Search

This ESGE Position Statement defines the expected value of artificial intelligence (AI) for the diagnosis and management of gastrointestinal neoplasia within the framework of the performance measures already defined by ESGE. This is based on the clinical relevance of the expected task and the preliminary evidence regarding artificial intelligence in artificial or clinical settings. Main recommendations: (1) For acceptance of AI in assessment of completeness of upper GI endoscopy, the adequate level of mucosal inspection with AI should be comparable to that assessed by experienced endoscopists. (2) For acceptance of AI in assessment of completeness of upper GI endoscopy, automated recognition and photodocumentation of relevant anatomical landmarks should be obtained in ≥90% of the procedures. (3) For acceptance of AI in the detection of Barrett’s high grade intraepithelial neoplasia or cancer, the AI-assisted detection rate for suspicious lesions for targeted biopsies should be comparable to that of experienced endoscopists with or without advanced imaging techniques. (4) For acceptance of AI in the management of Barrett’s neoplasia, AI-assisted selection of lesions amenable to endoscopic resection should be comparable to that of experienced endoscopists. (5) For acceptance of AI in the diagnosis of gastric precancerous conditions, AI-assisted diagnosis of atrophy and intestinal metaplasia should be comparable to that provided by the established biopsy protocol, including the estimation of extent, and consequent allocation to the correct endoscopic surveillance interval. (6) For acceptance of artificial intelligence for automated lesion detection in small-bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE), the performance of AI-assisted reading should be comparable to that of experienced endoscopists for lesion detection, without increasing but possibly reducing the reading time of the operator. (7) For acceptance of AI in the detection of colorectal polyps, the AI-assisted adenoma detection rate should be comparable to that of experienced endoscopists. (8) For acceptance of AI optical diagnosis (computer-aided diagnosis [CADx]) of diminutive polyps (≤5 mm), AI-assisted characterization should match performance standards for implementing resect-and-discard and diagnose-and-leave strategies. (9) For acceptance of AI in the management of polyps ≥ 6 mm, AI-assisted characterization should be comparable to that of experienced endoscopists in selecting lesions amenable to endoscopic resection.

The Asia-Pacific region has the largest number of cases of colorectal cancer (CRC) and one of the highest levels of mortality due to this condition in the world. Since the publishing of two consensus recommendations in 2008 and 2015, significant advancements have been made in our knowledge of epidemiology, pathology and the natural history of the adenoma-carcinoma progression. Based on the most updated epidemiological and clinical studies in this region, considering literature from international studies, and adopting the modified Delphi process, the Asia-Pacific Working Group on Colorectal Cancer Screening has updated and revised their recommendations on (1) screening methods and preferred strategies; (2) age for starting and terminating screening for CRC; (3) screening for individuals with a family history of CRC or advanced adenoma; (4) surveillance for those with adenomas; (5) screening and surveillance for sessile serrated lesions and (6) quality assurance of screening programmes. Thirteen countries/regions in the Asia-Pacific region were represented in this exercise. International advisors from North America and Europe were invited to participate.

Background Improved colonoscopy quality has led to debate about whether all post-polypectomy surveillance is justified. We evaluated surveillance within the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) to determine the yield of surveillance and identify predictive factors for surveillance outcome. Methods We performed a retrospective cohort study of individuals undergoing post-polypectomy surveillance between July 2006 and January 2017. BCSP records were linked to the National Cancer Registration Database to identify interval-type post-colonoscopy colorectal cancers (CRCs). Advanced adenoma and CRC at surveillance were documented. CRC incidence was compared with the general population using standardized incidence ratios (SIRs). Predictors of advanced adenomas at first surveillance (S1), and CRC during follow-up, were identified. Results 44 151 individuals (23 078 intermediate risk; 21 073 high risk) underwent 64 544 surveillance episodes. Advanced adenoma and CRC yields were, respectively, 10.0 % and 0.5 % at S1, 8.5 % and 0.4 % at S2, and 10.8 % and 0.4 % at S3. S1 yield was lowest in those with one index adenoma ≥ 10 mm (advanced adenoma 6.1 %; CRC 0.3 %). The SIR was 0.76 (95 %CI 0.66–0.88), accounted for by the intermediate risk group (intermediate risk SIR 0.61, 95 %CI 0.49–0.75; high risk SIR 0.95, 95 %CI 0.79–1.15). Adenoma multiplicity, presence of a large nonpedunculated adenoma, and greater villous component were associated with advanced adenoma at S1. Older age and multiplicity were significantly associated with CRC risk. Conclusion This large, national analysis found low levels of CRC in those undergoing surveillance and low advanced adenoma yield in most subgroups. Less intensive surveillance in some subgroups is warranted, and surveillance may be avoided in those with a single large adenoma.

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and United European Gastroenterology have defined performance measures for upper and lower gastrointestinal, pancreaticobiliary, and small-bowel endoscopy. Quality indicators to guide endoscopists in the growing field of advanced endoscopy are also underway. We propose that equal attention is given to developing the entire advanced endoscopy team and not the individual endoscopist alone.We suggest that the practice of teams intending to deliver high quality advanced endoscopy is underpinned by six crucial principles concerning: selection, acceptance, complications, reconnaissance, envelopment, and documentation (SACRED).

Background Longer post-polypectomy surveillance intervals are associated with increased colorectal neoplasia detection at surveillance in some studies. We investigated this association to inform optimal surveillance intervals. Methods Patients who underwent colonoscopy and post-polypectomy surveillance at 17 UK hospitals were classified as low/high risk by baseline findings. We compared detection rates of advanced adenomas (≥ 10 mm, tubulovillous/villous, high grade dysplasia), high risk findings (HRFs: ≥ 2 serrated polyps/[adenomas] of which ≥ 1 is ≥ 10 mm or has [high grade] dysplasia; ≥ 5 serrated polyps/adenomas; or ≥ 1 nonpedunculated polyp ≥ 20 mm), or colorectal cancer (CRC) at surveillance colonoscopy by surveillance interval ( Results Of 11 214 patients, 7216 (64 %) were low risk and 3998 (36 %) were high risk. Among low risk patients, advanced adenoma, HRF, and CRC detection rates at first surveillance were 7.8 %, 3.7 %, and 1.1 %, respectively. Advanced adenoma detection increased with increasing surveillance interval, reaching 9.8 % with a 6-year interval (P trend Conclusions Metachronous neoplasia was uncommon among low risk patients, even with long surveillance intervals, supporting recommendations for no surveillance in these patients. For high risk patients, a 3-year surveillance interval would ensure timely CRC detection.

BackgroundAudit and feedback (A&F) interventions improve patient care but may result in unintended consequences. To evaluate plausible harms and maximise benefits, theorisation using logic models can be useful. We aimed to explore the adverse effects of colonoscopy A&F using a feedback intervention theory (FIT) dark logic model before the National Endoscopy Database Automated Performance Reports to Improve Quality Outcomes Trial study.MethodsWe undertook a qualitative study exploring A&F practices in colonoscopy. Interviews were undertaken with endoscopists from six English National Health Service endoscopy centres, purposively sampled for professional background and experience. A thematic framework analysis was performed, mapping paradoxical effects and harms using FIT and the theory of planned behaviour.ResultsData saturation was achieved on the 19th participant, with participants from nursing, surgical and medical backgrounds and a median of 7 years’ experience.When performance was below aspirational targets participants were falsely reassured by social comparisons. Participants described confidence as a requirement for colonoscopy. Negative feedback without a plan to improve risked reducing confidence and impeding performance (cognitive interference). Unmet targets increased anxiety and prompted participants to question messages’ motives and consider gaming.Participants described inaccurate documentation of subjective measures, including patient comfort, to achieve targets perceived as important. Participants described causing harm from persevering to complete procedures despite patient discomfort and removing insignificant polyps to improve detection rates without benefiting the patient.ConclusionOur dark logic model highlighted that A&F interventions may create both desired and adverse effects. Without a priori theorisation evaluations may disregard potential harms. In colonoscopy, improved patient experience measures may reduce harm. To address cognitive interference the motivation of feedback to support improvement should always be clear, with plans targeting specific behaviours and offering face-to-face support for confidence.Trial registration numberISRCTN11126923.

Recommendations 1 ESGE suggests performing segmental biopsies (at least two from each segment), which should be placed in different specimen containers (ileum, cecum, ascending, transverse, descending, and sigmoid colon, and rectum) in patients with clinical and endoscopic signs of colitis.Weak recommendation, low quality of evidence. 2 ESGE recommends taking two biopsies from the right hemicolon (ascending and transverse colon) and, in a separate container, two biopsies from the left hemicolon (descending and sigmoid colon) when microscopic colitis is suspected.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence. 3 ESGE recommends pancolonic dye-based chromoendoscopy or virtual chromoendoscopy with targeted biopsies of any visible lesions during surveillance endoscopy in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. 4 ESGE suggests that, in high risk patients with a history of colonic neoplasia, tubular-appearing colon, strictures, ongoing therapy-refractory inflammation, or primary sclerosing cholangitis, chromoendoscopy with targeted biopsies can be combined with four-quadrant non-targeted biopsies every 10 cm along the colon. Weak recommendation, low quality of evidence. 5 ESGE recommends that, if pouch surveillance for dysplasia is performed, visible abnormalities should be biopsied, with at least two biopsies systematically taken from each of the afferent ileal loop, the efferent blind loop, the pouch, and the anorectal cuff.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence. 6 ESGE recommends that, in patients with known ulcerative colitis and endoscopic signs of inflammation, at least two biopsies be obtained from the worst affected areas for the assessment of activity or the presence of cytomegalovirus; for those with no evident endoscopic signs of inflammation, advanced imaging technologies may be useful in identifying areas for targeted biopsies to assess histologic remission if this would have therapeutic consequences. Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence. 7 ESGE suggests not biopsying endoscopically visible inflammation or normal-appearing mucosa to assess disease activity in known Crohn’s disease.Weak recommendation, low quality of evidence. 8 ESGE recommends that adequately assessed colorectal polyps that are judged to be premalignant should be fully excised rather than biopsied.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence. 9 ESGE recommends that, where endoscopically feasible, potentially malignant colorectal polyps should be excised en bloc rather than being biopsied. If the endoscopist cannot confidently perform en bloc excision at that time, careful representative images (rather than biopsies) should be taken of the potential focus of cancer, and the patient should be rescheduled or referred to an expert center.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence. 10 ESGE recommends that, in malignant lesions not amenable to endoscopic excision owing to deep invasion, six carefully targeted biopsies should be taken from the potential focus of cancer.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence.

Among the characteristics of high-risk adenomas (HRA), some may predict a higher risk of metachronous advanced lesions. Our aim was to assess which HRA characteristics are associated with high risk of metachronous colorectal cancer (CRC) or advanced adenomas (AA).We systematically searched Pubmed, EMBASE and Cochrane for cohort studies and clinical trials of CRC or AA incidence at surveillance stratified by baseline lesion size, histology, and multiplicity. We calculated pooled relative risks (RR) using a random-effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed with the IFifty-five studies were included, with 936,540 patients. CRC incidence per 1,000 person-years was 2.6 (2.1-3.0) for adenomas ≥20mm, 2.7 (2.2-3.2) for high-grade dysplasia (HGD), 2.0 (1.8-2.3) for villous component, 0.8 (0.1-1.4) for ≥5 adenomas, 1.0 (0.7-1.2) for ≥3 adenomas. Metachronous CRC risk was higher in adenomas ≥20mm vs 10-19mm (RR 2.08, 95%CI 1.20-3.61), HGD vs low-grade dysplasia (RR 2.89, 95%CI 1.88-4.44), villous vs tubular (RR 1.75, 95%CI 1.33-2.31). No significant differences in CRC risk were found in ≥3 adenomas vs 1-2 (RR 1.24, 95%CI 0.84-1.83), nor in ≥5 adenomas vs 3-4 (RR 0.79, 95%CI 0.30-2.11). Compared to normal colonoscopy, RR for CRC risk was 2.61 (95%CI 2.06-3.32) for ≥10mm, 6.62 (95%CI 4.60-9.52) for HGD, 3.58 (95%CI 2.24-5.73) for villous component, 2.03 (95%CI 1.40-2.94) for ≥3 adenomas. Similar trends were seen for metachronous AA.Metachronous CRC risk is highest in patients with baseline adenomas with ≥20mm or HGD. Multiplicity does not seem to be associated with substantially higher CRC risk.

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) presents a short list of performance measures for colonoscopy in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients. Current performance measures for colonoscopy mainly focus on detecting (pre)malignant lesions. However, these performance measures are not relevant for all colonoscopy indications in IBD patients. Therefore, our aim was to provide endoscopy services across Europe and other interested countries with a tool for quality monitoring and improvement in IBD colonoscopy. Eight key performance measures and one minor performance measure were recommended for measurement and evaluation in daily endoscopy practice.

Background Colorectal cancer (CRC) diagnosed following a cancer-negative colonoscopy is termed post-colonoscopy CRC (PCCRC). In addition to calculating PCCRC rates, the World Endoscopy Organization (WEO) recommends review of individual PCCRC cases, including categorization into interval/non-interval PCCRCs, and root cause analysis to determine the most plausible explanation. We aimed to test the usability, reproducibility, and outcomes of the WEO algorithms. Methods All CRC cases diagnosed from January 2015 to December 2016 in a single organization were cross referenced with local endoscopy and pathology databases to identify cases of PCCRC. We assessed: 1) WEO most plausible explanation for PCCRC; and 2) WEO PCCRC interval/non-interval subtype categorization. Interobserver agreement was measured using Cohen’s kappa (κ). Cases with interobserver variation underwent panel discussion to reach consensus. Results Among 527 patients with CRC, 48 PCCRCs were identified. A consistent most plausible explanation was found in 97 % of cases, showing almost perfect agreement (κ = 0.94). Most PCCRCs (66 %) were attributed to “possible missed lesion, prior examination adequate.” Interval/non-interval categorization was consistent in 77 %, showing substantial agreement (κ = 0.67). Following panel discussion, consensus was reached in all cases. Overall, 15 % were categorized as interval and 85 % as non-interval PCCRCs (12 % type A, 31 % type B, and 42 % type C). Conclusions Review of PCCRC cases using WEO recommendations was performed accurately at a local level using readily available clinical information. The high number of non-interval type B PCCRCs suggests a significant proportion of PCCRCs could be avoided by better adherence to recommended surveillance intervals.

Summary Background There are concerns that the COVID-19 pandemic has had a negative effect on cancer care but there is little direct evidence to quantify any effect. This study aims to investigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the detection and management of colorectal cancer in England. Methods Data were extracted from four population-based datasets spanning NHS England (the National Cancer Cancer Waiting Time Monitoring, Monthly Diagnostic, Secondary Uses Service Admitted Patient Care and the National Radiotherapy datasets) for all referrals, colonoscopies, surgical procedures, and courses of rectal radiotherapy from Jan 1, 2019, to Oct 31, 2020, related to colorectal cancer in England. Differences in patterns of care were investigated between 2019 and 2020. Percentage reductions in monthly numbers and proportions were calculated. Findings As compared to the monthly average in 2019, in April, 2020, there was a 63% (95% CI 53–71) reduction (from 36 274 to 13 440) in the monthly number of 2-week referrals for suspected cancer and a 92% (95% CI 89–95) reduction in the number of colonoscopies (from 46 441 to 3484). Numbers had just recovered by October, 2020. This resulted in a 22% (95% CI 8–34) relative reduction in the number of cases referred for treatment (from a monthly average of 2781 in 2019 to 2158 referrals in April, 2020). By October, 2020, the monthly rate had returned to 2019 levels but did not exceed it, suggesting that, from April to October, 2020, over 3500 fewer people had been diagnosed and treated for colorectal cancer in England than would have been expected. There was also a 31% (95% CI 19–42) relative reduction in the numbers receiving surgery in April, 2020, and a lower proportion of laparoscopic and a greater proportion of stoma-forming procedures, relative to the monthly average in 2019. By October, 2020, laparoscopic surgery and stoma rates were similar to 2019 levels. For rectal cancer, there was a 44% (95% CI 17–76) relative increase in the use of neoadjuvant radiotherapy in April, 2020, relative to the monthly average in 2019, due to greater use of short-course regimens. Although in June, 2020, there was a drop in the use of short-course regimens, rates remained above 2019 levels until October, 2020. Interpretation The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a sustained reduction in the number of people referred, diagnosed, and treated for colorectal cancer. By October, 2020, achievement of care pathway targets had returned to 2019 levels, albeit with smaller volumes of patients and with modifications to usual practice. As pressure grows in the NHS due to the second wave of COVID-19, urgent action is needed to address the growing burden of undetected and untreated colorectal cancer in England. Funding Cancer Research UK, the Medical Research Council, Public Health England, Health Data Research UK, NHS Digital, and the National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre.

Polypectomy is an essential skill for all endoscopists performing lower gastrointestinal endoscopy. Different polypectomy tools and techniques have evolved and it is important that endoscopists are familiar with these so they can select the most appropriate technique for each polyp. This narrative review updates the different concepts in tailoring polypectomy technique to the characteristics of polyps. Effective polypectomy requires different components, including the following: careful evaluation of the polyp; decision making about optimal polyp management; actual polypectomy, which includes careful positioning of the endoscope and polyp; and postpolypectomy evaluation of the results (for completeness of resection and prophylaxis of complications).

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 The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) has developed a core curriculum for high quality optical diagnosis training for practice across Europe. The development of easy-to-measure competence standards for optical diagnosis can optimize clinical decision-making in endoscopy. This manuscript represents an official Position Statement of the ESGE aiming to define simple, safe, and easy-to-measure competence standards for endoscopists and artificial intelligence systems performing optical diagnosis of diminutive colorectal polyps (1 – 5 mm). Methods A panel of European experts in optical diagnosis participated in a modified Delphi process to reach consensus on Simple Optical Diagnosis Accuracy (SODA) competence standards for implementation of the optical diagnosis strategy for diminutive colorectal polyps. In order to assess the clinical benefits and harms of implementing optical diagnosis with different competence standards, a systematic literature search was performed. This was complemented with the results from a recently performed simulation study that provides guidance for setting alternative competence standards for optical diagnosis. Proposed competence standards were based on literature search and simulation study results. Competence standards were accepted if at least 80 % agreement was reached after a maximum of three voting rounds. Recommendation 1 In order to implement the leave-in-situ strategy for diminutive colorectal lesions (1–5 mm), it is clinically acceptable if, during real-time colonoscopy, at least 90 % sensitivity and 80 % specificity is achieved for high confidence endoscopic characterization of colorectal neoplasia of 1–5 mm in the rectosigmoid. Histopathology is used as the gold standard.Level of agreement 95 %. Recommendation 2 In order to implement the resect-and-discard strategy for diminutive colorectal lesions (1–5 mm), it is clinically acceptable if, during real-time colonoscopy, at least 80 % sensitivity and 80 % specificity is achieved for high confidence endoscopic characterization of colorectal neoplasia of 1–5 mm. Histopathology is used as the gold standard.Level of agreement 100 %. Conclusion The developed SODA competence standards define diagnostic performance thresholds in relation to clinical consequences, for training and for use when auditing the optical diagnosis of diminutive colorectal polyps.

Background and study aims The English National Bowel Scope Screening Programme (BSSP) invites 55-year-olds for a one-off, unsedated flexible sigmoidoscopy (FSIG). Data from BSSP participant-reported experience studies shows 1 in 3 participants report moderate or severe discomfort. Water-assisted colonoscopy (WAS) may improve participants’ comfort. The primary objective of this study is to ascertain if post-procedural participant-assessed pain is reduced in WAS compared with carbon dioxide (CO2) insufflation, in invitees undergoing FSIG in BSSP. Patients and methods This is a multicenter, prospective, randomized, two-arm, single-blinded trial designed to evaluate the performance of WAS versus CO2 insufflation in BSSP. Participants will be randomized to either CO2 or WAS and will be asked to rate pain post-procedure. Key procedure-related data will be analyzed, including adenoma detection rates (ADR) and degree of sigmoid looping. A cost-effectiveness analysis of WAS versus CO2 and a discrete choice experiment exploring preferences of participants for attributes of sigmoidoscopy will also be performed. Discussion This is the first trial in the United Kingdom (UK) to investigate the effects of WAS in a screening setting. If the trial shows WAS either reduces pain or increases ADR, this may result in a practice change to implement WAS in screening and non-screening endoscopic practice directly impacting on 256,000 people a year who will undergo BSSP FSIG by 2020.Trial funding came from National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Research for Patient Benefit (RfPB) supported by the NIHR Clinical Research Network. The trial is actively recruiting. ID: 35866 ISRCTN: 81466870

BACKGROUND: The National Endoscopy Database (NED) project commenced in 2013 under the auspices of the Joint Advisory Group. The aim is to upload endoscopy procedure data from all units across the United Kingdom to a centralised database. The database can be used to facilitate quality assurance, research and training in endoscopy. OBJECTIVE: This article describes the development and implementation process of NED from its inception to date. METHODS: NED utilises automated data uploading of a minimum dataset from local endoscopy reporting systems to a central national database via the internet. Currently all data are anonymised. Key performance indicators are presented to endoscopists and organisations on a web-based platform for quality assurance purposes. RESULTS: As of October 2018, 295 endoscopy services out of a total of 529 known services in the UK (56%) are actively uploading to NED. Data from more than 400,000 endoscopic procedures have been uploaded. CONCLUSION: UK-wide data collection from endoscopy units to a central database is feasible using an automated upload system. This has the potential to facilitate endoscopy quality assurance and research.

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

Big data is defined as being large, varied or frequently updated, and usually generated from real-world interaction. With the unprecedented availability of big data, comes an obligation to maximise its potential for healthcare improvements in treatment effectiveness, disease prevention and healthcare delivery. We review the opportunities and challenges that big data brings to gastroenterology. We review its sources for healthcare improvement in gastroenterology, including electronic medical records, patient registries and patient-generated data. Big data can complement traditional research methods in hypothesis generation, supporting studies and disseminating findings; and in some cases holds distinct advantages where traditional trials are unfeasible. There is great potential power in patient-level linkage of datasets to help quantify inequalities, identify best practice and improve patient outcomes. We exemplify this with the UK colorectal cancer repository and the potential of linkage using the National Endoscopy Database, the inflammatory bowel disease registry and the National Health Service bowel cancer screening programme. Artificial intelligence and machine learning are increasingly being used to improve diagnostics in gastroenterology, with image analysis entering clinical practice, and the potential of machine learning to improve outcome prediction and diagnostics in other clinical areas. Big data brings issues with large sample sizes, real-world biases, data curation, keeping clinical context at analysis and General Data Protection Regulation compliance. There is a tension between our obligation to use data for the common good and protecting individual patient’s data. We emphasise the importance of engaging with our patients to enable them to understand their data usage as fully as they wish.

ObjectiveColonoscopy surveillance aims to reduce colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence after polypectomy. The 2020 UK guidelines recommend surveillance at 3 years for ‘high-risk’ patients with ≥2 premalignant polyps (PMPs), of which ≥1 is ‘advanced’ (serrated polyp (or adenoma) ≥10 mm or with (high-grade) dysplasia); ≥5 PMPs; or ≥1 non-pedunculated polyp ≥20 mm; ‘low-risk’ patients without these findings are instead encouraged to participate in population-based CRC screening. We examined the appropriateness of these risk classification criteria and recommendations.DesignRetrospective analysis of patients who underwent colonoscopy and polypectomy mostly between 2000 and 2010 at 17 UK hospitals, followed-up through 2017. We examined CRC incidence by baseline characteristics, risk group and number of surveillance visits using Cox regression, and compared incidence with that in the general population using standardised incidence ratios (SIRs).ResultsAmong 21 318 patients, 368 CRCs occurred during follow-up (median: 10.1 years). Baseline CRC risk factors included age ≥55 years, ≥2 PMPs, adenomas with tubulovillous/villous/unknown histology or high-grade dysplasia, proximal polyps and a baseline visit spanning 2–90 days. Compared with the general population, CRC incidence without surveillance was higher among those with adenomas with high-grade dysplasia (SIR 1.74, 95% CI 1.21 to 2.42) or ≥2 PMPs, of which ≥1 was advanced (1.39, 1.09 to 1.75). For low-risk (71%) and high-risk (29%) patients, SIRs without surveillance were 0.75 (95% CI 0.63 to 0.88) and 1.30 (1.03 to 1.62), respectively; for high-risk patients after first surveillance, the SIR was 1.22 (0.91 to 1.60).ConclusionThese guidelines accurately classify post-polypectomy patients into those at high risk, for whom one surveillance colonoscopy appears appropriate, and those at low risk who can be managed by non-invasive screening.

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) has developed performance measures and established a framework for quality assessment for gastrointestinal endoscopy in Europe. Most national societies actively undertake initiatives to implement and explicitly endorse these quality indicators. Given this, the ESGE proposes that, at a national level, strong leadership should exist to disseminate and implement quality parameters. Thus, understanding the potential barriers that may vary locally is of paramount importance. The ESGE suggests that each national society should prioritise quality and standards of care in gastrointestinal endoscopy in their activities and should survey/understand which measures area local priority to their members and make measuring quality intrinsic to daily endoscopy practice. ispartof: UNITED EUROPEAN GASTROENTEROLOGY JOURNAL vol:9 issue:1 pages:120-126 ispartof: location:England status: published

Introduction Colorectal cancer (CRC) diagnosed following a colonoscopy in which no CRC is found is termed Post-Colonoscopy CRC (PCCRC). The World Endoscopy Organisation (WEO) consensus statements recommend review of individual PCCRC cases, including categorisation of cases into interval/non-interval CRCs, and root cause analysis (RCA) to determine most plausible explanation. Our study aim was to test the usability, reproducibility and outcomes of the WEO categorisation. Methods All CRC cases diagnosed from January 2015 to December 2016 in a single NHS trust were identified. Each was cross-referenced with local endoscopy and pathology databases. Cases where non-diagnostic colonoscopy was performed prior to CRC diagnosis were included. All colonoscopies going back to 2007 (when endoscopy reporting system introduced) were reviewed. Each CRC was entered into a spreadsheet, with headings based on WEO RCA checklist for PCCRCs. We performed 2 separate assessments: (1) RCA to identify WEO most plausible explanation for PCCRC; and (2) WEO PCCRC subtype categorisation, which looks at screening/surveillance intervals (table 1). Inter-observer agreement was measured using Cohen’s kappa (k). Cases with inter-rater variation were analysed further using patient notes and then discussed by a panel to determine causes of variation and attempt to reach consensus. Results Among 527 patients with CRC, 48 PCCRCs were identified. In 32 cases, the prior colonoscopy occurred within 4 years of CRC diagnosis (table 1). Median age was 73 (range 48–93), 56% of cases were male. Consistent most plausible explanation was found in 31/32 (97%) cases, showing almost perfect agreement (k=0.94). Categorisation into interval and non-interval types was consistent in 37/48 (77%) cases, showing substantial agreement (k=0.67). Following panel discussion, consensus was reached for most plausible explanation and categorisation of PCCRC in all cases. 66% of PCCRCs within 4 years of diagnosis were attributed to ‘possible missed lesion, prior examination adequate’. 73% of cases were categorised as Non-interval Type B or C. Full results are in table 1. Conclusion Using readily available data, PCCRC cases can be categorised by most plausible aetiology with almost perfect inter-rater agreement. Categorisation of PCCRC subtype was more challenging, reflecting uncertainties in surveillance intervals and endoscopic plans. Further discussion, with additional clinical information, led to agreement in all cases. The majority of PCCRC cases were categorised as ‘probable missed lesions following an adequate colonoscopy’. The high number of Non-interval type B PCCRCs suggests a significant proportion of PCCRC cases could be avoided with adherence to recommended surveillance intervals.

Introduction Colonoscopists with low polyp detection rates (PDR) have higher post colonoscopy colorectal cancer rates. Audit and feedback (A&F) interventions modestly improve performance in clinical contexts, but most interventions lack theoretical underpinnings so how they work is not understood. We aimed to develop a behaviour change intervention (BCI) giving endoscopists feedback to improve mean number of polyps (MNP) detected. Methods An A&F literature review will inform a draft BCI: a report on endoscopist performance. Rounds of cognitive interviews were undertaken with independent colonoscopists, purposively sampled by professional role. Participants viewed the BCI and ‘talked aloud’ about content, followed by a semi-structured interview. The BCI was refined after each round, recruitment ceased when no new themes arose. Results The BCI was based on the theory of planned behaviour and feedback intervention theory. 19 endoscopists participated in 6 interview rounds. Case-mix adjusted MNP was endorsed as an acceptable performance metric after iterative refinement of explanatory text. Participants noted it would take time to adjust to MNP being higher than PDR. Participants were motivated by social comparison, particularly to expert groups. Participants responded negatively to statements ranking their performance nationally, preferring a visual comparison with an aspirational top quartile. Expected performance is highlighted in blue, as amber elicited a fear response. Underperformance is in red and focussed attention on goals. The BCI is programmed and emailed monthly from the National Endoscopy Database (NED). Participants noted monthly data may be variable and paid more attention to trends. The BCI was revised to emphasise a 4-month summary and plotted trend. The BCI has a personalised action plan using targets for behaviours which influence detection, supported by information to improve knowledge. Participants believed that hyoscine butylbromide, withdrawal time, and turning the patient improved detection and were consistent with personal goals. Rectal retroversion is included in the BCI but few participants believed this improves detection. Participants described positive experiences using nursing staff to prompt behaviours but spoke about complex social barriers to nurse empowerment. To overcome barriers, action plans encourage endoscopists to ask nursing staff to provide specific prompts. Conclusions This process has resulted in an evidence and theory informed BCI (video), which is being tested in the NED Automated Performance Reports Improving Quality Outcomes Trial (APRIQOT) multicentre randomised control trial. NED APRIQOT is funded by the Health Foundation.

Introduction Bowel cancer is the UK’s 2nd most common cause of cancer death. To reduce this risk, the NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme invites 55-year olds for sigmoidoscopy (Bowel Scope Screening-BSS). A national patient survey showed much higher procedural pain than anticipated, potentially impacting on compliance and screening effectiveness. Studies indicate that a new technique using water-assisted scope insertion (WAS) may minimise bowel distension, hence reduce pain and also increase polyp detection. We aimed to assess the effect of WAS on procedural pain and adenomatous polyp detection, compared to CO2 assisted scope insertion. We aimed to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of WAS, a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to ascertain patient preferences, and to survey trial endoscopists’ technique preference after the trial. Methods We performed an RCT of 1123 people undergoing BSS, randomised 1:1 to WAS (for which the endoscopists received training) or CO2. The primary outcome was patient-reported moderate/severe pain. The key secondary outcome was adenoma detection rate (ADR). Results We found no difference in patient-reported moderate/severe pain between WAS and CO2 (p=0.47;logistic regression; predictive marginal estimates 14% in WAS and 15% in CO2). Moderate/severe pain was significantly lower in both arms than in the previous national survey (p ADR was significantly higher in the CO2 arm (p=0.03, logistic regression; odds ratio 1.45 (95% CI; 1.03, 2.04); predictive marginal estimates 11% in WAS and 15% in CO2). However, it remained above the minimum national performance standard in both arms and there was no statistical difference in mean number of adenomas nor overall polyp detection rate. Cost-consequence analysis revealed a negligible difference between the two techniques. The DCE revealed that patients care more about the risk of missing an abnormality and risk of a serious complication than the level of pain experienced. Exit survey of trial endoscopists revealed 10 preferred WAS, one preferred CO2 and 4 were neutral. Conclusions In the context of enema-prepared unsedated screening sigmoidoscopies performed by screening-accredited endoscopists, no difference in patient-reported pain was seen when using either a CO2 or WAS intubation technique. There is no need for screening sigmoidoscopists to switch to a WAS technique. Caution should be given to monitoring ADR if WAS is used in enema-prepared sigmoidoscopies. Research funded by NIHR RfPB. ISRCTN: 81466870

Introduction Automated Performance Reports to Improve Quality Outcomes Trial (APRIQOT) uses NED to provide endoscopists feedback on colonic detection KPI. Traditional adenoma detection rate is dependent on unavailable histological data. Our aim was to gain expert consensus on which available KPI are acceptable to endoscopists. Method A Delphi panel of UK expert endoscopists was recruited online, purposively for professional background. Panellists interacted using an online form. In round one we provided a summary and acceptability statement for each KPI, participants rated agreement with a 5 point Likert scale and free-text comments. Responses were analysed anonymously. In subsequent rounds participants reviewed all graded consensus statements and comments. Statements were accepted with ≥80% consensus or redrafted. Rounds ran January to April 2019. Results We recruited 21 UK expert endoscopists. 12 were female, 48% gastroenterology background, 29% nursing, 14% surgical and 9% trainees. All statements reached consensus by round 3 (Table 1). The panel agreed KPI adjusted for age, sex and indication were ‘more acceptable’. Polyp measure had risks of ‘gaming’ and distal hyperplastic polyp over reporting, but encompass significant non-adenomatous polyps. Mean number of polyps (MNP) reached consensus after discussing reduction of the ‘one and done’ phenomenon and using a cap of 5 polyps/colon to mitigate skew from polyposis. Proximal polypectomy rate (PPR) was accepted as a secondary ‘tool to improve right sided detection’ and reduce ‘gaming’, despite concerns around contraindications to polypectomy. Conclusion All adjusted KPI were accepted, MNP was selected for trial with robust data to model case-mix.

Introduction The National Endoscopy Database (NED) is populated by data extracted automatically from endoscopy reporting systems (ERSs) of endoscopy services in the UK. 406 out of 520 UK endoscopy sites are currently uploading. We aimed to provide an overview of oesophagogastroduodenoscopies (OGDs) stored on NED. Methods Data from all OGDs uploaded to NED from 2016 to the 28th January 2020 was accessed and analysed using the standard output from the NED website. Results 1,010,741 OGDs have been uploaded to NED. 651,270 of those are from 2019, compared to 281,883 in 2018 and 21,457 in 2017, indicating the ongoing roll-out of NED across the UK. 47% of procedures were performed on male patients, 52% on female and 1% unspecified. 27% of OGDs were performed on patients 13% of procedures were on in-patients, 65% on out-patients, while 22% were unspecified. 51% of procedures were routine, 37% urgent, 3% emergency, and 3% surveillance. 7% were not specified. 49% of procedures were unsedated. The most common indications were: Dyspepsia (17%), Heartburn/Reflux (15%), Anaemia (15%), Dysphagia (14%), Abdominal Pain (12%). Other frequent indications were: Weight Loss (7%), Nausea/Vomiting (6%), Melaena (5%), Haematemesis (3%), Barrett’s Oesophagus (3%), Varices Surveillance (2%). ‘Other’ was included in the indication field in 37% of OGDs. The most common diagnoses were: Normal (31%), Hiatus Hernia (27%), Non-erosive Gastritis (17%), Reflux Oesophagitis (11%). Other frequent diagnoses were: Barrett’s oesophagus (7%), Erosive Gastritis (6%), Gastric Polyp(s) (5%), Non-erosive Duodenitis (5%), Oesophageal Varices (2%), Erosive Duodenitis (2%), Duodenal Ulcer (2%), Gastric Ulcer (2%). ‘Other’ was included in the diagnosis field in 18% of OGDs. (NB: Multiple indications and diagnoses can be entered for a procedure, hence sum of percentages is greater than 100% for these categories) Conclusion The majority of procedures were performed in the ≥ 50 age group, peaking between ages 70 to 79, although a quarter of all procedures were performed in people younger than 50. Close to half of OGDs are performed without sedation. Procedure uploads to the NED continue to increase exponentially year on year. The volume of data and high proportion of sites uploading allows unparalleled insights into OGD practice in the UK.

Background and study aims Colonoscopists with low polyp detection have higher post colonoscopy colorectal cancer incidence and mortality rates. The United Kingdom’s National Endoscopy Database (NED) automatically captures patient level data in real time and provides endoscopy key performance indicators (KPI) at a national, endoscopy center, and individual level. Using an electronic behavior change intervention, the primary objective of this study is to assess if automated feedback of endoscopist and endoscopy center-level optimal procedure-adjusted detection KPI (opadKPI) improves polyp detection performance. Methods This multicenter, prospective, cluster-randomized controlled trial is randomizing NHS endoscopy centres to either intervention or control. The intervention is targeted at independent colonoscopists and each center’s endoscopy lead. The intervention reports are evidence-based from endoscopist qualitative interviews and informed by psychological theories of behavior. NED automatically creates monthly reports providing an opadKPI, using mean number of polyps, and an action plan. The primary outcome is opadKPI comparing endoscopists in intervention and control centers at 9 months. Secondary outcomes include other KPI and proximal detection measures at 9 and 12 months. A nested histological validation study will correlate opadKPI to adenoma detection rate at the center level. A cost-effectiveness and budget impact analysis will be undertaken. Conclusion If the intervention is efficacious and cost-effective, we will showcase the potential of this learning health system, which can be implemented at local and national levels to improve colonoscopy quality, and demonstrate that an automated system that collects, analyses, and disseminates real-time clinical data can deliver evidence- and theory-informed feedback.

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.

Heritable factors account for approximately 35% of colorectal cancer (CRC) risk, and almost 30% of the population in the UK have a family history of CRC. The quantification of an individual’s lifetime risk of gastrointestinal cancer may incorporate clinical and molecular data, and depends on accurate phenotypic assessment and genetic diagnosis. In turn this may facilitate targeted risk-reducing interventions, including endoscopic surveillance, preventative surgery and chemoprophylaxis, which provide opportunities for cancer prevention. This guideline is an update from the 2010 British Society of Gastroenterology/Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (BSG/ACPGBI) guidelines for colorectal screening and surveillance in moderate and high-risk groups; however, this guideline is concerned specifically with people who have increased lifetime risk of CRC due to hereditary factors, including those with Lynch syndrome, polyposis or a family history of CRC. On this occasion we invited the UK Cancer Genetics Group (UKCGG), a subgroup within the British Society of Genetic Medicine (BSGM), as a partner to BSG and ACPGBI in the multidisciplinary guideline development process. We also invited external review through the Delphi process by members of the public as well as the steering committees of the European Hereditary Tumour Group (EHTG) and the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE). A systematic review of 10 189 publications was undertaken to develop 67 evidence and expert opinion-based recommendations for the management of hereditary CRC risk. Ten research recommendations are also prioritised to inform clinical management of people at hereditary CRC risk.

Objective The COVID-19 pandemic has had a major global impact on endoscopic services. This reduced capacity, along with public reluctance to undergo endoscopy during the pandemic, might result in excess mortality from delayed cancer diagnosis. Using the UK’s National Endoscopy Database (NED), we performed the first national analysis of the impact of the pandemic on endoscopy services and endoscopic cancer diagnosis. Design We developed a NED COVID-19 module incorporating procedure-level data on all endoscopic procedures. Three periods were designated: pre-COVID (6 January 2020 to 15 March), transition (16–22 March) and COVID-impacted (23 March–31 May). National, regional and procedure-specific analyses were performed. The average weekly number of cancers, proportion of missing cancers and cancer detection rates were calculated. Results A weekly average of 35 478 endoscopy procedures were performed in the pre-COVID period. Activity in the COVID-impacted period reduced to 12% of pre-COVID levels; at its low point, activity was only 5%, recovering to 20% of pre-COVID activity by study end. Although more selective vetting significantly increased the per-procedure cancer detection rate (pre-COVID 1.91%; COVID-impacted 6.61%; p Conclusion This national analysis demonstrates the remarkable impact that the pandemic has had on endoscopic services, which has resulted in a substantial and concerning reduction in cancer detection. Major, urgent efforts are required to restore endoscopy capacity to prevent an impending cancer healthcare crisis.

IntroductionThe COVID-19 pandemic has profoundly affected UK endoscopy workload. The Joint Advisory Group on GI endoscopy and British Society of Gastroenterology issued guidelines on endoscopy service delivery changes and restoration. We surveyed UK endoscopy clinical leads to gain insights into service restoration.MethodsA Google Forms-designed survey, assessing endoscopy provision, Covid minimisation and referral pathways was circulated to all UK endoscopy leads. The survey was open between 19 and 24 May 2020.Results97 endoscopy leads completed the survey, with all UK nations and regions represented. Analysis showed 20% of endoscopy services were not providing endoscopy. Workload limitations were due to enforced interprocedural downtime (92%; with some services enforcing >1-hour downtime between procedures), social distancing (88%) and working in personal protective equipment (PPE) (87%). 91% of services reported a referral backlog (urgent median 2 months, routine median 6 months). 96% of services reported no current problems accessing PPE. Level 1/2 PPE use in colonoscopy was not uniform. 63% of services routinely swab patients for COVID-19 before endoscopy, 88% of services do not routinely swab asymptomatic staff. Comments addressed reducing endoscopy demand through vetting and changing referral criteria, the mostly commonly cited strategy being increased faecal immunochemical testing in symptomatic patients (70% of services).ConclusionThis survey demonstrates the pandemic’s profound impact on UK endoscopy. Challenges include standardising Covid-minimisation strategies and recovering staffing levels. To improve endoscopy services, there is a need to refine referral pathways, improve vetting and clarify guidance on downtime and PPE within endoscopy.

ObjectivesThe English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme invites 55 year olds for a sigmoidoscopy (Bowel Scope Screening (BSS)), aiming to resect premalignant polyps, thus reducing cancer incidence. A national patient survey indicated higher procedural pain than anticipated, potentially impacting on screening compliance and effectiveness. We aimed to assess whether water-assisted sigmoidoscopy (WAS), as opposed to standard CO2 technique, improved procedural pain and detection of adenomatous polyps.DesignThe WASh (Water-Assisted Sigmoidoscopy) trial was a multicentre, single-blind, randomised control trial for people undergoing BSS. Participants were randomised to either receive WAS or CO2 from five sites across England. The primary outcome measure was patient-reported moderate/severe pain, as assessed by patients on a standard Likert scale post procedure prior to discharge. The key secondary outcome was adenoma detection rate (ADR). The costs of each technique were also measured.Results1123 participants (50% women, mean age 55) were randomised (561 WAS, 562 CO2). We found no difference in patient-reported moderate/severe pain between WAS and CO2 (14% in WAS, 15% in CO2; p=0.47). ADR was 15% in the CO2 arm and 11% in the WAS arm (p=0.03); however, it remained above the minimum national performance standard in both arms. There was no statistical difference in mean number of adenomas nor overall polyp detection rate. There was negligible cost difference between the two techniques.ConclusionIn the context of enema-prepared unsedated screening sigmoidoscopies performed by screening-accredited endoscopists, no difference in patient-reported pain was seen when using either a CO2 or WAS intubation technique.Trial registration numberISRCTN81466870.

ObjectiveLow adenoma detection rates (ADR) are linked to increased postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer rates and reduced cancer survival. Devices to enhance mucosal visualisation such as Endocuff Vision (EV) may improve ADR. This multicentre randomised controlled trial compared ADR between EV-assisted colonoscopy (EAC) and standard colonoscopy (SC).DesignPatients referred because of symptoms, surveillance or following a positive faecal occult blood test (FOBt) as part of the Bowel Cancer Screening Programme were recruited from seven hospitals. ADR, mean adenomas per procedure, size and location of adenomas, sessile serrated polyps, EV removal rate, caecal intubation rate, procedural time, patient experience, effect of EV on workload and adverse events were measured.Results1772 patients (57% male, mean age 62 years) were recruited over 16 months with 45% recruited through screening. EAC increased ADR globally from 36.2% to 40.9% (P=0.02). The increase was driven by a 10.8% increase in FOBt-positive screening patients (50.9% SC vs 61.7% EAC, PConclusionEV significantly improved ADR in bowel cancer screening patients and should be used to improve colonoscopic detection.Trial registration numberNCT02552017, Results; ISRCTN11821044, Results.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer worldwide. It is amenable to screening as it occurs in premalignant, latent, early, and curable stages. PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and national and international CRC screening guidelines were searched for CRC screening methods, populations, and timing. CRC screening can use direct or indirect tests, delivered opportunistically or via organized programs. Most CRCs are diagnosed after 60 years of age; most screening programs apply to individuals 50-75 years of age. Screening may reduce disease-specific mortality by detecting CRC in earlier stages, and CRC incidence by detecting premalignant polyps, which can subsequently be removed. In randomized controlled trials (RCTs) guaiac fecal occult blood testing (gFOBt) was found to reduce CRC mortality by 13%-33%. Fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) has no RCT data comparing it to no screening, but is superior to gFOBt. Flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) trials demonstrated an 18% reduction in CRC incidence and a 28% reduction in CRC mortality. Currently, RCT evidence for colonoscopy screening is scarce. Although not yet corroborated by RCTs, it is likely that colonoscopy is the best screening modality for an individual. From a population perspective, organized programs are superior to opportunistic screening. However, no nation can offer organized population-wide colonoscopy screening. Thus, organized programs using cheaper modalities, such as FS/FIT, can be tailored to budget and capacity.

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and United European Gastroenterology present a short list of key performance measures for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). We recommend that endoscopy services across Europe adopt the following seven key and one minor performance measures for EUS and ERCP, for measurement and evaluation in daily practice at center and endoscopist level: 1 Adequate antibiotic prophylaxis before ERCP (key performance measure, at least 90 %); 2 Antibiotic prophylaxis before EUS-guided puncture of cystic lesions (key performance measure, at least 95 %); 3 Bile duct cannulation rate (key performance measure, at least 90 %); 4 Tissue sampling during EUS (key performance measure, at least 85 %); 5 Appropriate stent placement in patients with biliary obstruction below the hilum (key performance measure, at least 95 %); 6 Bile duct stone extraction (key performance measure, at least 90 %); 7 Post-ERCP pancreatitis (key performance measure, less than 10 %). 8 Adequate documentation of EUS landmarks (minor performance measure, at least 90 %).This present list of quality performance measures for ERCP and EUS recommended by ESGE should not be considered to be exhaustive: it might be extended in future to address further clinical and scientific issues.

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and United European Gastroenterology present a short list of key performance measures for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). We recommend that endoscopy services across Europe adopt the following seven key and one minor performance measures for EUS and ERCP, for measurement and evaluation in daily practice at centre and endoscopist level: 1 Adequate antibiotic prophylaxis before ERCP (key performance measure, at least 90%); 2 antibiotic prophylaxis before EUS-guided puncture of cystic lesions (key performance measure, at least 95%); 3 bile duct cannulation rate (key performance measure, at least 90%); 4 tissue sampling during EUS (key performance measure, at least 85%); 5 appropriate stent placement in patients with biliary obstruction below the hilum (key performance measure, at least 95%); 6 bile duct stone extraction (key performance measure, at least 90%); 7 post-ERCP pancreatitis (key performance measure, less than 10%); and 8 adequate documentation of EUS landmarks (minor performance measure, at least 90%). This present list of quality performance measures for ERCP and EUS recommended by the ESGE should not be considered to be exhaustive; it might be extended in future to address further clinical and scientific issues. ispartof: UNITED EUROPEAN GASTROENTEROLOGY JOURNAL vol:6 issue:10 pages:1448-1460 ispartof: location:England status: published

Background and study aims Colonoscopic polypectomy reduces colorectal cancer incidence, but is associated with complications including post-polypectomy bleeding (PPB). PPB ranges in severity from minor to life-threatening, making interpretation and comparison difficult. No previous studies have examined PPB rate according to a standardized severity grading system. We aimed to determine the PPB rate stratified by severity grading, explore factors that contribute to PPB severity grading, and describe PPB management. Methods Data relating to PPB were prospectively collected from all colonoscopies performed in one region of the English NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) from 06/12/2010 to 15/07/2014. PPB was defined and stratified into major, intermediate, and minor according to BCSP standardized definitions based on the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy adverse events lexicon. Results A total of 15 285 colonoscopies (23 766 polypectomies) were analyzed. The PPB rate per colonoscopy was 0.44 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.34 – 0.54) and the rate per polypectomy was 0.29 % (95 %CI 0.20 – 0.38); 2.9 % of PPBs were major and 42.6 % were intermediate. Repeat endoscopy occurred in 27.9 % and was the most common reason for bleeding being categorized as of intermediate severity, although therapy was applied in only 36.8 % of these cases. A therapeutic intervention was significantly more common in patients with PPB who had either a hemoglobin drop ≥ 2 g/dL and/or a blood transfusion (P = 0.04, relative risk 3.47, 95 %CI 1.05 – 11.52). Conclusions This study specifically examined colonoscopic PPB rate, stratified using standardized criteria. The rates of PPB were low, with the majority of PPB being of minor severity. Current stratification of PPB severity combines measures of bleed severity with interventions. Using only hemoglobin drop ≥ 2 g/dL and/or blood transfusion as markers of PPB severity may simplify stratification, and allow a better assessment of the necessity and impact of an intervention.

BackgroundIncidences of colorectal cancer (CRC) and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are increasing in those aged AimTo identify and quantify clinical features in primary care of CRC/IBD in those aged Design and settingMatched case-control study using primary care records from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink, UK.MethodIncident cases (aged n = 1661) and IBD (n = 9578) diagnosed between 2000 and 2013 were each matched with up to three controls (n = 3979 CRC; n = 22 947 IBD). Odds ratios (OR) and positive predictive values (PPV) were estimated for features of CRC/IBD in the year before diagnosis.ResultsTen features were independently associated with CRC/IBD (all P3% for rectal bleeding with diarrhoea, thrombocytosis, low MCV, low haemoglobin or raised inflammatory markers; for change in bowel habit with low MCV, thrombocytosis or low haemoglobin; and for diarrhoea with thrombocytosis.ConclusionThis study quantified the risk of serious bowel disease in symptomatic patients aged

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and United European Gastroenterology present a short list of key performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy. We recommend that endoscopy services across Europe adopt the following seven key performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy for measurement and evaluation in daily practice at a center and endoscopist level: 1 Rate of adequate bowel preparation (minimum standard 90 %); 2 Cecal intubation rate (minimum standard 90%); 3 Adenoma de-tection rate (minimum standard 25%); 4 Appropriate polypectomy technique (minimum standard 80%); 5 Complication rate (minimum standard not set); 6 Patient experience (minimum standard not set); 7 Appropriate post-polypectomy surveillance recommendations (minimum standard not set). Other identified performance measures have been listed as less relevant based on an assessment of their importance, scientific acceptability, feasibility, usability, and comparison to competing measures.

Background and study aims Colonic polypectomy is acknowledged to be a technically challenging part of colonoscopy. Training in polypectomy is recognized to be often inconsistent. This study aimed to ascertain worldwide practice in polypectomy training. Patients and methods An electronic survey was distributed to endoscopic trainees and trainers in 19 countries asking about their experiences of receiving and delivering training. Participants were also asked about whether formal polypectomy training guidance existed in their country. Results Data were obtained from 610 colonoscopists. Of these responses, 348 (57.0%) were from trainers and 262 (43.0%) from trainees; 6.6% of trainers assessed competency once per year or less often. Just over half (53.1%) of trainees had ever had their polypectomy technique formally assessed by any trainer. Approximately half the trainees surveyed (51.1 %) stated that the principles of polypectomy had only ever been taught to them intermittently. Of those trainees with the most colonoscopy experience, who had performed over 500 procedures, 48.2% had had training on removing large polyps of over 10 mm; 46.2% (121 respondents) of trainees surveyed held no record of the polypectomies they had performed. Only four of the 19 countries surveyed had specific guidelines on polypectomy training. Conclusions A significant number of competent colonoscopists have never been taught how to perform polypectomy. Training guidelines worldwide generally give little direction as to how trainees should acquire polypectomy skills. The learning curve for polypectomy needs to be defined to provide reliable guidance on how to train colonoscopists in this skill.