Postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer: Prevalence, categorization and root-cause analysis based on the World Endoscopic Organization system.

AIMS: The World Endoscopy Organization (WEO) recommends that endoscopy units implement a process to identify postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC). The aims of this study were to assess the 3-year PCCRC rate and to perform root-cause analyses and categorization in accordance with the WEO recommendations. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Cases of colorectal cancers (CRCs) in a tertiary care center were retrospectively included from January 2018 to December 2019. The 3-year and 4-year PCCRC rates were calculated. A root-cause analysis and categorization of PCCRCs (interval and type A, B, C noninterval PCCRCs) were performed. The level of agreement between two expert endoscopists was assessed. RESULTS: A total of 530 cases of CRC were included. A total of 33 were deemed PCCRCs (age 75.8±9.5 years; 51.5% women). The 3-year and 4-year PCCRC rates were 3.4% and 4.7%, respectively. The level of agreement between the two endoscopists was acceptable either for the root-cause analysis (k=0.958) or for the categorization (k=0.76). The most plausible explanations of the PCCRCs were 8 "likely new PCCRCs", 1 (4%) "detected, not resected", 3 (12%) "detected, incomplete resection", 8 (32%) "missed lesion, inadequate examination", and 13 (52%) "missed lesion, adequate examination". Most PCCRCs were deemed noninterval Type C PCCRCs (N=17, 51.5%). CONCLUSION: WEO recommendations for root-cause analysis and categorization are useful to detect areas for improvement. Most PCCRCs were avoidable and were likely due to missed lesions during an otherwise adequate examination.

Agreement between the perception of colon cleansing reported by patients and colon cleansing assessed by a validated colon cleansing scale.

AIMS: Patients' perception of their cleansing quality can guide strategies to improve cleansing during colonoscopy. There are no studies assessing the agreement between the quality of cleansing perceived by patients and cleansing quality assessed during colonoscopy using validated bowel preparation scales. The main aim of this study was to compare the cleansing quality reported by patients with the quality during colonoscopy using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Consecutive patients referred to an outpatient colonoscopy were included. Four drawings representing different degrees of cleansing were designed. Patients chose the drawing that most resembled the last stool. The predictive ability of the patient's perception and agreement between the patient's perception and the BBPS were calculated. A BBPS score of <2 points in any segment was considered inadequate. RESULTS: Six hundred and thirty-three patients were included (age: 62.8±13.7 years, male: 53.4%). Overall, 107 patients (16.9%) had inadequate cleansing during colonoscopy, and in 12.2% of cases, the patient's perception was poor. The patient's perception compared to the quality of cleanliness during colonoscopy presented a positive and negative predictive value of 54.6% and 88.3%, respectively. The agreement between patient perception and the BBPS was significant (P<0.001), although fair (k=0.37). The results were similar in a validation cohort of 378 patients (k=0.41). CONCLUSIONS: The cleanliness perceived by the patient and the quality of cleanliness using a validated scale were correlated, although fair. However, this measure satisfactorily identified patients with adequate preparation. Cleansing rescue strategies may target patients who self-report improper cleaning. Registration number of the trial: NCT03830489.

Design and validation of an artificial intelligence system to detect the quality of colon cleansing before colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Patients' perception of their bowel cleansing quality may guide rescue cleansing strategies before colonoscopy. The main aim of this study was to train and validate a convolutional neural network (CNN) for classifying rectal effluent during bowel preparation intake as "adequate" or "inadequate" cleansing before colonoscopy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients referred for outpatient colonoscopy were asked to provide images of their rectal effluent during the bowel preparation process. The images were categorized as adequate or inadequate cleansing based on a predefined 4-picture quality scale. A total of 1203 images were collected from 660 patients. The initial dataset (799 images), was split into a training set (80%) and a validation set (20%). The second dataset (404 images) was used to develop a second test of the CNN accuracy. Afterward, CNN prediction was prospectively compared with the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) in 200 additional patients who provided a picture of their last rectal effluent. RESULTS: On the initial dataset, a global accuracy of 97.49%, a sensitivity of 98.17% and a specificity of 96.66% were obtained using the CNN model. On the second dataset, an accuracy of 95%, a sensitivity of 99.60% and a specificity of 87.41% were obtained. The results from the CNN model were significantly associated with those from the BBPS (P<0.001), and 77.78% of the patients with poor bowel preparation were correctly classified. CONCLUSION: The designed CNN is capable of classifying "adequate cleansing" and "inadequate cleansing" images with high accuracy.

Screening uptake of colonoscopy versus fecal immunochemical testing in first-degree relatives of patients with non-syndromic colorectal cancer: A multicenter, open-label, parallel-group, randomized trial (ParCoFit study).

BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy screening is underused by first-degree relatives (FDRs) of patients with non-syndromic colorectal cancer (CRC) with screening completion rates below 50%. Studies conducted in FDR referred for screening suggest that fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) was not inferior to colonoscopy in terms of diagnostic yield and tumor staging, but screening uptake of FIT has not yet been tested in this population. In this study, we investigated whether the uptake of FIT screening is superior to the uptake of colonoscopy screening in the familial-risk population, with an equivalent effect on CRC detection. METHODS AND FINDINGS: This open-label, parallel-group, randomized trial was conducted in 12 Spanish centers between February 2016 and December 2021. Eligible individuals included asymptomatic FDR of index cases <60 years, siblings or ≥2 FDR with CRC. The primary outcome was to compare screening uptake between colonoscopy and FIT. The secondary outcome was to determine the efficacy of each strategy to detect advanced colorectal neoplasia (adenoma or serrated polyps ≥10 mm, polyps with tubulovillous architecture, high-grade dysplasia, and/or CRC). Screening-naïve FDR were randomized (1:1) to one-time colonoscopy versus annual FIT during 3 consecutive years followed by a work-up colonoscopy in the case of a positive test. Randomization was performed before signing the informed consent using computer-generated allocation algorithm based on stratified block randomization. Multivariable regression analysis was performed by intention-to-screen. On December 31, 2019, when 81% of the estimated sample size was reached, the trial was terminated prematurely after an interim analysis for futility. Study outcomes were further analyzed through 2-year follow-up. The main limitation of this study was the impossibility of collecting information on eligible individuals who declined to participate. A total of 1,790 FDR of 460 index cases were evaluated for inclusion, of whom 870 were assigned to undergo one-time colonoscopy (n = 431) or FIT (n = 439). Of them, 383 (44.0%) attended the appointment and signed the informed consent: 147/431 (34.1%) FDR received colonoscopy-based screening and 158/439 (35.9%) underwent FIT-based screening (odds ratio [OR] 1.08; 95% confidence intervals [CI] [0.82, 1.44], p = 0.564). The detection rate of advanced colorectal neoplasia was significantly higher in the colonoscopy group than in the FIT group (OR 3.64, 95% CI [1.55, 8.53], p = 0.003). Study outcomes did not change throughout follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, compared to colonoscopy, FIT screening did not improve screening uptake by individuals at high risk of CRC, resulting in less detection of advanced colorectal neoplasia. Further studies are needed to assess how screening uptake could be improved in this high-risk group, including by inclusion in population-based screening programs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02567045).

Endoscopic Vacuum Therapy for Upper Gastrointestinal Leaks and Perforations: Analysis From a Multicenter Spanish Registry.

INTRODUCTION: Endoscopic vacuum therapy (EVT) is a novel technique for closing upper gastrointestinal (UGI) defects. Available literature includes single-center retrospective cohort studies with small sample sizes. Furthermore, evidence about factors associated with EVT failure is scarce. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of EVT for the resolution of UGI defects in a multicenter study and to investigate the factors associated with EVT failure and in-hospital mortality. METHODS: This is a prospective cohort study in which consecutive EVT procedures for the treatment of UGI defects from 19 Spanish hospitals were recorded in the national registry between November 2018 and March 2022. RESULTS: We included 102 patients: 89 with anastomotic leaks and 13 with perforations. Closure of the defect was achieved in 84 cases (82%). A total of 6 patients (5.9%) had adverse events related to the EVT. The in-hospital mortality rate was 12.7%. A total of 6 patients (5.9%) died because of EVT failure and 1 case (0.9%) due to a fatal adverse event. Time from diagnosis of the defect to initiation of EVT was the only independent predictor for EVT failure (odds ratio [OR] 1.03, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01-1.05, P = 0.005). EVT failure (OR 24.5, 95% CI 4.5-133, P = 0.001) and development of pneumonia after EVT (OR 246.97, 95% CI 11.15-5,472.58, P = 0.0001) were independent predictors of in-hospital mortality. DISCUSSION: EVT is safe and effective in cases of anastomotic leak and perforations of the upper digestive tract. The early use of EVT improves the efficacy of this technique.

Usefulness of a novel computer-aided detection system for colorectal neoplasia: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Artificial intelligence-based computer-aid detection (CADe) devices have been recently tested in colonoscopies, increasing the adenoma detection rate (ADR), mainly in Asian populations. However, evidence for the benefit of these devices in the occidental population is still low. We tested a new CADe device, namely, ENDO-AID (OIP-1) (Olympus, Tokyo, Japan), in clinical practice. METHODS: This randomized controlled trial included 370 consecutive patients who were randomized 1:1 to CADe (n = 185) versus standard exploration (n = 185) from November 2021 to January 2022. The primary endpoint was the ADR. Advanced adenoma was defined as ≥10 mm, harboring high-grade dysplasia, or with a villous pattern. Otherwise, the adenoma was nonadvanced. ADR was assessed in both groups stratified by endoscopist ADR and colon cleansing. RESULTS: In the intention-to-treat analysis, the ADR was 55.1% (102/185) in the CADe group and 43.8% (81/185) in the control group (P = .029). Nonadvanced ADRs (54.8% vs 40.8%, P = .01) and flat ADRs (39.4 vs 24.8, P = .006), polyp detection rate (67.1% vs 51%; P = .004), and number of adenomas per colonoscopy were significantly higher in the CADe group than in the control group (median [25th-75th percentile], 1 [0-2] vs 0 [0-1.5], respectively; P = .014). No significant differences were found in serrated ADR. After stratification by endoscopist and bowel cleansing, no statistically significant differences in ADR were found. CONCLUSIONS: Colonoscopy assisted by ENDO-AID (OIP-1) increases ADR and number of adenomas per colonoscopy, suggesting it may aid in the detection of colorectal neoplastic lesions, especially because of its detection of diminutive and flat adenomas. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT04945044.).

Colon Bowel Preparation in the Era of Artificial Intelligence: Is There Potential for Enhancing Colon Bowel Cleansing?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Proper bowel preparation is of paramount importance for enhancing adenoma detection rates and reducing postcolonoscopic colorectal cancer risk. Despite recommendations from gastroenterology societies regarding the optimal rates of successful bowel preparation, these guidelines are frequently unmet. Various approaches have been employed to enhance the rates of successful bowel preparation, yet the quality of cleansing remains suboptimal. Intensive bowel preparation techniques, supplementary administration of bowel solutions, and educational interventions aimed at improving patient adherence to instructions have been commonly utilized, particularly among patients at a high risk of inadequate bowel preparation. Expedited strategies conducted on the same day as the procedure have also been endorsed by scientific organizations. More recently, the utilization of artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged for the preprocedural detection of inadequate bowel preparation, holding the potential to guide the preparation process immediately preceding colonoscopy. This manuscript comprehensively reviews the current strategies employed to optimize bowel cleansing, with a specific focus on patients with elevated risks for inadequate bowel preparation. Additionally, the prospective role of AI in this context is thoroughly examined. CONCLUSIONS: While a majority of outpatients may achieve cleanliness with standard cleansing protocols, dealing with hard-to-prepare patients remains a challenge. Rescue strategies based on AI are promising, but such evidence remains limited. To ensure proper bowel cleansing, a combination of strategies should be performed.

The "diagnose and leave in" strategy for diminutive rectosigmoid polyps in Lynch syndrome: a post hoc analysis from a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The "diagnose-and-leave-in" policy has been established to reduce the risks and costs related to unnecessary polypectomies in the average-risk population. In individuals with Lynch syndrome, owing to accelerated carcinogenesis, the general recommendation is to remove all polyps, irrespective of size, location, and appearance. We evaluated the feasibility and safety of the diagnose-and-leave-in strategy in individuals with Lynch syndrome. METHODS : We performed a post hoc analysis based on per-polyp data from a randomized, clinical trial conducted by 24 dedicated colonoscopists at 14 academic centers, in which 256 patients with confirmed Lynch syndrome underwent surveillance colonoscopy from July 2016 to January 2018. In vivo optical diagnosis with confidence level for all detected lesions was obtained before polypectomy using virtual chromoendoscopy alone or with dye-based chromoendoscopy. Primary outcome was the negative predictive value (NPV) for neoplasia of high-confidence optical diagnosis among diminutive (≤ 5 mm) rectosigmoid lesions. Histology was the reference standard. RESULTS: Of 147 rectosigmoid lesions, 128 were diminutive. In 103 of the 128 lesions (81 %), the optical diagnostic confidence was high and showed an NPV of 96.0 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 88.9 %-98.6 %) and accuracy of 89.3 % (95 %CI 81.9 %-93.9 %). By following the diagnose-and-leave-in policy, we would have avoided 59 % (75/128) of polypectomies at the expense of two diminutive low grade dysplastic adenomas and one diminutive sessile serrated lesion that would have been left in situ. CONCLUSION: In patients with Lynch syndrome, the diagnose-and-leave-in strategy for diminutive rectosigmoid polyps would be feasible and safe.

Prevalence of missed lesions in patients with inadequate bowel preparation through a very early repeat colonoscopy.

OBJECTIVES: When bowel preparation (BP) is inadequate, international guidelines recommend repeating the colonoscopy within 1 year to avoid missing clinically relevant lesions. We aimed to determine the rate of missed lesions in patients with inadequate BP through a very early repeat colonoscopy with adequate BP. METHODS: Post hoc analysis was conducted using data collected from a prospective multicenter randomized clinical trial including patients with inadequate BP and then repeat colonoscopy. Inadequate BP was defined as the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score <2 points in any segment. We included patients with any indication for colonoscopy. The adenoma detection rate (ADR), advanced ADR (AADR), and serrated polyp detection rate (SPDR) were calculated for index and repeat colonoscopies. RESULTS: Of the 651 patients with inadequate BP from the original trial, 413 (63.4%) achieved adequate BP on repeat colonoscopy. The median interval between index and repeat colonoscopies was 28 days. On repeat colonoscopy, the ADR was 45.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] 40.5-50.1%), the AADR was 10.9% (95% CI 8.1-14.3%), and the SPDR was 14.3% (95% CI 10.9-17.7%). Cancer was discovered in four patients (1%; 95% CI 0.2-2.5%). A total of 60.2% of all advanced adenoma (AA) were discovered on repeat colonoscopy. A colon segment scored BBPS = 0 had most AA (66.1%) and all four cancers. CONCLUSION: Patients with inadequate BP present a high rate of AAs on repeat colonoscopy. When a colonoscopy has a colon segment score BBPS = 0, we recommend repeating the colonoscopy as soon as possible.

Diagnosis of synchronous pancreatic and ampullary adenocarcinomas during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Multiple primary tumors occur in 5-10 % of the population. However, synchronic neoplasms diagnosed within six months of one another is a rarity. We report the case of a patient initially diagnosed with a pancreatic cyst and a synchronous pancreatic and ampullary adenocarcinoma eleven months later.

Predictive factors for inadequate bowel cleansing in colon capsule endoscopy.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Achieving adequate bowel cleansing is of utmost importance for the efficiency of colon capsule endoscopy (CCE). However, information about predictive factors is lacking. The aim of this study was to assess the predictive factors of poor bowel cleansing in the CCE setting. METHODS: In this observational study, 126 patients who underwent CCE at two tertiary care hospitals were included between June 2017 and January 2020. Participants prepared for bowel cleansing with a 1-day clear liquid diet, a 4-L split-dose polyethylene glycol regimen and boosters with sodium phosphate, sodium amidotrizoate and meglumine amidotrizoate. Domperidone tablets and bisacodyl suppositories were administered when needed. Overall and per-segment bowel cleansing was evaluated using a CCE cleansing score. Simple and multiple logistic regression analysis were carried out to assess poor bowel cleansing and excretion rate predictors. RESULTS: Overall bowel cleansing was optimal in 53 patients (50.5%). Optimal per-segment bowel cleansing was achieved as follows: cecum (86 patients; 74.8%), transverse colon (91 patients; 81.3%), distal colon (81 patients; 75%) and rectum (64 patients; 66.7%). In the univariate analysis, elderly (OR, 1.03; 95% CI (1.01-1.076)) and constipation (OR, 3.82; 95% CI (1.50-9.71)) were associated with poor bowel cleansing. In the logistic regression analysis, constipation (OR, 3.77; 95% CI (1.43-10.0)) was associated with poor bowel cleansing. No variables were significantly associated with the CCE device excretion rate. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that constipation is the most powerful predictor of poor bowel cleansing in the CCE setting. Tailored cleansing protocols should be recommended for these patients.

White-Light Endoscopy Is Adequate for Lynch Syndrome Surveillance in a Randomized and Noninferiority Study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Dye-based pancolonic chromoendoscopy is recommended for colorectal cancer surveillance in patients with Lynch syndrome. However, there is scarce evidence to support its superiority to high-definition white-light endoscopy. We performed a prospective study assess whether in the hands of high detecting colonoscopists, high-definition, white-light endoscopy is noninferior to pancolonic chromoendoscopy for detection of adenomas in patients with Lynch syndrome. METHODS: We conducted a parallel controlled study, from July 2016 through January 2018 at 14 centers in Spain of adults with pathogenic germline variants in mismatch repair genes (60% women; mean age, 47 ± 14 years) under surveillance. Patients were randomly assigned to groups that underwent high-definition white-light endoscopy (n = 128) or pancolonic chromoendoscopy (n = 128) evaluations by 24 colonoscopists who specialized in detection of colorectal lesions in high-risk patients for colorectal cancer. Adenoma detection rates (defined as the proportion of patients with at least 1 adenoma) were compared between groups, with a noninferiority margin (relative difference) of 15%. RESULTS: We found an important overlap of confidence intervals (CIs) and no significant difference in adenoma detection rates by pancolonic chromoendoscopy (34.4%; 95% CI 26.4%-43.3%) vs white-light endoscopy (28.1%; 95% CI 21.1%-36.4%; P = .28). However, pancolonic chromoendoscopy detected serrated lesions in a significantly higher proportion of patients (37.5%; 95% CI 29.5-46.1) than white-light endoscopy (23.4%; 95% CI 16.9-31.4; P = .01). However, there were no significant differences between groups in proportions of patients found to have serrated lesions of 5 mm or larger (9.4% vs 7.0%; P = .49), of proximal location (11.7% vs 10.2%; P = .68), or sessile serrated lesions (3.9% vs 5.5%; P = .55), respectively. Total procedure and withdrawal times with pancolonic chromoendoscopy (30.7 ± 12.8 minutes and 18.3 ± 7.6 minutes, respectively) were significantly longer than with white-light endoscopy (22.4 ± 8.7 minutes and 13.5 ± 5.6 minutes; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: In a randomized parallel trial, we found that for Lynch syndrome surveillance, high-definition white-light endoscopy is not inferior to pancolonic chromoendoscopy if performed by experienced and dedicated endoscopists. ClinicalTrials.gov no: NCT02951390.

The Answer to "When to Clip" After Colorectal Endoscopic Mucosal Resection Based on a Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Delayed bleeding (DB) is the most common major complication of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). Two randomized clinical trials recently demonstrated that clip closure after EMR of large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs) reduces the risk of DB. We analyzed the cost-effectiveness of this prophylactic measure. METHODS: EMRs of LNCPCPs were consecutively registered in the ongoing prospective multicenter database of the Spanish EMR Group from May 2013 until July 2017. Patients were classified according to the Spanish Endoscopy Society EMR group (GSEED-RE2) DB risk score. Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed for both Spanish and US economic contexts. The average incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) thresholds were set at 54,000 € or $100,000 per quality-adjusted life year, respectively. RESULTS: We registered 2,263 EMRs in 2,130 patients. Applying their respective DB relative risk reductions after clip closure (51% and 59%), the DB rate decreased from 4.5% to 2.2% in the total cohort and from 13.7% to 5.7% in the high risk of the DB GSEED-RE2 subgroup. The ICERs for the universal clipping strategy in Spain and the United States, 469,706 € and $1,258,641, respectively, were not cost effective. By contrast, selective clipping in the high-risk of DB GSEED-RE2 subgroup was cost saving, with a negative ICER of -2,194 € in the Spanish context and cost effective with an ICER of $87,796 in the United States. DISCUSSION: Clip closure after EMR of large colorectal lesions is cost effective in patients with a high risk of bleeding. The GSEED-RE2 DB risk score may be a useful tool to identify that high-risk population.

Comparison of flipped learning and traditional lecture method for teaching digestive system diseases in undergraduate medicine: A prospective non-randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: This study examined the effects of a large-scale flipped learning (FL) approach in an undergraduate course of Digestive System Diseases. METHODS: This prospective non-randomized trial recruited 404 students over three academic years. In 2016, the course was taught entirely in a Traditional Lecture (TL) style, in 2017 half of the course (Medical topics) was replaced by FL while the remaining half (Surgical topics) was taught by TL and in 2018, the whole course was taught entirely by FL. Academic performance, class attendance and student's satisfaction surveys were compared between cohorts. RESULTS: Test scores were higher in the FL module (Medical) than in the TL module (Surgical) in the 2017 cohort but were not different when both components were taught entirely by TL (2016) or by FL (2018). Also, FL increased the probability of reaching superior grades (scores >7.0) and improved class attendance and students' satisfaction. CONCLUSION: The holistic FL model is more effective for teaching undergraduate clinical gastroenterology compared to traditional teaching methods and has a positive impact on classroom attendances.

Mucinous cystadenoma arising from a pancreatic heterotopia.

Mucinous pancreatic cystadenoma (MCA) is a premalignant lesion usually located in the body and tail of the pancreas, characteristically in females in their fifties and sixties. The definitive diagnosis relies on the presence of columnar mucin-producing epithelium and ovarian-type stroma. MCA arising from a pancreatic heterotopia (PH) has been rarely reported.

Increasing the low residue diet to 3 days does not improve the bowel cleansing in hard to prepare patients: Post hoc analysis of a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Recent evidence suggests that the number of low residue diet (LRD) days does not influence the bowel cleansing quality in non-selected patients. However, there are not data in the subgroup of patients with risk factors of inadequate bowel cleansing. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess whether a 3-day LRD improved the bowel cleansing quality in patients with risk factors of poor bowel cleansing. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Post hoc analysis of a randomized controlled trial carried out between December 2017 and March 2018 in a tertiary care hospital. Patients with high risk of poor bowel cleansing were selected following a validated score. The patients were randomized to the 1-day LRD or 3-day LRD groups. All patients received a 2-L split-dose of polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid. Intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analyses were conducted for the main outcome. RESULTS: 135 patients (1-day LRD group=67, 3-day LRD=68) were included. The rate of adequate cleansing quality was not significantly different between the groups in the ITT analysis: 76.1%, 95% CI: [64.6-84.8] vs. 79.4%, 95% CI: [68.2-87.4]; odds ratio (OR) 1.2, 95% CI [0.54-2.73]) or in the PP analysis: 77.3%, 95% CI: [65.7-85.8] vs. 80.3%, 95% CI: [69.0-88.3]; OR 1.2, 95% CI [0.52-2.77]). Compliance with the diet or cleansing solution, satisfaction or difficulties with the LRD and the polyp/adenoma detection rates were not significantly different. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that 1-day LRD is not inferior to 3-day LRD in patients with risk factors of inadequate bowel cleansing.

Accuracy of the Narrow-Band Imaging International Colorectal Endoscopic Classification System in Identification of Deep Invasion in Colorectal Polyps.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: T1 colorectal polyps with at least 1 risk factor for metastasis to lymph node should be treated surgically and are considered endoscopically unresectable. Optical analysis, based on the Narrow-Band Imaging International Colorectal Endoscopic (NICE) classification system, is used to identify neoplasias with invasion of the submucosa that require endoscopic treatment. We assessed the accuracy of the NICE classification, along with other morphologic characteristics, in identifying invasive polyps that are endoscopically unresectable (have at least 1 risk factor for metastasis to lymph node). METHODS: We performed a multicenter, prospective study of data collected by 58 endoscopists, from 1634 consecutive patients (examining 2123 lesions) at 17 university and community hospitals in Spain from July 2014 through June 2016. All consecutive lesions >10 mm assessed with narrow-band imaging were included. The primary end point was the accuracy of the NICE classification for identifying lesions with deep invasion, using findings from histology analysis as the reference standard. Conditional inference trees were fitted for the analysis of diagnostic accuracy. RESULTS: Of the 2123 lesions analyzed, 89 (4.2%) had features of deep invasion and 91 (4.3%) were endoscopically unresectable. The NICE classification system identified lesions with deep invasion with 58.4% sensitivity (95% CI, 47.5-68.8), 96.4% specificity (95% CI, 95.5-97.2), a positive-predictive value of 41.6% (95% CI, 32.9-50.8), and a negative-predictive value of 98.1% (95% CI, 97.5-98.7). A conditional inference tree that included all variables found the NICE classification to most accurately identify lesions with deep invasion (P < .001). However, pedunculated morphology (P < .007), ulceration (P = .026), depressed areas (P < .001), or nodular mixed type (P < .001) affected accuracy of identification. Results were comparable for identifying lesions that were endoscopically unresectable. CONCLUSIONS: In an analysis of 2123 colon lesions >10 mm, we found the NICE classification and morphologic features identify those with deep lesions with >96% specificity-even in non-expert hands and without magnification. ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT02328066.

Clinical validation of risk scoring systems to predict risk of delayed bleeding after EMR of large colorectal lesions.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The Endoscopic Resection Group of the Spanish Society of Endoscopy (GSEED-RE) model and the Australian Colonic Endoscopic Resection (ACER) model were proposed to predict delayed bleeding (DB) after EMR of large superficial colorectal lesions, but neither has been validated. We validated and updated these models. METHODS: A multicenter cohort study was performed in patients with nonpedunculated lesions ≥20 mm removed by EMR. We assessed the discrimination and calibration of the GSEED-RE and ACER models. Difficulty performing EMR was subjectively categorized as low, medium, or high. We created a new model, including factors associated with DB in 3 cohort studies. RESULTS: DB occurred in 45 of 1034 EMRs (4.5%); it was associated with proximal location (odds ratio [OR], 2.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.31-6.16), antiplatelet agents (OR, 2.51; 95% CI, .99-6.34) or anticoagulants (OR, 4.54; 95% CI, 2.14-9.63), difficulty of EMR (OR, 3.23; 95% CI, 1.41-7.40), and comorbidity (OR, 2.11; 95% CI, .99-4.47). The GSEED-RE and ACER models did not accurately predict DB. Re-estimation and recalibration yielded acceptable results (GSEED-RE area under the curve [AUC], .64 [95% CI, .54-.74]; ACER AUC, .65 [95% CI, .57-.73]). We used lesion size, proximal location, comorbidity, and antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy to generate a new model, the GSEED-RE2, which achieved higher AUC values (.69-.73; 95% CI, .59-.80) and exhibited lower susceptibility to changes among datasets. CONCLUSIONS: The updated GSEED-RE and ACER models achieved acceptable prediction levels of DB. The GSEED-RE2 model may achieve better prediction results and could be used to guide the management of patients after validation by other external groups. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03050333.).

Post-polypectomy colonoscopy surveillance: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline - Update 2020.

The 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 < 10 mm adenomas with low grade dysplasia, irrespective of villous components, or any serrated polyp < 10 mm without dysplasia, do not require endoscopic surveillance and should be returned to screening.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).

Educational nurse-led telephone intervention shortly before colonoscopy as a salvage strategy after previous bowel preparation failure: a multicenter randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: The most important predictor of unsuccessful bowel preparation is previous failure. For those patients with previous failure, we hypothesized that a nurse-led educational intervention by telephone shortly before the colonoscopy appointment could improve cleansing efficacy. METHODS: We performed a multicenter, endoscopist-blinded, randomized controlled trial. Consecutive outpatients with previous inadequate bowel preparation were enrolled. Both groups received the same standard bowel preparation protocol. The intervention group also received reinforced education by telephone within 48 hours before the colonoscopy. The primary outcome was effective bowel preparation according to the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale. Intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis included all randomized patients. Per-protocol analysis included patients who could be contacted by telephone and the control cases. RESULTS: 657 participants were recruited by 11 Spanish hospitals. In the ITT analysis, there was no significant difference between the intervention and control groups in the rate of successful bowel preparation (77.3 % vs. 72 %; P = 0.12). In the intervention group, 267 patients (82.9 %) were contacted by telephone. Per-protocol analysis revealed significantly improved bowel preparation in the intervention group (83.5 % vs. 72.0 %; P = 0.001). CONCLUSION: Among all patients with previous inadequate bowel preparation, nurse-led telephone education did not result in a significant improvement in bowel cleansing. However, in the 83 % of patients who could be contacted, bowel preparation was substantially improved. Phone education may therefore be a useful tool for improving the quality of bowel preparation in those cases.