Prediction of metachronous advanced colorectal neoplasia by KRAS mutation in polyps.

BACKGROUND: The potential of molecular markers in the removed polys as reliable predictors of metachronous lesions is still uncertain. AIM: Our aim was to evaluate the role of somatic mutations in KRAS in polyps of patients with high-risk adenomas to predict the risk of advanced polyps or colorectal cancer (CRC) within 3 years. METHODS: A total of 518 patients were prospectively enrolled. The included patients had adenomas ≥10 mm, high-grade dysplasia, villous component or ≥3 more adenomas at baseline and were scheduled to undergo surveillance colonoscopy at 3 years ± 6 months. Somatic KRAS mutation was performed on 1189 polyps collected from these patients. At surveillance, advanced lesions were defined as adenomas with a size of ≥10 mm. High-grade dysplasia or villous component, serrated polyps ≥10 mm or with dysplasia or CRC. RESULTS: At baseline, 81 patients (15.6%) had KRAS mutations in at least one polyp. Patients with KRAS mutated polyps had more frequent villous histological lesions and size ≥20 mm. In the multivariate analysis, adjusted for age and sex, only age (odds ratios [OR], 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02-1.09; p < 0.001), ≥5 adenomas (OR, 3.92; 95% CI, 1.96-7.82), and KRAS mutation (OR, 2.54; 95% CI, 1.48-4.34; p < 0.01) were independently associated with the development of advanced lesions at surveillance. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that, in patients with high-risk adenomas, the presence of somatic mutations in KRAS is an independent risk factor for the development of advanced metachronous polyps.

Diversity, equity, and inclusion in gastrointestinal endoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Position Statement.

1: The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) adheres to the overarching principles of equality of opportunity, fair treatment, nondiscrimination, and diversity of health care professionals. 2: ESGE strongly supports the creation of collaborations within and between national and international endoscopy societies to disseminate the principles of diversity, equality, and inclusion (DEI) in the field of gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy. 3: ESGE aims to reflect the diversity of its membership in all its scientific and educational activities. 4: ESGE supports the fostering of collaborative work settings that empower all members of the endoscopy team to reach their full potential. 5: ESGE supports international and national endoscopy societies in promoting equitable access to high quality endoscopy training. 6: ESGE recommends the implementation of ergonomic principles in endoscopy units to prevent injuries and to provide adapted workplace conditions for personnel with disabilities and/or special needs. 7: ESGE recommends comprehensive mentorship, that includes diverse backgrounds, and equitable sponsorship for professional development, training, and academic excellence. 8: ESGE recommends that endoscopists actively identify, discuss, and attempt to accommodate reasonable patient preferences and expectations regarding endoscopy procedures. 9: ESGE advocates for educational and awareness campaigns targeting both health care professionals and patients, as well as the adoption of cost-effective health care strategies to address disparities and enhance equity in endoscopy care. 10: ESGE is committed to increasing support for underrepresented scholars and minorities pursuing research in endoscopy. 11: ESGE identifies mentorship and sponsorship as factors that may mitigate the barriers to academic careers for underrepresented endoscopy scholars. 12: ESGE recognizes the need to increase awareness of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in the field of endoscopy and supports publications on these topics.

Adenoma detection rate and tolerability of 2 ultra-low-volume bowel preparations in screening: a noninferiority randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The adenoma detection rate (ADR), recognized as a surrogate marker for colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality reduction, is closely linked to the efficacy of bowel cleansing. However, there is a dearth of evidence examining the impact on ADR when using 2 distinct very-low-dose bowel cleansing products. This study sought to compare ADR in an immunochemical fecal occult blood test (iFOBT)-based organized screening program by using 1 L of polyethylene glycol plus ascorbate (1L-PEGA) versus sodium picosulfate with magnesium citrate (SPMC), both administered in a split-dose regimen. METHODS: We conducted a comparative, parallel, randomized, noninferiority, and low-intervention clinical trial targeting individuals from a population CRC screening program aged 50 to 69 years with a positive iFOBT result scheduled for a workup colonoscopy in the morning. Participants were randomized to either 1L-PEGA or SPMC for bowel cleansing. The main outcome was ADR, whereas secondary outcomes were bowel preparation quality, safety, tolerability, and satisfaction. RESULTS: A total of 1002 subjects, 501 were included in each group. There were no differences between groups with respect to pooled ADR (SPMC, 56.5% [95% CI, 52.1-60.8]; 1L-PEGA, 53.7% [95% CI, 49.3-58.0]; relative risk, .95 [95% CI, .85-1.06]); therefore, SPMC demonstrated noninferiority in ADR compared with 1L-PEGA (difference, 2.8%; 2-sided 95% lower confidence limit, -3.4). In addition, there were no significant differences in mean lesions regardless of size and location between arms. Bowel preparation favored 1L-PEGA (96.2% vs 89.2%, P < .001), whereas SPMC exhibited significantly higher safety and tolerability, as shown by fewer nonserious treatment-emergent adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: SPMC emerged as a noninferior laxative compared with 1L-PEGA concerning ADR. Despite the superior bowel preparation quality associated with 1L-PEGA, the safety, tolerability, and overall satisfaction of participants were higher with SPMC. (Clinical trial registration number: EudraCT: 2019-003186-18.).

An artificial intelligence-assisted system versus white light endoscopy alone for adenoma detection in individuals with Lynch syndrome (TIMELY): an international, multicentre, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Computer-aided detection (CADe) systems for colonoscopy have been shown to increase small polyp detection during colonoscopy in the general population. People with Lynch syndrome represent an ideal target population for CADe-assisted colonoscopy because adenomas, the primary cancer precursor lesions, are characterised by their small size and higher likelihood of showing advanced histology. We aimed to evaluate the performance of CADe-assisted colonoscopy in detecting adenomas in individuals with Lynch syndrome. METHODS: TIMELY was an international, multicentre, parallel, randomised controlled trial done in 11 academic centres and six community centres in Belgium, Germany, Italy, and Spain. We enrolled individuals aged 18 years or older with pathogenic or likely pathogenic MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, or EPCAM variants. Participants were consecutively randomly assigned (1:1) to either CADe (GI Genius) assisted white light endoscopy (WLE) or WLE alone. A centre-stratified randomisation sequence was generated through a computer-generated system with a separate randomisation list for each centre according to block-permuted randomisation (block size 26 patients per centre). Allocation was automatically provided by the online AEG-REDCap database. Participants were masked to the random assignment but endoscopists were not. The primary outcome was the mean number of adenomas per colonoscopy, calculated by dividing the total number of adenomas detected by the total number of colonoscopies and assessed in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04909671. FINDINGS: Between Sept 13, 2021, and April 6, 2023, 456 participants were screened for eligibility, 430 of whom were randomly assigned to receive CADe-assisted colonoscopy (n=214) or WLE (n=216). 256 (60%) participants were female and 174 (40%) were male. In the intention-to-treat analysis, the mean number of adenomas per colonoscopy was 0·64 (SD 1·57) in the CADe group and 0·64 (1·17) in the WLE group (adjusted rate ratio 1·03 [95% CI 0·72-1·47); p=0·87). No adverse events were reported during the trial. INTERPRETATION: In this multicentre international trial, CADe did not improve the detection of adenomas in individuals with Lynch syndrome. High-quality procedures and thorough inspection and exposure of the colonic mucosa remain the cornerstone in surveillance of Lynch syndrome. FUNDING: Spanish Gastroenterology Association, Spanish Society of Digestive Endoscopy, European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, Societat Catalana de Digestologia, Instituto Carlos III, Beca de la Marato de TV3 2020. Co-funded by the European Union.

Development of Desmoid Tumors After Ileorectal Anastomosis Versus Ileal Pouch-Anal Anastomosis in Familial Adenomatous Polyposis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Desmoid tumors (DT) are an important cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP). DT development might be related to the type and approach of colectomy. We aimed to compare DT development after colectomy with ileorectal anastomosis (IRA) and proctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA). METHODS: We performed an international historical cohort study in patients with FAP who underwent IRA or IPAA between 1961 and 2020. The primary outcome was the incidence of abdominal DT (either mesenteric, retroperitoneal, or abdominal wall). Patients with a DT diagnosis before or at colectomy were excluded. Time to DT was considered censored at an eventual secondary proctectomy after IRA. We used multivariable Cox regression modelling to adjust for potential confounders. RESULTS: We analyzed data from 852 patients: 514 after IRA and 338 after IPAA (median follow-up, 21 and 16 years, respectively). DTs were diagnosed in 64 IRA patients (12%) and 66 IPAA patients (20%). The cumulative DT incidence at 5 and 10 years was 7.5% and 9.3% after open IRA and 4.7% and 10.9% after laparoscopic IRA. These estimates were 13.6% and 15.4% after open IPAA and 8.4% and 10.0% after laparoscopic IPAA. The postoperative risk was significantly higher after IPAA (P < .01) in multivariable analysis, whereas approach did not significantly influence the risk. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of developing an abdominal DT was found to be significantly higher after IPAA than after IRA. Postoperative DT risk should be taken into account when choosing between IRA and IPAA in FAP.

International consensus on the management of large (≥20 mm) colorectal laterally spreading tumors: World Endoscopy Organization Delphi study.

OBJECTIVES: There have been significant advances in the management of large (≥20 mm) laterally spreading tumors (LSTs) or nonpedunculated colorectal polyps; however, there is a lack of clear consensus on the management of these lesions with significant geographic variability especially between Eastern and Western paradigms. We aimed to provide an international consensus to better guide management and attempt to homogenize practices. METHODS: Two experts in interventional endoscopy spearheaded an evidence-based Delphi study on behalf of the World Endoscopy Organization Colorectal Cancer Screening Committee. A steering committee comprising six members devised 51 statements, and 43 experts from 18 countries on six continents participated in a three-round voting process. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations tool was used to assess evidence quality and recommendation strength. Consensus was defined as ≥80% agreement (strongly agree or agree) on a 5-point Likert scale. RESULTS: Forty-two statements reached consensus after three rounds of voting. Recommendations included: three statements on training and competency; 10 statements on preresection evaluation, including optical diagnosis, classification, and staging of LSTs; 14 statements on endoscopic resection indications and technique, including statements on en bloc and piecemeal resection decision-making; seven statements on postresection evaluation; and eight statements on postresection care. CONCLUSIONS: An international expert consensus based on the current available evidence has been developed to guide the evaluation, resection, and follow-up of LSTs. This may provide guiding principles for the global management of these lesions and standardize current practices.

Endoscopic management of patients with familial adenomatous polyposis after prophylactic colectomy or restorative proctocolectomy - systematic review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: Patients with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) develop early colorectal adenomas and if left untreated, progression to cancer is an inevitable event. Prophylactic surgery does not prevent further development of cancer in the rectal remnant, rectal cuff in patients with ileal pouch anal anastomosis (IPAA) and even on the ileal mucosa of the pouch body. The aim of this review is to assess long-term rates of cancer and adenoma development in patients with FAP after prophylactic surgery and to summarise current recommendations for endoscopic management and surveillance of these patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic literature search of studies from January 1946 through to June 2023 was conducted using the PRISMA checklist. The electronic database PubMed was searched. RESULTS: Fifty-four papers involving 5010 patients were reviewed. Cancer rate in the rectal remnant was 8.8-16.7% in the western population and 37% in the eastern population. The cumulative risk of cancer 30 years after surgery was 24%. Mortality due to cancer in the rectal remnant is 1.1-11.1% with a 5-year survival rate of 55%. The adenoma rate after primary IPAA was 9.4-85% with a cumulative risk of 85% 20 years after surgery and a cumulative risk of 12% for advanced adenomas 10 years after surgery. Cumulative risk for adenomas after ileorectal anastomosis (IRA) was 85% after 5 and 100% after 10 years. Adenomas developed more frequently after stapled (33.9-57%) compared to hand-sewn (0-33%) anastomosis. We identified reports of 45 cancers in patients after IPAA of which 30 were in the pouch body and 15 in the rectal cuff or at the anastomosis. CONCLUSIONS: There was a significant incidence of cancer and adenomas in the rectal remnant and ileal pouch of FAP patients during the long-term follow-up. Regular endoscopic surveillance is recommended, not only in IRA patients, but also in pouch patients after proctocolectomy.

Colorectal polypectomy and endoscopic mucosal resection: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline - Update 2024.

1: ESGE recommends cold snare polypectomy (CSP), to include a clear margin of normal tissue (1-2 mm) surrounding the polyp, for the removal of diminutive polyps (≤ 5 mm).Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 2: ESGE recommends against the use of cold biopsy forceps excision because of its high rate of incomplete resection.Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. 3: ESGE recommends CSP, to include a clear margin of normal tissue (1-2 mm) surrounding the polyp, for the removal of small polyps (6-9 mm).Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 4: ESGE recommends hot snare polypectomy for the removal of nonpedunculated adenomatous polyps of 10-19 mm in size.Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 5: ESGE recommends conventional (diathermy-based) endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for large (≥ 20 mm) nonpedunculated adenomatous polyps (LNPCPs).Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 6: ESGE suggests that underwater EMR can be considered an alternative to conventional hot EMR for the treatment of adenomatous LNPCPs.Weak recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. 7: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) may also be suggested as an alternative for removal of LNPCPs of ≥ 20 mm in selected cases and in high-volume centers.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 8: ESGE recommends that, after piecemeal EMR of LNPCPs by hot snare, the resection margins should be treated by thermal ablation using snare-tip soft coagulation to prevent adenoma recurrence.Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 9: ESGE recommends (piecemeal) cold snare polypectomy or cold EMR for SSLs of all sizes without suspected dysplasia.Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. 10: ESGE recommends prophylactic endoscopic clip closure of the mucosal defect after EMR of LNPCPs in the right colon to reduce to reduce the risk of delayed bleeding.Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 11: ESGE recommends that en bloc resection techniques, such as en bloc EMR, ESD, endoscopic intermuscular dissection, endoscopic full-thickness resection, or surgery should be the techniques of choice in cases with suspected superficial invasive carcinoma, which otherwise cannot be removed en bloc by standard polypectomy or EMR.Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence.

Effect of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic on colorectal cancer diagnosis and prognosis.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Our aim was to determine the impact of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic on the diagnosis and prognosis of colorectal cancer (CRC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This prospective cohort study included individuals diagnosed with CRC between March 13, 2019 and June 20, 2021 across 21 Spanish hospitals. Two time periods were compared: prepandemic (from March 13, 2019 to March 13, 2020) and pandemic (from March 14, 2020 to June 20, 2021, lockdown period and 1 year after lockdown). RESULTS: We observed a 46.9% decrease in the number of CRC diagnoses (95% confidence interval (CI): 45.1%-48.7%) during the lockdown and 29.7% decrease (95% CI: 28.1%-31.4%) in the year after the lockdown. The proportion of patients diagnosed at stage I significantly decreased during the pandemic (21.7% vs. 19.0%; p = 0.025). Centers that applied universal preprocedure SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing experienced a higher reduction in the number of colonoscopies performed during the pandemic post-lockdown (34.0% reduction; 95% CI: 33.6%-34.4% vs. 13.7; 95% CI: 13.4%-13.9%) and in the number of CRCs diagnosed (34.1% reduction; 95% CI: 31.4%-36.8% vs. 26.7%; 95% CI: 24.6%-28.8%). Curative treatment was received by 87.5% of patients diagnosed with rectal cancer prepandemic and 80.7% of patients during the pandemic post-lockdown period (p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a decrease in the number of diagnosed CRC cases and in the proportion of stage I CRC. The reduction in the number of colonoscopies and CRC diagnoses was higher in centers that applied universal SARS-CoV-2 PCR screening before colonoscopy. In addition, the COVID-19 pandemic has affected curative treatment of rectal cancers.

Gender authorship in major American and European gastroenterology journals: the gap is still unfilled.

BACKGROUND: The gender gap in the authorship of scientific research may affect career advancement. Our aim was to assess the potential gender gap in gastrointestinal (GI) journals. METHODS: A systematic review was performed of the GI literature and ongoing research in the period 2020-2022. A total 10 GI journals and ongoing research on clinicaltrials.gov were selected for review. The gender gap in first and senior authorship was evaluated for each article and ongoing research project. Associations between the gender gap and possible predictors were measured and results are presented as odds ratios (ORs) with 95%CI. RESULTS: The number of first female authors (FFAs) and senior female authors (SFAs) in published articles were 1408/4207 (33.5%) and 911/4207 (21.7%), respectively. There were 781/2654 (29.4%) female principal investigators (PI)s for the ongoing research. On comparison of non-endoscopic vs. endoscopic topics, the latter were associated with the gender gap (hepatology, OR 2.15 [95%CI 1.83-2.55]; inflammatory bowel disease, OR 2.12 [95%CI 1.60-2.45]; upper and lower GI, OR 1.31 [95%CI 1.18-1.73]); as well as the type of article (original article vs. editorial, OR 1.92 [95%CI 1.58-2.33]). The type of research was also associated with the gender gap (clinical vs. preclinical studies, OR 0.88 [95%CI 0.66-0.91]). CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrated a correlation between the gender gap and the design and topic of the research. Future strategies for improving equity in career development in GI endoscopy should focus on closing the gender gap in equity of authorship.

Establishment of standards for the referral of large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps: an international expert consensus using a modified Delphi process.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Resection of colorectal polyps has been shown to decrease the incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer. Large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps are often referred to expert centers for endoscopic resection, which requires relevant information to be conveyed to the therapeutic endoscopist to allow for triage and planning of resection technique. The primary objective of this study was to establish minimum expected standards for the referral of large nonpedunculated colonic polyps for potential endoscopic resection. METHODS: A Delphi method was used to establish consensus on minimum expected standards for the referral of large colorectal polyps among a panel of international endoscopy experts. The expert panel was recruited through purposive sampling, and 3 rounds of surveys were conducted to achieve consensus. Quantitative and qualitative data were analyzed for each round. RESULTS: A total of 24 international experts from diverse continents participated in the Delphi study, resulting in consensus on 19 statements related to the referral of large colorectal polyps. The identified factors, including patient demographic characteristics, relevant medications, lesion factors, photodocumentation, and the presence of a tattoo, were deemed important for conveying the necessary information to therapeutic endoscopists. The mean scores for the statements, which were scored on a scale of 1 to 10, ranged from 7.04 to 9.29, with high percentages of experts considering most statements as a very high priority. Subgroup analysis according to continent revealed some variations in consensus rates among experts from different regions. CONCLUSIONS: The identified consensus statements can aid in improving the triage and planning of resection techniques for large colorectal polyps, ultimately contributing to the reduction of colorectal cancer incidence and mortality.

Standardised training for endoscopic mucosal resection of large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps to reduce recurrence (*STAR-LNPCP study): a multicentre cluster randomised trial.

OBJECTIVE: Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is the preferred treatment for non-invasive large (≥20 mm) non-pedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs) but is associated with an early recurrence rate of up to 30%. We evaluated whether standardised EMR training could reduce recurrence rates in Dutch community hospitals. DESIGN: In this multicentre cluster randomised trial, 59 endoscopists from 30 hospitals were randomly assigned to the intervention group (e-learning and 2-day training including hands-on session) or control group. From April 2019 to August 2021, all consecutive EMR-treated LNPCPs were included. Primary endpoint was recurrence rate after 6 months. RESULTS: A total of 1412 LNPCPs were included; 699 in the intervention group and 713 in the control group (median size 30 mm vs 30 mm, 45% vs 52% size, morphology, site and access (SMSA) score IV, 64% vs 64% proximal location). Recurrence rates were lower in the intervention group compared with controls (13% vs 25%, OR 0.43; 95% CI 0.23 to 0.78; p=0.005) with similar complication rates (8% vs 9%, OR 0.93; 95% CI 0.64 to 1.36; p=0.720). Recurrences were more often unifocal in the intervention group (92% vs 76%; p=0.006). In sensitivity analysis, the benefit of the intervention on recurrence rate was only observed in the 20-40 mm LNPCPs (5% vs 20% in 20-29 mm, p=0.001; 10% vs 21% in 30-39 mm, p=0.013) but less evident in ≥40 mm LNPCPs (24% vs 31%; p=0.151). In a post hoc analysis, the training effect was maintained in the study group, while in the control group the recurrence rate remained high. CONCLUSION: A compact standardised EMR training for LNPCPs significantly reduced recurrences in community hospitals. This strongly argues for a national dedicated training programme for endoscopists performing EMR of ≥20 mm LNPCPs. Interestingly, in sensitivity analysis, this benefit was limited for LNPCPs ≥40 mm. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR7477.

Management of colorectal cancer screening backlog due to the COVID-19 pandemic: A retrospective analysis of the use of a colorectal cancer screening clinical-decision support tool in Argentina.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic created a backlog in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and surveillance colonoscopies. The real impact in Argentina is not fully known. GOAL: To estimate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on CRC prevention by comparing the number of CRC screening and surveillance consults in a clinical decision support-tool used in Argentina before, during and after pandemic lockdown. METHODS: We analyzed data from May 2019 to December 2021 from CaPtyVa, a clinical decision support tool for CRC screening and surveillance. Queries were divided in pre-pandemic (May 2019 to March 2020), lockdown (April 2020 to December 2020), and post-lockdown (January 2021 to December 2021). The number of CRC monthly screening and surveillance visits were compared among the three periods and stratified according to CRC risk. RESULTS: Overall, 27,563 consults were analyzed of which 9035 were screening and 18,528 were surveillance. Pre-pandemic, the median number of screening consults was 346 per month (IQR25-75 280-410). There was a decrease to 156 (80-210)/month (p<0.005) during lockdown that partially recovered during post-lockdown to 230 (170-290)/month (p=0.05). Pre-pandemic, the median number of surveillance consults was 716 (560-880)/month. They decreased to 354 (190-470)/month during lockdown (p<.05) and unlike screening, completely recovered during post-lockdown to 581 (450-790)/month. CONCLUSIONS: There was a >50% decrease in the number of CRC screening and surveillance consults registered in CaPtyVa during lockdown in Argentina. Post-lockdown, surveillance consults recovered to pre-pandemic levels, but screening consults remained at 66% of pre-pandemic levels. This has implications for delays in CRC diagnoses and patient outcomes.

Linked-color imaging versus high definition white-light endoscopy for evaluation of post-polypectomy scars of nonpedunculated lesions: LCI-Scar study.

BACKGROUND: Detection and treatment of recurrence after piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection of nonpedunculated colorectal polyps are crucial for avoidance of post-colonoscopy cancer. Linked-color imaging (LCI) has demonstrated improved polyp detection but has never been assessed for evaluation of post-polypectomy scars. Our aim was to compare sensitivity and negative predictive value (NPV) between LCI and white-light endoscopy (WLE) for detection of post-polypectomy recurrence. METHODS: Patients undergoing surveillance colonoscopy after resection of lesions ≥15 mm were included in this prospective, single-center, randomized, crossover study. Each post-polypectomy scar underwent two examinations, one with LCI and the other with WLE, performed by two blinded endoscopists. Blue-light imaging (BLI) was then applied. A diagnosis of recurrence with a level of confidence was made for each modality and histopathology was the gold standard. RESULTS: 129 patients with 173 scars were included. Baseline patient, lesion, and procedural characteristics were similar in both arms. Recurrence was detected in 56/173 (32.4%), with 27/56 (48.2%) adenomas and 29/56 (51.8%) serrated lesions. LCI had greater sensitivity (96.4% [95%CI 87.8%-99.5%]) versus WLE (89.3% [95%CI 78.1%-95.9%]) and greater NPV (98.1% [95%CI 93.4%-99.8%] versus 94.6% [95%CI 88.7%-98.0%]). Paired concordance between modalities was 96.0%. In discordant cases, LCI identified four true-positive cases not detected by WLE and reclassified one false-positive of WLE. WLE reclassified two false positives of LCI without any increase in recurrence detection. CONCLUSIONS: LCI was highly accurate and had greater ability than WLE to rule out recurrence on post-polypectomy scars after resection of large polyps.

Training in basic gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates (ESGENA) Position Statement.

This ESGE Position Statement provides structured and evidence-based guidance on the essential requirements and processes involved in training in basic gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic procedures. The document outlines definitions; competencies required, and means to their assessment and maintenance; the structure and requirements of training programs; patient safety and medicolegal issues. 1: ESGE and ESGENA define basic endoscopic procedures as those procedures that are commonly indicated, generally accessible, and expected to be mastered (technically and cognitively) by the end of any core training program in gastrointestinal endoscopy. 2: ESGE and ESGENA consider the following as basic endoscopic procedures: diagnostic upper and lower GI endoscopy, as well as a limited range of interventions such as: tissue acquisition via cold biopsy forceps, polypectomy for lesions ≤ 10 mm, hemostasis techniques, enteral feeding tube placement, foreign body retrieval, dilation of simple esophageal strictures, and India ink tattooing of lesion location. 3: ESGE and ESGENA recommend that training in GI endoscopy should be subject to stringent formal requirements that ensure all ESGE key performance indicators (KPIs) are met. 4: Training in basic endoscopic procedures is a complex process and includes the development and acquisition of cognitive, technical/motor, and integrative skills. Therefore, ESGE and ESGENA recommend the use of validated tools to track the development of skills and assess competence. 5: ESGE and ESGENA recommend incorporating a multimodal approach to evaluating competence in basic GI endoscopic procedures, including procedural thresholds and the measurement and documentation of established ESGE KPIs. 7: ESGE and ESGENA recommend the continuous monitoring of ESGE KPIs during GI endoscopy training to ensure the trainee's maintenance of competence. 9: ESGE and ESGENA recommend that GI endoscopy training units fulfil the ESGE KPIs for endoscopy units and, furthermore, be capable of providing the dedicated personnel, infrastructure, and sufficient case volume required for successful training within a structured training program. 10: ESGE and ESGENA recommend that trainers in basic GI endoscopic procedures should be endoscopists with formal educational training in the teaching of endoscopy, which allows them to successfully and safely teach trainees.