindal, Magnhild; Barua, Ishita; Tag, Petter & Helsingen, Lise Mørkved [Vis alle 12 forfattere av denne artikkelen] (2021). Long-term colorectal cancer incidence and mortality after adenoma removal in women and men. Alimentary Pharmacology and Therapeutics. ISSN 0269-2813. s. 1–10. doi: 10.1111/apt.16686.
• Tønnesen, Christer Julseth; Hjelmesæth, Jøran; Hofsø, Dag; Tonstad, Serena; Hertel, Jens Kristoffer & Heggen, Eli [Vis alle 14 forfattere av denne artikkelen] (2021). A novel intragastric balloon for treatment of obesity and type 2 diabetes. A two-center pilot trial. Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology. ISSN 0036-5521. 57(2), s. 232–238. doi: 10.1080/00365521.2021.1994641. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Juul, Frederik E.; Jodal, Henriette C.; Barua, Ishita; Refsum, Erle; Olsvik, Ørjan & Helsingen, Lise Mørkved [Vis alle 10 forfattere av denne artikkelen] (2021). Mortality in Norway and Sweden during the COVID-19 pandemic. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health. ISSN 1403-4948. s. 1–8. doi: 10.1177/14034948211047137. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Waldmann, Elisabeth; Kammerlander, Andreas A.; Gessl, Irina; Penz, Daniela; Majcher, Barbara & Hinterberger, Anna [Vis alle 9 forfattere av denne artikkelen] (2021). Association of Adenoma Detection Rate and Adenoma Characteristics With Colorectal Cancer Mortality After Screening Colonoscopy. Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. ISSN 1542-3565. 19(9), s. 1890–1898. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2021.04.023.
• Schult, Anna Lisa; Botteri, Edoardo; Hoff, Geir; Holme, Øyvind; Bretthauer, Michael & Randel, Kristin Ranheim [Vis alle 13 forfattere av denne artikkelen] (2021). Women require routine opioids to prevent painful colonoscopies: a randomised controlled trial. Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology. ISSN 0036-5521. 56(12), s. 1480–1489. doi: 10.1080/00365521.2021.1969683. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv Vis sammendrag

  Background: Women are at high risk for painful colonoscopy. Pain, but also sedation, are barriers to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening participation. In a randomised controlled trial, we compared on-demand with pre-colonoscopy opioid administration to control pain in women at CRC screening age. Methods: Women, aged 55-79 years, attending colonoscopy at two Norwegian endoscopy units were randomised 1:1:1 to (1) fentanyl on-demand, (2) fentanyl prior to colonoscopy, or (3) alfentanil on-demand. The primary endpoint was procedural pain reported by the patients on a validated four-point Likert scale and further dichotomized for the study into painful (moderate or severe pain) and non-painful (slight or no pain) colonoscopy. Secondary endpoints were: willingness to repeat colonoscopy, adverse events, cecal intubation time and rate, and post-procedure recovery time. Results: Between June 2017 and May 2020, 183 patients were included in intention-to-treat analyses in the fentanyl on-demand group, 177 in the fentanyl prior to colonoscopy group, and 179 in the alfentanil on-demand group. Fewer women receiving fentanyl prior to colonoscopy reported a painful colonoscopy compared to those who were given fentanyl on-demand (25.2% vs. 44.1%, p

• Wieszczy, Paulina; Kaminski, Michal F; Løberg, Magnus; Bugajski, Marek; Bretthauer, Michael & Kalager, Mette (2021). Estimation of overdiagnosis in colorectal cancer screening with sigmoidoscopy and faecal occult blood testing: Comparison of simulation models. BMJ Open. ISSN 2044-6055. 11(4), s. 1–10. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-042158.
• Mori, Yuichi; Neumann, Helmut; Misawa, Masashi; Kudo, Shin-Ei & Bretthauer, Michael (2021). Artificial intelligence in colonoscopy - Now on the market. What's next? Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology. ISSN 0815-9319. 36, s. 7–11. doi: 10.1111/jgh.15339.
• Zeng, Linan; Helsingen, Lise M.; Nampo, Fernando Kenji; Wang, Yuting; Yao, Linag & Siemieniuk, Reed Alexander [Vis alle 8 forfattere av denne artikkelen] (2020). How do cancer screening guidelines trade off benefits versus harms and burdens of screening? A systematic survey . BMJ Open. ISSN 2044-6055. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-038322.
• Zimmermann-Fraedrich, Katharina; Pohl, Heiko; Rösch, Thomas; Rex, Douglas; Hassan, Cecare & Dekker, Evelien [Vis alle 12 forfattere av denne artikkelen] (2020). Designs of colonoscopic adenoma detection trials: more positive results with tandem than with parallel studies - an analysis of studies on imaging techniques and mechanical devices . Gut. ISSN 0017-5749. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2020-320984.
• Spadaccini, Marco; Frazzoni, Leonardo; Vanella, Giuseppe; East, James; Radaelli, Franco & Spada, Cristiano [Vis alle 27 forfattere av denne artikkelen] (2020). Efficacy and tolerability of high- vs low-volume split-dose bowel cleansing regimens for colonoscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. ISSN 1542-3565. 18(7), s. 1454–1465. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.10.044.
• Mori, Yuichi; Kudo, Shin-Ei; East, James; Rastogi, Amit; Bretthauer, Michael & Misawa, Masashi [Vis alle 14 forfattere av denne artikkelen] (2020). Cost savings in colonoscopy with artificial intelligence-aided polyp diagnosis: an add-on analysis of a clinical trial (with video). Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. ISSN 0016-5107. 92(4), s. 905–911. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2020.03.3759.
• Tønnesen, Christer Julseth; Young, Juliet; Glomsaker, Tom Birger; Mala, Tom; Løberg, Magnus & Bretthauer, Michael [Vis alle 8 forfattere av denne artikkelen] (2020). Laparoscopy-assisted versus balloon enteroscopy-assisted ERCP after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Endoscopy. ISSN 0013-726X. 52(8), s. 654–661. doi: 10.1055/a-1139-9313.
• Helsingen, Lise M.; Zeng, Linan; Siemieniuk, Reed A.C.; Lytvyn, Lyubov; Vandvik, Per Olav & Agoritsas, Thomas [Vis alle 8 forfattere av denne artikkelen] (2020). Establishing thresholds for important benefits considering the harms of screening interventions. BMJ Open. ISSN 2044-6055. 10:e037854(12), s. 1–9. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-037854.
• Hassan, Cesare; Antonelli, Giulio; Dumonceau, Jean-Marc; Regula, Jaroslaw; Bretthauer, Michael & Chaussade, Stanislas [Vis alle 21 forfattere av denne artikkelen] (2020). Post-polypectomy colonoscopy surveillance: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline - Update 2020. Endoscopy. ISSN 0013-726X. 52(8), s. 687–700. doi: 10.1055/a-1185-3109.
• Barua, Ishita; Mori, Yuichi & Bretthauer, Michael (2020). Colorectal polyp characterization with endocytoscopy: Ready for widespread implementation with artificial intelligence? Baillière's Best Practice & Research : Clinical Gastroenterology. ISSN 1521-6918. doi: 10.1016/j.bpg.2020.101721.
• Randel, Kristin Ranheim; Schult, Anna Lisa; Botteri, Edoardo; Hoff, Geir; Bretthauer, Michael & Ursin, Giske [Vis alle 20 forfattere av denne artikkelen] (2020). Colorectal cancer screening with repeated fecal immunochemical test versus sigmoidoscopy: baseline results from a randomized trial. Gastroenterology. ISSN 0016-5085. 160(4), s. 1085–1096. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.11.037. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv Vis sammendrag

  Background and aims: The comparative effectiveness of sigmoidoscopy and fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is unknown. Methods: Individuals aged 50-74 years living in South-East Norway were randomly invited between 2012 and 2019 to either once-only flexible sigmoidoscopy or FIT screening every second year. Colonoscopy was recommended after sigmoidoscopy if any polyp ≥10 mm, ≥ three adenomas, any advanced adenomas, or CRC was found or subsequent to FIT > 15 μg hemoglobin/g feces. Data for this report were obtained after complete recruitment in both groups and included two full FIT rounds and part of the third round. Outcome measures were participation, neoplasia detection, and adverse events. Age-standardized detection rates and age-adjusted odds ratios (OR) were calculated. Results: We included 139,291 individuals; 69,195 randomized to sigmoidoscopy and 70,096 to FIT. Participation rate was 52% for sigmoidoscopy, 58% in the first FIT round and 68% for three cumulative FIT rounds. Compared to sigmoidoscopy, detection rate for CRC was similar in the first FIT round (0.25% vs 0.27%, OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.75-1.13), but higher after three FIT rounds (0.49% vs 0.27%, OR 1.87, 95% CI 1.54-2.27). Advanced adenoma detection rate was lower in the first FIT round compared to sigmoidoscopy, 1.4% vs 2.4% (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.53-0.62), but higher after three cumulative FIT rounds, 2.7% vs 2.4% (OR 1.14, 95% CI 1.05-1.23). There were 33 (0.05%) serious adverse events in the sigmoidoscopy group compared to 47 (0.07%) in the FIT group (p =.13). Conclusion: Participation was higher and more CRC and advanced adenomas were detected with repeated FIT compared to sigmoidoscopy. The risk of perforation and bleeding was comparable. Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01538550).

• Helsingen, Lise M.; Refsum, Erle; Gjøstein, Dagrun Kyte; Løberg, Magnus; Bretthauer, Michael & Kalager, Mette [Vis alle 7 forfattere av denne artikkelen] (2020). The COVID-19 pandemic in Norway and Sweden – threats, trust, and impact on daily life: a comparative survey. BMC Public Health. ISSN 1471-2458. 20:1597, s. 1–10. doi: 10.1186/s12889-020-09615-3. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Pedersen, Ina Borgenheim; Bretthauer, Michael; Kalager, Mette; Løberg, Magnus; Hoff, Geir & Matapour, Senaria [Vis alle 13 forfattere av denne artikkelen] (2020). Incomplete endoscopic resection of colorectal polyps: a prospective quality assurance study. Endoscopy. ISSN 0013-726X. s. 1–9. doi: 10.1055/a-1243-0379.
• Adami, Hans Olov; Bretthauer, Michael & Kalager, Mette (2020). Assessment of cancer screening effectiveness in the era of screening programs. European Journal of Epidemiology (EJE). ISSN 0393-2990. doi: 10.1007/s10654-020-00684-7.
• Barua, Ishita; Guerrero Vinsard, Daniela; Jodal, Henriette C.; Løberg, Magnus; Kalager, Mette & Holme, Øyvind [Vis alle 9 forfattere av denne artikkelen] (2020). Artificial intelligence for polyp detection during colonoscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Endoscopy. ISSN 0013-726X. doi: 10.1055/a-1201-7165.
• Wieszczy, Paulina; Kamiński, Michał Filip; Franczyk, Robert; Løberg, Magnus; Kobiela, Jarek & Rupinska, Maria [Vis alle 15 forfattere av denne artikkelen] (2019). Colorectal Cancer Incidence and Mortality After Removal of Adenomas During Screening Colonoscopies. Gastroenterology. ISSN 0016-5085. 158(4), s. 875–883. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2019.09.011.
• Hassan, Cesare; East, James; Radaelli, Franco; Spada, Cristiano; Benamouzig, Robert & Bisschops, Raf [Vis alle 22 forfattere av denne artikkelen] (2019). Bowel preparation for colonoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline – Update 2019. Endoscopy. ISSN 0013-726X. 51(8), s. 775–794. doi: 10.1055/a-0959-0505.
• Buskermolen, Maaike; Cenin, Dayna R; Helsingen, Lise M.; Guyatt, Gordon; Vandvik, Per Olav & Haug, Ulrike [Vis alle 8 forfattere av denne artikkelen] (2019). Colorectal cancer screening with faecal immunochemical testing, sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy: a microsimulation modelling study. The BMJ. ISSN 1756-1833. 367, s. 1–11. doi: 10.1136/bmj.l5383.
• Helsingen, Lise M.; Vandvik, Per Olav; Jodal, Henriette C.; Agoritsas, Thomas; Lytvyn, Lyubov & Anderson, Joseph C. [Vis alle 21 forfattere av denne artikkelen] (2019). Colorectal cancer screening with faecal immunochemical testing, sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy: A clinical practice guideline. The BMJ. ISSN 1756-1833. 367:I5515, s. 1–16. doi: 10.1136/bmj.l5515. Vis sammendrag

  Abstract CLINICAL QUESTION: Recent 15-year updates of sigmoidoscopy screening trials provide new evidence on the effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening. Prompted by the new evidence, we asked: "Does colorectal cancer screening make an important difference to health outcomes in individuals initiating screening at age 50 to 79? And which screening option is best?" CURRENT PRACTICE: Numerous guidelines recommend screening, but vary on recommended test, age and screening frequency. This guideline looks at the evidence and makes recommendations on screening for four screening options: faecal immunochemical test (FIT) every year, FIT every two years, a single sigmoidoscopy, or a single colonoscopy. RECOMMENDATIONS: These recommendations apply to adults aged 50-79 years with no prior screening, no symptoms of colorectal cancer, and a life expectancy of at least 15 years. For individuals with an estimated 15-year colorectal cancer risk below 3%, we suggest no screening (weak recommendation). For individuals with an estimated 15-year risk above 3%, we suggest screening with one of the four screening options: FIT every year, FIT every two years, a single sigmoidoscopy, or a single colonoscopy (weak recommendation). With our guidance we publish the linked research, a graphic of the absolute harms and benefits, a clear description of how we reached our value judgments, and linked decision aids. HOW THIS GUIDELINE WAS CREATED: A guideline panel including patients, clinicians, content experts and methodologists produced these recommendations using GRADE and in adherence with standards for trustworthy guidelines. A linked systematic review of colorectal cancer screening trials and microsimulation modelling were performed to inform the panel of 15-year screening benefits and harms. The panel also reviewed each screening option's practical issues and burdens. Based on their own experience, the panel estimated the magnitude of benefit typical members of the population would value to opt for screening and used the benefit thresholds to inform their recommendations. THE EVIDENCE: Overall there was substantial uncertainty (low certainty evidence) regarding the 15-year benefits, burdens and harms of screening. Best estimates suggested that all four screening options resulted in similar colorectal cancer mortality reductions. FIT every two years may have little or no effect on cancer incidence over 15 years, while FIT every year, sigmoidoscopy, and colonoscopy may reduce cancer incidence, although for FIT the incidence reduction is small compared with sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy. Screening related serious gastrointestinal and cardiovascular adverse events are rare. The magnitude of the benefits is dependent on the individual risk, while harms and burdens are less strongly associated with cancer risk. UNDERSTANDING THE RECOMMENDATION: Based on benefits, harms, and burdens of screening, the panel inferred that most informed individuals with a 15-year risk of colorectal cancer of 3% or higher are likely to choose screening, and most individuals with a risk of below 3% are likely to decline screening. Given varying values and preferences, optimal care will require shared decision making.

• García-Albéniz, Xabier; Hsu, John; Bretthauer, Michael & Hernán, Miguel A. (2019). Estimating the Effect of Preventive Services With Databases of Administrative Claims: Reasons to Be Concerned. American Journal of Epidemiology. ISSN 0002-9262. 188(10), s. 1764–1767. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwz049.
• Bleijenberg, Arne; Klotz, Dagmar; Løberg, Magnus; Dekker, Evelien; Adami, Hans Olov & Kuipers, Ernst J. [Vis alle 15 forfattere av denne artikkelen] (2019). Implications of different guidelines for surveillance after serrated polyp resection in United States of America and Europe. Endoscopy. ISSN 0013-726X. 51(8), s. 750–758. doi: 10.1055/a-0916-8598.
• Spada, Cristiano; McNamara, Deirdre; Despott, Edward J.; Adler, Samuel; Cash, Brooks D. & Fernández-Urién, Ignacio [Vis alle 24 forfattere av denne artikkelen] (2019). Performance measures for small-bowel endoscopy: A European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Quality Improvement Initiative. United European Gastroenterology Journal (UEG Journal). ISSN 2050-6406. 7(5), s. 614–641. doi: 10.1177/2050640619850365.
• Spada, Cristiano; McNamara, Deirdre; Despott, Edward J.; Adler, Samuel; Cash, Brooks D. & Fernández-Urién, Ignacio [Vis alle 24 forfattere av denne artikkelen] (2019). Performance measures for small-bowel endoscopy: A European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Quality Improvement Initiative. Endoscopy. ISSN 0013-726X. 51(6), s. 574–598. doi: 10.1055/a-0889-9586.
• Bugajski, M; Wieszczy, P; Rupinski, M; Hoff, Geir; Huppertz-Hauss, Gert & Regula, J [Vis alle 8 forfattere av denne artikkelen] (2019). Effectiveness of digital feedback on patient experience and 30-day complications after screening colonoscopy: a randomized Health services study. Endoscopy International Open. ISSN 2196-9736. 7(4), s. E537–E544. doi: 10.1055/a-0830-4648.
• Valori, Roland; Cortas, George; de Lange, Thomas; Salem Balfaqih, Omer; de Pater, Marjon & Eisendrath, Pierre [Vis alle 25 forfattere av denne artikkelen] (2019). Performance measures for endoscopy services: A European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) quality improvement initiative. United European Gastroenterology Journal (UEG Journal). ISSN 2050-6406. 7(1), s. 21–44. doi: 10.1177/2050640618810242.
• Hoff, Geir; Botteri, Edoardo; Høie, Ole Ingebreth; Garborg, Kjetil Kjeldstad; Wiig, Håvard & Huppertz-Hauss, Gert [Vis alle 9 forfattere av denne artikkelen] (2019). Polyp detection rates as quality indicator in clinical versus screening colonoscopy. Endoscopy International Open. ISSN 2196-9736. 7(2). doi: 10.1055/a-0796-6477.
• Randel, Kristin Ranheim; Botteri, Edoardo; Romstad, Katrine Maria Kauczynska; Frigstad, Svein Oskar; Bretthauer, Michael & Hoff, Geir [Vis alle 8 forfattere av denne artikkelen] (2019). Effects of Oral Anticoagulants and Aspirin on Performance of Fecal Immunochemical Tests in Colorectal Cancer Screening. Gastroenterology. ISSN 0016-5085. 156(6), s. 1642–1649.e1. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2019.01.040.
• Hoff, Geir; de Lange, Thomas; Bretthauer, Michael; Dahler, Stein; Halvorsen, Fred-Arne & Huppertz-Hauss, Gert [Vis alle 12 forfattere av denne artikkelen] (2019). Registration bias in a clinical quality register. Endoscopy International Open. ISSN 2196-9736. 7(1), s. E90–E98. doi: 10.1055/a-0806-7006. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv Vis sammendrag

  Background and aims:The quality of medical quality registers is poorly defined and lack of trust in data due to low completeness may be a major barrier against their use in quality improvement interventions. The aim of the current observational study was to explore how selective reporting may influence adverse events registered in the Norwegian quality register for colonoscopy (Gastronet). Materials and Methods:Gastronet's database includes data provided by endoscopists, nurses and patients. All outpatient colonoscopies reported to Gastronet in 2015 were included and compared to the total number of colonoscopies performed in Norway as retrieved from the National Patient Registry. Hospitals were categorized into four groups according to reporting completeness < 50 %, 50 % to 69 %, 70 % to 89 % and ≥ 90 %. The number of recorded adverse events (AEs) and procedure time were analyzed. Multivariate logistic regression models were fitted to explore independent factors for selection bias. Results: A total of 22,364 colonoscopies were reported to the National Patient Register of which 15,855 (71 %) were registered in Gastronet. Feedback was received from 11,079 patients (50 %). The frequency of AEs increased from 0.6 % in completeness group < 50 % to 1.6 % in completeness group ≥ 90 % ( P  < 0.001). Long colonoscopy procedure time was associated with low reporting completeness. Patient feedback was associated with older age, cecal intubation success and sedation-free colonoscopy. Conclusion:Incomplete registration in a colonoscopy quality register is associated with underreporting of AEs. Longer procedure time, a surrogate marker for time constraint, is associated with low completeness.

Se alle arbeider i Cristin

• Bretthauer, Michael (2024). How to learn from interval cancers in colorectal cancer screening. Endoscopy. ISSN 0013-726X. doi: 10.1055/a-2279-9932.
• Bretthauer, Michael; Kaminski, Michal F. & Kalager, Mette (2024). Lifetime Gained with Cancer Screening - Reply. JAMA Internal Medicine. ISSN 2168-6106. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2023.7067.
• Song, Mingyang & Bretthauer, Michael (2024). Authors’ Reply: Interpreting epidemiologic studies of colonoscopy screening for colorectal cancer prevention. European Journal of Epidemiology (EJE). ISSN 0393-2990. doi: 10.1007/s10654-023-01077-2.
• Jodal, Henriette C.; Bretthauer, Michael & Løberg, Magnus (2023). Tarmkreftscreening også for yngre? Tidsskrift for Den norske legeforening. ISSN 0029-2001. 143(18), s. 1–5. doi: 10.4045/tidsskr.23.0553.
• Song, Mingyang & Bretthauer, Michael (2023). Authors’ Reply: Interpreting epidemiologic studies of colorectal cancer prevention. European Journal of Epidemiology (EJE). ISSN 0393-2990. doi: 10.1007/s10654-023-01070-9.
• Bretthauer, Michael & Yang, Yu-Xiao (2023). New American College of Physicians Guidance on Colorectal Cancer Screening: Less Is More. Annals of Internal Medicine. ISSN 0003-4819. 176(8), s. 1127–1128. doi: 10.7326/M23-1695.
• Bretthauer, Michael; Mori, Yuichi; Zessner-Spitzenberg, Jasmin; Kamiński, Michał F.; Siersema, Peter D. & Ponchon, Thierry [Vis alle 10 forfattere av denne artikkelen] (2023). Gastrointestinal endoscopy devices and the European Union Medical Device Regulation: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Position Statement. Endoscopy. ISSN 0013-726X. 55(6), s. 578–581. doi: 10.1055/a-2052-2540.
• Hanley, James A.; Deck, Wilber; Winawer, Sidney J.; Hoffmeister, Michael; Cardoso, Rafael & Brenner, Hermann [Vis alle 14 forfattere av denne artikkelen] (2023). Colonoscopy Screening and Colorectal Cancer Incidence and Mortality. New England Journal of Medicine. ISSN 0028-4793. 388(4), s. 376–379. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc2215192.
• Gantzel, Rasmus; Wieszczy, Paulina; Refsum, Erle; Jess, Tine; Larsen, Lone & Bretthauer, Michael [Vis alle 11 forfattere av denne artikkelen] (2023). Prognostic models for colorectal cancer incidence and mortality in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. ISSN 1469-493X. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD015434.
• Mori, Yuichi; Kamiński, Michał Filip; Hassan, Cecare & Bretthauer, Michael (2022). Clinical trial designs for artificial intelligence in gastrointestinal endoscopy. The Lancet Gastroenterology and Hepatology. ISSN 2468-1253. doi: 10.1016/S2468-1253(22)00232-1.
• Burra, Patrizia; Arvanitakis, Marianna; Dias, Jorge Amil; Bretthauer, Michael; Dugic, Ana & Hartmann, Daniel [Vis alle 13 forfattere av denne artikkelen] (2022). UEG position paper: Obesity and digestive health. United European Gastroenterology Journal (UEG Journal). ISSN 2050-6406. doi: 10.1002/ueg2.12334.
• Helsingen, Lise Mørkved; Løberg, Magnus; Bretthauer, Michael & Kalager, Mette (2022). Reply to: Letter to the Editor regarding "Covid-19 transmission in fitness centers in Norway-a randomized trial". BMC Public Health. ISSN 1471-2458. 22(1). doi: 10.1186/s12889-022-14799-x.
• Jodal, Henriette C.; Bretthauer, Michael; Kalager, Mette & Løberg, Magnus (2022). Letter: long-term colorectal cancer incidence and mortality after adenoma removal associated with heritable factors, colonoscopic surveillance and aspirin—authors' reply. Alimentary Pharmacology and Therapeutics. ISSN 0269-2813. 55(10), s. 1363–1364. doi: 10.1111/apt.16929.
• Bretthauer, Michael; Schoen, Robert E.; Cross, Amanda J. & Pinsky, Paul F. (2022). Colorectal Cancer Screening: Randomized Trials Are Essential to Support Recommendations. Annals of Internal Medicine. ISSN 0003-4819. 175(1), s. 129–130. doi: 10.7326/M21-3770.
• Øverenget, Einar; Kalager, Mette; Grødeland, Gunnveig; Olsvik, Ørjan; Nylund, Anna & Løberg, Magnus [Vis alle 8 forfattere av denne artikkelen] (2022). Når smittevern blir uforståelig. Dagensnæringsliv.
• Mori, Yuichi; Bretthauer, Michael & Kalager, Mette (2021). Hopes and Hypes for Artificial Intelligence in Colorectal Cancer Screening. Gastroenterology. ISSN 0016-5085. 161(3), s. 774–777. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2021.04.078.
• Bretthauer, Michael; Løberg, Magnus; Holme, Øyvind; Adami, Hans-Olov & Kalager, Mette (2021). Deep learning and cancer biomarkers: recognising lead-time bias. The Lancet. ISSN 0140-6736. 397(10270). doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32402-8.
• Bretthauer, Michael; Kalager, Mette & Weinberg, David S. (2021). Colorectal cancer screening in young adults: About carcinoid tumors and cancer. Annals of Internal Medicine. ISSN 0003-4819. 174(2), s. 263–265. doi: 10.7326/M20-7244.
• Gralnek, Ian; Hassan, Cesare; Ebigbo, Alanna; Fuchs, Andre; Beilenhoff, Ulrike & Antonelli, Giulio [Vis alle 27 forfattere av denne artikkelen] (2021). ESGE and ESGENA Position Statement on gastrointestinal endoscopy and COVID-19: Updated guidance for the era of vaccines and viral variants. Endoscopy. ISSN 0013-726X. doi: 10.1055/a-1700-4897.
• Mori, Yuichi & Bretthauer, Michael (2021). Addressing false-positive findings with artificial intelligence for polyp detection. Endoscopy. ISSN 0013-726X. 53(9), s. 941–942. doi: 10.1055/a-1381-7849.
• Bretthauer, Michael; Helsingen, Lise Mørkved; Kalager, Mette; Vandvik, Per Olav; Agoritsas, Thomas & Guyatt, Gordon (2020). The future of colorectal cancer screening: Parentalism or shared decision-making? CMAJ - Canadian Medical Association Journal. ISSN 0820-3946. 192(18). doi: 10.1503/cmaj.74839.
• Rutter, Matthew D.; Bretthauer, Michael; Hassan, Cesare; Jover, Rodrigo; Adami, Hans-Olov & Corley, Douglas A. [Vis alle 20 forfattere av denne artikkelen] (2020). Principles for Evaluation of Surveillance After Removal of Colorectal Polyps: Recommendations From the World Endoscopy Organization. Gastroenterology. ISSN 0016-5085. 158(6), s. 1529–1533.e4. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2019.12.052.
• Bretthauer, Michael & Kalager, Mette (2020). Disparities in preventive health services: Targeting minorities and majorities. Annals of Internal Medicine. ISSN 0003-4819. 172(4), s. 287–288. doi: 10.7326/M19-3899.
• Bretthauer, Michael (2020). Detection rates during colonoscopy: What matters most? Endoscopy. ISSN 0013-726X. 52(1), s. 15–16. doi: 10.1055/a-1058-8854.
• Løberg, Magnus & Bretthauer, Michael (2020). Presentasjon av tall: Ikke la deg lure. Tidsskrift for Den norske legeforening. ISSN 0029-2001. 140(8), s. 1–2. doi: 10.4045/tidsskr.20.0378.
• Kalager, Mette & Bretthauer, Michael (2020). Improving cancer screening programs: Evaluating diagnostic tests in learning screening programs could improve public health. Science. ISSN 0036-8075. 367(6474), s. 143–144. doi: 10.1126/science.aay3156.
• Barua, Ishita; Berset, Ingrid Prytz; Hære, Petter; Wensaas, Knut-Arne & Bretthauer, Michael (2020). Nasjonalt screeningprogram for tarmkreft. Tidsskrift for Den norske legeforening. ISSN 0029-2001. 140(3), s. 222–222. doi: 10.4045/tidsskr.19.0658.
• Holme, Øyvind; Bretthauer, Michael; Løberg, Magnus; Kalager, Mette & Adami, Hans-Olov (2019). Reply to the letter to the editor 'Cancer survivors: Surveillance or not surveillance?' by Santeufemia and Miolo. Annals of Oncology. ISSN 0923-7534. 30(9). doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdz190.
• Helsingen, Lise M.; Vandvik, Per Olav; Jodal, Henriette C.; Murphy, Silje Bjerkelund; Heen, Anja Fog & Kalager, Mette [Vis alle 7 forfattere av denne artikkelen] (2019). Tarmkreftscreening, eller ikke? Tidsskrift for Den norske legeforening. ISSN 0029-2001. 139(15). doi: 10.4045/tidsskr.19.0323.
• Holme, Øyvind; Bretthauer, Michael; Løberg, Magnus; Kalager, Mette & Adami, Hans Olov (2019). Revisiting surveillance schemes for cancer survivors. Annals of Oncology. ISSN 0923-7534. 30(6), s. 881–883. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdz107.
• Gjersvik, Petter & Bretthauer, Michael (2019). Biologiske legemidler. Tidsskrift for Den norske legeforening. ISSN 0029-2001. 139(13). doi: 10.4045/tidsskr.19.0102.
• Adami, Hans Olov; Kalager, Mette; Valdimarsdottir, Unnur; Bretthauer, Michael & Ioannidis, John P.A. (2019). Author Reply to: The name of the game: Is preventive screening ?cancer screening?? European Journal of Clinical Investigation. ISSN 0014-2972. 49(6). doi: 10.1111/eci.13097.

Se alle arbeider i Cristin