Search

Purpose To evaluate the pathological complete response (pCR) rate of locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) after adaptive high-dose neoadjuvant chemoradiation (CRT) based on 18 F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (18 F-FDG-PET/CT). Methods The primary endpoint was the pCR rate. Secondary endpoints were the predictive value of 18 F-FDG-PET/CT on pathological response and acute and late toxicity. All patients performed 18 F-FDG-PET/CT at baseline (PET0) and after 2 weeks during CRT (PET1). The metabolic PET parameters were calculated both at the PET0 and PET1. The total CRT dose was 45 Gy to the pelvic lymph nodes and 50 Gy to the primary tumor, corresponding mesorectum, and to metastatic lymph nodes. Furthermore, a sequential boost was delivered to a biological target volume defined by PET1 with an additional dose of 5 Gy in 2 fractions. Capecitabine (825 mg/m2 twice daily orally) was prescribed for the entire treatment duration. Results Eighteen patients (13 males, 5 females; median age 55 years [range, 41–77 years]) were enrolled in the trial. Patients underwent surgical resection at 8–9 weeks after the end of neoadjuvant CRT. No patient showed grade > 1 acute radiation-induced toxicity. Seven patients (38.8%) had TRG = 0 (complete regression), 5 (27.0%) showed TRG = 2, and 6 (33.0%) had TRG = 3. Based on the TRG results, patients were classified in two groups: TRG = 0 (pCR) and TRG = 1, 2, 3 (non pCR). Accepting p interim-SUVmax, interim-SUVmean, interim-MTV, interim-TLG, and the MTV reduction were significantly different between the two groups. 18 F-FDG-PET/CT was able to predict the pCR in 77.8% of cases through compared evaluation of both baseline PET/CT and interim PET/CT. Conclusions Our results showed that a dose escalation on a reduced target in the final phase of CRT is well tolerated and able to provide a high pCR rate.

Pelvic radiation disease (PRD), a frequent side effect in patients with abdominal/pelvic cancers treated with radiotherapy, remains an unmet medical need. Currently available preclinical models have limited applications for the investigation of PRD pathogenesis and possible therapeutic strategies. In order to select the most effective irradiation protocol for PRD induction in mice, we evaluated the efficacy of three different locally and fractionated X-ray exposures. Using the selected protocol (10 Gy/day × 4 days), we assessed PRD through tissue (number and length of colon crypts) and molecular (expression of genes involved in oxidative stress, cell damage, inflammation, and stem cell markers) analyses at short (3 h or 3 days after X-ray) and long (38 days after X-rays) post-irradiation times. The results show that a primary damage response in term of apoptosis, inflammation, and surrogate markers of oxidative stress was found, thus determining a consequent impairment of cell crypts differentiation and proliferation as well as a local inflammation and a bacterial translocation to mesenteric lymph nodes after several weeks post-irradiation. Changes were also found in microbiota composition, particularly in the relative abundance of dominant phyla, related families, and in alpha diversity indices, as an indication of dysbiotic conditions induced by irradiation. Fecal markers of intestinal inflammation, measured during the experimental timeline, identified lactoferrin, along with elastase, as useful non-invasive tools to monitor disease progression. Thus, our preclinical model may be useful to develop new therapeutic strategies for PRD treatment.

ESGE suggests conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD; marking and mucosal incision followed by circumferential incision and stepwise submucosal dissection) for most esophageal and gastric lesions. ESGE suggests tunneling ESD for esophageal lesions involving more than two-thirds of the esophageal circumference. ESGE recommends the pocket-creation method for colorectal ESD, at least if traction devices are not used. The use of dedicated ESD knives with size adequate to the location/thickness of the gastrointestinal wall is recommended. It is suggested that isotonic saline or viscous solutions can be used for submucosal injection. ESGE recommends traction methods in esophageal and colorectal ESD and in selected gastric lesions. After gastric ESD, coagulation of visible vessels is recommended, and post-procedural high dose proton pump inhibitor (PPI) (or vonoprazan). ESGE recommends against routine closure of the ESD defect, except in duodenal ESD. ESGE recommends corticosteroids after resection of > 50 % of the esophageal circumference. The use of carbon dioxide when performing ESD is recommended. ESGE recommends against the performance of second-look endoscopy after ESD. ESGE recommends endoscopy/colonoscopy in the case of significant bleeding (hemodynamic instability, drop in hemoglobin > 2 g/dL, severe ongoing bleeding) to perform endoscopic hemostasis with thermal methods or clipping; hemostatic powders represent rescue therapies. ESGE recommends closure of immediate perforations with clips (through-the-scope or cap-mounted, depending on the size and shape of the perforation), as soon as possible but ideally after securing a good plane for further dissection.

Background Predictive scores aim to predict bowel preparation adequacy among hospitalized patients undergoing colonoscopy. We evaluated the comparative efficacy of these scores in predicting inadequate bowel cleansing in a cohort of Greek inpatients. Methods We performed a post hoc analysis of data generated from a cohort of inpatients undergoing colonoscopy in 4 tertiary Greek centers to validate the 3 models currently available (models A, B and C). We used the Akaike information criterion to quantify the performance of each model, while Harrell's C-index, as the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC), verified the discriminative ability to predict inadequate bowel prep. Primary endpoint was the comparison of performance among models for predicting inadequate bowel cleansing. 70.7 +/- 15.4 years-were included in the analysis. Model B showed the highest performance (Harrell's C-index: AUC 77.2% vs. 72.6% and 57.5%, compared to models A and C, respectively). It also achieved higher performance for the subgroup of mobilized inpatients (Harrell's C-index: AUC 72.21% vs. 64.97% and 59.66%, compared to models A and C, respectively). Model B also performed better in predicting patients with incomplete colonoscopy due to inadequate bowel preparation (Harrell's C-index: AUC 74.23% vs. 69.07% and 52.76%, compared to models A and C, respectively).Conclusions Predictive model B outperforms its comparators in the prediction of inpatients with inadequate bowel preparation. This model is particularly advantageous when used to evaluate mobilized inpatients.

Barrett’s esophagus is the most important complication of gastro-esophageal reflux disease and the only known precursor of esophageal adenocarcinoma. The diagnosis and treatment of Barrett’s esophagus are clinically challenging as it requires a high level of knowledge and competence in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. For instance, endoscopists should know when and how to perform biopsies when Barrett’s esophagus is suspected. Furthermore, the correct identification and treatment of dysplastic Barrett’s esophagus is crucial to prevent progression to cancer as well as it is the endoscopic surveillance of treated patients. Herein, we report practice-oriented answers to clinical questions that clinicians should be aware of when approaching patients with Barrett’s esophagus.

Colonoscopy is a risk factor for colon ischemia. The colon is susceptible to ischemia due to its minor blood flow compared to other abdominal organs; the etiology of colon ischemia after colonoscopy is multifactorial. The causative mechanisms include splanchnic circulation impairment, bowel preparation, drugs used for sedation, bowel wall ischemia due to insufflation/barotrauma, and introduction of the endoscope. Gastroenterologists must be aware of this condition and its risk factors for risk minimization, early diagnosis, and proper treatment.

Background and study aims The European Colonoscopy Quality Investigation (ECQI) Group comprises expert colonoscopists and investigators with the aim of raising colonoscopy standards. We assessed the levels of monitoring and achievement of European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) performance measures (PMs) across Europe using responses to the ECQI questionnaires. Methods The questionnaire comprises three forms: institution and practitioner questionnaires are completed once; a procedure questionnaire is completed on multiple occasions for individual total colonoscopies. ESGE PMs were approximated as closely as possible from the data collected via the procedure questionnaire. Procedure data could provide rate of adequate bowel preparation, cecal intubation rate (CIR), withdrawal time, polyp detection rate (PDR), and tattooing resection sites. Results We evaluated ECQI questionnaire data collected between June 2016 and April 2018, comprising 91 practitioner and 52 institution questionnaires. A total of 6445 completed procedure forms were received.Institution and practitioner responses indicate that routine recording of PMs is not widespread: adenoma detection rate (ADR) is routinely recorded in 29 % of institutions and by 34 % of practitioners; PDR by 42 % and 47 %, CIR by 62 % and 64 %, bowel preparation quality by 56 % and 76 %, respectively.Procedure data showed a rate of adequate bowel preparation of 84.2 %, CIR 73.4 %, PDR 40.5 %, mean withdrawal time 7.8 minutes and 12.2 % of procedures with possible removal of a non-pedunculated lesion ≥ 20 mm reporting tattooing. Conclusions Our findings clearly show areas in need of quality improvement and the importance of promoting quality monitoring throughout the colonoscopy procedure.

Main Recommendations 1 ESGE recommends that patients with compensated advanced chronic liver disease (ACLD; due to viruses, alcohol, and/or nonobese [BMI 10 mmHg and/or liver stiffness by transient elastography > 25 kPa) should receive, if no contraindications, nonselective beta blocker (NSBB) therapy (preferably carvedilol) to prevent the development of variceal bleeding.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 2 ESGE recommends that in those patients unable to receive NSBB therapy with a screening upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy that demonstrates high risk esophageal varices, endoscopic band ligation (EBL) is the endoscopic prophylactic treatment of choice. EBL should be repeated every 2–4 weeks until variceal eradication is achieved. Thereafter, surveillance EGD should be performed every 3–6 months in the first year following eradication.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 3 ESGE recommends, in hemodynamically stable patients with acute upper GI hemorrhage (UGIH) and no history of cardiovascular disease, a restrictive red blood cell (RBC) transfusion strategy, with a hemoglobin threshold of ≤ 70 g/L prompting RBC transfusion. A post-transfusion target hemoglobin of 70–90 g/L is desired.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 4 ESGE recommends that patients with ACLD presenting with suspected acute variceal bleeding be risk stratified according to the Child–Pugh score and MELD score, and by documentation of active/inactive bleeding at the time of upper GI endoscopy.Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 5 ESGE recommends the vasoactive agents terlipressin, octreotide, or somatostatin be initiated at the time of presentation in patients with suspected acute variceal bleeding and be continued for a duration of up to 5 days.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 6 ESGE recommends antibiotic prophylaxis using ceftriaxone 1 g/day for up to 7 days for all patients with ACLD presenting with acute variceal hemorrhage, or in accordance with local antibiotic resistance and patient allergies.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 7 ESGE recommends, in the absence of contraindications, intravenous erythromycin 250 mg be given 30–120 minutes prior to upper GI endoscopy in patients with suspected acute variceal hemorrhage.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 8 ESGE recommends that, in patients with suspected variceal hemorrhage, endoscopic evaluation should take place within 12 hours from the time of patient presentation provided the patient has been hemodynamically resuscitated.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 9 ESGE recommends EBL for the treatment of acute esophageal variceal hemorrhage (EVH).Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 10 ESGE recommends that, in patients at high risk for recurrent esophageal variceal bleeding following successful endoscopic hemostasis (Child–Pugh C ≤ 13 or Child–Pugh B > 7 with active EVH at the time of endoscopy despite vasoactive agents, or HVPG > 20 mmHg), pre-emptive transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) within 72 hours (preferably within 24 hours) must be considered.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 11 ESGE recommends that, for persistent esophageal variceal bleeding despite vasoactive pharmacological and endoscopic hemostasis therapy, urgent rescue TIPS should be considered (where available).Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 12 ESGE recommends endoscopic cyanoacrylate injection for acute gastric (cardiofundal) variceal (GOV2, IGV1) hemorrhage.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 13 ESGE recommends endoscopic cyanoacrylate injection or EBL in patients with GOV1-specific bleeding.Strong recommendations, moderate quality evidence. 14 ESGE suggests urgent rescue TIPS or balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration (BRTO) for gastric variceal bleeding when there is a failure of endoscopic hemostasis or early recurrent bleeding.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 15 ESGE recommends that patients who have undergone EBL for acute EVH should be scheduled for follow-up EBLs at 1- to 4-weekly intervals to eradicate esophageal varices (secondary prophylaxis).Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 16 ESGE recommends the use of NSBBs (propranolol or carvedilol) in combination with endoscopic therapy for secondary prophylaxis in EVH in patients with ACLD.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.

Objectives: Previous meta-analysis including nonrandomized studies showed marginal benefit of underwater endoscopic mucosal resection(U-EMR) compared to conventional EMR(C-EMR) in terms of polypectomy outcomes. We evaluated U-EMR compared to C-EMR in the treatment of colorectal polyps with respect to effectiveness and safety by analyzing only randomized controlled trials(RCTs). Material and methods: PubMed and Cochrane Library databases were searched for RCTs published until 11/2020, evaluating U-EMR vs. C-EMR regarding en bloc resection, post-endoscopic resection adenoma recurrence, complete resection, adverse events rates and difference in resection time. Abstracts from Digestive Disease Week, United European Gastroenterology Week and ESGE Days meetings were also searched. Effect size on outcomes is presented as risk ratio(RR; 95% confidence interval[CI]) or mean difference(MD; 95%CI). The I2 test was used for quantifying heterogeneity, while Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation(GRADE) was used to assess strength of evidence. Results: Six RCTs analyzing outcomes from 1157 colorectal polypectomies(U-EMR589;C-EMR,568) were included. U-EMR associated with significant higher rate of en bloc resection compared to C-EMR [RR(95%CI):1.26(1.01-1.58); Chi² for heterogeneity=30.43, P

Main recommendations Malignant disease 1 ESGE recommends placement of partially or fully covered self-expandable metal stents (SEMSs) for palliation of malignant dysphagia over laser therapy, photodynamic therapy, and esophageal bypass.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 2 ESGE recommends brachytherapy as a valid alternative, alone or in addition to stenting, in esophageal cancer patients with malignant dysphagia and expected longer life expectancy.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 3 ESGE recommends esophageal SEMS placement for sealing malignant tracheoesophageal or bronchoesophageal fistulas. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 4 ESGE does not recommend SEMS placement as a bridge to surgery or before preoperative chemoradiotherapy because it is associated with a high incidence of adverse events. Other options such as feeding tube placement are preferable. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. Benign disease 5 ESGE recommends against the use of SEMSs as first-line therapy for the management of benign esophageal strictures because of the potential for adverse events, the availability of alternative therapies, and their cost. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 6 ESGE suggests consideration of temporary placement of self-expandable stents for refractory benign esophageal strictures. Weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 7 ESGE suggests that fully covered SEMSs be preferred over partially covered SEMSs for the treatment of refractory benign esophageal strictures because of their very low risk of embedment and ease of removability. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 8 ESGE recommends the stent-in-stent technique to remove partially covered SEMSs that are embedded in the esophageal wall. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 9 ESGE recommends that temporary stent placement can be considered for the treatment of leaks, fistulas, and perforations. No specific type of stent can be recommended, and the duration of stenting should be individualized. Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence. 10 ESGE recommends considering placement of a fully covered large-diameter SEMS for the treatment of esophageal variceal bleeding refractory to medical, endoscopic, and/or radiological therapy, or as initial therapy for patients with massive bleeding. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.

Background COVID-19 pandemic is an unprecedented global medical emergency. National and international gastrointestinal societies recommended that any endoscopic activity during the lockdown phase of the pandemic should be limited to emergency or non-deferrable procedures only. We assessed the financial implications and impact on endoscopy activity of the lockdown phase in a tertiary referral endoscopy unit. Methods The number of endoscopy procedures canceled and performed in our endoscopy unit during our "delay phase" (16-22/03/2020) and "lockdown phase" (23/03-29/05/2020) was reviewed and compared with endoscopy activity conducted during the same period in 2019. The financial impact was subsequently analyzed. Results Between 16/03/2020 and 29/05/2020, 683 procedures were canceled and 365 non-deferrable procedures were performed. In contrast, in 2019, 3437 procedures were performed over the same timeframe, resulting in a revenue contraction of approximately €2,062,857. We estimated that the number of lists required to recuperate the canceled endoscopic activity, ranges from 103-155, depending on the level of personal protective equipment required and mitigating policy relating to COVID-19. Conclusion Our results highlight that COVID-19 pandemic had a substantial negative impact on our endoscopy activity and on the revenue generated by our endoscopy unit.

Background and study aims The standard method for obtaining samples during endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) is fine-needle aspiration (FNA), the accuracy of which can be affected by the presence of a cytopathologist in endoscopy room (rapid on-site evaluation [ROSE]). With the introduction of fine-needle biopsy (FNB), macroscopic on-site evaluation (MOSE) of a acquired specimen has been proposed. Only a few studies have evaluated the role of MOSE and in all except one, a 19G needle was used. Our primary aim was to evaluate the diagnostic yield and accuracy of MOSE with different needle sizes and the secondary aim was to identify factors influencing the yield of MOSE. Patients and methods Data from patients who underwent EUS-FNB for solid lesions, with MOSE evaluation of the specimen, were collected in six endoscopic referral centers. Results A total of 378 patients (145 F and 233 M) were enrolled. Needles sizes used during the procedures were 20G (42 %), 22G (45 %), and 25G (13 %). The median number of needle passes was two (IQR 2–3). The overall diagnostic yield of MOSE was of 90 % (confidence interval [CI] 86 %–92 %). On multivariable logistic regression analysis, variables independently associated with the diagnostic yield of MOSE were a larger needle diameter (20G vs. 25G, OR 11.64, 95 %CI 3.5–38.71; 22G vs. 25G, OR 6.20, 95 %CI 2.41–15.90) and three of more needle passes (OR 3.39, 95 %CI 1.38–8.31). Conclusions MOSE showed high diagnostic yield and accuracy. Its yield was further increased if performed with a large size FNB needles and more than two passes.

(1) Background: Whether standard bismuth quadruple therapy (BQT) is superior to concomitant therapy for the first-line treatment of Helicobacter (H.) pylori infection is unclear. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy of standard BQT versus concomitant therapy for H. pylori eradication in subjects naïve to treatment. (2) Methods: Online databases were searched for randomized controlled trials. We pooled risk ratio (RR) of individual studies for dichotomous outcomes using a random-effect model. (3) Results: Six studies with 1810 adults were included. Overall intention-to-treat (ITT) eradication rate was 87.4% with BQT and 85.2% with concomitant therapy (RR 1.01, 95%CI:0.94–1.07). Subgroup analysis of five Asian studies showed a small but significant superiority of BQT over concomitant therapy (87.5% vs. 84.5%; RR 1.04, 95%CI:1.01–1.08). Pooling four studies at low risk of bias yielded a similar result (88.2% vs. 84.5%; RR 1.05, 95%CI:1.01–1.09). There was no difference between the regimens in the frequency of adverse events (RR = 0.97, 95%CI:0.79–1.2). (4) Conclusions: The efficacy of BQT seems to be similar to concomitant therapy, with similar side effect profile. However, BQT showed a small but significant benefit over concomitant therapy in Asian populations and in studies at low risk of bias.

Background Estimates on miss rates for upper gastrointestinal neoplasia (UGIN) rely on registry data or old studies. Quality assurance programs for upper GI endoscopy are not fully established owing to the lack of infrastructure to measure endoscopists’ competence. We aimed to assess endoscopists’ accuracy for the recognition of UGIN exploiting the framework of artificial intelligence (AI) validation studies. Methods Literature searches of databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus) up to August 2020 were performed to identify articles evaluating the accuracy of individual endoscopists for the recognition of UGIN within studies validating AI against a histologically verified expert-annotated ground-truth. The main outcomes were endoscopists’ pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value (PPV/NPV), and area under the curve (AUC) for all UGIN, for esophageal squamous cell neoplasia (ESCN), Barrett esophagus-related neoplasia (BERN), and gastric adenocarcinoma (GAC). Results Seven studies (2 ESCN, 3 BERN, 1 GAC, 1 UGIN overall) with 122 endoscopists were included. The pooled endoscopists’ sensitivity and specificity for UGIN were 82 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 80 %–84 %) and 79 % (95 %CI 76 %–81 %), respectively. Endoscopists’ accuracy was higher for GAC detection (AUC 0.95 [95 %CI 0.93–0.98]) than for ESCN (AUC 0.90 [95 %CI 0.88–0.92]) and BERN detection (AUC 0.86 [95 %CI 0.84–0.88]). Sensitivity was higher for Eastern vs. Western endoscopists (87 % [95 %CI 84 %–89 %] vs. 75 % [95 %CI 72 %–78 %]), and for expert vs. non-expert endoscopists (85 % [95 %CI 83 %–87 %] vs. 71 % [95 %CI 67 %–75 %]). Conclusion We show suboptimal accuracy of endoscopists for the recognition of UGIN even within a framework that included a higher prevalence and disease awareness. Future AI validation studies represent a framework to assess endoscopist competence.

Widespread adoption of optical diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia is prevented by suboptimal endoscopist performance and lack of standardized training and competence evaluation. We aimed to assess diagnostic accuracy of endoscopists in optical diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia in the framework of artificial intelligence (AI) validation studies. Literature searches of databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus) up to April 2022 were performed to identify articles evaluating accuracy of individual endoscopists in performing optical diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia within studies validating AI against a histologically verified ground-truth. The main outcomes were endoscopists' pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value (PPV/NPV), positive and negative likelihood ratio (LR) and area under the curve (AUC for sROC) for predicting adenomas versus non-adenomas. Six studies with 67 endoscopists and 2085 (IQR: 115-243,5) patients were evaluated. Pooled sensitivity and specificity for adenomatous histology was respectively 84.5% (95% CI 80.3%-88%) and 83% (95% CI 79.6%-85.9%), corresponding to a PPV, NPV, LR+, LR- of 89.5% (95% CI 87.1%-91.5%), 75.7% (95% CI 70.1%-80.7%), 5 (95% CI 3.9%-6.2%) and 0.19 (95% CI 0.14%-0.25%). The AUC was 0.82 (CI 0.76-0.90). Expert endoscopists showed a higher sensitivity than non-experts (90.5%, [95% CI 87.6%-92.7%] vs. 75.5%, [95% CI 66.5%-82.7%], p

Summary of StatementsWith the aim of reducing the overall burden of care, ESGE recommends against surveillance of a series of conditions. Namely: ESGE recommends against surveillance of individuals with the following: an inlet esophageal patch; Los Angeles (LA) grade A or B erosive esophagitis; or ESGE recommends against surveillance of those with intestinal metaplasia limited to the antrum unless additional risk factors are present, such as persistent Helicobacter pylori infection, incomplete metaplasia, or a family history of gastric cancer; or for fundic gland polyps in the absence of suspicious endoscopic features or hereditary syndromes. ESGE recommends against surveillance of gastrointestinal leiomyomas, lipomas, and antral pancreatic rests, provided that these lesions have typical ultrasonographic features. ESGE recommends against routine endoscopic surveillance in duodenal peptic ulcer, unless symptoms persist despite adequate therapy. ESGE suggests against surveillance of confirmed pancreatic serous cystic neoplasms. ESGE recommends against endoscopic surveillance for patients with hyperplastic polyps in the rectosigmoid, with 1 – 4 adenomas ESGE recommends against surveillance of gastrointestinal conditions in individuals over 80 years old who have less than 10 years of life expectancy and poor general health status.

Simple Summary Radiotherapy plays an important role in the management of esophageal cancer. Historically, it has been used in different settings—adjuvant, neoadjuvant, definitive in combination with chemotherapy, and even palliative scenario. The aim of this review is to focus on the role of radiotherapy at different levels, and to describe the new therapeutic opportunities offered by technological advances. Abstract The modern management of esophageal cancer is crucially based on a multidisciplinary and multimodal approach. Radiotherapy is involved in neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings; moreover, it includes radical and palliative treatment intention (with a focus on the use of a stent and its potential integration with radiotherapy). In this review, the above-mentioned settings and approaches will be described. Referring to available international guidelines, the background evidence bases will be reviewed, and the ongoing, more relevant trials will be outlined. Target definitions and radiotherapy doses to administer will be mentioned. Peculiar applications such as brachytherapy (interventional radiation oncology), and data regarding innovative approaches including MRI-guided-RT and radiomic analysis will be reported. A focus on the avoidance of surgery for major clinical responses (particularly for SCC) is detailed.

ObjectiveArtificial intelligence (AI) may reduce underdiagnosed or overlooked upper GI (UGI) neoplastic and preneoplastic conditions, due to subtle appearance and low disease prevalence. Only disease-specific AI performances have been reported, generating uncertainty on its clinical value.DesignWe searched PubMed, Embase and Scopus until July 2020, for studies on the diagnostic performance of AI in detection and characterisation of UGI lesions. Primary outcomes were pooled diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity and specificity of AI. Secondary outcomes were pooled positive (PPV) and negative (NPV) predictive values. We calculated pooled proportion rates (%), designed summary receiving operating characteristic curves with respective area under the curves (AUCs) and performed metaregression and sensitivity analysis.ResultsOverall, 19 studies on detection of oesophageal squamous cell neoplasia (ESCN) or Barrett's esophagus-related neoplasia (BERN) or gastric adenocarcinoma (GCA) were included with 218, 445, 453 patients and 7976, 2340, 13 562 images, respectively. AI-sensitivity/specificity/PPV/NPV/positive likelihood ratio/negative likelihood ratio for UGI neoplasia detection were 90% (CI 85% to 94%)/89% (CI 85% to 92%)/87% (CI 83% to 91%)/91% (CI 87% to 94%)/8.2 (CI 5.7 to 11.7)/0.111 (CI 0.071 to 0.175), respectively, with an overall AUC of 0.95 (CI 0.93 to 0.97). No difference in AI performance across ESCN, BERN and GCA was found, AUC being 0.94 (CI 0.52 to 0.99), 0.96 (CI 0.95 to 0.98), 0.93 (CI 0.83 to 0.99), respectively. Overall, study quality was low, with high risk of selection bias. No significant publication bias was found.ConclusionWe found a high overall AI accuracy for the diagnosis of any neoplastic lesion of the UGI tract that was independent of the underlying condition. This may be expected to substantially reduce the miss rate of precancerous lesions and early cancer when implemented in clinical practice.

Background & Aims Several endoscopic methods have been proposed for the treatment of large biliary stones. We assessed the comparative efficacy of these treatments through a network meta-analysis. Methods Nineteen randomized controlled trials (2752 patients) comparing different treatments for management of large bile stones (>10 mm) (endoscopic sphincterotomy, balloon sphincteroplasty, sphincterotomy followed by endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation [S+EPLBD], mechanical lithotripsy, single-operator cholangioscopy [SOC]) with each other were identified. Study outcomes were the success rate of stone removal and the incidence of adverse events. We performed pairwise and network meta-analysis for all treatments, and used Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria to appraise the quality of evidence. Results All treatments except mechanical lithotripsy significantly outperformed sphincterotomy in terms of stone removal rate (risk ratio [RR], 1.03–1.29). SOC was superior to other adjunctive interventions (vs balloon sphincteroplasty [RR, 1.24; 95% CIs, 1.07–1.45], vs S+EPLBD [RR, 1.23; range, 1.06–1.42] and vs mechanical lithotripsy [RR, 1.34; range, 1.14–1.58]). Cholangioscopy ranked the highest in increasing the success rate of stone removal (surface under the cumulative ranking [SUCRA] score, 0.99) followed by S+EPLBD (SUCRA score, 0.68). SOC and S+EPLBD outperformed the other modalities when only studies reporting on stones greater than 15 mm were taken into consideration (SUCRA scores, 0.97 and 0.71, respectively). None of the assessed interventions was significantly different in terms of adverse event rate compared with endoscopic sphincterotomy or with other treatments. Post-ERCP pancreatitis and bleeding were the most frequent adverse events. Conclusions Among patients with large bile stones, cholangioscopy represents the most effective method, in particular in patients with larger (>15 mm) stones, whereas S+EPLBD could represent a less expensive and more widely available alternative.

Introduction In recent years, cold snare polypectomy (CSP) has increasingly been used over hot snare polypectomy (HSP) for the removal of colorectal polyps (4 – 10 mm in size). However, the optimal technique (CSP vs. HSP), in terms of complete polyp resection and complications, is uncertain. Our aim was to compare incomplete resection rate (IRR) of polyps and complications using CSP vs. HSP. Methods Randomized controlled studies (RCTs) comparing CSP and HSP for removal of 4 – 10 mm colorectal polyps were considered. Studies were included in the analysis if they obtained biopsy specimens from the resection margin to confirm the absence of residual tissue and reported complications. IRR and complication rate were the outcome measures. Pooled rates were reported as Odds Ratios (OR) or risk difference with 95 % Confidence Interval (CI). Results In total, three RCTs were included in the final analysis. A total of 1051 patients with 1485 polyps were randomized to either HSP group (n = 741 polyps) or CSP group (n = 744 polyps). The overall IRR did not differ between the two groups (HSP vs. CSP: 2.4 % vs. 4.7 %; OR 0.51, 95 %CI 0.13 – 1.99, P = 0.33, I 2 = 73 %). The HSP group had a lower rate of overall complications compared to the CSP group (3.7 % vs. 6.6 %; OR 0.53, 95 % CI 0.3 – 0.94, P = 0.03, I 2 = 0 %). Polyp retrieval rates were not different between the two groups (99 % vs. 98.1 %). Conclusion Our results suggest that HSP and CSP techniques can be effectively used for the complete removal of 4 – 10 mm colorectal polyps; however, HSP has a lower incidence of overall complications.

BACKGROUND: Organised programmes for colorectal cancer screening demand a high burden of medical and economic resources. The preferred methods are the faecal immunochemical test and primary colonoscopy. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to perform an economic analysis and comparison between these tests in Europe. METHODS: We used a Markov cost-utility analysis from a societal perspective comparing biennial faecal immunochemical test or colonoscopy every 10 years screening versus non-screening in Portugal. The population was screened, aged from 50–74 years, and efficacy was evaluated in quality-adjusted life years. For the base-case scenario, the faecal immunochemical test cost was €3 with 50% acceptance and colonoscopy cost was €397 with 38% acceptance. The threshold was set at €39,760/quality-adjusted life years and the primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. RESULTS: Screening by biennial faecal immunochemical test and primary colonoscopy every 10 years resulted in incremental utilities of 0.00151 quality-adjusted life years and 0.00185 quality-adjusted life years at additional costs of €4 and €191, respectively. The faecal immunochemical test was the most cost-effective option providing an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €2694/quality-adjusted life years versus €103,633/quality-adjusted life years for colonoscopy. Colonoscopy capacity would have to increase 1.3% for a faecal immunochemical test programme or 31% for colonoscopy. CONCLUSION: Biennial faecal immunochemical test screening is better than colonoscopy as it is cost-effective, allows more individuals to get screened, and provides a more rational use of the endoscopic capacity available.

Background and study aims Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is the gold standard procedure for malignant jaundice palliation; however, it can be challenging when a duodenal self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) is already in place. Patients and methods The primary aim of our study was to evaluate the technical feasibility of the placement of a lumen apposing metal stent (LAMS) through the mesh (TTM) of duodenal stents. The secondary aims were to evaluate clinical outcomes and adverse events (AEs) related to the procedures. Results Data from 23 patients (11 F and 12 M; mean age: 69.5 ± 11 years old) were collected. In 17 patients (73.9 %) TTM LAMS placement was performed as first intention, while in six patients (26.1 %) it was performed after a failed ERCP. Thirteen patients (56.5 %) underwent the procedure due to advanced pancreatic head neoplasia. One technical failure was experienced (4.3 %). The TTM LAMS placement led to a significant decrease in the serum levels of bilirubin, ALP, GGT, WBC and CRP. No cases of duodenal SEMS occlusion occurred and no other AEs were observed during the follow-up. Conclusions Concomitant malignant duodenal and biliary obstruction is a challenging condition. Palliation of jaundice using TTM LAMS in patients already treated with duodenal stent is associated to promising technical and clinical outcomes.

Background: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality among patients with cirrhosis. The risk of HCC recurrence after a complete response among patients treated with direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) has not been fully elucidated yet. Aim: To assess the risk of HCC recurrence after DAA therapy for hepatitis C virus (HCV). Methods: A systematic review across PubMed, Scopus and Scholar up to November 2020, including full-text studies that assessed the pattern of HCC recurrence after DAA therapy for HCV. Random-effect meta-analysis and univariable metaregression were applied to obtain pooled estimates for proportions and relative risk (RR) and variables influential for the outcome, respectively. Results: Thirty-one studies with 2957 patients were included. Overall, 30% (CI, 26–34%) of the patients with a history of HCC experienced HCC recurrence after DAA therapy, at mean time intervals ranging from 4 to 21 months. This result increased when going from European studies (23%, CI, 17–28%) to US studies (34%, CI, 30–38%), to Egyptian studies (37%, CI, 27–47%), and to Asian studies (33%, CI, 27–40%). Sixty-eight percent (CI, 45–91%) of recurrent HCCs developed within 6 months of follow-up since DAA treatment, among the eight studies providing stratified data. Among the studies providing head-to-head comparisons, the HCC recurrence risk was significantly lower after DAA therapy than IFN (RR, 0.64; CI, 0.51–0.81), and after DAA therapy than no intervention (RR, 0.68; CI, 0.49–0.94). Conclusions: The recurrence of HCC after DAA is not negligible, being higher soon after the end of treatment and among non-European countries. DAA therapy seems to reduce the risk of HCC recurrence compared to an IFN regimen and no intervention.

Background & aim Although acute lower GI bleeding (LGIB) represents a significant healthcare burden, prospective real-life data on management and outcomes are scanty. Present multicentre, prospective cohort study was aimed at evaluating mortality and associated risk factors and at describing patient management. Methods Adult outpatients acutely admitted for or developing LGIB during hospitalization were consecutively enrolled in 15 high-volume referral centers. Demographics, comorbidities, medications, interventions and outcomes were recorded. Results Overall 1,198 patients (1060 new admissions;138 inpatients) were included. Most patients were elderly (mean-age 74±15 years), 31% had a Charlson-Comorbidity-Index ≥3, 58% were on antithrombotic therapy. In-hospital mortality (primary outcome) was 3.4% (95%CI 2.5–4.6). At logistic regression analysis, independent predictors of mortality were increasing age, comorbidity, inpatient status, hemodynamic instability at presentation, and ICU-admission. Colonoscopy had a 78.8% diagnostic yield, with significantly higher hemostasis rate when performed within 24-hours than later (21.3% vs.10.8%, p = 0.027). Endoscopic hemostasis was associated with neither in-hospital mortality nor rebleeding. A definite or presumptive source of bleeding was disclosed in 90.4% of investigated patients. Conclusion Mortality in LGIB patients is mainly related to age and comorbidities. Although early colonoscopy has a relevant diagnostic yield and is associated with higher therapeutic intervention rate, endoscopic hemostasis is not associated with improved clinical outcomes [ClinicalTrial.gov number: NCT 04364412].

Contains fulltext : 235679.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access) BACKGROUND: One of the aims of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) is to encourage high quality endoscopic research at a European level. In 2016, the ESGE research committee published a set of research priorities. As endoscopic research is flourishing, we aimed to review the literature and determine whether endoscopic research over the last 4 years had managed to address any of our previously published priorities. METHODS: As the previously published priorities were grouped under seven different domains, a working party with at least two European experts was created for each domain to review all the priorities under that domain. A structured review form was developed to standardize the review process. The group conducted an extensive literature search relevant to each of the priorities and then graded the priorities into three categories: (1) no longer a priority (well-designed trial, incorporated in national/international guidelines or adopted in routine clinical practice); (2) remains a priority (i. e. the above criterion was not met); (3) redefine the existing priority (i. e. the priority was too vague with the research question not clearly defined). RESULTS: The previous ESGE research priorities document published in 2016 had 26 research priorities under seven domains. Our review of these priorities has resulted in seven priorities being removed from the list, one priority being partially removed, another seven being redefined to make them more precise, with eleven priorities remaining unchanged. This is a reflection of a rapid surge in endoscopic research, resulting in 27 % of research questions having already been answered and another 27 % requiring redefinition. CONCLUSIONS: Our extensive review process has led to the removal of seven research priorities from the previous (2016) list, leaving 19 research priorities that have been redefined to make them more precise and relevant for researchers and funding bodies to target.

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is a technique allowing efficacious and minimally invasive resection of precancerous lesions across the entire gastrointestinal tract. However, conventional EMR, involving injection of fluid into the submucosal space, is imperfect, given the high rate of recurrence of post-endoscopic resection adenoma, especially after piecemeal resection. In light of these observations, modifications of the technique have been proposed to overcome the weakness of conventional EMR. Some of them were designed to maximize the chance of en bloc resection-cap-assisted EMR, underwater EMR, tip-in EMR, precutting, assisted by ligation device-while others were designed to minimize the complications (cold EMR). In this review, we present their modes of action and summarize the evidence regarding their efficacy and safety.

Background and aims: Adequate bowel cleansing is critical to ensure quality and safety of a colonoscopy. A novel 1-L polyethylene glycol plus ascorbate (1L-PEG+ASC) regimen was previously validated against low-volume regimens but was never compared with high-volume regimens. Methods: In a phase IV study, patients undergoing colonoscopy were randomized 1:1 to receive split-dose 1L PEG+ASC or a split-dose 4-L PEG-based regimen (4L-PEG) in 5 Italian centers. Preparation was assessed with the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) by local endoscopists and centralized reading, both blinded to the randomization arm. The primary endpoint was noninferiority of 1L-PEG+ASC in colon cleansing. Secondary endpoints were superiority of 1L-PEG+ASC, patient compliance, segmental colon cleansing, adenoma detection rate, tolerability, and safety. Results: Three hundred eighty-eight patients (median age, 59.8 years) were randomized between January 2019 and October 2019: 195 to 1L-PEG+ASC and 193 to 4L-PEG. Noninferiority of 1L-PEG+ASC was demonstrated for cleansing in both the entire colon (BBPS≥ 6: 97.9% vs 93%; relative risk [RR], 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.001-1.04; P superiority= .027) and in the right-sided colon segment (98.4% vs 96.0%; RR, 1.02; 95% CI, .99-1.02; P noninferiority= .013). Compliance was higher with 1L-PEG+ASC than with 4L-PEG (178/192 [92.7%] vs 154/190 patients [81.1%]; RR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.05-1.12), whereas no difference was found regarding safety (moderate/severe side effects: 20.8% vs 25.8%; P= .253). No difference in adenoma detection rate (38.8% vs 43.0%) was found. Conclusions: One-liter PEG+ASC showed noninferiority compared with 4L-PEG in achieving adequate colon cleansing and provided a higher patient compliance. No differences in tolerability and safety were detected. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03742232.).

Background and Aims Since 2008, a plethora of research studies has compared the efficacy of water-assisted (aided) colonoscopy (WAC) and underwater resection (UWR) of colorectal lesions with standard colonoscopy. We reviewed and graded the research evidence with potential clinical application. We conducted a modified Delphi consensus among experienced colonoscopists on definitions and practice of water immersion (WI), water exchange (WE), and UWR. Methods Major databases were searched to obtain research reports that could potentially shape clinical practice related to WAC and UWR. Pertinent references were graded (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation). Extracted data supporting evidence-based statements were tabulated and provided to respondents. We received responses from 55 (85% surveyed) experienced colonoscopists (37 experts and 18 nonexperts in WAC) from 16 countries in 3 rounds. Voting was conducted anonymously in the second and third round, with ≥80% agreement defined as consensus. We aimed to obtain consensus in all statements. Results In the first and the second modified Delphi rounds, 20 proposed statements were decreased to 14 and then 11 statements. After the third round, the combined responses from all respondents depicted the consensus in 11 statements (S): definitions of WI (S1) and WE (S2), procedural features (S3-S5), impact on bowel cleanliness (S6), adenoma detection (S7), pain score (S8), and UWR (S9-S11). Conclusions The most important consensus statements are that WI and WE are not the same in implementation and outcomes. Because studies that could potentially shape clinical practice of WAC and UWR were chosen for review, this modified Delphi consensus supports recommendations for the use of WAC in clinical practice.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Efficacy of bowel preparation is an important determinant of outcomes of colonoscopy. It is not clear whether approved low-volume polyethylene glycol (PEG) and non-PEG regimens are as effective as high-volume PEG regimens when taken in a split dose. METHODS: In a systematic review of multiple electronic databases through January 31, 2019 with a registered protocol (PROSPERO: CRD42019128067), we identified randomized controlled trials that compared low- vs high-volume bowel cleansing regimens, administered in a split dose, for colonoscopy. The primary efficacy outcome was rate of adequate bowel cleansing, and the secondary efficacy outcome was adenoma detection rate. Primary tolerability outcomes were compliance, tolerability, and willingness to repeat. We calculated relative risk (RR) and 95% CI values and assessed heterogeneity among studies by using the I2 statistic. The overall quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE framework. RESULTS: In an analysis of data from 17 randomized controlled trials, comprising 7528 patients, we found no significant differences in adequacy of bowel cleansing between the low- vs high-volume split-dose regimens (86.1% vs 87.4%; RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.98-1.02) and there was minimal heterogeneity (I2 = 17%). There was no significant difference in adenoma detection rate (RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.87-1.08) among 4 randomized controlled trials. Compared with high-volume, split-dose regimens, low-volume split-dose regimens had higher odds for compliance or completion (RR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.02-1.10), tolerability (RR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.12-1.74), and willingness to repeat bowel preparation (RR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.20-1.66). The overall quality of evidence was moderate. CONCLUSIONS: Based on a systematic review of 17 randomized controlled trials, low-volume, split-dose regimens appear to be as effective as high-volume, split-dose regimens in bowel cleansing and are better tolerated, with superior compliance. ispartof: CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY vol:18 issue:7 pages:1454-+ ispartof: location:United States status: published

ERCP training remains a sensitive issue, with current data showing that traditional training methods, based on a hands-on, master-disciple paradigm, fall short of producing competent trainees. We aimed to evaluate whether a novel approach to training might improve the learning curve for novice endoscopists training in ERCP. We conducted a multicenter randomized control trial, using a validated mechanical simulator(the Boskoski-Costamagna trainer). Trainees with no experience in ERCP were either asigned to a group undergoing standard cannulation training or a group undergoing “motion-training”, which implied performing familiar motor functions such as writing and drawing, using instruments previously unfamiliar to the trainee(e.g. duodenoscope and dedicated ERCP catheters), before undergoing standard cannulation training. All trainees were timed and graded on their performance in selective cannulation of 4 different papilla configurations, with the aid of a validated score (TEESAT). 30 trainees(13 E-motion group, 17 standard group) each performed 20 timed- cannulation attempts, for a total of 600 procedures. Successful cannulation of the bile duct was achieved in 582/600 attempts(97%), with no significant difference between the two study groups(96.2 vs. 97.6%, p=0.33). Trainees in the E-motion group had significantly lower median cannulation times compared to trainees in the standard group (35 vs 44 seconds, p=0.036). On subgroup analysis, this difference was only statistically significant in terms of the first 20 attempts(papilla type 1), with further timed cannulation attempts not differing significantly between the study groups. The overall performance assessment by the supervisor using the TEESAT score showed similar results between the two study groups (p=0.559) We concluded that “motion training” had a positive impact on cannulation time during the first stages of the training, thus having the potential to improve training in ERCP. Future studies need to establish its usefulness in supplementing current training programmes.

Endoscopic papillectomy (EP) is a viable therapy in ampullary lesions (AL). Many series have reported low morbidity and acceptable outcomes. We performed a systematic review with pooled analysis to assess the safety and efficacy of EP for AL. Electronic databases (Medline, Scopus and EMBASE) were searched up to September 2018. Studies that included patients with endoscopically resected AL were eligible. The rate of adverse events (AEs; primary outcome) and the rates of both technical and clinical efficacy outcomes were pooled by means of a random- or fixed-effects model to obtain a proportion with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Twenty-nine studies were included (1751 patients). The overall AE rate was 24.9%. The post-procedural pancreatitis rate was 11.9%, with the only factor affecting this outcome being prophylactic pancreatic stenting. The complete resection rate was 94.2%, with a rate of oncologically curative resection of 87.1%. The recurrence rate was 11.8% (follow-up: 9.6–84.5 months). EP is a relatively safe and effective option for AL. Our study might definitively suggest the protective role of prophylactic pancreatic stenting against post-procedural pancreatitis.

Background In Italy, the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic has stressed the entire healthcare system and required a huge re-organization of many Divisions, including those of Gastroenterology. Aims to assess the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on Gastroenterology Divisions across Italy. Methods All members of the Italian Society of Gastroenterology (SIGE) were invited to answer a web-based survey. Results Data of 121 hospitals from all 20 Italian regions were analyzed. Overall, 10.7% Gastroenterology Divisions have been converted to Covid Units. Outpatients consultations, endoscopic and ultrasound procedures were limited to urgencies and oncology indications in 85.1%, 96.2% and 72.2% of Units, respectively, and 46.7% of them suspended the screening for colorectal cancer. Moreover, 72.2% of the staff received a training for use of personal protective equipment, although 45.5% did not have sufficient devices for adequate replacement. Overall, 132 healthcare workers in 41 Gastroenterology Divisions were found to be infected. Conclusion This is the first study to evaluate, at a country level, the impact of COVID-19 outbreak on Gastroenterology Divisions. Substantial changes of practice and reduction of procedures have been recorded in the entire country. The long-term impact of such modifications is difficult to estimate but potentially very risky for many digestive diseases.