Significant Reduction in the Diagnosis of Barrett's Esophagus and Related Dysplasia During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: The coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) pandemic disrupted endoscopy practices, creating unprecedented decreases in cancer screening and surveillance services. We aimed to assess the impact of the pandemic on the proportion of patients diagnosed with Barrett's esophagus (BE) and BE-related dysplasia and adherence to established quality indicators. METHODS: Data from all esophagogastroduodenoscopies in the GI Quality Improvement Consortium, a national repository of matched endoscopy and pathology data, were analyzed from January 2018 to December 2022. Four cohorts were created based on procedure date and COVID-19 data: pre-pandemic (January 2018 to February 2020), pandemic-phase I (March 2020 to July 2020), pandemic-phase II (August 2020 to May 2021), and pandemic-phase III (June 2021 to December 2022). Observed and expected number of BE and BE-related dysplasia cases per month and adherence to the Seattle biopsy protocol and recommended surveillance intervals for nondysplastic BE (NDBE) were evaluated. RESULTS: Among 2,446,857 esophagogastroduodenoscopies performed during the study period, 104,124 (4.3%) had pathology-confirmed BE. The histologic distribution was 87.4% NDBE, 1.8% low-grade dysplasia, 2.4% indefinite for dysplasia, and 1.4% high-grade dysplasia. The number of monthly BE (-47.9% pandemic-phase I, -21.5% pandemic-phase II, and -19.0% pandemic-phase III) and BE-related dysplasia (high-grade dysplasia: 41.2%, -27.7%, and -19.0%; low-grade dysplasia: 49.1%, -35.3%, and -26.5%; any dysplasia: 46.7%, -32.3%, and -27.9%) diagnoses were significantly reduced during the pandemic phases compared with pre-pandemic data. Adherence rates to the Seattle protocol and recommended surveillance intervals for NDBE did not decline during the pandemic. DISCUSSION: There was a significant decline in the number of BE and BE-related dysplasia diagnoses during the COVID-19 pandemic, with an approximately 50% reduction in the number of cases of dysplasia diagnosed in the early pandemic. The absence of a compensatory increase in diagnoses in the pandemic-phase II and III periods may result in deleterious downstream effects on esophageal adenocarcinoma morbidity and mortality.

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.

Multi-level Factors Influencing Decisions About Stopping Surveillance Colonoscopy in Older Adults: a Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about patient or provider experience and perceptions of stopping surveillance among older adults with a history of colon polyps. While guidelines recommend ceasing routine colorectal cancer screening in adults > 75 years and those with limited life expectancy, guidance for ceasing surveillance colonoscopy in those with prior colon polyps suggests individualizing recommendations. OBJECTIVE: Identify processes, experiences, and gaps around individualizing decisions to stop or continue surveillance colonoscopy for older adults and areas for improvement. DESIGN: Phenomenological qualitative study design using recorded semi-structured interviews from May 2020 through March 2021. PARTICIPANTS: 15 patients aged ≥ 65 in polyp surveillance, 12 primary care providers (PCPs), and 13 gastroenterologists (GIs). APPROACH: Data were analyzed using a mixed deductive (directed content analysis) and inductive (grounded theory) approach to identify themes related to stopping or continuing surveillance colonoscopies. KEY RESULTS: Analysis resulted in 24 themes and were clustered into three main categories: health and clinical considerations; communication and roles; and system-level processes or structures. Overall, the study found support for discussions around age 75-80 on stopping surveillance colonoscopy with considerations for health and life expectancy and that PCPs should take a primary role. However, systems and processes for scheduling surveillance colonoscopies largely bypass PCPs which reduces opportunities to both individualize recommendations and facilitate patients' decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified gaps in processes to implement current guidelines for individualizing surveillance colonoscopy as adults grow older, including opportunities to discuss stopping. Increasing the role of PCPs in polyp surveillance as patients grow older provides more opportunities for individualized recommendations, so patients can consider their own preferences, ask questions, and make a more informed choice for themselves. Changing existing systems and processes and creating supportive tools for shared decision-making specific to older adults with polyps would improve how surveillance colonoscopy is individualized in this population.

American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on the role of ergonomics for prevention of endoscopy-related injury: summary and recommendations.

This clinical practice guideline from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy provides an evidence-based approach to strategies to prevent endoscopy-related injury (ERI) in GI endoscopists. It is accompanied by the article subtitled "Methodology and Review of Evidence," which provides a detailed account of the methodology used for the evidence review. This document was developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. The guideline estimates the rates, sites, and predictors of ERI. Additionally, it addresses the role of ergonomics training, microbreaks and macrobreaks, monitor and table positions, antifatigue mats, and use of ancillary devices in decreasing the risk of ERI. We recommend formal ergonomics education and neutral posture during the performance of endoscopy, achieved through adjustable monitor and optimal procedure table position, to reduce the risk of ERI. We suggest taking microbreaks and scheduled macrobreaks and using antifatigue mats during procedures to prevent ERI. We suggest the use of ancillary devices in those with risk factors predisposing them to ERI.

American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on endoscopic submucosal dissection for the management of early esophageal and gastric cancers: methodology and review of evidence.

This document from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) provides a full description of the methodology used in the review of the evidence used to inform the final guidance outlined in the accompanying Summary and Recommendations document regarding the role of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in the management of early esophageal and gastric cancers. This guideline used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework and specifically addresses the role of ESD versus EMR and/or surgery, where applicable, for the management of early esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), and gastric adenocarcinoma (GAC) and their corresponding precursor lesions. For ESCC, the ASGE suggests ESD over EMR for patients with early-stage, well-differentiated, nonulcerated cancer >15 mm, whereas in patients with similar lesions ≤15 mm, the ASGE suggests either ESD or EMR. The ASGE suggests against surgery for such patients with ESCC, whenever possible. For EAC, the ASGE suggests ESD over EMR for patients with early-stage, well-differentiated, nonulcerated cancer >20 mm, whereas in patients with similar lesions measuring ≤20 mm, the ASGE suggests either ESD or EMR. For GAC, the ASGE suggests ESD over EMR for patients with early-stage, well or moderately differentiated, nonulcerated intestinal type cancer measuring 20 to 30 mm, whereas for patients with similar lesions <20 mm, the ASGE suggests either ESD or EMR. The ASGE suggests against surgery for patients with such lesions measuring ≤30 mm, whereas for lesions that are poorly differentiated, regardless of size, the ASGE suggests surgical evaluation over endosic approaches.

American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on endoscopic submucosal dissection for the management of early esophageal and gastric cancers: summary and recommendations.

This clinical practice guideline from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) provides an evidence-based summary and recommendations regarding the role of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in the management of early esophageal and gastric cancers. It is accompanied by the document subtitled "Methodology and Review of Evidence," which provides a detailed account of the methodology used for the evidence review. This guideline was developed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework and specifically addresses the role of ESD versus EMR and/or surgery, where applicable, for the management of early esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), and gastric adenocarcinoma (GAC) and their corresponding precursor lesions. For ESCC, the ASGE suggests ESD over EMR for patients with early-stage, well-differentiated, nonulcerated cancer >15 mm, whereas in patients with similar lesions ≤15 mm, the ASGE suggests either ESD or EMR. The ASGE suggests against surgery for such patients with ESCC, whenever possible. For EAC, the ASGE suggests ESD over EMR for patients with early-stage, well-differentiated, nonulcerated cancer >20 mm, whereas in patients with similar lesions measuring ≤20 mm, the ASGE suggests either ESD or EMR. For GAC, the ASGE suggests ESD over EMR for patients with early-stage, well- or moderately differentiated, nonulcerated intestinal type cancer measuring 20 to 30 mm, whereas for patients with similar lesions <20 mm, the ASGE suggests either ESD or EMR. The ASGE suggests against surgery for patients with such lesions measuring ≤30 mm, whereas for lesions that are poorly differentiated, regardless of size, we suggest surgical evaluation over endoscopic approaches.

American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on the role of endoscopy in the diagnosis of malignancy in biliary strictures of undetermined etiology: summary and recommendations.

This clinical practice guideline from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy provides an evidence-based approach for the diagnosis of malignancy in patients with biliary strictures of undetermined etiology. This document was developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework and addresses the role of fluoroscopic-guided biopsy sampling, brush cytology, cholangioscopy, and EUS in the diagnosis of malignancy in patients with biliary strictures. In the endoscopic workup of these patients, we suggest the use of fluoroscopic-guided biopsy sampling in addition to brush cytology over brush cytology alone, especially for hilar strictures. We suggest the use of cholangioscopic and EUS-guided biopsy sampling especially for patients who undergo nondiagnostic sampling, cholangioscopic biopsy sampling for nondistal strictures and EUS-guided biopsy sampling distal strictures or those with suspected spread to surrounding lymph nodes and other structures.

American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on role of endoscopy in the diagnosis of malignancy in biliary strictures of undetermined etiology: methodology and review of evidence.

Biliary strictures of undetermined etiology pose a diagnostic challenge for endoscopists. Despite advances in technology, diagnosing malignancy in biliary strictures often requires multiple procedures. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework was used to rigorously review and synthesize the available literature on strategies used to diagnose undetermined biliary strictures. Using a systematic review and meta-analysis of each diagnostic modality, including fluoroscopic-guided biopsy sampling, brush cytology, cholangioscopy, and EUS-guided FNA or fine-needle biopsy sampling, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Standards of Practice Committee provides this guideline on modalities used to diagnose biliary strictures of undetermined etiology. This document summarizes the methods used in the GRADE analysis to make recommendations, whereas the accompanying article subtitled "Summary and Recommendations" contains a concise summary of our findings and final recommendations.

Noninvasive Colorectal Cancer Prevention Options in Older Adults.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide and its incidence increases with age. The proportion of older adults in the United States continues to rise, making CRC prevention a key health priority for our aging population. CRC is a largely preventable disease through screening and polyp surveillance, and noninvasive modalities represent an important option for older adults in whom the burdens and risks of invasive testing are higher compared with younger adults. This review highlights the evidence, risks, and benefits of noninvasive CRC screening and surveillance options in older adults and discusses the challenges of CRC prevention in this cohort.

An Expert Consensus to Standardize Assessment of Bowel Cleansing for Clinical Trials of Bowel Preparations for Crohn's Disease.

BACKGROUND: Despite regular need for colonoscopy in patients with Crohn's disease (CD), the efficacy and tolerability of bowel preparation (BP) agents is rarely assessed in this population. Assessing BP quality with existing scales may be challenging in CD due to presence of inflammation, bowel resection, and strictures. AIMS: To provide recommendations for assessing BP quality in clinical trials for CD using a modified Research and Development/University of California, Los Angeles appropriateness process. METHODS: Based on systematic reviews and a literature search, 110 statements relating to BP quality assessment in CD were developed. A panel of 15 gastroenterologists rated the statements as appropriate, uncertain, or inappropriate using a 9-point Likert scale. RESULTS: Panelists considered it appropriate that central readers, either alone or with local assessment, score BP quality in clinical trials. Central readers should be trained on scoring BP quality and local endoscopists on performing high-quality video recording. Both endoscope insertion and withdrawal phases should be reviewed to score BP quality in each colonic segment and segments should align with endoscopic disease activity indices. The Harefield Cleansing Scale and the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale were considered appropriate. The final score should be calculated as the average of all visualized segments. Both total and worst segment scores should also be assessed. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a framework for assessing BP quality in patients with CD based on expert feedback. This framework could support the development or refinement of BP quality scales and the integration of BP quality assessment in future CD studies.

Impact of parental status on US medical student specialty selection.

Medical training occurs during peak childbearing years for most medical students. Many factors influence specialty selection. The aims of this study were (i) to determine whether being a parent is a major deciding factor when picking a specialty and (ii) whether parents are more drawn to family-friendly specialties than non-parents. The authors performed a multicenter web-based survey study of medical students enrolled in Oregon Health and Science University, Dartmouth's Geisel School of Medicine, and University of Michigan Medical School. The 27-item instrument assessed parenthood status, specialty preference, specialty perceptions, and factors influencing specialty choice. A total of 537 out of 2236 (24.0%) students responded. Among respondents, 59 (10.9%) were current or expecting parents. The majority (359, 66.8%) were female and 24-35 years old (430, 80.1%). Of the students who were parents or expecting, 30 (50.9%) were female, and the majority (55, 93.2%) were partnered. Top specialties preferred by both parents and non-parents were family medicine, emergency medicine, obstetrics and gynecology (OB/GYN), internal medicine, psychiatry, and pediatrics. Specialties rated most family-friendly included family medicine, dermatology, pediatrics, psychiatry, radiology, emergency medicine, and pathology. The specialties rated least family-friendly were surgery, neurosurgery, orthopedic surgery, plastic surgery, and OB/GYN. These rankings were the same between groups. Passion for the field, culture of the specialty, and quality of life were the top three factors students considered when choosing a specialty. Being a parent or future parent ranked more highly for parents than non-parents, but was not in the top three factors for either group. US Medical School parents report that being a parent influenced their medical specialty choice "strongly" or "very strongly." However, being a parent was not weighed as heavily as passion for the field, culture of the specialty, and quality of life. These student-parents are entering perceived "non-family friendly" specialties at similar rates as their peers. US Medical school training and simultaneous parenting is daunting, yet student parents are putting their passion first when making a career choice. They must be supported.

Practice Patterns and Predictors of Stopping Colonoscopy in Older Adults With Colorectal Polyps.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Older adults with colorectal polyps undergo frequent surveillance colonoscopy. There is no specific guidance regarding when to stop surveillance. We aimed to characterize endoscopist recommendations regarding surveillance colonoscopy in older adults and identify patient, procedure, and endoscopist characteristics associated with recommendations to stop. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study at a single academic medical center of adults aged ≥75 years who underwent colonoscopy for polyp surveillance or screening during which polyps were found. The primary outcome was a recommendation to stop surveillance. Predictors examined included patient age, sex, family history of colorectal cancer, polyp findings, and endoscopist sex and years in practice. Associations were evaluated using multilevel logistic regression. RESULTS: Among 1426 colonoscopies performed by 17 endoscopists, 34.6% contained a recommendation to stop and 52.3% to continue. Older patients were more likely to receive a recommendation to stop, including those 80-84 years (odds ratio [OR], 7.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.8-12.3) and ≥85 years (OR, 9.0; 95% CI, 3.3-24.6), compared with those 75-79 years. Family history of colorectal cancer (OR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.24-0.74) and a history of low-risk (OR, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.11-0.24) or high-risk (OR, 0.02; 95% CI, 0.01-0.04) polyps were inversely associated with recommendations to stop. The likelihood of a recommendation to stop varied significantly across endoscopists. CONCLUSIONS: Only 35% of adults ≥75 years of age are recommended to stop surveillance colonoscopy. The presence of polyps was strongly associated with fewer recommendations to stop. The variation in endoscopist recommendations highlights an opportunity to better standardize recommendations following colonoscopy in older adults.

AGA Clinical Practice Update on Strategies to Improve Quality of Screening and Surveillance Colonoscopy: Expert Review.

The purpose of this American Gastroenterological Association Institute Clinical Practice Update was to review the available evidence and provide best practice advice regarding strategies to improve the quality of screening and surveillance colonoscopy. This review is framed around 15 best practice advice statements regarding colonoscopy quality that were agreed upon by the authors, based on a review of the available evidence and published guidelines. This is not a formal systematic review and thus no formal rating of the quality of evidence or strength of recommendation has been carried out.

Recommendations for follow-up interval after colonoscopy with inadequate bowel preparation in a national colonoscopy quality registry.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopist recommendations regarding a repeat colonoscopy after inadequate bowel cleanliness have not been fully described. Our aim was to evaluate the timing of recommendations for repeat colonoscopy after inadequate bowel preparation using a large, national colonoscopy registry. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional analysis of all outpatient screening and surveillance colonoscopies among adults ages 50 to 75 reported in the GI Quality Improvement Consortium from 2011 to 2018. The primary outcome was a recommendation to repeat colonoscopy within 1 year. Secondary outcomes were recommendations based on indication of colonoscopy and colonoscopy findings and predictors of a recommendation to follow-up within 1 year. RESULTS: There were 260,314 colonoscopies with inadequate bowel preparation performed at 672 different sites by 4001 endoscopists. Of these, 31.9% contained a recommendation for follow-up within 1 year. This did not differ meaningfully by examination indication. The severity of colonoscopy findings influenced the recommendations for follow-up (within 1 year in 84.0% of cases with adenocarcinoma, 51.8% with any advanced lesion, and 23.2% with 1-2 small adenomas). Younger age, more severe pathology, location in the Northeast, and performance by an endoscopist with an adenoma detection rate ≥25% were associated with recommendations for follow-up within 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: Only some colonoscopies with inadequate bowel preparation are recommended to be repeated within 1 year, which may have implications for potential missed lesions. Further understanding of reasons driving recommendations is an important next step to improving guideline-concordant colonoscopy practice.

Artificial intelligence for the assessment of bowel preparation.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: A reliable assessment of bowel preparation is important to ensure high-quality colonoscopy. Current bowel preparation scoring systems are limited by interobserver variability. This study aimed to demonstrate objective assessment of bowel preparation adequacy using an artificial intelligence (AI)/convolutional neural network (CNN) algorithm developed from colonoscopy videos. METHODS: Two CNNs were developed using a training set of 73,304 images from 200 colonoscopies. First, a binary CNN was developed and trained to distinguish video frames that were appropriate versus inappropriate for scoring with the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). A second multiclass CNN was developed and trained on 26,950 appropriate frames that were expertly annotated with BBPS segment scores (0-3). We validated the algorithm using 252 10-second video clips that were assigned BBPS segment scores by 2 experts. The algorithm provided mean BBPS scores based on the algorithm (AI-BBPS) by calculating mean BBPS based on each frame's scoring. We maximized the algorithm's performance by choosing a dichotomized AI-BBPS score that closely matched dichotomized BBPS scores (ie, adequate vs inadequate). We tested the mean BBPS score based on the algorithm AI-BBPS against human rating using 30 independent 10-second video clips (test set 1) and 10 full withdrawal colonoscopy videos (test set 2). RESULTS: In the validation set, the algorithm demonstrated an area under the curve of .918 and accuracy of 85.3% for detection of inadequate bowel cleanliness. In test set 1, sensitivity for inadequate bowel preparation was 100% and agreement between raters and AI was 76.7% to 83.3%. In test set 2, sensitivity for inadequate bowel preparation for each segment was 100% and agreement between raters and AI was 68.9% to 89.7%. Agreement between raters alone versus raters and AI were similar (κ = .694 and .649, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The algorithm assessment of bowel cleanliness as measured with the BBPS showed good performance and agreement with experts including full withdrawal colonoscopies.

American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on informed consent for GI endoscopic procedures.

Informed consent is the cornerstone of the ethical practice of procedures and treatments in medicine. The purpose of this document from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) Standards of Practice Committee is to provide an update on best practice of the informed consent process and other issues around informed consent and shared decision-making for endoscopic procedures. The principles of informed consent are based on longstanding legal doctrine. Several new concepts and clinical trials addressing the best practice of informed consent will help guide practitioners of the burgeoning field of GI endoscopic procedures. After a literature review and an iterative discussion and voting process by the ASGE Standards of Practice Committee, this document was produced to update our guidance on informed consent for the practicing endoscopist. Because this document was designed by considering the laws and broad practice of endoscopy in the United States, legal requirements may differ by state and region, and it is the responsibility of the endoscopist, practice managers, and other healthcare organizations to be aware of local laws. Our recommendations are designed to improve the informed consent experience for both physicians and patients as they work together to diagnose and treat GI diseases with endoscopy.

Complete polyp resection with cold snare versus hot snare polypectomy for polyps of 4-9 mm: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic screening with polypectomy reduces the incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC). Incomplete polyp removal may attenuate the effect of screening. This randomized trial compared cold snare polypectomy (CSP) with hot snare polypectomy (HSP) in terms of complete polyp resection. METHODS: We included patients ≥ 40 years of age at eight hospitals in four countries who had at least one non-pedunculated polyp of 4-9 mm detected at colonoscopy. Patients were randomized 1:1 to CSP or HSP. Biopsies from the resection margins were obtained systematically after polypectomy in both groups. We hypothesized that CSP would be non-inferior to HSP, with a non-inferiority margin of 5 %. Logistic regression models were fitted to identify the factors explaining incomplete resection. RESULTS: 425 patients, with 601 polyps, randomized to either CSP or HSP were included in the analysis. Of 318 polyps removed by CSP and 283 polyps removed by HSP, 34 (10.7 %) and 21 (7.4 %) were incompletely resected, respectively, with an adjusted risk difference of 3.2 % (95 %CI -1.4 % to 7.8 %). There was no difference between the groups in terms of post-polypectomy bleeding, perforation, or abdominal pain. Independent risk factors for incomplete removal were serrated histology (odds ratio [OR] 3.96; 95 %CI 1.63 to 9.66) and hyperplastic histology (OR 2.52; 95 %CI 1.30 to 4.86) in adjusted analyses. CONCLUSION: In this randomized trial, non-inferiority for CSP could not be demonstrated. Polyps with serrated histology are more prone to incomplete resection compared with adenomas. CSP can be used safely for small polyps in routine colonoscopy practice.

Yield of Surveillance Colonoscopy in Older Adults with a History of Polyps: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The benefit of surveillance colonoscopy in older adults is not well described. AIMS: To quantify the detection of colorectal cancer (CRC) and advanced polyps during surveillance colonoscopy in older adults with a history of colon polyps. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review (MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Embase) for all published studies through May 2020 in adults age > 70 undergoing surveillance colonoscopy. The main outcome was CRC and advanced polyps detection. We performed meta-analysis to pool results by age (>70 vs. 50-70). RESULTS: The search identified 6239 studies, of which 569 underwent full-text review and 64 data abstraction, of which 19 were included. The risk of detecting CRC (N = 11) was higher in those >70 compared to 50-70 (risk ratio 1.5 (95% CI 1.1-2.2); risk difference 0.8% (95% CI -0.2%-1.8%)). Similarly, the risk of detecting advanced polyps (N = 8) was higher in those >70 compared to 50-70 (risk ratio 1.3 (95% CI 1.2-1.3), risk difference 2.7% (95% CI 1.3%-4.0%)). Most studies did not stratify results by baseline polyp risk. CONCLUSIONS: The detection of CRC and advanced polyps during surveillance colonoscopy in older individuals was higher than in younger controls; however, the absolute risk increase for both was small. These differences must be weighed against competing medical problems and limited life expectancy in older adults when making decisions about surveillance colonoscopy. More primary data on the risks of CRC and advanced polyps accounting for number of past colonoscopies, prior polyp risk, and duration of time since last polyp are needed.

Recurrence of Colorectal Neoplastic Polyps After Incomplete Resection.

BACKGROUND: Incomplete resection of neoplastic polyps is considered an important reason for the development of colorectal cancer. However, there are no data on the natural history of polyps that were incompletely removed. OBJECTIVE: To examine the risk for metachronous neoplasia during surveillance colonoscopy after documented incomplete polyp resection. DESIGN: Observational cohort study of patients who participated in the CARE (Complete Adenoma REsection) study (2009 to 2012). SETTING: 2 academic medical centers. PATIENTS: Patients who had resection of a 5- to 20-mm neoplastic polyp, had a documented complete or incomplete resection, and had a surveillance examination. MEASUREMENTS: Segment metachronous neoplasia, defined as the proportion of colon segments with at least 1 neoplastic polyp at first surveillance examination, was measured. Segment metachronous neoplasia was compared between segments with a prior incomplete polyp resection (incomplete segments) and those with a prior complete resection (complete segments), accounting for clustering of segments within patients. RESULTS: Of 233 participants in the original study, 166 (71%) had at least 1 surveillance examination. Median time to surveillance was shorter after incomplete versus complete resection (median, 17 vs. 45 months). The risk for any metachronous neoplasia was greater in segments with incomplete versus complete resection (52% vs. 23%; risk difference [RD], 28% [95% CI, 9% to 47%]; P = 0.004). Incomplete segments also had a greater number of neoplastic polyps (mean, 0.8 vs. 0.3; RD, 0.50 [CI, 0.1 to 0.9]; P = 0.008) and greater risk for advanced neoplasia (18% vs. 3%; RD, 15% [CI, 1% to 29%]; P = 0.034). Incomplete resection was the strongest independent factor associated with metachronous neoplasia (odds ratio, 3.0 [CI, 1.12 to 8.17]). LIMITATION: Potential patient selection bias due to incomplete follow-up. CONCLUSION: This natural history study found a statistically significantly greater risk for future neoplasia and advanced neoplasia in colon segments after incomplete resection compared with segments with complete resection. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

ASGE guideline on the management of cholangitis.

Cholangitis is a GI emergency requiring prompt recognition and treatment. The purpose of this document from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy's (ASGE) Standards of Practice Committee is to provide an evidence-based approach for management of cholangitis. This document addresses the modality of drainage (endoscopic vs percutaneous), timing of intervention (<48 hours vs >48 hours), and extent of initial intervention (comprehensive therapy vs decompression alone). Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology was used to formulate recommendations on these topics. The ASGE suggests endoscopic rather than percutaneous drainage and biliary decompression within 48 hours. Additionally, the panel suggests that sphincterotomy and stone removal be combined with drainage rather than decompression alone, unless patients are too unstable to tolerate more extensive endoscopic treatment.