ライフサイエンスコーパス: colonoscopy

1 hic colonography, flexible sigmoidoscopy, or colonoscopy).

2 ostic colonoscopy (in patients with no prior colonoscopy).

3 t cancer from developing (CT colonography or colonoscopy).

4 ned hospital visits within 7 days (16.3/1000 colonoscopies).

5 and positive test results require follow-up colonoscopy.

6 s with LRAs at least 5 years after the index colonoscopy.

7 ined as a CRC diagnosis 6 to 59 months after colonoscopy.

8 imultaneously investigated when performing a colonoscopy.

9 copy should not be substituted routinely for colonoscopy.

10 th a positive FIT result who had a follow-up colonoscopy.

11 of UC activity made by rectosigmoidoscopy vs colonoscopy.

12 te for complete mucosal visualization during colonoscopy.

13 f unplanned hospital visits within 7 days of colonoscopy.

14 o remaining colorectal polyps after complete colonoscopy.

15 at different time intervals after a previous colonoscopy.

16 population aged 50-65 years old by screening colonoscopy.

17 There were 1,404 participants who underwent colonoscopy.

18 normal findings at screening mammography and colonoscopy.

19 of disease in the clinic using fluorescence colonoscopy.

20 , and inpatient admissions) within 7 days of colonoscopy.

21 GI complications occurred within 14 days of colonoscopy.

22 ent's own stool (autologous) administered by colonoscopy.

23 = 20) received FMT from universal donors via colonoscopy.

24 for a surveillance test resembling FIT over colonoscopy.

25 of screening with the MT-sDNA test vs FIT or colonoscopy.

26 ecal Immunochemical Tests; FIT) or triennial colonoscopy.

27 among cancers diagnosed up to 10 years after colonoscopy.

28 ith CRCs diagnosed in patients with no prior colonoscopy.

29 e additionally performed for comparison with colonoscopy.

30 s (10.0% vs 10.3%; P = .82) at the follow-up colonoscopy.

31 fect on outcome, determined at the follow-up colonoscopy.

32 the first colonoscopy detected by the second colonoscopy.

33 IT should be offered to patients who decline colonoscopy.

34 ticipants aged >/=55 y underwent a screening colonoscopy.

35 , compared with conventional forward-viewing colonoscopy.

36 o CRCs detected in patients without previous colonoscopies.

37 onoscopy through all subsequent surveillance colonoscopies.

38 ns associated with SPs detected during index colonoscopies.

39 opists and findings from index and follow-up colonoscopies.

40 n in those diagnosed within 1-10 years after colonoscopy (16%).

41 veillance preference for the stool test over colonoscopy (60.8 % vs 31.0 %; no preference: 8.1 %; no

42 at has been collecting and analyzing data on colonoscopies across the state of New Hampshire since 20

43 rance, and NS-colo were associated with post-colonoscopy adverse events.

44 y outcome was adenoma recurrence assessed by colonoscopy after 3 years.

45 To evaluate time to colonoscopy after a positive FIT result and its associat

46 Time (days) to colonoscopy after a positive FIT result.

47 ly undermined by failure to obtain follow-up colonoscopy after positive test results.

48 ith the exception of primary screening using colonoscopy, all of the other screening approaches have

49 = 0) and scores from rectosigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy analyses were compared among 239 examination

50 To reduce the burden of unnecessary colonoscopies and alleviate colonoscopy capacity, the cu

51 The endoscopists performed 1451 colonoscopies and made 3012 diminutive polyp predictions

52 blings of subjects with normal findings from colonoscopies and no family history of colorectal cancer

53 orable on the long-term, the burden of extra colonoscopies and repeated procedures can be prevented f

54 men who underwent screening or surveillance colonoscopies and then repeat colonoscopy examinations w

55 were performed to investigate the effect of colonoscopies and treatment on the colon cancer rate aft

56 , defined as the time measured between basal colonoscopy and a colonoscopy performed earlier than the

57 e samples were taken from lesions during the colonoscopy and analyzed histologically; subjects were c

58 Colonoscopy and blood tests were the "first line" diagno

59 Colonoscopy and FIT are recommended as tests of choice w

60 Colonoscopy and FIT are recommended as the cornerstones

61 Colonoscopy and gastroscopy were performed if the microo

62 ts with bloody diarrhoea and is diagnosed by colonoscopy and histological findings.

63 Colonoscopy and histology reports were collected from al

64 fied with MSOT was also confirmed using both colonoscopy and histology.

65 ology data from patients who, after baseline colonoscopy and polypectomy, were diagnosed with interme

66 im of this study was to compare cap-assisted colonoscopy and standard high-definition white light col

67 ients are already at low risk after baseline colonoscopy and the value of surveillance for them is un

68 or were excised during or after the initial colonoscopy, and obtained tissue blocks for hyperplastic

69 at least 1 adenoma, detected at their index colonoscopy, and were recommended to receive follow-up c

70 tumors found in patients who have undergone colonoscopy are more often proximal and have dMMR compar

71 Endoscopic methods (gastroscopy and colonoscopy) are considered fundamental for the diagnosi

72 g status, and education level, and number of colonoscopies as a time-dependent variable.

73 ntify patients with CRC, using findings from colonoscopy as a reference standard.

74 We recommend colonoscopy as the preferred screening method, initiatio

75 Using colonoscopy as the reference standard, a test for NK cel

76 e, which corresponded to changes observed on colonoscopy as well as histology.

77 counted for by differences in the quality of colonoscopy, as measured by physicians' polyp detection

78 thcare Cost and Utilization Project (325,811 colonoscopies at 992 facilities), from 4 states containi

79 ary endpoint is recurrence rate at follow-up colonoscopy at 6 months.

80 hemical test result, compared with follow-up colonoscopy at 8 to 30 days, follow-up after 10 months w

81 (more than 40 years old) screened for CRC by colonoscopy at a university hospital in Montreal, Canada

82 patients are currently offered surveillance colonoscopy at intervals of 3 years.

83 should return for screening or surveillance colonoscopy at standard guideline-recommended intervals.

84 rmed a systematic literature search of Asian colonoscopy-based studies that collected blood lipid con

85 with any outcome.On the basis of this large colonoscopy-based study, there are no significant associ

86 Patients aged 66 to 75 years who received colonoscopy between 2002 and 2011 and were followed thro

87 Lifetime colonoscopy burden per 1000 persons ranged from fewer th

88 increases in LYG relative to the increase in colonoscopy burden.

89 e observed in CRCs diagnosed 3-6 years after colonoscopy, but these features were still more frequent

90 n of unnecessary colonoscopies and alleviate colonoscopy capacity, the cut-off level for a positive F

91 as been growing concern about the overuse of colonoscopy (CC).

92 e findings on esophagogastroduodenoscopy and colonoscopy, CE should be performed as soon as possible.

93 sed a 20% sample of 2010 Medicare outpatient colonoscopy claims (331,880 colonoscopies performed at 8

94 tion of test-positive patients who completed colonoscopy compared with a control population, with abs

95 mailed outreach invitations offering FIT or colonoscopy compared with usual care increased the propo

96 00 incentive (financial incentive) increased colonoscopy completion within 3 months.

97 process completion, defined as adherence to colonoscopy completion, annual testing for a normal FIT

98 copies required (burden), lifetime number of colonoscopy complications (harms), and ratios of increme

99 pectrum of serious non-gastrointestinal post-colonoscopy complications has not been well characterize

100 We performed a population-based study of colonoscopy complications using databases from Californi

101 Colonoscopy complications were measured within 30 days,

102 We investigated the effects of AA on colonoscopy complications, specifically bowel perforatio

103 s of transplantation, and increased rates of colonoscopy complications, to assess if optimal screenin

104 s of transplantation, and increased rates of colonoscopy complications, to assess whether optimal scr

105 tcomes may differ such as lifetime burden of colonoscopy, complications, patient acceptance, and cost

106 Colonoscopy-controlled referral population from several

107 ing low colorectal lesion prevalence or when colonoscopy costs were halved or colorectal lesion incid

108 ring colonoscopy has significantly increased colonoscopy costs without evidence for increased quality

109 ectal cancer (CRC), but determinants of post-colonoscopy CRC are not well understood.

110 An audit of the colonoscopy database at The Queen Elizabeth Hospital in

111 reduced CRC mortality by 51.8% and increased colonoscopy demand by 42.7% compared with FIT screening

112 itional 1.7% to 52.1% but increased lifetime colonoscopy demand by 62% (from 335 to 543 colonoscopies

113 eillance intervals to 5 years would decrease colonoscopy demand without substantial loss of effective

114 Outcome Measures: CRC burden, colonoscopy demand, life-years, and costs.

115 h ICER threshold and substantially increases colonoscopy demand.

116 end point was dysplasia missed by the first colonoscopy detected by the second colonoscopy.

117 ough the lower digestive track, similar as a colonoscopy detector.

118 ltrasonography in children, mammography, and colonoscopy, did not lead to a diagnosis of prevalent ca

119 outpatient esophagogastroduodenoscopy and/or colonoscopy during fiscal years 2000-2013 at 133 facilit

120 The patients and controls underwent standard colonoscopies, during which biopsy specimens were obtain

121 LYG (median LYG per 1000 across the models): colonoscopy every 10 years (270 LYG); sigmoidoscopy ever

122 The first-tier tests are colonoscopy every 10 years and annual fecal immunochemic

123 g the fecal immunochemical test annually and colonoscopy every 10 years are now the most commonly use

124 With optimal adherence, yearly FIT and colonoscopy every 10 years were dominant (more effective

125 at assumed 100% adherence, the strategies of colonoscopy every 10 years, annual FIT, sigmoidoscopy ev

126 idence and current obstacles to use, capsule colonoscopy every 5 years is a third-tier test.

127 age are recommended to undergo screening by colonoscopy every 5 years, beginning 10 years before the

128 Colonoscopy every 5 years, starting at age 40 years, was

129 Colonoscopy every 5 years, starting at an age of 40 year

130 Of 10,365 incident CRCs, 725 occurred after colonoscopy examinations (7.0%).

131 y, and were recommended to receive follow-up colonoscopy examinations at 3 or 5 years after adenoma i

132 r surveillance colonoscopies and then repeat colonoscopy examinations within 60 days by a different b

133 Colonoscopy exams were incomplete in a higher proportion

134 Incidence rates of colonoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy, and fecal occult bl

135 dence on the effectiveness of screening with colonoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy, computed tomography

136 Colonoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy, CTC, and stool test

137 view of the literature regarding the role of colonoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy, endoscopic ultrasou

138 omized studies reporting an intervention for colonoscopy follow-up of asymptomatic adults with positi

139 Compared with colonoscopy follow-up within 8 to 30 days (n = 27176), t

140 interventions to improve rates of follow-up colonoscopy for adults after a positive result on a feca

141 A registry of biopsies performed during colonoscopy for adults aged 50+ years in 2002-2012 was c

142 testing for a normal FIT result, diagnostic colonoscopy for an abnormal FIT result, or treatment eva

143 LGD from 37 patients undergoing surveillance colonoscopy for inflammatory bowel disease from 1990 to

144 resection, the appropriate use and timing of colonoscopy for perioperative clearing and for postopera

145 s and completion of diagnostic and screening colonoscopy for those with an abnormal FIT result or ass

146 etection of endoscopic healing (MCSe </= 1), colonoscopy found persistent proximal lesions in the pla

147 taken at baseline, 7 taken after treatment), colonoscopy found proximal disease activity not detected

148 5 mm), obtained from patients who underwent colonoscopies from March 2017 through August 2017, was t

149 lts in Ontario, Canada undergoing outpatient colonoscopy from 2005 through 2012.

150 outpatient esophagogastroduodenoscopy and/or colonoscopy from fiscal year 2000 through 2013, we found

151 (52.8%) than white persons (46.2%) received colonoscopy from physicians with a lower PDR.

152 ecommended, but conventional forward-viewing colonoscopy (FVC) detects dysplasia with low levels of s

153 of and factors associated with adverse post-colonoscopy gastrointestinal (GI) and non-gastrointestin

154 9% (95% CI, 2.00% to 2.37%) in the screening colonoscopy group and 2.62% (CI, 2.56% to 2.67%) in the

155 9% (95% CI, 2.00% to 2.37%) in the screening colonoscopy group and 2.62% (CI, 2.56% to 2.67%) in the

156 2.84% (CI, 2.54% to 3.13%) in the screening colonoscopy group and 2.97% (CI, 2.92% to 3.03%) in the

157 ess 30-day risk for any adverse event in the colonoscopy group was 5.6 events per 1000 individuals (C

158 About 30 % (411 cases) of all colonoscopies had abnormal colonoscopic findings, and of

159 s without CRC: subjects found to have CRC by colonoscopy had a median level of 86.0 pg IFNG/mL (inter

160 Those with diverticulitis, who had no colonoscopy, had an increased risk of colon cancer compa

161 o achieve deep sedation with propofol during colonoscopy has significantly increased colonoscopy cost

162 ing interval if several subsequent screening colonoscopies have negative results and no new cases of

163 o randomized, controlled trials of screening colonoscopy have been completed, and ongoing trials excl

164 o randomized, controlled trials of screening colonoscopy have been completed, and ongoing trials excl

165 aphy (HR, 8.35; 95% CI: 7.11, 9.82) and with colonoscopy (HR, 1.38; 95% CI: 1.31, 1.45) but not with

166 Data were extracted from colonoscopies in 2064 patients.

167 d had no previous diagnostic or surveillance colonoscopies in the past 5 years.

168 d had no previous diagnostic or surveillance colonoscopies in the past 5 years.

169 between findings from rectosigmoidoscopy vs colonoscopy in assessment of disease activity based on M

170 Serious adverse events from colonoscopy in asymptomatic persons included perforation

171 were obtained from participants of screening colonoscopy in Germany from 2005 through 2010 and frozen

172 cross-sectional study of subjects undergoing colonoscopy in Hong Kong, siblings of individuals with a

173 been described and screening utilization of colonoscopy in men, women, and older adults has increase

174 tions in patients with IE and performance of colonoscopy in patients >/=50 years of age or at high ri

175 om rectosigmoidoscopy agreed with those from colonoscopy in the detection of active disease (MCSe >/=

176 st-colonoscopy or detected during diagnostic colonoscopy (in patients with no prior colonoscopy).

177 The overall risk of complications after colonoscopy increases when individuals receive anesthesi

178 1%, respectively) compared with persons with colonoscopy interval cancers (44% survival) and nonparti

179 145 non-SD-CRCs (27 FIT interval cancers, 9 colonoscopy interval cancers, and 109 CRCs in nonpartici

180 m (non-SD-CRC; such as FIT interval cancers, colonoscopy interval cancers, and cancer in nonparticipa

181 Integration of screening colonoscopy into the national cancer screening program s

182 Colonoscopy is a common procedure, yet little is known a

183 A colonoscopy is negative.

184 neighbouring low-income countries, screening colonoscopy is not yet recommended nor implemented at th

185 lorectal cancer screening using conventional colonoscopy lacks molecular information and can miss dys

186 Screening colonoscopy may have had a modest benefit in preventing

187 Conclusion: Screening colonoscopy may have had a modest benefit in preventing

188 ts (median age, 61 years; 49.7% male) with 2 colonoscopies (median time to surveillance, 4.9 years).

189 ent HRA or large SPs (>1 cm) on surveillance colonoscopy (metachronous lesions).

190 y nested within individuals who had received colonoscopies (n = 272,342), and identified 2045 CRC cas

191 -colo) and non-screening or non-surveillance colonoscopy (NS-colo).

192 ic computed tomography (CT) scan and optical colonoscopy (OC).

193 Thus, in a sequential approach based on colonoscopy offered first, FIT should be offered to pati

194 tality; however, the benefit of surveillance colonoscopy on colorectal cancer risk remains unclear.

195 es the effect of surveillance, with focus on colonoscopy, on patient survival after CRC resection, th

196 colon occurring during or shortly following colonoscopy or barium enema is a rare complication of co

197 in Denmark (2007-2011), categorized as post-colonoscopy or detected during diagnostic colonoscopy (i

198 nt to mailed FIT outreach (n = 2400), mailed colonoscopy outreach (n = 2400), or usual care with clin

199 l test (FIT) outreach is more effective than colonoscopy outreach for increasing 1-time colorectal ca

200 for FIT outreach group), and highest in the colonoscopy outreach group (10.4% [95% CI, 7.8% to 13.1%

201 d P < .13, respectively), and highest in the colonoscopy outreach group (colonoscopy outreach group v

202 d highest in the colonoscopy outreach group (colonoscopy outreach group vs FIT outreach group: 9.0% [

203 group (10.4% [95% CI, 7.8% to 13.1%] for the colonoscopy outreach group vs FIT outreach group; P < .0

204 creening process completion was 38.4% in the colonoscopy outreach group, 28.0% in the FIT outreach gr

205 rates were higher for both outreach groups (colonoscopy outreach group: 10.3% [95% CI, 9.5% to 12.1%

206 oups (27.7% [95% CI, 25.1% to 30.4%] for the colonoscopy outreach group; 17.3% [95% CI, 14.8% to 19.8

207 ompare the effectiveness of FIT outreach and colonoscopy outreach to increase completion of the CRC s

208 e with an abnormal FIT result or assigned to colonoscopy outreach.

209 d transverse lesions supports ongoing use of colonoscopy over sigmoidoscopy for screening examination

210 e colonoscopy demand by 62% (from 335 to 543 colonoscopies per 1000 persons) at an additional cost of

211 acilities), from 4 states containing 100% of colonoscopies per facility.

212 KGROUND & AIMS: The quality of endoscopists' colonoscopy performance is measured by adenoma detection

213 and quality benchmark indicators to improve colonoscopy performance.

214 icare outpatient colonoscopy claims (331,880 colonoscopies performed at 8140 facilities) from patient

215 We analyzed records of 76,810 screening colonoscopies performed between 2004 and 2009, by 51 gas

216 We collected data from 146,860 colonoscopies performed by 294 endoscopists, with each e

217 increase in risk of any complication; among colonoscopies performed in the West, use of anesthesia s

218 tations sent in 2014, FIT kits returned, and colonoscopies performed.

219 ime measured between basal colonoscopy and a colonoscopy performed earlier than the inter-screening i

220 Blood samples were collected on the day of colonoscopy, prior to the procedure.

221 To perform an ex vivo colonoscopy procedure, 14 mice with small intraperitonea

222 ollowed by an ex vivo molecular fluorescence colonoscopy procedure.

223 We identified 3,168,228 colonoscopy procedures in men and women, aged 40-64 year

224 Colonoscopy provides incomplete protection from colorect

225 idence in patients with a suboptimal quality colonoscopy, proximal polyps, or a high-grade or large a

226 ure, yet little is known about variations in colonoscopy quality among outpatient facilities.

227 ulated a risk-adjusted measure of outpatient colonoscopy quality, which shows important variation in

228 Part I: 442 patients for colonoscopy randomized to receive placebo (GrA) or singl

229 minders or performance data may help improve colonoscopy rates of asymptomatic adults with positive f

230 have prior negative screening (particularly colonoscopy), reach age 75 or have <10 years of life exp

231 opy and standard high-definition white light colonoscopy regarding serrated polyps' detection.

232 We collected data from a population-based colonoscopy registry that has been collecting and analyz

233 We used the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry to evaluate risk of clinically impo

234 an analysis of data from a population-based colonoscopy registry, we found index large SP or index S

235 Findings were recorded from both colonoscopy reports and corresponding histological exami

236 h no screening (benefit), lifetime number of colonoscopies required (burden), lifetime number of colo

237 e invited for consultation and scheduled for colonoscopy; results were collected.

238 Colonoscopy revealed diverticulosis involving the entire

239 s) attributable to screening or surveillance colonoscopy (S-colo) and non-screening or non-surveillan

240 sed to emulate a target trial with 2 groups: colonoscopy screening and no screening.

241 rs from ages 55-75 years) to more than 7500 (colonoscopy screening every 5 years from ages 45-85 year

242 ted low prevalence of advanced neoplasia and colonoscopy screening in high prevalence populations.

243 ho had received an organ transplant, optimal colonoscopy screening should start at an age of 30 or 35

244 We modeled 76 colonoscopy screening strategies that varied the age ran

245 lysis model to estimate costs and effects of colonoscopy screening strategies with different age rang

246 at least twice in annual editions of primary colonoscopy screening.

247 Conclusion: Donor stool administered via colonoscopy seemed safe and was more efficacious than au

248 ect adenomas 6 mm and larger comparable with colonoscopy (sensitivity from 73% [95% CI, 58%-84%] to 9

249 espread adoption of anesthesia services with colonoscopy should be considered within the context of a

250 HRA and synchronous SPs at index colonoscopy significantly increased risk of metachronous

251 alone (OR, 3.86; 95% CI, 2.77-5.39) at index colonoscopy significantly increased the risk of metachro

252 However, at the follow-up colonoscopy, similar proportions of participants have 1

253 computed tomographic colonography (CTC), or colonoscopy starting at age 45, 50, or 55 years and endi

254 Pre-colonoscopy stool samples were obtained from participant

255 s, starting at age 40 years, was the optimal colonoscopy strategy for patients with cystic fibrosis w

256 rting at an age of 40 years, was the optimal colonoscopy strategy for patients with cystic fibrosis w

257 prospective, randomized, cross-over, tandem colonoscopy study comparing FVC vs FUSE in 52 subjects w

258 FIT screening without colonoscopy surveillance and the effect of extending sur

259 INTERPRETATION: Colonoscopy surveillance benefits most patients with int

260 al benefit in terms of cost-effectiveness of colonoscopy surveillance in a screening setting.

261 cal immunochemical test (FIT) screening with colonoscopy surveillance performed according to the Dutc

262 tary familiar colon cancer and who underwent colonoscopy surveillance were included.

263 screening process completion was higher with colonoscopy than FIT outreach.

264 s well as more additional LYG per additional colonoscopy than strategies with screening beginning at

265 avorable cholesterol profiles at the time of colonoscopy than those without adenoma.

266 She underwent a colonoscopy that demonstrated a 5-cm fungating, friable,

267 orectal cancer, and were followed from index colonoscopy through all subsequent surveillance colonosc

268 The total colonoscopy times were similar (21.2 min for FUSE vs 19.

269 In a Markov model, we found FIT and colonoscopy to be more effective and less costly than th

270 Sensitivity of colonoscopy to detect adenomas 6 mm or larger ranged fro

271 te the effectiveness and safety of screening colonoscopy to prevent colorectal cancer (CRC) in person

272 te the effectiveness and safety of screening colonoscopy to prevent colorectal cancer (CRC) in person

273 centive modestly but significantly increased colonoscopy use.

274 o visualize small tumors in real time during colonoscopy using a NIR fluorescence endoscopy platform,

275 CRC tumors, relative to time since previous colonoscopy, using logistic regression and cubic splines

276 lation-based cohort study, AA for outpatient colonoscopy was associated with a significantly increase

277 The main reason to prefer colonoscopy was its superiority at finding polyps.

278 e concordance between rectosigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy was nearly perfect.

279 A diagnostic colonoscopy was negative.

280 Screening colonoscopy was offered to 1,500 healthy volunteers aged

281 Colonoscopy was performed and biopsies were obtained.

282 graphy, abdominal and pelvic ultrasound, and colonoscopy) was introduced at three tertiary care centr

283 In an analysis of 85 cases detected after colonoscopy, we found BRAF mutations in 23% of tumors an

284 tudy of IBD patients undergoing surveillance colonoscopy, we found panoramic views obtained by full-s

285 Data from 3,059,045 outpatient colonoscopies were analyzed; 862,817 of these included A

286 Nationwide, 34.4% of colonoscopies were conducted with anesthesia services.

287 Outpatient colonoscopies were followed by 5412 unplanned hospital v

288 In a blinded, cross-sectional study, colonoscopies were performed (from 2010 through 2014), a

289 The upper gastrointestinal endoscopy and colonoscopy were normal.

290 y score approach, we matched persons who had colonoscopy with AA (1:1) with those who did not.

291 -targeted fluorescent tracers during ex vivo colonoscopy with an NIR endoscopy platform.

292 d with those without both diverticulitis and colonoscopy with an OR of 2.72 (95% CI 2.64-2.94) (P < 0

293 Surveillance colonoscopy with chromoendoscopy is recommended, but con

294 subjects who had a sibling with a screening colonoscopy with no identified neoplasia.

295 intake and the most-advanced findings from a colonoscopy with the use of log binomial regression.Over

296 uantify the difference in complications from colonoscopy with vs without anesthesia services.

297 study of individuals who underwent screening colonoscopy within a National Colorectal Cancer Screenin

298 udy of individuals who underwent a screening colonoscopy within the National Colorectal Cancer Screen

299 icare program, however, reimburses screening colonoscopy without an upper age limit.

300 Among colonoscopies yielding CRC precursor lesions in patients