Substratifying the risk of covert malignancy in significant rectal polyps: Outcomes from a specialist multidisciplinary team (MDT).

AIM: A treatment strategy for patients with a significant polyp or early colon cancer (SPECC) of the rectum presents a challenge due to the significant rate of covert malignancy and lack of standardized assessment. For this reason, NICE recommends multidisciplinary meetings to improve outcomes. The primary aim of the present study was to report the performance of our specialist early rectal cancer (SERC) multidisciplinary team (MDT) in correctly substratifying the risk of cancer and to discuss the limitations of staging investigations in those patients with "poor outcomes". METHOD: This was a retrospective review of patients referred to our SERC MDT from 2014 to 2019. Lesions were assigned by the MDT to three pre-resection categories (low, intermediate, high) according to the risk of covert malignancy. Resection method and final histology were compared to the pre-resection categories. RESULTS: Of 350 SPECC lesions, 174 were assessed as low-risk, 108 intermediate-risk and 68 high-risk. The cancer incidence was 4.8%, 8.3% and 53%, respectively (15.5% overall). Eight lesions were categorized as low-risk but following piecemeal resection were found to be malignant. Five lesions, three of which were categorized as high-risk, were ultimately benign following conventional surgery. One pT1sm1 cancer, removed by anterior resection, may have been treated by local excision. CONCLUSION: A total of 83% of malignant polyps were triaged to an en bloc resection technique and surgical resection avoided for nearly all benign lesions. However, 12 patients from this cohort were deemed to have a poor outcome because of miscategorization. Further comparative research is needed to establish the optimum strategy for rectal SPECC lesion assessment. ORIGINALITY STATEMENT: There is currently no consensus for staging significant polyps of the rectum. This paper reports the effectiveness of a specialist early rectal cancer MDT to correctly risk-stratify significant rectal polyps. It underscores the importance of accurate categorization for treatment decision-making, while acknowledging the limitations of current staging modalities.

Perspectives and awareness of endoscopy healthcare professionals on sustainable practices in gastrointestinal endoscopy: results of the LEAFGREEN survey.

BACKGROUND: Gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy is one of healthcare's main contributors to climate change. We aimed to assess healthcare professionals' attitudes and the perceived barriers to implementation of sustainable GI endoscopy. METHODS: The LEAFGREEN web-based survey was a cross-sectional study conducted by the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Green Endoscopy Working Group. The questionnaire comprised 39 questions divided into five sections (respondent demographics; climate change and sustainability beliefs; waste and resource management; single-use endoscopes and accessories; education and research). The survey was available via email to all active members of the ESGE and the European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates (ESGENA) in March 2023. RESULTS: 407 respondents participated in the survey (11% response rate). Most participants (86%) agreed climate change is real and anthropogenic, but one-third did not consider GI endoscopy to be a significant contributor to climate change. Improvement in the appropriateness of endoscopic procedures (41%) and reduction in single-use accessories (34%) were considered the most important strategies to reduce the environmental impact of GI endoscopy. Respondents deemed lack of institutional support and knowledge from staff to be the main barriers to sustainable endoscopy. Strategies to reduce unnecessary GI endoscopic procedures and comparative studies of single-use versus reusable accessories were identified as research priorities. CONCLUSIONS: In this survey, ESGE and ESGENA members acknowledge climate change as a major threat to humanity. Further improvement in sustainability beliefs and professional attitudes, reduction in inappropriate GI endoscopy, and rational use of single-use accessories and endoscopes are critically required.

Comparative effectiveness of ustekinumab or vedolizumab after one year in 130 patients with anti-TNF-refractory Crohn's disease.

BACKGROUND: Anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) agents are effective in Crohn's disease but some patients lose response and require alternative biologic therapy. There are few data on comparative effectiveness of vedolizumab and ustekinumab in this setting. AIM: To compare the effectiveness of ustekinumab and vedolizumab in anti-TNF-refractory Crohn's disease over 12 months. METHODS: Patients commencing ustekinumab or vedolizumab for anti-TNF-refractory Crohn's disease with minimum follow-up of 12 months were included. The primary outcome measure was the difference in steroid-free remission rates at end of induction (2 months) and at 12 months. We also assessed rates of clinical response and remission, treatment persistence, surgery and adverse events in both groups. We performed logistic regression analysis to assess factors associated with steroid-free remission and clinical response and remission. RESULTS: We included 85 patients commencing vedolizumab and 45 commencing ustekinumab. In an unadjusted model, rates of steroid-free and clinical remission were significantly higher among ustekinumab-treated patients. After adjusting for confounders, steroid-free remission was higher among ustekinumab-treated patients at 2 months (odds ratio, OR 2.79, 95% confidence interval, CI 1.06-7.39, P = 0.038) and 12 months (OR 2.01, 95% CI 0.89-4.56, P = 0.095). More patients treated with ustekinumab remained on therapy at the end of 12 months (84.4% vs 61.5%, P = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Ustekinumab appeared more effective in treating anti-TNF-refractory Crohn's disease and more patients persisted with therapy.