Search

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common cancers worldwide and its global incidence is rapidly increasing among adults younger than 50 years, especially in the 20-39 age group. Once a curative resection is achieved, surveillance is mandatory. Colonoscopy has a pivotal role aimed at resecting pre-malignant neoplasms and detecting cancer at a curable stage. In the current review, an update on the role of surveillance colonoscopy after CRC is provided, taken into account the most recent international guidelines and evidence published on this issue. In particular, several questions have been answered, why, how and how often colonoscopy should be performed, whether intensive surveillance is more effective than standard surveillance, how endoscopically resected T1 cancer should be followed, the different management existing between colon and rectal cancer, and, finally, how to improve the endoscopic surveillance. In a period of resource constraints, appropriateness will be mandatory, thus understanding how to optimize the role of colonoscopy in the surveillance of patients with a history of CRC is of crucial importance. Improving the quality of colonoscopy and identifying risk factors for recurrent and new-onset CRC, will allow us to individualize the surveillance program while sparing health care cost.

In Portugal, a colorectal cancer screening program based on faecal immunochemical test followed by colonoscopy was shown to be cost-effective for individuals between 50 and 74 years old. We report the first findings of the implementation of a population-based program In Northern Portugal.In the pilot phase, eligible subjects were allocated either to a direct mailing invitation or to primary care centers. In the first year of program implementation, we assessed the uptake rate, the faecal immunochemical test -positivity rate, the diagnostic yield of advanced neoplasia, and the quality parameters for post-faecal immunochemical test + colonoscopy.We invited 100 501 eligible subjects (49% male with a median age of 55 years). Of these, 5228 participated in the pilot phase and 95 273 participated in the first year of the program. In the first year of the program, the adherence was 29%, with a positivity rate of 5% and a 60% compliance to colonoscopy. The faecal immunochemical test-detection rate of advanced neoplasia was 0.35/1000 subjects, and the positive predictive value at post- faecal immunochemical test + colonoscopy was 44% and 2% for advanced adenoma and invasive cancer, respectively. No major adverse events were reported after colonoscopy.The suboptimal adherence to faecal immunochemical test and post-faecal immunochemical test + colonoscopy remains the most urgent step to be addressed.A centralized invitation system based on direct mailing was feasible and both colonoscopy quality and diagnostic yield were adequate antecipating the success of the programme.Introdução: Em Portugal, foi demonstrado que o rastreio do cancro colo-rectal, baseado no teste imunoquímico fecal seguido de colonoscopia, seria custo-efetivo para indivíduos entre os 50 e 74 anos. Neste artigo reportamos os primeiros resultados da implementação do programa de base populacional na região Norte de Portugal. Material e Métodos: Na fase piloto, os sujeitos elegíveis foram alocados a dois métodos, por convite através do correio ou por meio de entrega direta nos centros de saúde. No primeiro ano de implementação do programa avaliámos a taxa de adesão, a taxa de positividade de teste imunoquímico fecal, o rendimento diagnóstico de neoplasia avançada e os parâmetros de qualidade da colonoscopia pós- teste imunoquímico fecal positivo. Resultados: Foram convidados 100 501 indivíduos elegíveis (49% do sexo masculino com idade mediana de 55 anos). Destes, 5228 participaram na fase piloto e 95 273 participaram no primeiro ano do programa. No primeiro ano do programa, a adesão foi de 29%, com taxa de positividade de 5% e adesão de 60% às colonoscopias. A taxa de deteção de teste imunoquímico fecal de neoplasia avançada foi de 0,35/1000 indivíduos, e o valor preditivo positivo na colonoscopia pós-teste imunoquímico fecal positivo foi de 44% e 2% para adenoma avançado e cancro invasivo, respetivamente. Não foi relatado nenhum evento adverso após colonoscopia. Discussão: A adesão subótima a teste imunoquímico fecal e colonoscopia pós-teste imunoquímico fecal continua a ser a etapa mais problemática. Conclusão: Um sistema de convite centralizado foi viável, a qualidade das colonoscopias realizadas e o rendimento diagnóstico adequados antecipando o sucesso do programa.

Summary Background Computer-aided detection (CADe) techniques based on artificial intelligence algorithms can assist endoscopists in detecting colorectal neoplasia. CADe has been associated with an increased adenoma detection rate, a key quality indicator, but the utility of CADe compared with existing advanced imaging techniques and distal attachment devices is unclear. Methods For this systematic review and network meta-analysis, we did a comprehensive search of PubMed/Medline, Embase, and Scopus databases from inception to Nov 30, 2020, for randomised controlled trials investigating the effectiveness of the following endoscopic techniques in detecting colorectal neoplasia: CADe, high definition (HD) white-light endoscopy, chromoendoscopy, or add-on devices (ie, systems that increase mucosal visualisation, such as full spectrum endoscopy [FUSE] or G-EYE balloon endoscopy). We collected data on adenoma detection rates, sessile serrated lesion detection rates, the proportion of large adenomas detected per colonoscopy, and withdrawal times. A frequentist framework, random-effects network meta-analysis was done to compare artificial intelligence with chromoendoscopy, increased mucosal visualisation systems, and HD white-light endoscopy (the control group). We estimated odds ratios (ORs) for the adenoma detection rate, sessile serrated lesion detection rate, and proportion of large adenomas detected per colonoscopy, and calculated mean differences for withdrawal time, with 95% CIs. Risk of bias and certainty of evidence were assessed with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Findings 50 randomised controlled trials, comprising 34 445 participants, were included in our main analysis (six trials of CADe, 18 of chromoendoscopy, and 26 of increased mucosal visualisation systems). HD white-light endoscopy was the control technique in all 50 studies. Compared with the control technique, the adenoma detection rate was 7·4% higher with CADe (OR 1·78 [95% CI 1·44–2·18]), 4·4% higher with chromoendoscopy (1·22 [1·08–1·39]), and 4·1% higher with increased mucosal visualisation systems (1·16 [1·04–1·28]). CADe ranked as the superior technique for adenoma detection (with moderate confidence in hierarchical ranking); cross-comparisons of CADe with other imaging techniques showed a significant increase in the adenoma detection rate with CADe versus increased mucosal visualisation systems (OR 1·54 [95% CI 1·22–1·94]; low certainty of evidence) and with CADe versus chromoendoscopy (1·45 [1·14–1·85]; moderate certainty of evidence). When focusing on large adenomas (≥10 mm) there was a significant increase in the detection of large adenomas only with CADe (OR 1·69 [95% CI 1·10–2·60], moderate certainty of evidence) when compared to HD white-light endoscopy; CADe ranked as the superior strategy for detection of large adenomas. CADe also seemed to be the superior strategy for detection of sessile serrated lesions (with moderate confidence in hierarchical ranking), although no significant increase in the sessile serrated lesion detection rate was shown (OR 1·37 [95% CI 0·65–2·88]). No significant difference in withdrawal time was reported for CADe compared with the other techniques. Interpretation Based on the published literature, detection rates of colorectal neoplasia are higher with CADe than with other techniques such as chromoendoscopy or tools that increase mucosal visualisation, supporting wider incorporation of CADe strategies into community endoscopy services. Funding None.

Please see the Editorial Comment by Jacob Sosna discussing this article. BACKGROUND. Noninvasive tests for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and prevention limit the need for invasive colonoscopy t...

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.

Background Patients with prior colon cancer have increased risk of metachronous colorectal neoplasms; therefore, endoscopic surveillance is indicated. Current recommendations are not risk-stratified. We investigated predictive factors for colorectal neoplasms to build a model to spare colonoscopies for low-risk patients. Methods This was a multicenter, retrospective study including patients who underwent surgery for colon cancer in 2001 – 2008 (derivation cohort) and 2009 – 2013 (validation cohort). A predictive model for neoplasm occurrence at second surveillance colonoscopy was developed and validated. Results 421 and 203 patients were included in derivation and validation cohort, respectively. At second surveillance colonoscopy, 112 (26.6 %) and 55 (27.1 %) patients had metachronous neoplasms in derivation and validation groups; three cancers were detected in the latter. History of left-sided colon cancer (OR 1.64, 95 %CI 1.02 – 2.64), ≥ 1 advanced adenoma at index colonoscopy (OR 1.90, 95 %CI 1.05 – 3.43), and ≥ 1 adenoma at first surveillance colonoscopy (OR 2.06, 95 %CI 1.29 – 3.27) were independently predictive of metachronous colorectal neoplasms at second surveillance colonoscopy. For patients without such risk factors, diagnostic accuracy parameters were: 89.3 % (95 %CI 82.0 %-94.3 %) and 78.2 % (95 %CI 65.0 %-88.2 %) sensitivity, and 28.5 % (95 %CI 23.5 %-33.9 %) and 33.8 % (95 %CI 26.2 %-42.0 %) specificity in derivation and validation group, respectively. No cancer would be missed. Conclusions Patients with prior left-sided colon cancer or ≥ 1 advanced adenoma at index colonoscopy or ≥ 1 adenoma at first surveillance colonoscopy had a significantly higher risk of neoplasms at second surveillance colonoscopy; patients without such factors had much lower risk and could safely skip the second surveillance colonoscopy. A prospective, multicenter validation study is needed.

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

Background and study aims Sessile serrated lesion (SSL) detection rate has been variably reported and unlike adenoma detection rate (ADR) is not currently a quality indicator for screening colonoscopy. Composite detection rates of SSL in patients undergoing average risk screening colonoscopy are not available. Methods Electronic database search (Medline, Embase and Cochrane) was conducted for studies reporting detection rates of serrated polyps (SSL, Hyperplastic polyp, traditional serrated adenoma) among average risk subjects undergoing screening colonoscopy. Primary outcomes were pooled SDR (SSL detection rate) and proximal serrated polyp detection rate (PSPDR). Pooled proportion rates were calculated with 95 %CI with assessment of heterogeneity (I2). Publication bias, regression test and 95 %prediction interval were calculated. Results A total of 280,370 screening colonoscopies among average risk subjects that were eligible with 48.9 % males and an average age of 58.7 years (± 3.2). The pooled SDR was available from 16 studies: 2.5 % (1.8 %–3.4 %) with significant heterogeneity (I2 = 98.66 %) and the 95 % prediction interval ranging from 0.6 % to 9.89 %. When analysis was restricted to large (n > 1000) and prospective studies (n = 4), SDR was 2 % (1.1 %–3.3 %). Pooled PSPDR was 10 % (8.5 %–11.8 %; 12 studies). There was evidence of publication bias (P Conclusion Definitions of SSL have been varying over years and there exists significant heterogeneity in prevalence reporting of serrated polyps during screening colonoscopy. Prevalence rate of 2 % for SSL and 10 % for proximal serrated polyps could serve as targets while robust high-quality data is awaited to find a future benchmark showing reduction in colorectal cancer arising from serrated pathway.

Background The Endocuff Vision device (Arc Medical Design Ltd., Leeds, UK) has been shown to increase mucosal exposure, and consequently adenoma detection rate (ADR), during colonoscopy. This nationwide multicenter study assessed possible benefits and harms of using Endocuff Vision in a fecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based screening program. Methods Patients undergoing colonoscopy after a FIT-positive test were randomized 1:1 to undergo Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy or standard colonoscopy, stratified by sex, age, and screening history. Primary outcome was ADR. Secondary outcomes were ADR stratified by endoscopists’ ADR, advanced ADR (AADR), adenomas per colonoscopy (APC), withdrawal time, and adverse events. Results 1866 patients were enrolled across 13 centers. After exclusions, 1813 (mean age 60.1 years; male 53.8 %) were randomized (908 Endocuff Vision, 905 standard colonoscopy). ADR was significantly higher in the Endocuff Vision arm (47.8 % vs. 40.8 %; relative risk [RR] 1.17, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.06–1.30), with no differences between arms regarding size or morphology. When stratifying for endoscopists’ ADR, only low detectors (ADR Conclusion Endocuff Vision increased ADR in a FIT-based screening program by improving examination of the whole colonic mucosa. Utility was highest among endoscopists with a low ADR.

Artificial intelligence has been portrayed as a silver bullet for a number of challenges encountered in gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy and beyond. Intense research, commercial and media focus have led to the publication of studies with modest patient numbers and comparatively simple technology. There is no doubt that machine learning (ML) will be a determining medical development for the years to come. However, now that the dust has begun to settle, we are at a critical juncture where the focus is shifting from preclinical work toward the role of ML in clinical practice. Current issues relate to the evaluation and testing of AI and ML systems, especially regarding patient outcomes, and to regulatory issues surrounding implementation. Many of these aspects pertain to one overarching question: how can we ensure that preclinical results translate into trustworthy clinical reality? For the endoscopist, whether as a reader, a reviewer or a potential user of AI, it becomes increasingly important to understand the technical aspects of the systems and their performance measurements in order to realistically assess their practical value. Therefore, with GI endoscopy ML at the jump-off point from proof-of-principle studies1–7 to clinical trials8–12, van der Sommen et al provided us with an accessible guide to understand, assess and critically review the current ML endoscopy literature.13 Our commentary highlights selected aspects of this review and AI as a whole and elaborates on the role of the GI endoscopy community and how it may both experience and frame the way ahead. In particular, we advocate a close collaboration of technology scientists and clinicians from early development phases onward to allow for the development of well-tailored AI algorithms and realistic preclinical testing. More transparency is needed with respect to the training data and the algorithm development process. In addition, in the legislative …

Introduction Primary colonoscopy and fecal immunochemical test (FIT) are the most commonly used colorectal cancer (CRC) screening modalities. Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) might be an alternative. Data on the performance of CCE as a CRC screening tool in a screening population remain scarce. This is the first systematic review to provide an overview of the applicability of CCE as a CRC screening tool. Methods A systematic search was conducted of literature published up to September 2020. Studies reporting on CRC screening by second-generation CCE in an average-risk screening population were included. Results 582 studies were identified and 13 were included, comprising 2485 patients. Eight studies used CCE as a filter test after a positive FIT result and five studies used CCE for primary screening. The polyp detection rate of CCE was 24 % – 74 %. For polyps > 6 mm, sensitivity of CCE was 79 % – 96 % and specificity was 66 % – 97 %. For polyps ≥ 10 mm, sensitivity of CCE was 84 % – 97 %, which was superior to computed tomographic colonography (CTC). The CRC detection rate for completed CCEs was 93 % (25/27). Bowel preparation was adequate in 70 % – 92 % of examinations, and completion rates varied from 57 % to 92 %, depending on the booster used. No CCE-related complications were described. Conclusion CCE appeared to be a safe and effective tool for the detection of CRC and polyps in a screening setting. Accuracy was comparable to colonoscopy and superior to CTC, making CCE a good alternative to colonoscopy in CRC screening programs, although completion rates require improvement.

Main recommendations1. ESGE/ESGAR recommend computed tomographic colonography (CTC) as the radiological examination of choice for the diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. ESGE/ESGAR do not recommend barium enema in this setting. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.2. ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC, preferably the same or next day, if colonoscopy is incomplete. The timing depends on an interdisciplinary decision including endoscopic and radiological factors. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. ESGE/ESGAR suggests that, in centers with expertise in and availability of colon capsule endoscopy (CCE), CCE preferably the same or the next day may be considered if colonoscopy is incomplete. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.3. When colonoscopy is contraindicated or not possible, ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an acceptable and equally sensitive alternative for patients with alarm symptoms. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. Because of lack of direct evidence, ESGE/ESGAR do not recommend CCE in this situation. Very low quality evidence. ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an acceptable alternative to colonoscopy for patients with non-alarm symptoms. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. In centers with availability, ESGE/ESGAR suggests that CCE may be considered in patients with non-alarm symptoms. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.4. Where there is no organized fecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based population colorectal screening program, ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an option for colorectal cancer screening, providing the screenee is adequately informed about test characteristics, benefits, and risks, and depending on local service- and patient-related factors. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. ESGE/ESGAR do not suggest CCE as a first-line screening test for colorectal cancer. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.5. ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC in the case of a positive fecal occult blood test (FOBT) or FIT with incomplete or unfeasible colonoscopy, within organized population screening programs. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. ESGE/ESGAR also suggest the use of CCE in this setting based on availability. Weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence.6. ESGE/ESGAR suggest CTC with intravenous contrast medium injection for surveillance after curative-intent resection of colorectal cancer only in patients in whom colonoscopy is contraindicated or unfeasible. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. There is insufficient evidence to recommend CCE in this setting. Very low quality evidence.7. ESGE/ESGAR suggest CTC in patients with high risk polyps undergoing surveillance after polypectomy only when colonoscopy is unfeasible. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. There is insufficient evidence to recommend CCE in post-polypectomy surveillance. Very low quality evidence.8. ESGE/ESGAR recommend against CTC in patients with acute colonic inflammation and in those who have recently undergone colorectal surgery, pending a multidisciplinary evaluation. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 9. ESGE/ESGAR recommend referral for endoscopic polypectomy in patients with at least one polyp >= 6 mm detected at CTC or CCE. Follow-up CTC may be clinically considered for 6-9-mm CTC-detected lesions if patients do not undergo polypectomy because of patient choice, comorbidity, and/or low risk profile for advanced neoplasia. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.Source and scopeThis is an update of the 2014-15 Guideline of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and the European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR). It addresses the clinical indications for the use of imaging alternatives to standard colonoscopy. A targeted literature search was performed to evaluate the evidence supporting the use of computed tomographic colonography (CTC) or colon capsule endoscopy (CCE). The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system was adopted to define the strength of recommendations and the quality of evidence.

Background Inpatients are at risk for inadequate colon cleansing. Experts recommend 4L-polyethylene-glycol (PEG) solution. A higher colon cleansing adequacy rate for a hyperosmolar 1L-PEG plus ascorbate prep has been recently reported. Aims We aimed to determine whether 1L-PEG outperforms 4L-PEG among inpatients. Methods post-hoc analysis of a large Italian multicenter prospective observational study among inpatients (QIPS study). We performed a propensity score matching between 1L-PEG and 4L-PEG group. The primary outcome was the rate of adequate colon cleansing as assessed by unblinded endoscopists through Boston scale. Secondary outcome was the safety profile. Results Among 1,004 patients undergoing colonoscopy, 724 (72%) were prescribed 4L-PEG and 280 (28%) 1L-PEG. The overall adequate colon cleansing rate was 69.2% (n = 695). We matched 274 pairs of patients with similar distribution of confounders. The rate of patients with adequate colon cleansing was higher in 1L-PEG than in 4L-PEG group (84.3% vs. 77.4%, p = 0.039). No different shift in serum concentration of electrolytes (namely Na+, K+, Ca2+), creatinine and hematocrit were observed for both preparations. Conclusion We found a higher rate of adequate colon cleansing for colonoscopy with the 1L-PEG bowel prep vs. 4L-PEG, with apparent similar safety profile, among inpatients. A confirmatory randomized trial is needed. (ClinicalTrials.gov no: NCT04310332)

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.

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society (JGES) give no specific recommendations on the best treatment for colorectal neoplasia involving the dental line (DLCN).Aim of this study was to analyse efficacy and safety of Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection in the treatment of colorectal neoplasia involving the dentate line (DLCN) compared to non-DLCN.Retrospective study.We retrospectively evaluated all consecutive patients undergoing ESD for rectal neoplasia at two endoscopical tertiary referral centers (Italy and Japan) from January 2008 to December 2019.Anthropometric, clinical, procedural, and follow-up data was collected, analysed, and compared between patients with DLCN and patients with non-DLCN.Overall, 314 patients were enrolled (163 female, 51.9%). Mean age was 68 years (range, 32-92 years). En-bloc resection was achieved in 311/314 (99%) patients. Lesion size was higher in DLCN group than in the non-DLCN group (46.1 vs 38.9 mm;Retrospective study design.ESD seems to be safe and effective in the treatment of colorectal neoplasia involving the dentate line and can be considered the best therapeutic strategy.

Several studies have shown a significant adenoma miss rate up to 35% during screening colonoscopy, especially in patients with diminutive adenomas. The use of artificial intelligence (AI) in colonoscopy has been gaining popularity by helping endoscopists in polyp detection, with the aim to increase their adenoma detection rate (ADR) and polyp detection rate (PDR) in order to reduce the incidence of interval cancers. The efficacy of deep convolutional neural network (DCNN)-based AI system for polyp detection has been trained and tested in ex vivo settings such as colonoscopy still images or videos. Recent trials have evaluated the real-time efficacy of DCNN-based systems showing promising results in term of improved ADR and PDR. In this review we reported data from the preliminary ex vivo experiences and summarized the results of the initial randomized controlled trials.

Introduction We aimed to report the impact of the pandemic lockdown period on the treatment and prognosis of superficial gastrointestinal neoplastic lesions. Methods A survey was completed by 11 centers from four continents regarding postponements during the early lockdown period of the pandemic, and the same period in 2019. Results In 2020, 55 % of the scheduled procedures were deferred, which was 11 times higher than in 2019; the main reasons were directly related to COVID-19. In countries that were highly affected, this proportion rose to 76 % vs. 26 % in those where there was less impact. Despite the absolute reduction, the relative distribution in 2019 vs. 2020 was similar, the only exception being duodenal lesions (affected by a 92 % reduction in mucosectomies). Although it is expected that the majority of postponements will not affect the stage (based on the results from biopsies and/or endoscopic appearance), 3 % of delayed procedures will probably require surgery. Conclusions The lockdown period caused by the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic led to a substantial reduction in the number of endoscopic resections for neoplastic lesions. Nevertheless, based on clinical judgment, the planned median delay will not worsen the prognosis of the affected patients.

Main RecommendationsThe following recommendations for post-polypectomy colonoscopic surveillance apply to all patients who had one or more polyps that were completely removed during a high quality baseline colonoscopy. 1 ESGE recommends that patients with complete removal of 1 – 4 Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.If organized screening is not available, repetition of colonoscopy 10 years after the index procedure is recommended.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 2 ESGE recommends surveillance colonoscopy after 3 years for patients with complete removal of at least 1 adenoma ≥ 10 mm or with high grade dysplasia, or ≥ 5 adenomas, or any serrated polyp ≥ 10 mm or with dysplasia. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 3 ESGE recommends a 3 – 6-month early repeat colonoscopy following piecemeal endoscopic resection of polyps ≥ 20 mm.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. A first surveillance colonoscopy 12 months after the repeat colonoscopy is recommended to detect late recurrence.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 4 If no polyps requiring surveillance are detected at the first surveillance colonoscopy, ESGE suggests to perform a second surveillance colonoscopy after 5 years. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.After that, if no polyps requiring surveillance are detected, patients can be returned to screening. 5 ESGE suggests that, if polyps requiring surveillance are detected at first or subsequent surveillance examinations, surveillance colonoscopy may be performed at 3 years. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.A flowchart showing the recommended surveillance intervals is provided (Fig. 1).

Background Post-colonoscopy adverse events are a key quality indicator in population-based colorectal cancer screening programs, and affect safety and costs. This study aimed to assess colonoscopy-related adverse events and mortality in a screening setting. Methods We retrieved data from patients undergoing colonoscopy within a screening program (fecal immunochemical test every 2 years, 50–69-year-olds, or post-polypectomy surveillance) in Italy between 2002 and 2014, to assess the rate of post-colonoscopy adverse events and mortality. Any admission within 30 days of screening colonoscopy was reviewed to capture possible events. Mortality registries were also matched with endoscopy databases to investigate 30-day post-colonoscopy mortality. Association of each outcome with patient-/procedure-related variables was assessed using multivariable analysis. Results Overall, 117 881 screening colonoscopies (66 584, 56.5 %, with polypectomy) were included. Overall, 497 (0.42 %) post-colonoscopy adverse events occurred: 281 (0.24 %) bleedings (3.69‰/0.68‰, operative/diagnostic procedures) and 65 (0.06 %) perforations (0.75‰/0.29‰, respectively). At multivariable analysis, bleeding was associated with polyp size (≥ 20 mm: odds ratio [OR] 16.29, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 9.38–28.29), proximal location (OR 1.46, 95 %CI 1.14–1.87), and histology severity (high risk adenoma: OR 5.6, 95 %CI 2.43–12.91), while perforation was associated with endoscopic resection (OR 2.91, 95 %CI 1.62–5.22), polyp size (OR 4.34, 95 %CI 1.46–12.92), and proximal location (OR 1.94, 95 %CI 1.12–3.37). Post-colonoscopy mortality occurred in 15 /117 881 cases (1.27/10 000 colonoscopies). Conclusions In an organized screening program, post-colonoscopy adverse events were rare but not negligible. The most frequent event was post-polypectomy bleeding, especially after resection of large (≥ 20 mm) and proximal lesions.

Background Several scientific societies have endorsed non-anesthesiologist sedation (NAS) during gastrointestinal endoscopy, considering it a safe procedure when administered by adequately trained personnel. This study aimed to evaluate the occurrence of adverse events after implementation of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates (ESGENA) sedation training program. Methods From January 2017 to August 2018, data from all consecutive endoscopic procedures in adults (≥ 18 years) performed at our endoscopy unit were collected using an electronic reporting system. Results All staff (physicians and nurses) completed the ESGE-ESGENA sedation course. In total, 12 132 patients underwent endoscopic procedures, 10 755 (88.6 %) of which were performed in a non-anesthesiological setting. Of these, about 20 % used moderate sedation with midazolam + fentanyl and 80 % used deep sedation with additional propofol. No sentinel, 5 (0.05 %) moderate risk, and 18 (0.17 %) minor risk adverse events occurred, all during moderate or deep sedation, and all managed by endoscopy staff without the need for anesthesiologist assistance. Conclusions After completing the ESGE-ESGENA sedation training program, the rate of adverse events was very low in our institution. The findings support implementation of the program in all digestive endoscopy units and inclusion in the curriculum for physicians and nurses to ensure safe endoscopic procedures.

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.

Summary of statementsIn Europe at present, but also in 2040, 1 in 3 cancer-related deaths are expected to be caused by digestive cancers. Endoscopic technologies enable diagnosis, with relatively low invasiveness, of precancerous conditions and early cancers, thereby improving patient survival. Overall, endoscopy capacity must be adjusted to facilitate both effective screening programs and rigorous control of the quality assurance and surveillance systems required. 1 For average-risk populations, ESGE recommends the implementation of organized population-based screening programs for colorectal cancer, based on fecal immunochemical testing (FIT), targeting individuals, irrespective of gender, aged between 50 and 75 years. Depending on local factors, namely the adherence of the target population and availability of endoscopy services, primary screening by colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy may also be recommendable. 2 In high-risk populations, endoscopic screening for gastric cancer should be considered for individuals aged more than 40 years. Its use in countries/regions with intermediate risk may be considered on the basis of local settings and availability of endoscopic resources. 3 For esophageal and pancreatic cancer, endoscopic screening may be considered only in high-risk individuals:– For squamous cell carcinoma, in those with a personal history of head/neck cancer, achalasia, or previous caustic injury; – For Barrett’s esophagus (BE)-associated adenocarcinoma, in those with long-standing gastroesophageal reflux disease symptoms (i. e., > 5 years) and multiple risk factors (age ≥ 50 years, white race, male sex, obesity, first-degree relative with BE or esophageal adenocarcinoma [EAC]). – For pancreatic cancer screening, endoscopic ultrasound may be used in selected high-risk patients such as those with a strong family history and/or genetic susceptibility.

Item does not contain fulltext

Background and study aims The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) recently issued a quality performance measures document for small bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE). The aim of this nationwide survey was to explore SBCE practice with ESGE quality measures as a benchmark.Patients and methods A dedicated per-center semi-quantitative questionnaire based on ESGE performance measures for SBCE was created by a group of SBCE experts. One-hundred-eighty-one centers were invited to participate and were asked to calculate performance measures for SBCE performed in 2018. Data were compared with 10 ESGE quality standards for both key and minor performance measures.Results Ninety-one centers (50.3 %) participated in the data collection. Overall in the last 5 years (2014–2018), 26,615 SBCEs were performed, 5917 of which were done in 2018. Eighty percent or more of the participating centers reached the minimum standard established by the ESGE Small Bowel Working Group (ESBWG) for four performance measures (indications for SBCE, complete small bowel evaluation, diagnostic yield and retention rate). Conversely, compliance with six minimum standards established by ESBWG concerning adequate bowel preparation, patient selection, timing of SBCE in overt bleeding, appropriate reporting, reading protocols and referral to device-assisted enteroscopy was met by only 15.5 %, 10.9 %, 31.1 %, 67.7 %, 53.4 %, and 32.2 % of centers, respectively.Conclusions The present survey shows significant variability across SBCE centers; only four (4/10: 40 %) SBCE procedural minimum standards were met by a relevant proportion of the centers ( ≥ 80 %). Our data should help in identifying target areas for quality improvement programs in SBCE.

Background: The serrated pathway for colorectal cancer (CRC) development is increasingly recognized. Patients with sessile serrated lesions (SSLs) that are large (≥10 mm) and/or have dysplasia (i.e., high-risk SSLs) are at higher risk of progression to CRC. Detection of SSLs is challenging given their predominantly flat and right-sided location. The yield of non-invasive screening tests for detection of high-risk SSLs is unclear. Objective: The aim of this study was to compare non-invasive screen detection of high-risk SSLs between the multi-target stool DNA test (mt-sDNA; Cologuard) and CT colonography (CTC). Methods: This retrospective study included 7974 asymptomatic adults (4705 women, 3269 men; mean age 60.0 years) who underwent CRC screening at a single center by mt-sDNA (Cologuard) from 2014-2019 (n=3987) or by CTC from 2009-2019 (n=3987). Clinical interpretations of CTC examinations were recorded. Subsequent colonoscopy findings and histology of resected polyps were also recorded. Chi-square or two-sample t tests were used to compare results between mt-sDNA and CTC using 6-mm and 10-mm thresholds for test positivity. Results: The overall colonoscopy referral rate for a positive screening test was 13.1% (522/3987) for mt-sDNA versus 12.2% (487/3987; p=.23) and 6.5% (260/3987; p

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.

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) is dedicated to improving the quality of gastrointestinal endoscopy, including through educational activities such as live endoscopy events (LEEs). The primary goal of LEEs should be to facilitate the improvement of endoscopic patient care through the acquisition of best endoscopic practice. Patients should not expect additional benefit from being treated during a LEE compared to a routine setting. There is limited available evidence on LEE safety but to date there is no indication that patients are at increased risk from participation. Pre-recorded cases with live facilitation can also be used to fulfill learning outcomes. Establishing an endoscopic curriculum with clear learning outcomes is important to structure attendees’ learning, assess course outcomes, and allow appropriate targeting of courses to learner experience. Increasingly, LEEs are streamed online and therefore the necessary measures should be taken to ensure that patients have given appropriate consent and that their anonymity has been safeguarded. ESGE recommends that an endoscopist who is not participating in the live demonstrations is named as patient advocate, and that patient safety should must be prioritized throughout. In all ESGE-organized LEEs the intended learning outcomes, procedural indications and descriptions, attendee feedback, and adverse events should be recorded and submitted in a post-event report to ESGE.

The impact of virtual chromoendoscopy such as narrow-band imaging, Fujinon intelligent chromoendoscopy, blue-light imaging, linked-color imaging, and i-SCAN on adenoma detection rate has been variable. However, adenoma miss rate (another measure suggested as a quality indicator) of electronic chromoendoscopy modalities has not been systematically evaluated.This study aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the adenoma miss rate of white-light endoscopy compared with electronic chromoendoscopy.Medline, Embase, Scopus, Web of Knowledge, and Cochrane were the data sources for this study.The studies selected were tandem randomized controlled trials of electronic chromoendoscopy modalities compared with white-light endoscopy.Electronic chromoendoscopy compared with white light endoscopy was used to measure the adenoma miss rate.Primary outcome was the pooled adenoma miss rate of electronic chromoendoscopy techniques compared with white-light endoscopy. Secondary outcomes were subgroup analysis, adenoma size analysis, and adenoma detection rate.A total of 3507 patients were evaluated from 7 eligible tandem randomized control trials. A total of 1423 patients had white-light endoscopy as the first of the tandem examinations. The rest of the patients had electronic chromoendoscopy as the first of the tandem examination (narrow-band imaging, 988 patients; Fujinon intelligent chromoendoscopy, 728 patients; i-SCAN, 233 patients; blue-light imaging, 64 patients; and linked-color imaging, 71 patients). The pooled adenoma miss rate for electronic chromoendoscopy was not different than white-light endoscopy (17.9% vs 21%; OR, 0.72 (0.67-1.11); I 67%; p = 0.13). When only narrow-band imaging, blue-light imaging, and linked-color imaging were considered, the pooled rate was statistically significant (OR, 0.60 (0.37-0.98); p = 0.04). The pooled adenoma detection rate was not statistically different with electronic chromoendoscopy than white-light endoscopy (OR, 1.02 (0.88-1.19); p = 0.78).The small number of studies to assess the impact of each modality limited stratified conclusions.Electronic chromoendoscopy is not associated with a significant reduction in adenoma miss rate compared with white-light colonoscopy.

Background The over-the-scope clip (OTSC) has been increasingly utilized for the management of gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. Limited efficacy data are currently available from large-scale studies. Methods An electronic database search was conducted for eligible articles using OTSCs for hemostasis in GI bleeding. The primary outcome was the rate of definitive hemostasis after primary hemostasis and without rebleeding at follow-up. Secondary outcomes were: primary technical success, primary clinical success, rebleeding, and failure rates. Pooled rates were expressed as proportions of patients with events over total patients, 95 % confidence limits (CI) with heterogeneity, and P values of Results A total of 21 studies (n = 851) were analyzed (62.2 % males), with a median patient age of 69.7 years. The definitive hemostasis rate was 87.8 % (95 %CI 83.7 % – 92 %) after a median follow-up of 56 days. The OTSC was successfully deployed in 97.8 % of patients (95 %CI 96.7 % – 98.9 %) and the primary clinical success rate was 96.6 % (95 %CI 95.1 % – 98.2 %). Rebleeding was seen in 10.3 % of patients (95 %CI 6.5 % – 14.1 %). The failure rate of OTSCs was 9 % (95 %CI 5.2 % – 12.8 %) when used as first-line treatment and 26 % (95 %CI 16.1 % – 36.0 %) when used as second-line treatment. Conclusion This systematic review showed high rates of definitive hemostasis, technical success, and clinical success, along with low rebleeding rates when OTSCs were used for the treatment of GI bleeding. The lack of randomized controlled trials of OTSC vs. other therapies makes comparison with conventional treatment difficult.

Background and study aims Withdrawal time (WT) monitoring and full-spectrum endoscopy (FUSE) have been suggested to increase adenoma detection rate (ADR) due to more accurate evaluation of the hidden areas of the colon. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of WT monitoring and FUSE on ADR. Patients and methods This was a prospective observational study involving consecutive outpatients, aged 18 to 85 years, undergoing colonoscopy with unselected indications. In phase 1, endoscopists performed 660 colonoscopies either with standard forward-viewing endoscope (SFVE) (n = 330) or with FUSE (n = 330). In this phase, WTs were measured without endoscopist awareness of being monitored. In phase 2, endoscopists were informed of being monitored and performed additional 660 colonoscopies either with SFVE (n = 330) or with FUSE (n = 330). Results WT was lower in phase 1 compared to phase 2 (SFVE: 269 ± 83 vs. 386 ± 60 sec, P Conclusions Unmonitored endoscopists have suboptimal WT, which increases when they are monitored. WT monitoring and use of FUSE are two reliable and alternative strategies to increase ADR.

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) together with the United European Gastroenterology (UEG) recently developed a short list of performance measures for small-bowel endoscopy (i.e. small-bowel capsule endoscopy and device-assisted enteroscopy) with the final goal of providing endoscopy services across Europe with a tool for quality improvement. Six key performance measures both for small-bowel capsule endoscopy and for device-assisted enteroscopy were selected for inclusion, with the intention being that practice at both a service and endoscopist level should be evaluated against them. Other performance measures were considered to be less relevant, based on an assessment of their overall importance, scientific acceptability, and feasibility. Unlike lower and upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, for which performance measures had already been identified, this is the first time small-bowel endoscopy quality measures have been proposed. ispartof: UNITED EUROPEAN GASTROENTEROLOGY JOURNAL vol:7 issue:5 pages:614-641 ispartof: location:England status: published

Background The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) has recently issued a technical review focused on small bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE). Aim To compare SBCE current practice in Italy to ESGE technical recommendations. Material and methods A dedicated per-centre semi-quantitative questionnaire was prepared by a group of SBCE experts. One-hundred-fifty Centres were invited to participate in the data collection concerning SBCEs performed between June 2016 and June 2017. Data were compared with ESGE recommendations. Results 120 Centres participated in the data collection. Current practices agreed with ESGE recommendations in 56.3% (9/16) of the issues evaluated. Differences between ESGE recommendations and current practice concerned the management of patients with pacemakers or cardiac implantable defibrillators (which was in agreement with ESGE recommendations in 31.7% and 15.8% of Centres, respectively), the SBCE setting (only 51% of SBCEs were performed as outpatients procedures), the assessment of capsule excretion (timing and modality were in agreement with ESGE recommendation in 20.0% of Centres), and in the involvement of trained nurses or fellows in training as pre-readers (7/120; 5.8%). Conclusions Although SBCE is widely used and largely available in Italy, there are still some technical, practical and organizational issues that can be modified to bridge the gap between current practice and ESGE guideline recommendations.

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: Blue Light Imaging (BLI) is a new imaging technology that enhances mucosal surface and vessel patterns. A specific BLI classification was recently developed to enable better characterisation of colorectal polyps (BLI Adenoma Serrated International Classification (BASIC)). The aim of this study was to validate the diagnostic performance of BASIC in predicting polyp histology in experienced and trainee endoscopists. METHODS: Five experienced and five trainee endoscopists evaluated high-definition white light (HDWL) and BLI images from 45 small polyps to assess baseline accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values (NPVs) of polyp histology. Each endoscopist was trained with the BLI classification before repeating the exercise. Results were compared pre- and post-training. RESULTS: The overall pre-training accuracy improved from 87% to 94%. The sensitivity and NPV of adenoma diagnosis also improved significantly from 79% to 96% and 81% to 95% with BASIC training. This improvement was noted in both groups. The interobserver level of agreement was very good (K = 0.90) in the experienced cohort and good (K = 0.66) in the trainee group post-training. CONCLUSIONS: BLI is a useful tool for optical diagnosis, and the use of BASIC with adequate training can significantly improve the accuracy, sensitivity and NPV of adenoma diagnosis. ispartof: UNITED EUROPEAN GASTROENTEROLOGY JOURNAL vol:7 issue:2 pages:316-325 ispartof: location:England status: published

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.

Capsule endoscopy (CE) emerged out of the pressing clinical need to image the small bowel (SB) in cases of midgut bleeding and provide an overall comfortable and reliable gastrointestinal (GI) diagnosis 1 . Since its wider adoption in clinical practice, significant progress has been made in several areas including software development, hardware features and clinical indications, while innovative applications of CE never cease to appear 2 3 . Currently, several manufacturers provide endoscopic capsules with more or less similar technological features 4 . Although there is engaging and continuous academic and industry-fueled RD, promising furtherment of CE technology 4 5 , the current status of clinical CE remains that of by and large an imaging modality. Clinical relevance of CE images is cornerstone in the decision-making process for medical management. In one of the larger to date SB CE studies, 4,206 abnormal images were detected in 3,280 patients 6 . Thus, CE leads to the identification of a large amount of potential pathology, some of which are pertinent (or relevant) while some (probably the majority) are not. Soon artificial intelligence (AI) is likely to carry out several roles currently performed by humans; in fact, we are witnessing only the first stages of a transition in the clinical adoption of AI-based solutions in several aspects of gastroenterology including CE 7 . Until then though, human-based decision-making profoundly impacts patient care and – although not suggested in the updated European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) European curriculum 8 9 – it should be an integral part of CE training. Frequently, interpretation of CE images by experts or at least experienced readers differs. In a tandem CE reading study, expert review of discordant cases revealed a 50 % (13/25 discordant results) error rate by experienced readers, corresponding (in 5/13 cases) to ‘over-classification’ of an irrelevant abnormality 10 . Another comparative study showed an ‘over-classification’ of such irrelevant abnormalities in ~10 % of CE readings 11 . One thing which has been for a while on the table – in relation to optimizing and/or standardizing CE reporting and subsequent decision-making – is the need for reproducible scoring systems and for a reliable common language among clinicians responsible for further patient’s management. Over the years, several of these scoring systems were developed while others appear in the wake of software and hardware improvements aiming to replace and/or complement their predecessors. This review presents a comprehensive account of the currently available classification/scoring systems in clinical CE spanning from predicting the bleeding potential of identified SB lesions (with emphasis on vascular lesions), and the individual rebleeding risk; scoring systems for the prediction of SB lesions in patients with obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (OGlB), having the potential to improve patient selection and rationalize the use of enteroscopy, with better allocation of resources, optimized diagnostic workflow and tailored treatment. This review also includes scores for reporting the inflammatory burden, the cleansing level that underscores confidence in CE reporting and the mass or bulge question in CE. Essentially, the aim is to become a main text for reference when scoring is required and facilitate the inclusion of -through readiness of access- one of the other in the final report.

Introduction: Since screening programs for gastric cancer are not applicable in Western countries, identification and follow-up of gastric precancerous lesions, such as extensive intestinal metaplasia (IM), are worthwhile to increase the diagnosis of cancer at an early stage. We investigated whether an optimal age threshold to detect extensive IM in a European country exists. Methods: This was a post hoc analysis of prospectively collected data in a nationwide study involving consecutive patients aged between 50 and 65 years who underwent an upper endoscopy with the standard 5 gastric biopsies. The presence of extensive (antral and gastric body) IM on gastric mucosa was considered. Results: Data found that the prevalence of extensive IM was distinctly higher in patients aged 60–65 years, with a 2.28-fold increased probability compared to younger patients. None of the other considered factors (sex, BMI, smoking habit, first-degree family history, and symptoms) emerged as an independent predictor of extensive IM in the stomach. Conclusion: When deciding for an occasional gastric cancer screening in Western populations, the choice of an age range of 60–65 years might be appropriate, allowing detection of a distinctly high prevalence of extensive IM deserving scheduled follow-up.

Background and study aims Correct optical diagnosis of colorectal polyps is crucial to implement a resect and discard strategy. Training methods have been proposed to reach recommended optical diagnosis thresholds. The aim of our study was to present a systematic review and meta-analysis on optical diagnosis training. Methods PubMed/Medline and Cochrane databases were searched between 1980 and October 2019 for studies reporting outcomes on optical diagnosis training of colorectal polyps. The primary outcome was optical diagnosis accuracy compared to histological analysis pre-training and post-training intervention. Subgroup analyses of experienced/trainee endoscopists, training methods, and small/diminutive polyps were included. Results Overall, 16 studies met inclusion criteria, analyzing the impact of training on 179 endoscopists. Pre-training accuracy was 70.3 % (6416/9131 correct diagnoses) whereas post-training accuracy was 81.6 % (7416/9213 correct diagnoses) (risk ratio [RR] 1.17; 95 % confidence interval [CI]: 1.09–1.24, P Conclusions Optical diagnosis training is effective in improving accuracy of histology prediction in colorectal polyps. Didactic and computer-based training show comparable effectiveness in improving diagnostic accuracy.