Interventional gastroenterology in oncology.

Cancer is one of the foremost health problems worldwide and is among the leading causes of death in the United States. Gastrointestinal tract cancers account for almost one third of the cancer-related mortality globally, making it one of the deadliest groups of cancers. Early diagnosis and prompt management are key to preventing cancer-related morbidity and mortality. With advancements in technology and endoscopic techniques, endoscopy has become the core in diagnosis and management of gastrointestinal tract cancers. In this extensive review, the authors discuss the role endoscopy plays in early detection, diagnosis, and management of esophageal, gastric, colorectal, pancreatic, ampullary, biliary tract, and small intestinal cancers.

Helicobacter pylori Treatment and Gastric Cancer Risk After Endoscopic Resection of Dysplasia: A Nationwide Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The study investigated the association between Helicobacter pylori treatment and the risk of gastric cancer after endoscopic resection of gastric dysplasia. METHODS: Patients who received endoscopic resection for gastric dysplasia between 2010 and 2020 from Korean nationwide insurance data were included. We verified the occurrence of new-onset gastric cancer and metachronous gastric neoplasm, which encompasses both cancer and dysplasia, >1 year after the index endoscopic resection. Newly diagnosed gastric cancer ≥3 years and ≥5 years was regarded as late-onset gastric cancer. A multivariable Cox regression model with H pylori treatment status as a time-dependent covariate was used to determine the risk of gastric cancer and metachronous gastric neoplasms. RESULTS: Gastric dysplasia in 69,722 patients was treated with endoscopy, and 49.5% were administered H pylori therapy. During the median 5.6 years of follow-up, gastric cancer developed in 2406 patients and metachronous gastric neoplasms developed in 3342 patients. Receiving H pylori therapy was closely related to lower gastric cancer risk (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80-0.96). H pylori treatment also significantly decreased metachronous gastric neoplasm development (aHR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.70-0.82). Furthermore, H pylori therapy showed a prominent protective effect for late-onset gastric cancer development at ≥3 years (aHR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.75-0.94) and ≥5 years (aHR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.68-0.95). CONCLUSIONS: In this nationwide cohort, H pylori therapy after endoscopic resection of gastric dysplasia was associated with a reduced risk of gastric cancer and metachronous gastric neoplasm occurrence.

The Effect of Nationwide Organized Cancer Screening Programs on Gastric Cancer Mortality: A Synthetic Control Study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Nationwide organized gastric cancer (GC) screening programs have been running for decades in South Korea and Japan. This study conducted a quasi-experimental analysis to assess the population impact of these programs on GC mortality. METHODS: We used the flexible synthetic control method (SCM) to estimate the effect of the screening programs on age-standardized GC mortality and other upper gastrointestinal (UGI) diseases (esophageal cancer and peptic ulcer) among people aged ≥40 years. World Health Organization mortality data and country-level covariates from the World Bank and the Global Burden of Diseases study were used for the analyses. We compared postintervention trends in outcome with the counterfactual trend of the synthetic control and estimated average postintervention rate ratios (RRs) with associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A series of sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: The preintervention fits were acceptable for the analyses of South Korea and Japan's GC mortality but poor for Japan's other UGI disease mortality. The average postintervention RRs were 0.83 (95% CI, 0.71-0.96) for GC mortality and 0.72 (95% CI, 0.57-0.90) for other UGI disease mortality in South Korea. The RR reached 0.59 by the 15th year after the initiation of nationwide screening. For Japan, the average RRs were 0.97 (95% CI, 0.88-1.07) for GC mortality and 0.93 (95% CI, 0.68-1.28) for other UGI disease mortality. Sensitivity analysis reveals the result for Japan may potentially be biased. CONCLUSIONS: South Korea's nationwide GC screening has apparent benefits, whereas the Japanese program's effectiveness is uncertain. The experiences of South Korea and Japan could serve as a reference for other countries.

The Environmental Impact of Gastrointestinal Procedures: A Prospective Study of Waste Generation, Energy Consumption, and Auditing in an Endoscopy Unit.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy procedures are critical for screening, diagnosis, and treatment of a variety of GI disorders. However, like the procedures in other medical disciplines, they are a source of environmental waste generation and energy consumption. METHODS: We prospectively collected data on total waste generation, energy consumption, and the role of intraprocedural inventory audit of a single tertiary care academic endoscopy unit over a 2-month period (May-June 2022). Detailed data on items used were collected, including procedure type (esophagogastroduodenoscopy or colonoscopy), accessories, intravenous tubing, biopsy jars, linen, and personal protective equipment use. Data on endoscope reprocessing-related waste generation and energy use in the endoscopy unit (equipment, lights, and computers) were also collected. We used an endoscopy staff-guided auditing and review of the items used during procedures to determine potentially recyclable items going to landfill waste. The waste generated was stratified into biohazardous, nonbiohazardous, or potentially recyclable items. RESULTS: A total of 450 consecutive procedures were analyzed for total waste management (generation and reprocessing) and energy consumption. The total waste generated during the study period was 1398.6 kg (61.6% directly going to landfill, 33.3% biohazard waste, and 5.1% sharps), averaging 3.03 kg/procedure. The average waste directly going to landfill was 219 kg per 100 procedures. The estimated total annual waste generation approximated the size of 2 football fields (1-foot-high layered waste). Endoscope reprocessing generated 194 gallons of liquid waste per day, averaging 13.85 gallons per procedure. Total energy consumption in the endoscopy unit was 277.1 kW·h energy per day; for every 100 procedures, amounting to 1200 miles of distance traveled by an average fuel efficiency car. The estimated carbon footprint for every 100 GI procedures was 1501 kg carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalent (= 1680 lbs of coal burned), which would require 1.8 acres of forests to sequester. The recyclable waste audit and review demonstrated that 20% of total waste consisted of potentially recyclable items (8.6 kg/d) that could be avoided by appropriate waste segregation of these items. CONCLUSIONS: On average, every 100 GI endoscopy procedures (esophagogastroduodenoscopy/colonoscopy) are associated with 303 kg of solid waste and 1385 gallons of liquid waste generation, and 1980 kW·h energy consumption. Potentially recyclable materials account for 20% of the total waste. These data could serve as an actionable model for health systems to reduce total waste generation and decrease landfill waste and water waste toward environmentally sustainable endoscopy units.

AGA Clinical Practice Update on Pregnancy-Related Gastrointestinal and Liver Disease: Expert Review.

DESCRIPTION: The purpose of this American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute Clinical Practice Update is to review the available published evidence and expert advice regarding the clinical management of patients with pregnancy-related gastrointestinal and liver disease. METHODS: This expert review was commissioned and approved by the AGA Institute Clinical Practice Updates Committee and the AGA Governing Board to provide timely guidance on a topic of high clinical importance to the AGA membership and underwent internal peer review by the Clinical Practice Updates Committee and external peer review through the standard procedures of Gastroenterology. This article provides practical advice for the management of pregnant patients with gastrointestinal and liver disease based on the best available published evidence. The Best Practice Advice statements were drawn from a review of the published literature and from expert opinion. Because formal systematic reviews were not performed, these Best Practice Advice statements do not carry formal ratings regarding the quality of evidence or strength of the presented considerations. Best Practice Advice Statements BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: To optimize gastrointestinal and liver disease before pregnancy, preconception and contraceptive care counseling by a multidisciplinary team should be encouraged for reproductive-aged persons who desire to become pregnant. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: Procedures, medications, and other interventions to optimize maternal health should not be withheld solely because a patient is pregnant and should be individualized after an assessment of the risks and benefits. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: Coordination of birth for a pregnant patient with complex inflammatory bowel disease, advanced cirrhosis, or a liver transplant should be managed by a multidisciplinary team, preferably in a tertiary care center. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: Early treatment of nausea and vomiting of pregnancy may reduce progression to hyperemesis gravidarum. In addition to standard diet and lifestyle measures, stepwise treatment consists of symptom control with vitamin B6 and doxylamine, hydration, and adequate nutrition; ondansetron, metoclopramide, promethazine, and intravenous glucocorticoids may be required in moderate to severe cases. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: Constipation in pregnant persons may result from hormonal, medication-related, and physiological changes. Treatment options include dietary fiber, lactulose, and polyethylene glycol-based laxatives. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: Elective endoscopic procedures should be deferred until the postpartum period, whereas nonemergent but necessary procedures should ideally be performed in the second trimester. Pregnant patients with cirrhosis should undergo evaluation for, and treatment of, esophageal varices; upper endoscopy is suggested in the second trimester (if not performed within 1 year before conception) to guide consideration of nonselective ß-blocker therapy or endoscopic variceal ligation. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: In patients with inflammatory bowel disease, clinical remission before conception, during pregnancy, and in the postpartum period is essential for improving outcomes of pregnancy. Biologic agents should be continued throughout pregnancy and the postpartum period; use of methotrexate, thalidomide, and ozanimod must be stopped at least 6 months before conception. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography during pregnancy may be performed for urgent indications, such as choledocholithiasis, cholangitis, and some cases of gallstone pancreatitis. Ideally, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography should be performed during the second trimester, but if deferring the procedure may be detrimental to the health of the patient and fetus, a multidisciplinary team should be convened to decide on the advisability of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: Cholecystectomy is safe during pregnancy; a laparoscopic approach is the standard of care regardless of trimester, but ideally in the second trimester. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 10: The diagnosis of intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy is based on a serum bile acid level >10 µmol/L in the setting of pruritus, typically during the second or third trimester. Treatment should be offered with oral ursodeoxycholic acid in a total daily dose of 10-15 mg/kg. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 11: Management of liver diseases unique to pregnancy, such as pre-eclampsia; hemolysis, elevated liver enzymes, and low platelets syndrome; and acute fatty liver of pregnancy requires planning for delivery and timely evaluation for possible liver transplantation. Daily aspirin prophylaxis for patients at risk for pre-eclampsia or hemolysis, elevated liver enzymes, and low platelets syndrome is advised beginning at week 12 of gestation. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 12: In patients with chronic hepatitis B virus infection, serum hepatitis B virus DNA and liver biochemical test levels should be ordered. Patients not on treatment but with a serum hepatitis B virus DNA level >200,000 IU/mL during the third trimester of pregnancy should be considered for treatment with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 13: In patients on immunosuppressive therapy for chronic liver diseases or after liver transplantation, therapy should be continued at the lowest effective dose during pregnancy. Mycophenolate mofetil should not be administered during pregnancy.

Gastrointestinal Biofilms: Endoscopic Detection, Disease Relevance, and Therapeutic Strategies.

Gastrointestinal biofilms are highly heterogenic and spatially organized polymicrobial communities that can expand and cover large areas in the gastrointestinal tract. Gut microbiota dysbiosis, mucus disruption, and epithelial invasion are associated with pathogenic biofilms that have been linked to gastrointestinal disorders such as irritable bowel syndrome, inflammatory bowel diseases, gastric cancer, and colon cancer. Intestinal biofilms are highly prevalent in ulcerative colitis and irritable bowel syndrome patients, and most endoscopists will have observed such biofilms during colonoscopy, maybe without appreciating their biological and clinical importance. Gut biofilms have a protective extracellular matrix that renders them challenging to treat, and effective therapies are yet to be developed. This review covers gastrointestinal biofilm formation, growth, appearance and detection, biofilm architecture and signalling, human host defence mechanisms, disease and clinical relevance of biofilms, therapeutic approaches, and future perspectives. Critical knowledge gaps and open research questions regarding the biofilm's exact pathophysiological relevance and key hurdles in translating therapeutic advances into the clinic are discussed. Taken together, this review summarizes the status quo in gut biofilm research and provides perspectives and guidance for future research and therapeutic strategies.

Reducing scope 3 carbon emissions in gastrointestinal endoscopy: results of the prospective study of the 'Green Endoscopy Project Würzburg'.

OBJECTIVE: Carbon emissions generated by gastrointestinal endoscopy have been recognised as a critical issue. Scope 3 emissions are mainly caused by the manufacturing, packaging and transportation of purchased goods. However, to our knowledge, there are no prospective data on the efficacy of measurements aimed to reduce scope 3 emissions. DESIGN: The study was performed in a medium-sized academic endoscopy unit. Manufacturers of endoscopic consumables were requested to answer a questionnaire on fabrication, origin, packaging and transport. Based on these data, alternative products were purchased whenever possible. In addition, staff was instructed on how to avoid waste. Thereafter, the carbon footprint of each item purchased was calculated from February to May 2023 (intervention period), and scope 3 emissions were compared with the same period of the previous year (control period). RESULTS: 26 of 40 companies answered the questionnaire. 229 of 322 products were classified as unfavourable. A switch to alternative items was possible for 47/229 items (20.5%). 1666 endoscopies were performed during the intervention period compared with 1751 examinations during the control period (-4.1%). The number of instruments used decreased by 10.0% (3111 vs 3457). Using fewer and alternative products resulted in 11.5% less carbon emissions (7.09 vs 8.01 tons of carbon equivalent=tCO2 e). Separation of waste led to a reduction of 20.1% (26.55 vs 33.24 tCO2e). In total, carbon emissions could be reduced by 18.4%. CONCLUSION: Use of fewer instruments per procedure, recycling packaging material and switching to alternative products can reduce carbon emissions without impairing the endoscopic workflow.

Environmental impact of single-use versus reusable gastroscopes.

INTRODUCTION: The environmental impact of endoscopy is a topic of growing interest. This study aimed to compare the carbon footprint of performing an esogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) with a reusable (RU) or with a single-use (SU) disposable gastroscope. METHODS: SU (Ambu aScope Gastro) and RU gastroscopes (Olympus, H190) were evaluated using life cycle assessment methodology (ISO 14040) including the manufacture, distribution, usage, reprocessing and disposal of the endoscope. Data were obtained from Edouard Herriot Hospital (Lyon, France) from April 2023 to February 2024. Primary outcome was the carbon footprint (measured in Kg CO2 equivalent) for both gastroscopes per examination. Secondary outcomes included other environmental impacts. A sensitivity analysis was performed to examine the impact of varying scenarios. RESULTS: Carbon footprint of SU and RU gastroscopes were 10.9 kg CO2 eq and 4.7 kg CO2 eq, respectively. The difference in carbon footprint equals one conventional car drive of 28 km or 6 days of CO2 emission of an average European household. Based on environmentally-extended input-output life cycle assessment, the estimated per-use carbon footprint of the endoscope stack and washer was 0.18 kg CO2 eq in SU strategy versus 0.56 kg CO2 eq in RU strategy. According to secondary outcomes, fossil eq depletion was 130 MJ (SU) and 60.9 MJ (RU) and water depletion for 6.2 m3 (SU) and 9.5 m3 (RU), respectively. CONCLUSION: For one examination, SU gastroscope have a 2.5 times higher carbon footprint than RU ones. These data will help with the logistics and planning of an endoscopic service in relation to other economic and environmental factors.

British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines on sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Over 2.5 million gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures are carried out in the United Kingdom (UK) every year. Procedures are carried out with local anaesthetic r with sedation. Sedation is commonly used for gastrointestinal endoscopy, but the type and amount of sedation administered is influenced by the complexity and nature of the procedure and patient factors. The elective and emergency nature of endoscopy procedures and local resources also have a significant impact on the delivery of sedation. In the UK, the vast majority of sedated procedures are carried out using benzodiazepines, with or without opiates, whereas deeper sedation using propofol or general anaesthetic requires the involvement of an anaesthetic team. Patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy need to have good understanding of the options for sedation, including the option for no sedation and alternatives, balancing the intended aims of the procedure and reducing the risk of complications. These guidelines were commissioned by the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) Endoscopy Committee with input from major stakeholders, to provide a detailed update, incorporating recent advances in sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy.This guideline covers aspects from pre-assessment of the elective 'well' patient to patients with significant comorbidity requiring emergency procedures. Types of sedation are discussed, procedure and room requirements and the recovery period, providing guidance to enhance safety and minimise complications. These guidelines are intended to inform practising clinicians and all staff involved in the delivery of gastrointestinal endoscopy with an expectation that this guideline will be revised in 5-years' time.

Updates to the modern diagnosis of GERD: Lyon consensus 2.0.

The Lyon Consensus provides conclusive criteria for and against the diagnosis of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GERD), and adjunctive metrics that consolidate or refute GERD diagnosis when primary criteria are borderline or inconclusive. An international core and working group was assembled to evaluate research since publication of the original Lyon Consensus, and to vote on statements collaboratively developed to update criteria. The Lyon Consensus 2.0 provides a modern definition of actionable GERD, where evidence from oesophageal testing supports revising, escalating or personalising GERD management for the symptomatic patient. Symptoms that have a high versus low likelihood of relationship to reflux episodes are described. Unproven versus proven GERD define diagnostic strategies and testing options. Patients with no prior GERD evidence (unproven GERD) are studied using prolonged wireless pH monitoring or catheter-based pH or pH-monitoring off antisecretory medication, while patients with conclusive GERD evidence (proven GERD) and persisting symptoms are evaluated using pH-impedance monitoring while on optimised antisecretory therapy. The major changes from the original Lyon Consensus criteria include establishment of Los Angeles grade B oesophagitis as conclusive GERD evidence, description of metrics and thresholds to be used with prolonged wireless pH monitoring, and inclusion of parameters useful in diagnosis of refractory GERD when testing is performed on antisecretory therapy in proven GERD. Criteria that have not performed well in the diagnosis of actionable GERD have been retired. Personalisation of investigation and management to each patient's unique presentation will optimise GERD diagnosis and management.

Fluorescently labelled vedolizumab to visualise drug distribution and mucosal target cells in inflammatory bowel disease.

OBJECTIVE: Improving patient selection and development of biological therapies such as vedolizumab in IBD requires a thorough understanding of the mechanism of action and target binding, thereby providing individualised treatment strategies. We aimed to visualise the macroscopic and microscopic distribution of intravenous injected fluorescently labelled vedolizumab, vedo-800CW, and identify its target cells using fluorescence molecular imaging (FMI). DESIGN: Forty three FMI procedures were performed, which consisted of macroscopic in vivo assessment during endoscopy, followed by macroscopic and microscopic ex vivo imaging. In phase A, patients received an intravenous dose of 4.5 mg, 15 mg vedo-800CW or no tracer prior to endoscopy. In phase B, patients received 15 mg vedo-800CW preceded by an unlabelled (sub)therapeutic dose of vedolizumab. RESULTS: FMI quantification showed a dose-dependent increase in vedo-800CW fluorescence intensity in inflamed tissues, with 15 mg (153.7 au (132.3-163.7)) as the most suitable tracer dose compared with 4.5 mg (55.3 au (33.6-78.2)) (p=0.0002). Moreover, the fluorescence signal decreased by 61% when vedo-800CW was administered after a therapeutic dose of unlabelled vedolizumab, suggesting target saturation in the inflamed tissue. Fluorescence microscopy and immunostaining showed that vedolizumab penetrated the inflamed mucosa and was associated with several immune cell types, most prominently with plasma cells. CONCLUSION: These results indicate the potential of FMI to determine the local distribution of drugs in the inflamed target tissue and identify drug target cells, providing new insights into targeted agents for their use in IBD. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04112212.

Clinical consequences of computer-aided colorectal polyp detection.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Randomised trials show improved polyp detection with computer-aided detection (CADe), mostly of small lesions. However, operator and selection bias may affect CADe's true benefit. Clinical outcomes of increased detection have not yet been fully elucidated. METHODS: In this multicentre trial, CADe combining convolutional and recurrent neural networks was used for polyp detection. Blinded endoscopists were monitored in real time by a second observer with CADe access. CADe detections prompted reinspection. Adenoma detection rates (ADR) and polyp detection rates were measured prestudy and poststudy. Histological assessments were done by independent histopathologists. The primary outcome compared polyp detection between endoscopists and CADe. RESULTS: In 946 patients (51.9% male, mean age 64), a total of 2141 polyps were identified, including 989 adenomas. CADe was not superior to human polyp detection (sensitivity 94.6% vs 96.0%) but outperformed them when restricted to adenomas. Unblinding led to an additional yield of 86 true positive polyp detections (1.1% ADR increase per patient; 73.8% were <5 mm). CADe also increased non-neoplastic polyp detection by an absolute value of 4.9% of the cases (1.8% increase of entire polyp load). Procedure time increased with 6.6±6.5 min (+42.6%). In 22/946 patients, the additional detection of adenomas changed surveillance intervals (2.3%), mostly by increasing the number of small adenomas beyond the cut-off. CONCLUSION: Even if CADe appears to be slightly more sensitive than human endoscopists, the additional gain in ADR was minimal and follow-up intervals rarely changed. Additional inspection of non-neoplastic lesions was increased, adding to the inspection and/or polypectomy workload.

Long-term follow-up study of necrotising pancreatitis: interventions, complications and quality of life.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the long-term consequences of necrotising pancreatitis, including complications, the need for interventions and the quality of life. DESIGN: Long-term follow-up of a prospective multicentre cohort of 373 necrotising pancreatitis patients (2005-2008) was performed. Patients were prospectively evaluated and received questionnaires. Readmissions (ie, for recurrent or chronic pancreatitis), interventions, pancreatic insufficiency and quality of life were compared between initial treatment groups: conservative, endoscopic/percutaneous drainage alone and necrosectomy. Associations of patient and disease characteristics during index admission with outcomes during follow-up were assessed. RESULTS: During a median follow-up of 13.5 years (range 12-15.5 years), 97/373 patients (26%) were readmitted for recurrent pancreatitis. Endoscopic or percutaneous drainage was performed in 47/373 patients (13%), of whom 21/47 patients (45%) were initially treated conservatively. Pancreatic necrosectomy or pancreatic surgery was performed in 31/373 patients (8%), without differences between treatment groups. Endocrine insufficiency (126/373 patients; 34%) and exocrine insufficiency (90/373 patients; 38%), developed less often following conservative treatment (p<0.001 and p=0.016, respectively). Quality of life scores did not differ between groups. Pancreatic gland necrosis >50% during initial admission was associated with percutaneous/endoscopic drainage (OR 4.3 (95% CI 1.5 to 12.2)), pancreatic surgery (OR 3.2 (95% CI 1.1 to 9.5) and development of endocrine insufficiency (OR13.1 (95% CI 5.3 to 32.0) and exocrine insufficiency (OR6.1 (95% CI 2.4 to 15.5) during follow-up. CONCLUSION: Acute necrotising pancreatitis carries a substantial disease burden during long-term follow-up in terms of recurrent disease, the necessity for interventions and development of pancreatic insufficiency, even when treated conservatively during the index admission. Extensive (>50%) pancreatic parenchymal necrosis seems to be an important predictor of interventions and complications during follow-up.

Diagnostic yield from symptomatic gastroscopy in the UK: British Society of Gastroenterology analysis using data from the National Endoscopy Database.

OBJECTIVE: This national analysis aimed to calculate the diagnostic yield from gastroscopy for common symptoms, guiding improved resource utilisation. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study was conducted of diagnostic gastroscopies between 1 March 2019 and 29 February 2020 using the UK National Endoscopy Database. Mixed-effect logistic regression models were used, incorporating random (endoscopist) and fixed (symptoms, age and sex) effects on two dependent variables (endoscopic cancer; Barrett's oesophagus (BO) diagnosis). Adjusted positive predictive values (aPPVs) were calculated. RESULTS: 382 370 diagnostic gastroscopies were analysed; 30.4% were performed in patients aged <50 and 57.7% on female patients. The overall unadjusted PPV for cancer was 1.0% (males 1.7%; females 0.6%, p<0.01). Other major pathology was found in 9.1% of procedures, whereas 89.9% reported only normal findings or minor pathology (92.5% in females; 94.6% in patients <50).Highest cancer aPPVs were reached in the over 50s (1.3%), in those with dysphagia (3.0%) or weight loss plus another symptom (1.4%). Cancer aPPVs for all other symptoms were below 1%, and for those under 50, remained below 1% regardless of symptom. Overall, 73.7% of gastroscopies were carried out in patient groups where aPPV cancer was <1%.The overall unadjusted PPV for BO was 4.1% (males 6.1%; females 2.7%, p<0.01). The aPPV for BO for reflux was 5.8% and ranged from 3.2% to 4.0% for other symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Cancer yield was highest in elderly male patients, and those over 50 with dysphagia. Three-quarters of all gastroscopies were performed on patients whose cancer risk was <1%, suggesting inefficient resource utilisation.

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.

Opening the doors of precision medicine: novel tools to assess intestinal barrier in inflammatory bowel disease and colitis-associated neoplasia.

Mounting evidence underscores the pivotal role of the intestinal barrier and its convoluted network with diet and intestinal microbiome in the pathogenesis of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and colitis-associated colorectal cancer (CRC). Moreover, the bidirectional association of the intestinal barrier with the liver and brain, known as the gut-brain axis, plays a crucial role in developing complications, including extraintestinal manifestations of IBD and CRC metastasis. Consequently, barrier healing represents a crucial therapeutic target in these inflammatory-dependent disorders, with barrier assessment predicting disease outcomes, response to therapy and extraintestinal manifestations.New advanced technologies are revolutionising our understanding of the barrier paradigm, enabling the accurate assessment of the intestinal barrier and aiding in unravelling the complexity of the gut-brain axis. Cutting-edge endoscopic imaging techniques, such as ultra-high magnification endocytoscopy and probe-based confocal laser endomicroscopy, are new technologies allowing real-time exploration of the 'cellular' intestinal barrier. Additionally, novel advanced spatial imaging technology platforms, including multispectral imaging, upconversion nanoparticles, digital spatial profiling, optical spectroscopy and mass cytometry, enable a deep and comprehensive assessment of the 'molecular' and 'ultrastructural' barrier. In this promising landscape, artificial intelligence plays a pivotal role in standardising and integrating these novel tools, thereby contributing to barrier assessment and prediction of outcomes.Looking ahead, this integrated and comprehensive approach holds the promise of uncovering new therapeutic targets, breaking the therapeutic ceiling in IBD. Novel molecules, dietary interventions and microbiome modulation strategies aim to restore, reinforce, or modulate the gut-brain axis. These advancements have the potential for transformative and personalised approaches to managing IBD.

Prevalence and Predictors of Barrett's Esophagus After Negative Initial Endoscopy: Analysis From Two National Databases.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Guidelines suggest a single screening esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) in patients with multiple risk factors for Barrett's esophagus (BE). We aimed to determine BE prevalence and predictors on repeat EGD after a negative initial EGD, using 2 large national databases (GI Quality Improvement Consortium [GIQuIC] and TriNetX). METHODS: Patients who underwent at least 2 EGDs were included and those with BE or esophageal adenocarcinoma detected at initial EGD were excluded. Patient demographics and prevalence of BE on repeat EGD were collected. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to assess for independent risk factors for BE detected on the repeat EGD. RESULTS: In 214,318 and 153,445 patients undergoing at least 2 EGDs over a median follow-up of 28-35 months, the prevalence of BE on repeat EGD was 1.7% in GIQuIC and 3.4% in TriNetX, respectively (26%-45% of baseline BE prevalence). Most (89%) patients had nondysplastic BE. The prevalence of BE remained stable over time (from 1 to >5 years from negative initial EGD) but increased with increasing number of risk factors. BE prevalence in a high-risk population (gastroesophageal reflux disease plus ≥1 risk factor for BE) was 3%-4%. CONCLUSIONS: In this study of >350,000 patients, rates of BE on repeat EGD ranged from 1.7%-3.4%, and were higher in those with multiple risk factors. Most were likely missed at initial evaluation, underscoring the importance of a high-quality initial endoscopic examination. Although routine repeat endoscopic BE screening after a negative initial examination is not recommended, repeat screening may be considered in carefully selected patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease and ≥2 risk factors for BE, potentially using nonendoscopic tools.

The Severity of Reduced Esophageal Distensibility Parallels Eosinophilic Esophagitis Disease Duration.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Chronic inflammation of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) results in progressive, fibrostenotic remodeling of the esophageal wall. This study aimed to demonstrate objective changes in esophageal distensibility relative to duration of EoE disease using a functional lumen imaging probe (FLIP). METHODS: Adult patients with EoE who completed a 16-cm FLIP protocol during endoscopy were evaluated in a cross-sectional study. FLIP analysis focused on distensibility plateau (DP) of the esophageal body. The time from onset of symptoms to time of endoscopy with FLIP was assessed, as was time from symptom onset to EoE diagnosis (ie, diagnostic delay). RESULTS: A total of 171 patients (mean age 38 ± 12 years; 31% female) were included; the median symptom duration was 8 (interquartile range, 3-15) years and diagnostic delay was 4 (interquartile range, 1-12) years. At the time of endoscopy with FLIP, there were 54 patients (39%) in histologic remission (<15 eosinophils per high-power field [eos/hpf]). Symptom duration and diagnostic delay were negatively correlated with DP (rho = -0.326 and -0.309; P values < .001). Abnormal esophageal distensibility (DP ≤17 mm) was more prevalent with increased duration of symptoms (P < .004): 23% at <5 years to 64% at ≥25 years. When stratifying the cohort based on mucosal eosinophil density, patients with ≥15 eos/hpf had significantly lower DP with greater symptom duration (P = .004), while there was not a significant difference among patients with <15 eos/hpf (P = .060). CONCLUSIONS: Esophageal distensibility objectively measured with FLIP was reduced in EoE patients with greater symptom duration and diagnostic delay. This supports that EoE is a progressive, fibrostenotic disease and that FLIP may be a useful tool to monitor disease progression in EoE.

Impact of Endoscopic Treatment in Severe Duodenal Polyposis: A National Study in Familial Adenomatous Polyposis Patients.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The majority of patients with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) develop duodenal adenomas with a risk of progression to duodenal cancer. Endoscopic management of FAP duodenal adenomas has been proposed as a less-invasive option than surgery, but available data still are limited. Our aims were to assess the feasibility and safety of endoscopic treatment in duodenal polyposis and to evaluate its long-term efficacy in terms of recurrence and malignant degeneration. METHODS: FAP patients with stage IV duodenal polyposis were enrolled in 5 French centers as part of a national cohort and followed up for a median period of 5.66 years (interquartile range, 6.39 y). Primary outcomes were duodenal surgery-free and cancer-free survival. Two groups of patients were identified according to endoscopic procedures: group 1: resection and or destruction (by argon plasma coagulation) of duodenal polyps, and group 2: papillectomy. RESULTS: Fifty-eight patients were enrolled (29 men; median age, 44 y). Endoscopic therapy was performed in 37 patients in group 1 and in 19 patients in group 2. Duodenal cancer-free and surgery-free survival were 95.8% at 5 years and 92.6% at 10 years. Four patients required surgery and 2 patients developed cancers. In the 58 patients, the calculated Spigelman score decreased from 9.24 points at entry to 6.35 at 5 years and then plateaued. Complications (mostly bleeding and perforation) occurred in 20 patients. CONCLUSIONS: In this long-term cohort follow-up evaluation, endoscopic treatment of patients with severe duodenal polyposis appears relatively safe and effective as an alternative to surgery for the prevention of cancer.

AGA Clinical Practice Update on High-Quality Upper Endoscopy: Expert Review.

DESCRIPTION: The purpose of this Clinical Practice Update (CPU) Expert Review is to provide clinicians with guidance on best practices for performing a high-quality upper endoscopic exam. METHODS: The best practice advice statements presented herein were developed from a combination of available evidence from published literature, guidelines, and consensus-based expert opinion. No formal rating of the strength or quality of the evidence was carried out, which aligns with standard processes for American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute CPUs. These statements are meant to provide practical, timely advice to clinicians practicing in the United States. This Expert Review was commissioned and approved by the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute Clinical Practice Updates (CPU) Committee and the AGA Governing Board to provide timely guidance on a topic of high clinical importance to the AGA membership, and underwent internal peer review by the CPU Committee and external peer review through standard procedures of Clinical Gastroenterology & Hepatology. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: Endoscopists should ensure that upper endoscopy is being performed for an appropriate indication and that informed consent clearly explaining the risks, benefits, alternatives, sedation plan, and potential diagnostic and therapeutic interventions is obtained. These elements should be documented by the endoscopist before the procedure. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: Endoscopists should ensure that adequate visualization of the upper gastrointestinal mucosa, using mucosal cleansing and insufflation as necessary, is achieved and documented. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: A high-definition white-light endoscopy system should be used for upper endoscopy instead of a standard-definition white-light endoscopy system whenever possible. The endoscope used for the procedure should be documented in the procedure note. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: Image enhancement technologies should be used during the upper endoscopic examination to improve the diagnostic yield for preneoplasia and neoplasia. Suspicious areas should be clearly described, photodocumented, and biopsied separately. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: Endoscopists should spend sufficient time carefully inspecting the foregut mucosa in an anterograde and retroflexed view to improve the detection and characterization of abnormalities. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: Endoscopists should document any abnormalities noted on upper endoscopy using established classifications and standard terminology whenever possible. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: Endoscopists should perform biopsies for the evaluation and management of foregut conditions using standardized biopsy protocols. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: Endoscopists should provide patients with management recommendations based on the specific endoscopic findings (eg, peptic ulcer disease, erosive esophagitis), and this should be documented in the medical record. If recommendations are contingent upon histopathology results (eg, H pylori infection, Barrett's esophagus), then endoscopists should document that appropriate guidance will be provided after results are available. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: Endoscopists should document whether subsequent surveillance endoscopy is indicated and, if so, provide appropriate surveillance intervals. If the determination of surveillance is contingent on histopathology results, then endoscopists should document that surveillance intervals will be suggested after results are available.