Effect of Colonoscopy Screening on Risks of Colorectal Cancer and Related Death.

BACKGROUND: Although colonoscopy is widely used as a screening test to detect colorectal cancer, its effect on the risks of colorectal cancer and related death is unclear. METHODS: We performed a pragmatic, randomized trial involving presumptively healthy men and women 55 to 64 years of age drawn from population registries in Poland, Norway, Sweden, and the Netherlands between 2009 and 2014. The participants were randomly assigned in a 1:2 ratio either to receive an invitation to undergo a single screening colonoscopy (the invited group) or to receive no invitation or screening (the usual-care group). The primary end points were the risks of colorectal cancer and related death, and the secondary end point was death from any cause. RESULTS: Follow-up data were available for 84,585 participants in Poland, Norway, and Sweden - 28,220 in the invited group, 11,843 of whom (42.0%) underwent screening, and 56,365 in the usual-care group. A total of 15 participants had major bleeding after polyp removal. No perforations or screening-related deaths occurred within 30 days after colonoscopy. During a median follow-up of 10 years, 259 cases of colorectal cancer were diagnosed in the invited group as compared with 622 cases in the usual-care group. In intention-to-screen analyses, the risk of colorectal cancer at 10 years was 0.98% in the invited group and 1.20% in the usual-care group, a risk reduction of 18% (risk ratio, 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.70 to 0.93). The risk of death from colorectal cancer was 0.28% in the invited group and 0.31% in the usual-care group (risk ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.64 to 1.16). The number needed to invite to undergo screening to prevent one case of colorectal cancer was 455 (95% CI, 270 to 1429). The risk of death from any cause was 11.03% in the invited group and 11.04% in the usual-care group (risk ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.04). CONCLUSIONS: In this randomized trial, the risk of colorectal cancer at 10 years was lower among participants who were invited to undergo screening colonoscopy than among those who were assigned to no screening. (Funded by the Research Council of Norway and others; NordICC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00883792.).

Gastroenterology/Hepatology: What You May Have Missed in 2023.

This article summarizes clinically important gastroenterology developments from 2023 for internal medicine specialists. In colorectal cancer screening, a new RNA fecal screening test is on the horizon, as well as a new analysis on the benefits of using artificial intelligence in screening colonoscopy to detect more polyps. There is new evidence for management of gastrointestinal bleeding, a new drug for treatment of recurrent small-intestinal angiodysplasia, and a new endoscopic treatment method in patients with gastrointestinal tumor bleeding. The authors feature a randomized trial about amitriptyline as treatment for patients with irritable bowel syndrome by primary care providers and bring you news about new biologic agents for inflammatory bowel disease and eosinophilic esophagitis. Finally, they review 2 important articles on new terminology and management of metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease.

QUAIDE - Quality assessment of AI preclinical studies in diagnostic endoscopy.

Artificial intelligence (AI) holds significant potential for enhancing quality of gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy, but the adoption of AI in clinical practice is hampered by the lack of rigorous standardisation and development methodology ensuring generalisability. The aim of the Quality Assessment of pre-clinical AI studies in Diagnostic Endoscopy (QUAIDE) Explanation and Checklist was to develop recommendations for standardised design and reporting of preclinical AI studies in GI endoscopy.The recommendations were developed based on a formal consensus approach with an international multidisciplinary panel of 32 experts among endoscopists and computer scientists. The Delphi methodology was employed to achieve consensus on statements, with a predetermined threshold of 80% agreement. A maximum three rounds of voting were permitted.Consensus was reached on 18 key recommendations, covering 6 key domains: data acquisition and annotation (6 statements), outcome reporting (3 statements), experimental setup and algorithm architecture (4 statements) and result presentation and interpretation (5 statements). QUAIDE provides recommendations on how to properly design (1. Methods, statements 1-14), present results (2. Results, statements 15-16) and integrate and interpret the obtained results (3. Discussion, statements 17-18).The QUAIDE framework offers practical guidance for authors, readers, editors and reviewers involved in AI preclinical studies in GI endoscopy, aiming at improving design and reporting, thereby promoting research standardisation and accelerating the translation of AI innovations into clinical practice.

Dramatic improvements in outcome following pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic and periampullary cancers.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatoduodenectomy is the only cure for cancers of the pancreas and the periampullary region but has considerable operative complications and uncertain prognosis. Our goal was to analyse temporal improvements and provide contemporary population-based benchmarks for outcomes following pancreatoduodenectomy. METHODS: We empanelled a cohort comprising all patients in Sweden with pancreatic or periampullary cancer treated with pancreatoduodenectomy from 1964 to 2016 and achieved complete follow-up through 2016. We analysed postoperative deaths and disease-specific net survival. RESULTS: We analysed 5923 patients with cancer of the pancreas (3876), duodenum (444), bile duct (504), or duodenal papilla (963) who underwent classic (3332) or modified (1652) Whipple's procedure or total pancreatectomy (803). Postoperative deaths declined from 17.2% in the 1960s to 1.6% in the contemporary time period (2010-2016). For all four cancer types, median, 1-year and 5-year survival improved substantially over time. Among patients operated between 2010 and 2016, 5-year survival was 29.0% (95% confidence interval (CI): 25.5, 33.0) for pancreatic cancer, 71.2% (95% CI: 62.9, 80.5) for duodenal cancer, 30.8% (95% CI: 23.0, 41.3) for bile duct cancer, and 62.7% (95% CI: 55.5, 70.8) for duodenal papilla cancer. CONCLUSION: There is a continuous and substantial improvement in the benefit-harm ratio after pancreatoduodenectomy for cancer.

A Comparison of Risk Classification Systems of Colorectal Adenomas: A Case-Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Because post-polypectomy surveillance uses a growing proportion of colonoscopy capacity, more targeted surveillance is warranted. We therefore compared surveillance burden and cancer detection using 3 different adenoma classification systems. METHODS: In a case-cohort study among individuals who had adenomas removed between 1993 and 2007, we included 675 individuals with colorectal cancer (cases) diagnosed a median of 5.6 years after adenoma removal and 906 randomly selected individuals (subcohort). We compared colorectal cancer incidence among high- and low-risk individuals defined according to the traditional (high-risk: diameter ≥10 mm, high-grade dysplasia, villous growth pattern, or 3 or more adenomas), European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) 2020 (high-risk: diameter ≥10 mm, high-grade dysplasia, or 5 or more adenomas), and novel (high-risk: diameter ≥20 mm or high-grade dysplasia) classification systems. For the different classification systems, we calculated the number of individuals recommended frequent surveillance colonoscopy and estimated number of delayed cancer diagnoses. RESULTS: Four hundred and thirty individuals with adenomas (52.7%) were high risk based on the traditional classification, 369 (45.2%) were high risk based on the ESGE 2020 classification, and 220 (27.0%) were high risk based on the novel classification. Using the traditional, ESGE 2020, and novel classifications, the colorectal cancer incidences per 100,000 person-years were 479, 552, and 690 among high-risk individuals, and 123, 124, and 179 among low-risk individuals, respectively. Compared with the traditional classification, the number of individuals who needed frequent surveillance was reduced by 13.9% and 44.2%, respectively, and 1 (3.4%) and 7 (24.1%) cancer diagnoses were delayed using the ESGE 2020 and novel classifications. CONCLUSIONS: Using the ESGE 2020 and novel risk classifications will substantially reduce resources needed for colonoscopy surveillance after adenoma removal.

Combination of Mucosa-Exposure Device and Computer-Aided Detection for Adenoma Detection During Colonoscopy: A Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Both computer-aided detection (CADe)-assisted and Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy have been found to increase adenoma detection. We investigated the performance of the combination of the 2 tools compared with CADe-assisted colonoscopy alone to detect colorectal neoplasias during colonoscopy in a multicenter randomized trial. METHODS: Men and women undergoing colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening, polyp surveillance, or clincial indications at 6 centers in Italy and Switzerland were enrolled. Patients were assigned (1:1) to colonoscopy with the combinations of CADe (GI-Genius; Medtronic) and a mucosal exposure device (Endocuff Vision [ECV]; Olympus) or to CADe-assisted colonoscopy alone (control group). All detected lesions were removed and sent to histopathology for diagnosis. The primary outcome was adenoma detection rate (percentage of patients with at least 1 histologically proven adenoma or carcinoma). Secondary outcomes were adenomas detected per colonoscopy, advanced adenomas and serrated lesions detection rate, the rate of unnecessary polypectomies (polyp resection without histologically proven adenomas), and withdrawal time. RESULTS: From July 1, 2021 to May 31, 2022, there were 1316 subjects randomized and eligible for analysis; 660 to the ECV group, 656 to the control group). The adenoma detection rate was significantly higher in the ECV group (49.6%) than in the control group (44.0%) (relative risk, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.00-1.26; P = .04). Adenomas detected per colonoscopy were significantly higher in the ECV group (mean ± SD, 0.94 ± 0.54) than in the control group (0.74 ± 0.21) (incidence rate ratio, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.04-1.54; P = .02). The 2 groups did not differ in term of detection of advanced adenomas and serrated lesions. There was no significant difference between groups in mean ± SD withdrawal time (9.01 ± 2.48 seconds for the ECV group vs 8.96 ± 2.24 seconds for controls; P = .69) or proportion of subjects undergoing unnecessary polypectomies (relative risk, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.69-1.14; P = .38). CONCLUSIONS: The combination of CADe and ECV during colonoscopy increases adenoma detection rate and adenomas detected per colonoscopy without increasing withdrawal time compared with CADe alone. CLINICALTRIALS: gov, Number: NCT04676308.

Risk factors for metachronous colorectal cancer or advanced lesions after endoscopic resection of serrated polyps: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Serrated polyps (SPs) are precursors to 15% to 20% of colorectal cancers (CRCs). However, there are uncertainties regarding which SPs require surveillance and at what intervals, with recommendations adapted from those for adenomas in the absence of solid evidence. Our aim was to assess which SP risk characteristics relate to a higher risk of metachronous CRC or advanced polyps. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane for cohort studies, case-control studies, and clinical trials from inception to December 31, 2023, of CRC or advanced polyps (advanced adenoma [AA] or advanced SP) incidence at surveillance stratified by baseline SP size, dysplasia, location, and multiplicity. We defined advanced SPs as those ≥10 mm or with dysplasia. CRC and advanced polyp incidence per 1000 person-years were estimated. We performed a meta-analysis by calculating pooled relative risks (RRs) using a random-effects model. RESULTS: A total of 5903 studies were reviewed, and 14 were included with 493,949 patients (mean age, 59.5 years; 55% men). The mean follow-up was 4.9 years. CRC incidence per 1000 person-years was 2.09 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.29-2.90) for advanced SPs, 1.52 (95% CI, 0.78-2.25) for SPs of ≥10 mm, 5.86 (95% CI, 2.16-9.56) for SPs with dysplasia, 1.18 (95% CI, 0.77-1.60) for proximal SPs, 0.52 (95% CI, 0.08-1.12) for ≥3 SPs, 0.50 (95% CI, 0.35-0.66) for nonadvanced SPs, and 0.44 (95% CI, 0.41-0.46) for normal colonoscopy findings. Metachronous CRC risk was higher in advanced SPs versus nonadvanced SPs (RR, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.11-3.04) and versus normal colonoscopy findings (RR, 2.92; 95% CI, 2.26-3.77), in SPs of ≥10 mm versus <10 mm (RR, 2.61; 95% CI, 1.43-4.77) and versus normal colonoscopy findings (RR: 3.52; 95% CI, 2.17-5.69); and in SPs with dysplasia versus normal colonoscopy findings (RR: 2.71; 95% CI, 2.00-3.67). No increase in CRC or advanced polyp risk was found in patients with proximal versus distal SPs, nor in ≥3 SPs versus 1 or 2 SPs. CONCLUSIONS: CRC risk is significantly higher in patients with baseline advanced SPs after 4.9 years of follow-up, with risk magnitudes similar to those described for AA, supporting the current recommendation for 3-year surveillance in patients with advanced SPs.

Impact of inadequate bowel cleansing in sigmoidoscopy screening.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Long-time follow-up of sigmoidoscopy screening trials has shown reduced incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer (CRC), but inadequate bowel cleansing may hamper efficacy. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of bowel cleansing quality in sigmoidoscopy screening. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Individuals 50 to 74 years old who had a screening sigmoidoscopy in a population-based Norwegian, randomized trial between 2012 and 2019, were included in this cross-sectional study. The bowel cleansing quality was categorised as excellent, good, partly poor, or poor. The effect of bowel cleansing quality on adenoma detection rate (ADR) and referral to colonoscopy was evaluated by fitting multivariable logistic regression models. RESULTS: 35,710 individuals were included. The bowel cleansing at sigmoidoscopy was excellent in 20,934 (58.6%) individuals, good in 6580 (18.4%), partly poor in 7097 (19.9%) and poor in 1099 (3.1%). The corresponding ADRs were 17.0%, 16.6%, 14.5%, and 13.0%. Compared to participants with excellent bowel cleansing, those with poor bowel cleansing had an odds ratio for adenoma detection of 0.66 (95% confidence interval 0.55-0.79). We found substantial differences in the assessment of bowel cleansing quality among endoscopists. CONCLUSIONS: Inadequate bowel cleansing reduces the efficacy of sigmoidoscopy screening, by lowering ADR. A validated rating scale and improved bowel preparation are needed to make sigmoidoscopy an appropriate screening method.Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01538550).

The New European Medical Device Regulation: Balancing Innovation and Patient Safety.

The European Union has introduced stricter provisions for medical devices under the new Medical Device Regulation (MDR). The MDR increases requirements for clinical trial testing for many devices before they can legally be placed on the market and extends requirements for rigorous clinical surveillance of benefits and harms to the entire life cycle of devices. New "expert panels" have been established by the European Commission to advise in the assessment of devices toward certification, and the role of previous "notified bodies" (private companies charged by the Commission with ensuring that manufacturers follow the requirements for device testing) is being expanded. The MDR does not contain a grandfathering clause; thus, all existing medical devices must be recertified under the stricter regulation. The recertification deadline has recently been extended to 2027 or 2028, depending on the device's risk class. Whether most device manufacturers can meet these new requirements is uncertain, and the MDR will likely have important consequences for manufacturers, researchers, clinicians, and patients. Enhanced collaborations between the medical device industry and physician partners will be needed to meet the new requirements in a timely manner to avoid shortages of existing devices and to mitigate barriers to development of new devices.

Surgical treatment of benign colorectal polyps 2008-21. / Kirurgisk behandling av benigne kolorektale polypper 2008­21.

Background: Colorectal cancer is one of the most common forms of cancer in Norway, and typically develops from colorectal polyps. For benign colorectal polyps, endoscopic removal is recommended to avoid unnecessary surgery. This study identifies the extent of surgical treatment of benign polyps in the period 1 January 2008-31 December 2021. Material and method: We obtained statistics from the Norwegian Patient Registry on the surgical resection of benign colorectal polyps, number of colonoscopies performed and number of patients with the diagnostic code for benign polyp in the study period. Population size from Statistics Norway was used to calculate annual incidences of the procedure. Results: The number of patients with benign polyps increased from 211 per 100 000 population to 444 per 100 000 during the study period. The number of colonoscopies increased from 9.4 per 1 000 population to 16.7 per 1 000. The number of surgical resections of benign colorectal polyps per year increased from 4.2 per 100 000 population to 6.3 per 100 000. The total number of unique patients with benign polyps in the period was 215 736, of which 2.1 % received surgical treatment, with the figures varying from 2.0 % in 2008 to 1.6 % in 2021. Interpretation: Our results show that surgical treatment of benign polyps is still widespread in Norway. This impacts on patient safety and health economics. We propose the establishment of multidisciplinary teams and enhanced endoscopic competence in Norwegian health trusts.

Rates of repeated colonoscopies to clean the colon from low-risk and high-risk adenomas: results from the EPoS trials.

OBJECTIVE: High-quality colonoscopy (adequate bowel preparation, whole-colon visualisation and removal of all neoplastic polyps) is a prerequisite to start polyp surveillance, and is ideally achieved in one colonoscopy. In a large multinational polyp surveillance trial, we aimed to investigate clinical practice variation in number of colonoscopies needed to enrol patients with low-risk and high-risk adenomas in polyp surveillance. DESIGN: We retrieved data of all patients with low-risk adenomas (one or two tubular adenomas <10 mm with low-grade dysplasia) and high-risk adenomas (3-10 adenomas, ≥1 adenoma ≥10 mm, high-grade dysplasia or villous components) in the European Polyp Surveillance trials fulfilling certain logistic and methodologic criteria. We analysed variations in number of colonoscopies needed to achieve high-quality colonoscopy and enter polyp surveillance by endoscopy centre, and by endoscopists who enrolled ≥30 patients. RESULTS: The study comprised 15 581 patients from 38 endoscopy centres in five European countries; 6794 patients had low-risk and 8787 had high-risk adenomas. 961 patients (6.2%, 95% CI 5.8% to 6.6%) underwent two or more colonoscopies before surveillance began; 101 (1.5%, 95% CI 1.2% to 1.8%) in the low-risk group and 860 (9.8%, 95% CI 9.2% to 10.4%) in the high-risk group. Main reasons were poor bowel preparation (21.3%) or incomplete colonoscopy/polypectomy (14.4%) or planned second procedure (27.8%). Need of repeat colonoscopy varied between study centres ranging from 0% to 11.8% in low-risk adenoma patients and from 0% to 63.9% in high-risk adenoma patients. On the second colonoscopy, the two most common reasons for a repeat (third) colonoscopy were piecemeal resection (26.5%) and unspecified reason (23.9%). CONCLUSION: There is considerable practice variation in the number of colonoscopies performed to achieve complete polyp removal, indicating need for targeted quality improvement to reduce patient burden. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02319928.

Risk Factors for Metachronous Colorectal Cancer or Advanced Adenomas After Endoscopic Resection of High-risk Adenomas.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Among the characteristics of high-risk adenomas (HRAs), some may predict a higher risk of metachronous advanced lesions. Our aim was to assess which HRA characteristics are associated with high risk of metachronous colorectal cancer (CRC) or advanced adenomas (AAs). METHODS: We systematically searched Pubmed, EMBASE, and Cochrane for cohort studies and clinical trials of CRC or AA incidence at surveillance stratified by baseline lesion size, histology, and multiplicity. We calculated pooled relative risks (RRs) using a random-effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed with the I2 statistic. RESULTS: Fifty-five studies were included, with 936,540 patients with mean follow-up 5.4 ± 2.9 years. CRC incidence per 1000 person-years was 2.6 (2.1-3.0) for adenomas ≥20 mm, 2.7 (2.2-3.2) for high-grade dysplasia (HGD), 2.0 (1.8-2.3) for villous component, 0.8 (0.1-1.4) for ≥5 adenomas, 1.0 (0.7-1.2) for ≥3 adenomas. Metachronous CRC risk was higher in adenomas ≥20 mm vs 10 to 19 mm (RR, 2.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.20-3.61), HGD vs low-grade dysplasia (RR, 2.89; 95% CI, 1.88-4.44), villous vs tubular (RR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.33-2.31). No significant differences in CRC risk were found in ≥3 adenomas vs 1 to 2 (RR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.84-1.83), nor in ≥5 adenomas vs 3 to 4 (RR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.30-2.11). Compared with normal colonoscopy, RR for CRC risk was 2.61 (95% CI, 2.06-3.32) for ≥10mm, 6.62 (95% CI, 4.60-9.52) for HGD, 3.58 (95% CI, 2.24-5.73) for villous component, and 2.03 (95% CI, 1.40-2.94) for ≥3 adenomas. Similar trends were seen for metachronous AAs. CONCLUSION: Metachronous CRC risk is highest in patients with baseline adenomas with ≥20 mm or HGD. Multiplicity does not seem to be associated with substantially higher CRC risk in the near term.

Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Colonoscopy Surveillance After Polyp Removal: A Pooled Analysis of Randomized Trials.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Artificial intelligence (AI) tools aimed at improving polyp detection have been shown to increase the adenoma detection rate during colonoscopy. However, it is unknown how increased polyp detection rates by AI affect the burden of patient surveillance after polyp removal. METHODS: We conducted a pooled analysis of 9 randomized controlled trials (5 in China, 2 in Italy, 1 in Japan, and 1 in the United States) comparing colonoscopy with or without AI detection aids. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients recommended to undergo intensive surveillance (ie, 3-year interval). We analyzed intervals for AI and non-AI colonoscopies for the U.S. and European recommendations separately. We estimated proportions by calculating relative risks using the Mantel-Haenszel method. RESULTS: A total of 5796 patients (51% male, mean 53 years of age) were included; 2894 underwent AI-assisted colonoscopy and 2902 non-AI colonoscopy. When following U.S. guidelines, the proportion of patients recommended intensive surveillance increased from 8.4% (95% CI, 7.4%-9.5%) in the non-AI group to 11.3% (95% CI, 10.2%-12.6%) in the AI group (absolute difference, 2.9% [95% CI, 1.4%-4.4%]; risk ratio, 1.35 [95% CI, 1.16-1.57]). When following European guidelines, it increased from 6.1% (95% CI, 5.3%-7.0%) to 7.4% (95% CI, 6.5%-8.4%) (absolute difference, 1.3% [95% CI, 0.01%-2.6%]; risk ratio, 1.22 [95% CI, 1.01-1.47]). CONCLUSIONS: The use of AI during colonoscopy increased the proportion of patients requiring intensive colonoscopy surveillance by approximately 35% in the United States and 20% in Europe (absolute increases of 2.9% and 1.3%, respectively). While this may contribute to improved cancer prevention, it significantly adds patient burden and healthcare costs.

Variability in adenoma detection rate in control groups of randomized colonoscopy trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is still the main surrogate outcome parameter of screening colonoscopy, but most studies include mixed indications, and basic ADR is quite variable. We therefore looked at the control groups in randomized ADR trials using advanced imaging or mechanical methods to find out whether indications or other factors influence ADR levels. METHODS: Patients in the control groups of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on ADR increase using various methods were collected based on a systematic review; this control group had to use high-definition white-light endoscopy performed between 2008 and 2021. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to pool ADR in control groups and its 95% confidence interval (CI) according to clinical (indication and demographic), study setting (tandem/parallel, number of centers, sample size), and technical (type of intervention, withdrawal time) parameters. Interstudy heterogeneity was reported with the I2 statistic. Multivariable mixed-effects meta-regression was performed for potentially relevant variables. RESULTS: From 80 studies, 25,304 patients in the respective control groups were included. ADR in control arms varied between 8.2% and 68.1% with a high degree of heterogeneity (I2 = 95.1%; random-effect pooled value, 37.5%; 95% CI, 34.6‒40.5). There was no difference in ADR levels between primary colonoscopy screening (12 RCTs, 15%) and mixed indications including screening/surveillance and diagnostic colonoscopy; however, fecal immunochemical testing as an indication for colonoscopy was an independent predictor of ADR (odds ratio [OR], 1.6; 95% CI, 1.1-2.4). Other well-known parameters were confirmed by our analysis such as age (OR, 1.038; 95% CI, 1.004-1.074), sex (male sex: OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.01-1.03), and withdrawal time (OR, 1.1; 95% CI, 1.0-1.1). The type of intervention (imaging vs mechanical) had no influence, but methodologic factors did: More recent year of publication and smaller sample size were associated with higher ADR. CONCLUSIONS: A high level of variability was found in the level of ADR in the control groups of RCTs. With regards to indications, only fecal immunochemical test-based colonoscopy studies influenced basic ADR, and primary colonoscopy screening appeared to be similar to other indications. Standardization for variables related to clinical, methodologic, and technical parameters is required to achieve generalizability and reproducibility.

Gastrointestinal endoscopy devices and the European Union Medical Device Regulation: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Position Statement.

Gastrointestinal endoscopy is largely dependent on medical devices. The European Union (EU) has recently introduced stricter rules and regulations for the approval of medical devices. This has consequences both for endoscopists and for patients. The new regulations increase the need for clinical trials and observational studies for new and current devices used in endoscopy to ensure clinical benefit and reduce patient harm. European endoscopy environments should facilitate industry-sponsored clinical trials and registry studies to meet the demand for robust data on endoscopic devices as required in the new legislation. The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) will play an active role in the establishment of the new system.The EU is establishing independent expert panels for device regulation in gastroenterology and hepatology, including endoscopy, that are charged with assessing the requirements for device testing. The ESGE encourages endoscopists with expertise in the technical and clinical performance of endoscopy devices to apply for expert panel membership. The ESGE has provided information for interested endoscopists on the ESGE website. Private European companies called "notified bodies" are entitled to conduct device approval for the EU. The ESGE will actively engage with these notified bodies for topics related to the new endoscopy device approval process to ensure continued access to high quality endoscopy devices for endoscopists in Europe.

Informed consent for endoscopic procedures: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Position Statement.

All endoscopic procedures are invasive and carry risk. Accordingly, all endoscopists should involve the patient in the decision-making process about the most appropriate endoscopic procedure for that individual, in keeping with a patient's right to self-determination and autonomy. Recognition of this has led to detailed guidelines on informed consent for endoscopy in some countries, but in many no such guidance exists; this may lead to variations in care and exposure to risk of litigation. In this document, the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) sets out a series of statements that cover best practice in informed consent for endoscopy. These statements should be seen as a minimum standard of practice, but practitioners must be aware of and adhere to the law in their own country. 1: Patients should give informed consent for all gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures for which they have capacity to do so. 2: The healthcare professional seeking consent for an endoscopic procedure should ensure that the patient has the capacity to consent to that procedure. 3: For patients who lack capacity, healthcare personnel should at all times try to engage with people close to the patient, such as family, friends, or caregivers, to achieve consensus on the appropriateness of performing the procedure. 4: Where a patient lacks capacity to provide informed consent, the best interest decision should be clearly documented in the medical record. This should include information about the capacity assessment, reason(s) that the decision cannot be delayed for capacity recovery (or if recovery is not expected), who has been consulted, and where relevant the form of authority for the decision. 5: There should be a systematic and transparent disclosure of the expected benefits and harms that may reasonably affect patient choice on whether or not to undergo any diagnostic or interventional endoscopic procedure. Information about possible alternatives, as well as the consequences of doing nothing, should also be provided when relevant. 6: The information provided on the benefit and harms of an endoscopic procedure should be adapted to the procedure and patient-specific risk factors, and the preferences of the patient should be central to the consent process. 7: The consent discussion should be undertaken by an individual who is familiar with the procedure and its risks, and is able to discuss these in the context of the individual patient. 8: Patients should confirm consent to an endoscopic procedure in a private, unrushed, and non-coercive environment. 9: If a patient requests that an endoscopic procedure be discontinued, the procedure should be paused and the patient's capacity for decision making assessed. If a competent patient continues to object to the procedure, or if a conclusive determination of capacity is not feasible, the examination should be terminated as soon as it is safe to do so. 10: Informed consent should be sufficiently detailed to cover all findings that can be reasonably anticipated during an endoscopic examination. The scope of this consent should not be expanded, nor a patient's implicit consent for additional interventions assumed, unless failure to proceed with such interventions would result in immediate and predictable harm to the patient.

A pilot study of implementation of endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) in Norway.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Bariatric surgery is the most effective treatment for obesity but is invasive and associated with serious complications. Endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) is a less invasive weight loss procedure to reduce the stomach volume by full-thickness sutures. ESG has been adopted in many countries, but implementation at Scandinavian centres has not yet been documented. We performed a clinical pilot trial at a Norwegian centre with the primary objective to assess the feasibility of the ESG procedure. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We included the first 10 patients treated with ESG at a Norwegian centre in a single-arm pilot study. The eligibility criteria were either a body mass index (BMI) of 40-49.9 kg/m2, BMI 35-39.9 kg/m2 and at least one obesity-related comorbidity, or BMI 30-34.9 kg/m2 and type 2 diabetes. Patient follow-up resembled the scheme used for bariatric surgery at the center, including dietary plans and outpatient visits. RESULTS: All procedures were technically successful except for one patient who had adhesions between the stomach and anterior abdominal wall, related to a prior hernia repair, resulting in less-than-intended stomach volume reduction. Mean total body weight loss (TBWL) after 26 and 52 weeks was 12.2% (95% CI 8.1-16.2) and 9.1% (95% CI 3.3 - 15.0). One patient experienced a minor suture-induced diaphragmatic injury, which was successfully managed conservatively. CONCLUSIONS: This first Scandinavian clinical trial of ESG, documenting the implementation of the procedure at a Norwegian center, demonstrated acceptable feasibility and safety, with large variations in individual weight loss during the 52-week follow-up period.

Speedometer for withdrawal time monitoring during colonoscopy: a clinical implementation trial.

OBJECTIVES: Meticulous inspection of the mucosa during colonoscopy, represents a lengthier withdrawal time, but has been shown to increase adenoma detection rate (ADR). We investigated if artificial intelligence-aided speed monitoring can improve suboptimal withdrawal time. METHODS: We evaluated the implementation of a computer-aided speed monitoring device during colonoscopy at a large academic endoscopy center. After informed consent, patients ≥18 years undergoing colonoscopy between 5 March and 29 April 2021 were examined without the use of the speedometer, and with the speedometer between 29 April and 30 June 2021. All colonoscopies were recorded, and withdrawal time was assessed based on the recordings in a blinded fashion. We compared mean withdrawal time, percentage of withdrawal time ≥6 min, and ADR with and without the speedometer. RESULTS: One hundred sixty-six patients in each group were eligible for analyses. Mean withdrawal time was 9 min and 6.6 s (95% CI: 8 min and 34.8 s to 9 min and 39 s) without the use of the speedometer, and 9 min and 9 s (95% CI: 8 min and 45 s to 9 min and 33.6 s) with the speedometer; difference 2.3 s (95% CI: -42.3-37.7, p = 0.91). The ADRs were 45.2% (95% CI: 37.6-52.8) without the speedometer as compared to 45.8% (95% CI: 38.2-53.4) with the speedometer (p = 0.91). The proportion of colonoscopies with withdrawal time ≥6 min without the speedometer was 85.5% (95% CI: 80.2-90.9) versus 86.7% (95% CI: 81.6-91.9) with the speedometer (p = 0.75). CONCLUSIONS: Use of speed monitoring during withdrawal did not increase withdrawal time or ADR in colonoscopy. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT04710251.

15-Year Benefits of Sigmoidoscopy Screening on Colorectal Cancer Incidence and Mortality : A Pooled Analysis of Randomized Trials.

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) by sex and age in randomized trials is uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the 15-year effect of sigmoidoscopy screening on CRC incidence and mortality. DESIGN: Pooled analysis of 4 large-scale randomized trials of sigmoidoscopy screening. SETTING: Norway, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Italy. PARTICIPANTS: Women and men aged 55 to 64 years at enrollment. INTERVENTION: Sigmoidoscopy screening. MEASUREMENTS: Primary end points were cumulative incidence rate ratio (IRR) and mortality rate ratio (MRR) and rate differences after 15 years of follow-up comparing screening versus usual care in intention-to-treat analyses. Stratified analyses were done by sex, cancer site, and age at screening. RESULTS: Analyses comprised 274 952 persons (50.7% women), 137 493 in the screening and 137 459 in the usual care group. Screening attendance was 58% to 84%. After 15 years, the rate difference for CRC incidence was 0.51 cases (95% CI, 0.40 to 0.63 cases) per 100 persons and the IRR was 0.79 (CI, 0.75 to 0.83). The rate difference for CRC mortality was 0.13 deaths (CI, 0.07 to 0.19 deaths) per 100 persons, and the MRR was 0.80 (CI, 0.72 to 0.88). Women had less benefit from screening than men for CRC incidence (IRR for women, 0.84 [CI, 0.77 to 0.91]; IRR for men, 0.75 [CI, 0.70 to 0.81]; P = 0.032 for difference) and mortality (MRR for women, 0.91 [CI, 0.77 to 1.17]; MRR for men, 0.73 [CI, 0.64 to 0.83]; P = 0.025 for difference). There was no statistically significant difference in screening effect between persons aged 55 to 59 years and those aged 60 to 64 years. LIMITATION: Data from the U.K. trial were less granular because of privacy regulations. CONCLUSION: This pooled analysis of all large randomized trials of sigmoidoscopy screening demonstrates a significant and sustained effect of sigmoidoscopy on CRC incidence and mortality for 15 years. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Health Fund of South-East Norway.

Følger Helsedirektoratets retningslinjer internasjonale standarder for troverdighet?

BACKGROUND: The Norwegian Directorate of Health produces national clinical guidelines for the health service, and the development of guidelines must follow international standards for trustworthy clinical practice. We investigated whether the standards are being adhered to. MATERIAL AND METHOD: We used the National Guideline Clearinghouse Extent Adherence to Trustworthy Standards Instrument (NEATS) as the scoring tool and assessed a randomly selected chapter from national clinical guidelines that were published or updated during the period 2013 to January 2022. NEATS has 15 domain items; three are assessed with the response alternatives Yes/No/Not known, and twelve are assessed on a Likert scale from 1 to 5, where 1 corresponds to very low trustworthiness and 5 to very high trustworthiness. The assessments were made individually by two authors. Inter-rater reliability was assessed with exact or close reliability, and Cohen's kappa coefficient. RESULTS: We included 60 relevant guidelines. For nine of the twelve NEATS domain items assessed using the Likert scale, there was very low or low adherence to standards for trustworthy clinical guidelines (median score 1 or 2). The domain items with the lowest score (median score 1) were 'The study selection', 'Description of the studies and the results', 'Rating the strength of recommendations' and 'External review'. The domain item with the highest score was 'Specific and unambiguous articulation of recommendations' (median score 4). INTERPRETATION: The majority of the national clinical guidelines had low adherence to the standards for trustworthy clinical guidelines assessed using the NEATS scoring tool.