Search

Background and Aims Minimum EUS and ERCP volumes that should be offered per trainee in “high quality” advanced endoscopy training programs (AETPs) are not established. We aimed to define the number of procedures required by an “average” advanced endoscopy trainee (AET) to achieve competence in technical and cognitive EUS and ERCP tasks to help structure AETPs. Methods American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE)-recognized AETPs were invited to participate; AETs were graded on every fifth EUS and ERCP examination using a validated tool. Grading for each skill was done using a 4-point scoring system, and learning curves using cumulative sum analysis for overall, technical, and cognitive components of EUS and ERCP were shared with AETs and trainers quarterly. Generalized linear mixed-effects models with a random intercept for each AET were used to generate aggregate learning curves, allowing us to use data from all AETs to estimate the average learning experience for trainees. Results Among 62 invited AETPs, 37 AETs from 32 AETPs participated. Most AETs reported hands-on EUS (52%, median 20 cases) and ERCP (68%, median 50 cases) experience before starting an AETP. The median number of EUS and ERCPs performed per AET was 400 (range, 200-750) and 361 (range, 250-650), respectively. Overall, 2616 examinations were graded (EUS, 1277; ERCP-biliary, 1143; pancreatic, 196). Most graded EUS examinations were performed for pancreatobiliary indications (69.9%) and ERCP examinations for ASGE biliary grade of difficulty 1 (72.1%). The average AET achieved competence in core EUS and ERCP skills at approximately 225 and 250 cases, respectively. However, overall technical competence was achieved for grade 2 ERCP at about 300 cases. Conclusion The thresholds provided for an average AET to achieve competence in EUS and ERCP may be used by the ASGE and AETPs in establishing the minimal standards for case volume exposure for AETs during their training. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02509416.)

Background and aims: Adenoma detection rate (ADR) and cecal withdrawal time (CWT) have been identified as measures of colonoscopy quality. This study evaluates the impact of monitoring these measures on provider performance. Methods: Six blinded gastroenterologists practicing at a Veterans Affairs Medical Center were prospectively monitored over 9 months. Data for screening, adenoma surveillance, and fecal occult blood test positive (FOBT +) indicated colonoscopies were obtained, including exam preparation quality, cecal intubation rate, CWT, ADR, adenomas per colonoscopy (APC), and adverse events. Metrics were continuously monitored after a period of informed CWT monitoring and informed CWT + ADR monitoring. The primary outcome was impact on ADR and APC. Results: A total of 1671 colonoscopies were performed during the study period with 540 before informed monitoring, 528 during informed CWT monitoring, and 603 during informed CWT + ADR monitoring. No statistically significant impact on ADR was noted across each study phase. Multivariate regression revealed a trend towards fewer adenomas removed during the CWT monitoring phase (OR = 0.79; 95 %CI 0.62 – 1.02, P = 0.065) and a trend towards more adenomas removed during the CWT + ADR monitoring phase when compared to baseline (OR = 1.26; 95 %CI 0.99 – 1.61, P = 0.062). Indication for examination and provider were significant predictors for higher APC. Provider-specific data demonstrated a direct relationship between high ADR performers and increased CWT. Conclusions: Monitoring quality metrics did not significantly alter colonoscopy performance across a small heterogeneous group of providers. Non-significant trends towards higher APC were noted with CWT + ADR monitoring. Providers with a longer CWT had a higher ADR. Further studies are needed to determine the impact of monitoring on colonoscopy performance.

Little is known about the change in risk conferred by family history of colorectal cancer (CRC) as a person ages. We evaluated the effect of family history on CRC incidence and mortality after 55 years of age, when the risk of early onset cancer had passed.We collected data from participants in the randomized, controlled Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian cancer screening trial of flexible sigmoidoscopy versus usual care (55-74 years old, no history of CRC), performed at 10 US centers from 1993 to 2001. A detailed family history of colorectal cancer was obtained at enrollment, and subjects were followed for CRC incidence and mortality for up to 13 years.Among 144,768 participants, 14,961 subjects (10.3%) reported a family of CRC. Of 2090 incident cases, 273 cases (13.1%) had a family history of CRC; among 538 deaths from CRC, 71 (13.2%) had a family history of CRC. Overall, family history of CRC was associated with an increased risk of CRC incidence (hazard ratio [HR], 1.30; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.10-1.50; P.0001) and increased mortality (HR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.02-1.69; P = .03). Subjects with 1 first degree relative (FDR) with CRC (n = 238; HR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.07-1.42) or ≥2 FDRs with CRC (n = 35; HR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.44-2.86) were at increased risk for incident CRC. However, among individuals with 1 FDR with CRC, there were no differences in risk based on age at diagnosis in the FDR (for FDR60 years of age: HR, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.97-1.63; for FDR 60-70 years of age: HR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.06-1.62; for FDR70 years of age: HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.93-1.45; P trend = .59).After 55 years of age, subjects with 1 FDR with CRC had only a modest increase in risk for CRC incidence and death; age of onset in the FDR was not significantly associated with risk. Individuals with ≥2 FDRs with CRC had continued increased risk in older age. Guidelines and clinical practice for subjects with a family history of CRC should be modified to align CRC testing to risk. ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00002540.

Transcription profiling of placentomes derived from somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT, n = 20), in vitro fertilization (IVF, n = 9), and artificial insemination (AI, n = 9) at or near term development was performed to better understand why SCNT and IVF often result in placental defects, hydrops, and large offspring syndrome (LOS). Multivariate analysis of variance was used to distinguish the effects of SCNT, IVF, and AI on gene expression, taking into account the effects of parturition (term or preterm), sex of fetus, breed of dam, breed of fetus, and pathological finding in the offspring (hydrops, normal, or other abnormalities). Differential expression of 20 physiologically important genes was confirmed with quantitative PCR. The largest effect on placentome gene expression was attributable to whether placentas were collected at term or preterm (i.e., whether the collection was because of disease or to obtain stage-matched controls) followed by placentome source (AI, IVF, or SCNT). Gene expression in SCNT placentomes was dramatically different from AI ( n = 336 genes; 276 >2-fold) and from IVF ( n = 733 genes; 162 >2-fold) placentomes. Functional analysis of differentially expressed genes (DEG) showed that IVF has significant effects on genes associated with cellular metabolism. In contrast, DEG associated with SCNT are involved in multiple pathways, including cell cycle, cell death, and gene expression. Many DEG were shared between the gene lists for IVF and SCNT comparisons, suggesting that common pathways are affected by the embryo culture methods used for IVF and SCNT. However, the many unique gene functions and pathways affected by SCNT suggest that cloned fetuses may be starved and accumulating toxic wastes due to placental insufficiency caused by reprogramming errors. Many of these genes are candidates for hydrops and LOS.