Search

Assessment of EUS-guided fine-needle tissue acquisition by macroscopic on-site evaluation (MOSE) is gathering attention. Studies report good diagnostic parameters with MOSE; however, the overall data are limited. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to report on the pooled diagnostic assessment parameters of EUS-guided tissue acquisition by MOSE using fine-needle biopsy sampling (FNB).Multiple databases were searched (from inception to December 2021), and studies that reported on the diagnostic assessment of EUS-guided tissue acquisition by MOSE were selected. Pooled diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were calculated by standard meta-analysis methods following the random-effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed by IFourteen studies were included in the analysis, and 1508 lesions were biopsy sampled in 1489 patients undergoing EUS-guided tissue acquisition. MOSE definition included a visible core of tissue with opacity and "wormlike" features of adequate size and length (≥4 mm). The pooled accuracy of FNA and/or FNB specimens in yielding a pathologic diagnosis by MOSE was 91.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 88.6-93.3; IExcellent pooled diagnostic accuracy parameters were demonstrated in EUS-guided tissue acquisition by FNB using the MOSE method.

Current adenoma detection rate (ADR) benchmarks for colonoscopy in individuals positive for a fecal immunochemical test (FIT) are ≥45% in men and ≥35% in women. These are based on weak, low-quality evidence. We performed a meta-analysis to ascertain the pooled ADR in FIT-positive colonoscopy.Major databases like PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science were searched in October 2021 for studies reporting on ADR of colonoscopy in a FIT-positive population. Meta-analysis was performed by standard methodology using the random-effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed by IThirty-four high-quality studies that included more than 6 million asymptomatic average-risk individuals were analyzed; 2,655,345 individuals completed a screening FIT test. The pooled FIT screening rate was 69.8% (95% CI, 62.8-76.1), the pooled FIT positivity rate was 5.4% (95% CI, 4.3-6.9), and the colonoscopy completion rate was 85% (95% CI, 82.8-86.9). The pooled ADR was 47.8% (95% CI, 44.1-51.6), pooled advanced ADR was 25.3% (95% CI, 22-29), and the pooled colorectal cancer detection rate was 5.1% (95% CI, 4.4-5.9). The pooled ADR in men was 58.3% (95% CI, 52.8-63.6) and in women was 41.9% (95% CI, 36.4-47.6). The pooled ADR with qualitative FIT assessment was 67.7% (95% CI, 50.7-81), with 1-stool sample FIT was 52.8% (95% CI, 48.8-56.8), and at a cutoff threshold of 100 ng hemoglobin/mL was 52.1% (95% CI, 47-57.1). Based on time-period cumulative analysis, the ADR improved over time from 30.5% (95% CI, 24.6-37.2) to 47.8% (95% CI, 44.1-51.6).This meta-analysis supports the current ADR benchmarks for colonoscopy in FIT-positive individuals. Excellent pooled ADR parameters were demonstrated with qualitative assessment of 1 stool sample at a test cutoff value of 100 ng hemoglobin/mL, and ADR per endoscopist improved over time.

Use of hydrogen peroxide (HWe conducted a comprehensive search of several databases (inception to July 2021) to identify studies reporting on the use of HIn 7 analyzed studies, 186 patients underwent HH

Background and Aims Major limitations with conventional EMR (C-EMR) include high rates of polyp recurrence and low en-bloc resection rates, especially for lesions >20 mm in size. Underwater EMR (U-EMR) has emerged as an alternate technique for en-bloc resection of larger lesions. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the efficacy and safety of the 2 techniques. Methods Multiple databases were searched through June 2020 for studies that compared outcomes of U-EMR and C-EMR for colorectal lesions. Meta-analysis was performed to determine pooled odds ratios (ORs) of successful R0, en-bloc, and piecemeal resection of colorectal lesions. We compared the rates of polyp recurrence at follow-up, diagnostic accuracy for colorectal cancer, and adverse events with the 2 techniques. Results Eleven studies, including 4 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 1851 patients were included in the final analysis. A total of 1071 lesions were removed using U-EMR, and 1049 lesions were removed using C-EMR. Although U-EMR had an overall superior en-bloc resection rate compared with C-EMR (OR, 1.9; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1-3.5; P = .04), both techniques were comparable in terms of polyps >20 mm in size (OR, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.3-2.1; P = .75), R0 resection (OR, 3.1; 95% CI, 0.74-12.6; P = .14), piecemeal resection (OR, 3.1; 95% CI, 0.74-12.6; P = .13), and diagnostic accuracy for colorectal cancer (OR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.6-1.8; P = .82). There were lower rates of polyp recurrence (OR, 0.3; 95% CI, 0.1-0.8; P = .01) and incomplete resection (OR, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.2-0.5; P = .001) with U-EMR. Both techniques have comparable resection times and safety profiles. Conclusions Our results support the use of U-EMR over C-EMR for successful resection of colorectal lesions. Further randomized controlled trials are needed to evaluate the efficacy of U-EMR for resecting polyps >20 mm in size.

Background and Aims Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a well-known risk factor for colorectal cancer (CRC). Current guidelines propose complete endoscopic resection of dysplasia in IBD patients with close endoscopic follow-up. Current data on the risk of neoplasia after endoscopic resection of dysplasia in IBD patients are limited. Methods Multiple databases were searched from inception through August 2019 to identify studies that reported on incidence and/or recurrence of neoplasia after resection of dysplasia in patients with IBD. Outcomes from the included studies were pooled to estimate the risk of neoplasia after dysplasia resection in IBD patients. Results From a total of 18 studies, 1037 IBD patients underwent endoscopic resection for a total of 1428 colonic lesions. After lesion resection, the pooled risk (in rate per 1000 person years of follow-up) of CRC was 2 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0-3), the pooled risk of HGD was 2 (95% CI, 1-3) and the pooled risk of any lesion was 43 (95% CI, 30-57). Meta-regression analysis based on lesion location (right, left), lesion size (mean and/or median size in mm), lesion type (Paris-I, Paris-II), endoscopic resection technique (endoscopic mucosal resection, endoscopic submucosal dissection, or polypectomy), and lesion histology (low-grade dysplasia, high-grade dysplasia) did not influence the reported outcomes. Conclusion Risk of CRC after dysplasia resection in IBD patients appears to be low, supporting the current strategy of resection and surveillance.

Background and Aims Several methods with variable efficacy have been proposed for difficult biliary cannulation in ERCP. We assessed the comparative efficacy of different strategies for difficult biliary cannulation through a network meta-analysis combining direct and indirect treatment comparisons. Methods We identified 17 randomized controlled trials (2015 patients) that compared the efficacy of different adjunctive methods for difficult biliary cannulation (needle-knife techniques, pancreatic guidewire-assisted technique, pancreatic-assisted technique, and transpancreatic sphincterotomy) either with each other or with persistence with the standard cannulation techniques. The success rate of biliary cannulation and the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) were the outcomes of interest. We performed pairwise and network meta-analysis for all treatments and used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation criteria to appraise quality of evidence. Results Low-quality evidence supported the use of transpancreatic sphincterotomy over persistence with standard cannulation techniques (risk ratio [RR], 1.29; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05-1.59) and over any other adjunctive intervention (RR, 1.21 [95% CI, 1.01-1.44] vs pancreatic guidewire-assisted technique, RR, 1.19 [95% CI, 1.01-1.43] vs early needle-knife techniques, RR, 1.47 [95% CI, 1.03-2.10] vs pancreatic stent-assisted technique) for increasing the success rate of biliary cannulation. No other significant results were observed in any other comparisons. Based on the network model, transpancreatic sphincterotomy (P-score, .97) followed by early needle-knife techniques (P-score, .62) were ranked highest in terms of increasing the success rate of biliary cannulation. Early needle-knife techniques outperformed persistence with standard cannulation techniques in terms of decreasing PEP rate (RR, .61; 95% CI, .37-1.00), whereas both early needle-knife techniques and transpancreatic sphincterotomy led to lower PEP rates as compared with pancreatic guidewire-assisted technique (RR, .49 [95% CI, .23-.99] and .53 [95% CI, .30-.92], respectively). Conclusions Transpancreatic sphincterotomy increases the success rate of biliary cannulation as compared with persistence with the standard cannulation techniques. Early needle-knife techniques and transpancreatic sphincterotomy are superior to other interventions in decreasing PEP rates and should be considered in patients with difficult cannulation.

Background and Aims Diagnosis of GI ulcers and/or hemorrhage by wireless capsule endoscopy (WCE) is limited by the physician-dependent, tedious, time-consuming process of image and/ or video classification. Computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) by convolutional neural network (CNN)-based machine learning may help reduce this burden. Our aim was to conduct a meta-analysis and appraise the reported data. Methods Multiple databases were searched (from inception to November 2019), and studies that reported on the performance of CNN in the diagnosis of GI ulcerations and/or hemorrhage on WCE were selected. A random-effects model was used to calculate the pooled rates. In cases where multiple 2 × 2 contingency tables were provided for different thresholds, we assumed the data tables were independent from each other. Heterogeneity was assessed by I2% and 95% prediction intervals. Results Nine studies were included in our final analysis that evaluated the performance of CNN-based CAD of GI ulcers and/or hemorrhage by WCE. The pooled accuracy was 95.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 94.3-96.3), sensitivity was 95.5% (95% CI, 94-96.5), specificity was 95.8% (95% CI, 94.7-96.6), positive predictive value was 95.8% (95% CI, 90.5-98.2), and negative predictive value was 96.8% (95% CI, 94.9-98.1). I2% heterogeneity was negligible except for the pooled positive predictive value. Conclusions Based on our meta-analysis, CNN-based CAD of GI ulcerations and/or hemorrhage on WCE achieves a high-level performance. The quality of the evidence is robust, and therefore CNN-based CAD has the potential to become the first choice of machine learning to optimize WCE image/video reading.

Background and Aims Colonoscopy is the preferred modality for colorectal cancer screening because it has both diagnostic and therapeutic capabilities. Current consensus states that colonoscopy should be performed with initial rapid passage of the instrument to the cecum, followed by thorough evaluation for and removal of all polyps during a deliberate slow withdrawal. Reports have suggested that polyps that are seen but not removed during insertion are sometimes quite difficult to find during withdrawal. Methods We performed a comprehensive literature search of several major databases (from inception to March 2020) to identify randomized controlled trials comparing inspection and polypectomy during the insertion phase as opposed to the traditional practice of inspection and polypectomy performed entirely during the withdrawal phase. We examined differences in terms of adenoma detection rate (ADR), polyps detected per patient (PDPP), cecal intubation time (CIT), withdrawal time, and total procedure time. Results Seven randomized controlled trials, including 3834 patients, were included in our final analysis. The insertion/withdrawal cohort had 1951 patients and the withdrawal-only cohort 1883 patients. Pooled odds of adenoma detection in the insertion/withdrawal cohort was .99 (P = .8). ADR was 47.2% in the insertion/withdrawal cohort and 48.6% in the withdrawal-only cohort. Although total procedure and withdrawal times were shorter in the insertion/withdrawal cohort, PDPP in both cohorts were not statistically significant (1.4 vs 1.5, P = .7). Conclusions Additional inspection and polypectomy during the insertion and withdrawal phases of colonoscopy offer no additional benefit in terms of ADR or PDPP.