Apc-mutant cells act as supercompetitors in intestinal tumour initiation.

A delicate equilibrium of WNT agonists and antagonists in the intestinal stem cell (ISC) niche is critical to maintaining the ISC compartment, as it accommodates the rapid renewal of the gut lining. Disruption of this balance by mutations in the tumour suppressor gene APC, which are found in approximately 80% of all human colon cancers, leads to unrestrained activation of the WNT pathway1,2. It has previously been established that Apc-mutant cells have a competitive advantage over wild-type ISCs3. Consequently, Apc-mutant ISCs frequently outcompete all wild-type stem cells within a crypt, thereby reaching clonal fixation in the tissue and initiating cancer formation. However, whether the increased relative fitness of Apc-mutant ISCs involves only cell-intrinsic features or whether Apc mutants are actively involved in the elimination of their wild-type neighbours remains unresolved. Here we show that Apc-mutant ISCs function as bona fide supercompetitors by secreting WNT antagonists, thereby inducing differentiation of neighbouring wild-type ISCs. Lithium chloride prevented the expansion of Apc-mutant clones and the formation of adenomas by rendering wild-type ISCs insensitive to WNT antagonists through downstream activation of WNT by inhibition of GSK3ß. Our work suggests that boosting the fitness of healthy cells to limit the expansion of pre-malignant clones may be a powerful strategy to limit the formation of cancers in high-risk individuals.

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.).

Risk of Cancers Proximal to the Colon in Fecal Immunochemical Test Positive Screenees in a Colorectal Cancer Screening Program.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: In more than half of the colorectal cancer screening participants with a positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT) result, no advanced neoplasia (AN) is detected at colonoscopy. The positive FIT result could also be generated by cancers located proximal to the colon: upper gastrointestinal, oral cavity, nose, and throat cancers. We evaluated screenees' risk of being diagnosed with a cancer proximal to the colon within the 3 years and compared risks between those with a positive vs those with a negative FIT. METHODS: Data of Dutch colorectal cancer screening participants who underwent biennial FIT-based screening 2014-2018 were collected from the national screening database and linked to the National Cancer Registry. Screenees were classified into 3 groups: FIT-positives with AN (FIT+/AN+), FIT-positives without AN (FIT+/AN-), and FIT-negatives (FIT-). We compared the cumulative incidence of cancers proximal to the colon in each group 3 years after FIT. A Cox regression analysis with left truncation and right censoring, using FIT positivity as time-dependent variable and stratified for sex, was performed to compare the hazard of cancers proximal to the colon in participants who were FIT-positive vs FIT-negative. RESULTS: Three-year cumulative incidence of cancers proximal to the colon in FIT+/AN+ (n = 65,767), FIT+/AN- (n = 50,661), and FIT- (n = 1,831,647) screenees was 0.7%, 0.6%, and 0.4%, respectively (P < .001). FIT-positives were older and more frequently male than FIT-negatives (P < .001). Significantly more cancers proximal to the colon were detected among FIT-positives (P < .001; hazard ratio, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.44-1.67). CONCLUSION: FIT-positive screenees were at significantly increased risk of being diagnosed with a cancer proximal to the colon within 3 years after FIT, although the 3-year cumulative incidence was still less than 1%.

Combining Colonoscopy With Fecal Immunochemical Test Can Improve Current Familial Colorectal Cancer Colonoscopy Surveillance: A Modelling Study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The authors assessed whether familial colorectal cancer (FCRC) surveillance in individuals without hereditary CRC can be optimized METHODS: The Adenoma and Serrated Pathway to Colorectal Cancer-FCRC model simulates CRC development in individuals with a family history of CRC at 2-fold and 4-fold increased CRC risk compared with the general population. The authors simulated a strategy without surveillance, the current Dutch guideline (5-yearly colonoscopy between ages 45 and 75 years), and the following 3 sets of alternative strategies: colonoscopy surveillance, surveillance combining colonoscopy and fecal immunochemical test (FIT), and FIT-based surveillance. Each set included a range of strategies differing in age range and test interval. The optimal strategy was defined as the strategy with highest quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) satisfying all of the following criteria: in the (near-)efficiency area of the cost-effectiveness frontier and compared with current surveillance; noninferior effectiveness; no substantial increase in colonoscopy burden; and not more expensive. RESULTS: The optimal strategy was 10-yearly colonoscopy with 2-yearly FIT between colonoscopies from ages 40 to 80 years for both 2-fold and 4-fold increased CRC risk. At 2-fold risk, this strategy prevented 0.8 more CRC deaths, gained 15.8 more QALYs at 731 fewer colonoscopies, and saved €98,000 over the lifetime of 1000 individuals compared with current surveillance. At 4-fold risk, figures were 2.1 more CRC deaths prevented, 37.0 more QALYs gained at 567 fewer colonoscopies, and €127,000 lower costs. Current surveillance was not (near-)efficient. CONCLUSIONS: FIT could play an important role in FCRC surveillance. Surveillance with 10-yearly colonoscopy and 2-yearly FIT between colonoscopies from ages 40 to 80 years increased QALYs and reduced colonoscopy burden and costs compared with current FCRC surveillance.

Stool-Based Testing for Post-Polypectomy Colorectal Cancer Surveillance Safely Reduces Colonoscopies: The Molecular Stool Testing for Colorectal Cancer Surveillance Study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Colonoscopy-based surveillance to prevent colorectal cancer (CRC) causes substantial burden for patients and health care. Stool tests may help to reduce surveillance colonoscopies by limiting colonoscopies to individuals at increased risk of advanced neoplasia. METHODS: This cross-sectional observational study included individuals aged 50-75 years with surveillance indication. Before bowel preparation, participants collected samples for a multitarget stool DNA test and 2 fecal immunochemical tests (FITs). Test accuracy was calculated for all surveillance indications. For the post-polypectomy indication only, which is the most common and is associated with a relatively low CRC risk, long-term impact of stool-based surveillance was evaluated with the Adenoma and Serrated Pathway to Colorectal Cancer model. Stool-based strategies were simulated to tune each test's positivity threshold to obtain strategies at least as effective as colonoscopy surveillance. RESULTS: There were 3453 individuals with results for all stool tests and colonoscopy; 2226 had previous polypectomy, 1003 had previous CRC, and 224 had a familial risk. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve for advanced neoplasia were 0.72 (95% CI, 0.69-0.75) for the multitarget stool DNA test, 0.61 (95% CI, 0.58-0.64) for the FIT OC-SENSOR (Eiken Chemical Co, Tokyo, Japan) and 0.59 (95% CI, 0.56-0.61) for the FIT FOB-Gold (Sentinel, Milan, Italy). Stool-based post-polypectomy surveillance strategies at least as effective as colonoscopy surveillance reduced the number of colonoscopies by 15%-41% and required 5.6-9.5 stool tests over a person's lifetime. Multitarget stool DNA-based surveillance was more costly than colonoscopy surveillance, whereas FIT-based surveillance saved costs. CONCLUSIONS: This study found that stool-based post-polypectomy surveillance strategies can be safe and cost-effective, with potential to reduce the number of colonoscopies by up to 41%. CLINICALTRIALS: gov, Number: NCT02715141.

Polyketide synthase positive Escherichia coli one-time measurement in stool is not informative of colorectal cancer risk in a screening setting.

Environmental factors like the pathogenicity island polyketide synthase positive (pks+) Escherichia coli (E. coli) could have potential for risk stratification in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. The association between pks+ E. coli measured in fecal immunochemical test (FIT) samples and the detection of advanced neoplasia (AN) at colonoscopy was investigated. Biobanked FIT samples were analyzed for both presence of E. coli and pks+ E. coli and correlated with colonoscopy findings; 5020 CRC screening participants were included. Controls were participants in which no relevant lesion was detected because of FIT-negative results (cut-off ≥15 µg Hb/g feces), a negative colonoscopy, or a colonoscopy during which only a nonadvanced polyp was detected. Cases were participants with AN [CRC, advanced adenoma (AA), or advanced serrated polyp (ASP)]. Existing DNA isolation and quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) procedures were used for the detection of E. coli and pks+ E. coli in stool. A total of 4542 (90.2%) individuals were E. coli positive, and 1322 (26.2%) were pks+ E. coli positive. The prevalence of E. coli in FIT samples from individuals with AN was 92.9% compared to 89.7% in FIT samples of controls (p = 0.010). The prevalence of pks+ E. coli in FIT samples from individuals with AN (28.6%) and controls (25.9%) was not significantly different (p = 0.13). The prevalences of pks+ E. coli in FIT samples from individuals with CRC, AA, or ASP were 29.6%, 28.3%, and 32.1%, respectively. In conclusion, the prevalence of pks+ E. coli in a screening population was 26.2% and did not differ significantly between individuals with AN and controls. These findings disqualify the straightforward option of using a snapshot measurement of pks+ E. coli in FIT samples as a stratification biomarker for CRC risk. © 2024 The Authors. The Journal of Pathology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of The Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland.

Computer-Aided Diagnosis for Leaving Colorectal Polyps In Situ : A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Computer-aided diagnosis (CADx) allows prediction of polyp histology during colonoscopy, which may reduce unnecessary removal of nonneoplastic polyps. However, the potential benefits and harms of CADx are still unclear. PURPOSE: To quantify the benefit and harm of using CADx in colonoscopy for the optical diagnosis of small (≤5-mm) rectosigmoid polyps. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, and Scopus were searched for articles published before 22 December 2023. STUDY SELECTION: Histologically verified diagnostic accuracy studies that evaluated the real-time performance of physicians in predicting neoplastic change of small rectosigmoid polyps without or with CADx assistance during colonoscopy. DATA EXTRACTION: The clinical benefit and harm were estimated on the basis of accuracy values of the endoscopist before and after CADx assistance. The certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) framework. The outcome measure for benefit was the proportion of polyps predicted to be nonneoplastic that would avoid removal with the use of CADx. The outcome measure for harm was the proportion of neoplastic polyps that would be not resected and left in situ due to an incorrect diagnosis with the use of CADx. Histology served as the reference standard for both outcomes. DATA SYNTHESIS: Ten studies, including 3620 patients with 4103 small rectosigmoid polyps, were analyzed. The studies that assessed the performance of CADx alone (9 studies; 3237 polyps) showed a sensitivity of 87.3% (95% CI, 79.2% to 92.5%) and specificity of 88.9% (CI, 81.7% to 93.5%) in predicting neoplastic change. In the studies that compared histology prediction performance before versus after CADx assistance (4 studies; 2503 polyps), there was no difference in the proportion of polyps predicted to be nonneoplastic that would avoid removal (55.4% vs. 58.4%; risk ratio [RR], 1.06 [CI, 0.96 to 1.17]; moderate-certainty evidence) or in the proportion of neoplastic polyps that would be erroneously left in situ (8.2% vs. 7.5%; RR, 0.95 [CI, 0.69 to 1.33]; moderate-certainty evidence). LIMITATION: The application of optical diagnosis was only simulated, potentially altering the decision-making process of the operator. CONCLUSION: Computer-aided diagnosis provided no incremental benefit or harm in the management of small rectosigmoid polyps during colonoscopy. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: European Commission. (PROSPERO: CRD42023402197).

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.

The multitarget faecal immunochemical test for improving stool-based colorectal cancer screening programmes: a Dutch population-based, paired-design, intervention study.

BACKGROUND: The faecal immunochemical test (FIT) is widely employed for colorectal cancer screening. However, its sensitivity for advanced precursor lesions remains suboptimal. The multitarget FIT (mtFIT), measuring haemoglobin, calprotectin, and serpin family F member 2, has demonstrated enhanced sensitivity for advanced neoplasia, especially advanced adenomas, at equal specificity to FIT. This study aimed to prospectively validate and investigate the clinical utlitity of mtFIT versus FIT in a setting of population-based colorectal cancer screening. METHODS: Individuals aged 55-75 years and who were eligible for the Dutch national FIT-based colorectal cancer screening programme were invited to submit both a FIT and mtFIT sample collected from the same bowel movement. Positive FIT (47 µg/g haemoglobin cutoff) or mtFIT (based on decision-tree algorithm) led to a colonoscopy referral. The primary outcome was the relative detection rate of mtFIT versus FIT for all advanced neoplasia. Secondary outcomes were the relative detection rates of colorectal cancer, advanced adenoma, and advanced serrated polyps individually and the long-term effect of mtFIT-based versus FIT-based programmatic screening on colorectal cancer incidence, mortality, and cost, determined with microsimulation modelling. The study has been registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05314309, and is complete. FINDINGS: Between March 25 and Dec 7, 2022, 35 786 individuals were invited to participate in the study, of whom 15 283 (42·7%) consented, and 13 187 (86·3%) of 15 283 provided both mtFIT and FIT samples with valid results. Of the 13 187 participants, 6637 (50·3%) were male and 6550 (49·7%) were female. mtFIT showed a 9·11% (95% CI 8·62-9·61) positivity rate and 2·27% (95% CI 2·02-2·54) detection rate for advanced neoplasia, compared with a positivity rate of 4·08% (3·75-4·43) and a detection rate of 1·21% (1·03-1·41) for FIT. Detection rates of mtFIT versus FIT were 0·20% (95% CI 0·13-0·29) versus 0·17% (0·11-0·27) for colorectal cancer; 1·64% (1·43-1·87) versus 0·86% (0·72-1·04) for advanced adenoma, and 0·43% (0·33-0·56) versus 0·17% (0·11-0·26) for advanced serrated polyps. Modelling demonstrated that mtFIT-based screening could reduce colorectal cancer incidence by 21% and associated mortality by 18% compared with the current Dutch colorectal cancer screening programme, at feasible costs. Furthermore, at equal positivity rates, mtFIT outperformed FIT in terms of diagnostic yield. At an equally low positivity rate, mtFIT-based screening was predicted to further decrease colorectal cancer incidence by 5% and associated mortality by 4% compared with FIT-based screening. INTERPRETATION: The higher detection rate of mtFIT for advanced adenoma compared with FIT holds the potential to translate into additional and clinically meaningful long-term colorectal cancer incidence and associated mortality reductions in programmatic colorectal cancer screening. FUNDING: Stand Up to Cancer, Dutch Cancer Society, Dutch Digestive Foundation, and Health~Holland.

Current Approaches in Managing Colonic Serrated Polyps and Serrated Polyposis.

For decades, conventional adenomas were the only known precursor lesions of colorectal cancer (CRC). Accordingly, education and research regarding CRC prevention were mainly focused on adenomas. The groundbreaking discovery that serrated polyps (SPs) also have the potential to develop into CRCs, and seem to account for a considerable proportion of sporadic CRCs, has led to a paradigm shift in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of CRC. Studies in recent years have led to our current understanding of SPs and associated CRC, but a lot of work is still to be done to further improve knowledge about this serrated neoplasia pathway and the clinical management of SPs and serrated polyposis syndrome (SPS). In this review, we reflect on the current understanding of SPs with respect to terminology, detection, resection, and surveillance and reflect on the management of SPS.

Risk of Recurrence in Screen-Detected vs Non-Screen-Detected Colorectal Cancer Patients.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Patients with screen-detected colorectal cancer (CRC) have a better stage-specific overall survival than non-screen-detected CRC. Currently, it is unknown if recurrence rates differ between screen-detected and non-screen-detected CRCs, and whether this could explain the observed difference in overall survival. Therefore, we aimed to assess the disease-free survival (DFS) rates in screen-detected and non-screen-detected CRCs and if recurrence affects overall survival. METHODS: Dutch CRC (stage I-III) patients, diagnosed by screening or not in the first 6 months of 2015, were included from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. DFS and survival data were retrieved and analyzed by Kaplan-Meier method. The association between mode of detection and recurrence and overall survival was evaluated with a Cox regression model. RESULTS: A total of 3725 CRC patients were included, 2073 (55.7%) non-screen detected and 1652 (44.3%) screen detected. Three-year DFS was significantly higher in screen-detected CRC compared with non-screen-detected CRC (87.8% vs 77.2%; P < .001). Stage-specific DFS rates for screen-detected vs non-screen-detected CRC were 94.7% vs 92.3% for stage I (P = .45), 84.3% vs 81.4% for stage II (P = .17), and 77.9% vs 66.7% for stage III (P < .001), respectively. Detection by screening was independently associated with a lower risk of recurrence (hazard ratio, 0.67; 95% confidence interval, 0.55-0.81; P < .001) when adjusted for age, sex, tumor location, stage and treatment. Recurrence independently predicted overall survival (hazard ratio, 15.90; 95% confidence interval, 13.28-19.04; P < .001). CONCLUSION: DFS was significantly better in screen-detected compared with non-screen-detected CRCs independent of age, sex, tumor location, stage and treatment, and was associated with an overall survival benefit.

Development of Desmoid Tumors After Ileorectal Anastomosis Versus Ileal Pouch-Anal Anastomosis in Familial Adenomatous Polyposis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Desmoid tumors (DT) are an important cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP). DT development might be related to the type and approach of colectomy. We aimed to compare DT development after colectomy with ileorectal anastomosis (IRA) and proctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA). METHODS: We performed an international historical cohort study in patients with FAP who underwent IRA or IPAA between 1961 and 2020. The primary outcome was the incidence of abdominal DT (either mesenteric, retroperitoneal, or abdominal wall). Patients with a DT diagnosis before or at colectomy were excluded. Time to DT was considered censored at an eventual secondary proctectomy after IRA. We used multivariable Cox regression modelling to adjust for potential confounders. RESULTS: We analyzed data from 852 patients: 514 after IRA and 338 after IPAA (median follow-up, 21 and 16 years, respectively). DTs were diagnosed in 64 IRA patients (12%) and 66 IPAA patients (20%). The cumulative DT incidence at 5 and 10 years was 7.5% and 9.3% after open IRA and 4.7% and 10.9% after laparoscopic IRA. These estimates were 13.6% and 15.4% after open IPAA and 8.4% and 10.0% after laparoscopic IPAA. The postoperative risk was significantly higher after IPAA (P < .01) in multivariable analysis, whereas approach did not significantly influence the risk. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of developing an abdominal DT was found to be significantly higher after IPAA than after IRA. Postoperative DT risk should be taken into account when choosing between IRA and IPAA in FAP.

Accuracy of Computer-aided Diagnosis in Colonoscopy Varies According to Polyp Location: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Computer-aided diagnosis (CADx) assists endoscopists in differentiating between neoplastic and non-neoplastic polyps during colonoscopy. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of polyp location (proximal vs. distal colon) on the diagnostic performance of CADx for ≤5 mm polyps. METHODS: We searched for studies evaluating the performance of real-time CADx alone (ie, independently of endoscopist judgement) for predicting the histology of colorectal polyps ≤5 mm. The primary endpoints were CADx sensitivity and specificity in the proximal and distal colon. Secondary outcomes were the negative predictive value (NPV), positive predictive value (PPV), and the accuracy of the CADx alone. Distal colon was limited to the rectum and sigmoid. RESULTS: We included 11 studies for analysis with a total of 7782 polyps ≤5 mm. CADx specificity was significantly lower in the proximal colon compared with the distal colon (62% vs 85%; risk ratio (RR), 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.72-0.84). Conversely, sensitivity was similar (89% vs 87%); RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.97-1.03). The NPV (64% vs 93%; RR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.64-0.79) and accuracy (81% vs 86%; RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.91-0.99) were significantly lower in the proximal than distal colon, whereas PPV was higher in the proximal colon (87% vs 76%; RR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.06-1.17). CONCLUSION: The diagnostic performance of CADx for polyps in the proximal colon is inadequate, exhibiting significantly lower specificity compared with its performance for distal polyps. Although current CADx systems are suitable for use in the distal colon, they should not be employed for proximal polyps until more performant systems are developed specifically for these lesions.

Fecal Immunochemical Test to Detect Colorectal Neoplasia in Lynch Syndrome: A Prospective Multicenter Study.

INTRODUCTION: Colonoscopy surveillance for Lynch syndrome is burdensome and postcolonoscopy colorectal cancers (CRCs) still occur. The noninvasive fecal immunochemical test (FIT) might guide optimal colonoscopy intervals. METHODS: Prospective, multicenter observational study in which individuals with Lynch syndrome performed a quantitative FIT before high-quality surveillance colonoscopy. Diagnostic performance of FIT at various thresholds ≤20 µg Hb/g feces was assessed for relevant neoplasia, including advanced neoplasia (CRC, advanced adenomas [AAs] and advanced serrated lesions [ASLs]) and non-advanced adenomas (NAAs). RESULTS: Of the 217 included individuals (59% female, median age 51 years), 4 had CRC, 5 AA, 4 ASL, and 57 NAA as most relevant neoplasia. The lowest FIT positivity threshold (2.5 µg Hb/g feces, 14% positivity rate) maximized detection: 4/4 CRCs, 4/5 AA, 1/4 ASL, and 9/57 NAA were detected, resulting in a sensitivity and negative predictive value of, respectively, 89% and 99% for CRC plus AA, 69% and 97% for advanced neoplasia, and 26% and 72% for all relevant neoplasia (91% specificity for all groups). At equal sensitivity and negative predictive value, specificity for advanced neoplasia optimized to 94% at threshold 4.1 µg/g. Per 100 FITs at threshold 4.1 µg/g, 11 individuals would test positive and thus proceed to colonoscopy, 2 individuals with advanced neoplasia would be missed and 3 individuals would need colonoscopy to detect 1 advanced neoplasia. DISCUSSION: FIT at thresholds ≤4.1 µg Hb/g feces may be a promising strategy to postpone colonoscopy in approximately 9 of 10 individuals with Lynch syndrome. Large validation studies that also provide gene variant-specific outcomes should be prioritized.

Consensus statements on the current landscape of artificial intelligence applications in endoscopy, addressing roadblocks, and advancing artificial intelligence in gastroenterology.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) AI Task Force along with experts in endoscopy, technology space, regulatory authorities, and other medical subspecialties initiated a consensus process that analyzed the current literature, highlighted potential areas, and outlined the necessary research in artificial intelligence (AI) to allow a clearer understanding of AI as it pertains to endoscopy currently. METHODS: A modified Delphi process was used to develop these consensus statements. RESULTS: Statement 1: Current advances in AI allow for the development of AI-based algorithms that can be applied to endoscopy to augment endoscopist performance in detection and characterization of endoscopic lesions. Statement 2: Computer vision-based algorithms provide opportunities to redefine quality metrics in endoscopy using AI, which can be standardized and can reduce subjectivity in reporting quality metrics. Natural language processing-based algorithms can help with the data abstraction needed for reporting current quality metrics in GI endoscopy effortlessly. Statement 3: AI technologies can support smart endoscopy suites, which may help optimize workflows in the endoscopy suite, including automated documentation. Statement 4: Using AI and machine learning helps in predictive modeling, diagnosis, and prognostication. High-quality data with multidimensionality are needed for risk prediction, prognostication of specific clinical conditions, and their outcomes when using machine learning methods. Statement 5: Big data and cloud-based tools can help advance clinical research in gastroenterology. Multimodal data are key to understanding the maximal extent of the disease state and unlocking treatment options. Statement 6: Understanding how to evaluate AI algorithms in the gastroenterology literature and clinical trials is important for gastroenterologists, trainees, and researchers, and hence education efforts by GI societies are needed. Statement 7: Several challenges regarding integrating AI solutions into the clinical practice of endoscopy exist, including understanding the role of human-AI interaction. Transparency, interpretability, and explainability of AI algorithms play a key role in their clinical adoption in GI endoscopy. Developing appropriate AI governance, data procurement, and tools needed for the AI lifecycle are critical for the successful implementation of AI into clinical practice. Statement 8: For payment of AI in endoscopy, a thorough evaluation of the potential value proposition for AI systems may help guide purchasing decisions in endoscopy. Reliable cost-effectiveness studies to guide reimbursement are needed. Statement 9: Relevant clinical outcomes and performance metrics for AI in gastroenterology are currently not well defined. To improve the quality and interpretability of research in the field, steps need to be taken to define these evidence standards. Statement 10: A balanced view of AI technologies and active collaboration between the medical technology industry, computer scientists, gastroenterologists, and researchers are critical for the meaningful advancement of AI in gastroenterology. CONCLUSIONS: The consensus process led by the ASGE AI Task Force and experts from various disciplines has shed light on the potential of AI in endoscopy and gastroenterology. AI-based algorithms have shown promise in augmenting endoscopist performance, redefining quality metrics, optimizing workflows, and aiding in predictive modeling and diagnosis. However, challenges remain in evaluating AI algorithms, ensuring transparency and interpretability, addressing governance and data procurement, determining payment models, defining relevant clinical outcomes, and fostering collaboration between stakeholders. Addressing these challenges while maintaining a balanced perspective is crucial for the meaningful advancement of AI in gastroenterology.

Effect of an E-learning resource on endoscopists' proximal serrated polyp detection rate: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies demonstrated that a higher proximal serrated polyp detection rate (PSPDR) among endoscopists is associated with a lower risk of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC) incidence and death for their patients. Our objective was to evaluate the effect of an e-learning resource on PSPDR. METHODS: We performed a multicenter randomized controlled trial within the Dutch fecal immunochemical test-based colorectal cancer screening program. Endoscopists were randomized using block randomization per center to either receive a 60-minute e-learning resource on serrated polyp detection or not. PSPDR was calculated based on all colonoscopies performed during a 27-month pre-intervention and a 17-month post-intervention period. The primary end point was difference in PSPDR between intervention and control arms (intention to treat) using mixed effect logistic regression modeling, with time (pre-intervention/post-intervention) and interaction between time and arm (intervention/control) as fixed effects, and endoscopists as random effects. RESULTS: 116 endoscopists (57 intervention, 59 controls) were included, and performed 27494 and 33888 colonoscopies, respectively. Median PSPDR pre-intervention was 13.6% (95%CI 13.0-14.1) in the intervention arm and 13.8% (95%CI 13.3-14.3) in controls. Post-intervention PSPDR was significantly higher over time in the intervention arm than in controls (17.1% vs. 15.4%, P=0.01). CONCLUSION: In an era of increased awareness and increasing PSPDRs, endoscopists who undertook a one-time e-learning course significantly accelerated the increase in PSPDR compared with endoscopists who did not undertake the e-learning. Widespread implementation might reduce PCCRC incidence.

Post-colonoscopy colorectal cancers in a national fecal immunochemical test-based colorectal cancer screening program.

BACKGROUND: Post-colonoscopy colorectal cancers (PCCRCs) decrease the effect of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs. To enable PCCRC incidence reduction in the long-term, we classified PCCRCs diagnosed after colonoscopies performed in a fecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based screening program. METHODS: PCCRCs diagnosed after colonoscopies performed between 2014-2016 for a positive FIT in the Dutch CRC screening program were included. PCCRCs were categorized according to the World Endoscopy Organization consensus statement into (a) interval PCCRC (diagnosed before the recommended surveillance); (b) non-interval type A (diagnosed at the recommended surveillance interval); (c) non-interval type B (diagnosed after the recommended surveillance interval); or (d) non-interval type C (diagnosed after the intended recommended surveillance interval, with surveillance not implemented owing to co-morbidity). The most probable etiology was determined by root-cause analysis. Tumor stage distributions were compared between categories. RESULTS: 116362 colonoscopies were performed after a positive FIT with 9978 screen-detected CRCs. During follow-up, 432 PCCRCs were diagnosed. The 3-year PCCRC rate was 2.7%. PCCRCs were categorized as interval (53.5%), non-interval type A (14.6%), non-interval type B (30.6%), and non-interval type C (1.4%). The most common etiology for interval PCCRCs was possible missed lesion with adequate examination (73.6%); they were more often diagnosed at an advanced stage (stage III/IV; 53.2%) compared with non-interval type A (15.9%; P<0.001) and non-interval type B (40.9%; P=0.03) PCCRCs. CONCLUSIONS: The 3-year PCCRC rate was low in this FIT-based CRC screening program. Approximately half of PCCRCs were interval PCCRCs. These were mostly caused by missed lesions and were diagnosed at a more advanced stage. This emphasizes the importance of high quality colonoscopy with optimal polyp detection.

Polyp size measurement during colonoscopy using a virtual scale: variability and systematic differences.

BACKGROUND : Accurate polyp size measurement is important for polyp risk stratification and decision-making regarding polypectomy and surveillance. Recently, a virtual scale (VS) function has been developed that allows polyp size measurement through projection of an adaptive VS onto colorectal polyps during real-time endoscopy. We aimed to evaluate the VS in terms of variability and systematic differences. METHODS : We conducted a video-based study with 120 colorectal polyps, measured by eight dedicated colorectal gastroenterologists (experts) and nine gastroenterology residents following endoscopy training (trainees). Three endoscopic measurement methods were compared: (1) visual, (2) snare and (3) VS measurement. We evaluated the method-specific variance (as measure of variability) in polyp size measurements and systematic differences between these methods. RESULTS : Variance in polyp size measurements was significantly lower for VS measurements compared to visual and snare measurements for both experts (0.52 vs. 1.59 and 1.96, p < 0.001) and trainees (0.59 vs. 2.21 and 2.53, p < 0.001). VS measurement resulted in a higher percentage of polyps assigned to the same size category by all endoscopists compared to visual and snare measurements (experts: 69 % vs. 55 % and 59 %; trainees: 67 % vs. 51 % and 47 %) and reduced the maximum difference between individual endoscopists regarding the percentage of polyps assigned to the ≥ 10 mm size category (experts: 1.7 % vs. 10.0 % and 5.0 %; trainees: 2.5 % vs. 6.7 % and 11.7 %). Systematic differences between methods were < 0.5 mm. CONCLUSIONS : Use of the VS leads to lower polyp size measurement variability and more uniform polyp sizing by individual endoscopists compared to visual and snare measurements.

Colorectal polypectomy and endoscopic mucosal resection: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline - Update 2024.

1: ESGE recommends cold snare polypectomy (CSP), to include a clear margin of normal tissue (1-2 mm) surrounding the polyp, for the removal of diminutive polyps (≤ 5 mm).Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 2: ESGE recommends against the use of cold biopsy forceps excision because of its high rate of incomplete resection.Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. 3: ESGE recommends CSP, to include a clear margin of normal tissue (1-2 mm) surrounding the polyp, for the removal of small polyps (6-9 mm).Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 4: ESGE recommends hot snare polypectomy for the removal of nonpedunculated adenomatous polyps of 10-19 mm in size.Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 5: ESGE recommends conventional (diathermy-based) endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for large (≥ 20 mm) nonpedunculated adenomatous polyps (LNPCPs).Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 6: ESGE suggests that underwater EMR can be considered an alternative to conventional hot EMR for the treatment of adenomatous LNPCPs.Weak recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. 7: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) may also be suggested as an alternative for removal of LNPCPs of ≥ 20 mm in selected cases and in high-volume centers.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 8: ESGE recommends that, after piecemeal EMR of LNPCPs by hot snare, the resection margins should be treated by thermal ablation using snare-tip soft coagulation to prevent adenoma recurrence.Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 9: ESGE recommends (piecemeal) cold snare polypectomy or cold EMR for SSLs of all sizes without suspected dysplasia.Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. 10: ESGE recommends prophylactic endoscopic clip closure of the mucosal defect after EMR of LNPCPs in the right colon to reduce to reduce the risk of delayed bleeding.Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 11: ESGE recommends that en bloc resection techniques, such as en bloc EMR, ESD, endoscopic intermuscular dissection, endoscopic full-thickness resection, or surgery should be the techniques of choice in cases with suspected superficial invasive carcinoma, which otherwise cannot be removed en bloc by standard polypectomy or EMR.Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence.

Benefit-Harm Analysis for Informed Decision Making on Participating in Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Modeling Study.

OBJECTIVES: To facilitate informed decision making on participating in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, we assessed the benefit-harm balance of CRC screening for a wide range of subgroups over different time horizons. METHODS: The study combined incidence proportions of benefits and harms of (not) participating in CRC screening estimated by the Adenoma and Serrated pathway to CAncer microsimulation model, a preference eliciting survey, and benefit-harm balance modeling combining all outcomes to determine the net health benefit of CRC screening over 10, 20, and 30 years. Probability of net health benefit was estimated for 210 different subgroups based on age, sex, previous participation in CRC screening, and lifestyle. RESULTS: CRC screening was net beneficial in 183 of 210 subgroups over 30 years (median probability [MP] of 0.79, interquartile range [IQR] of 0.69-0.85) across subgroups. Net health benefit was greater for men (MP 0.82; IQR 0.69-0.89) than women (MP 0.76; IQR 0.67-0.83) and for those without history of participation in previous screenings (MP 0.84; IQR 0.80-0.89) compared with those with (MP 0.69; IQR 0.59-0.75). Net health benefit decreased with increasing age, from MP of 0.84 (IQR 0.80-0.86) at age 55 to 0.61 (IQR 0.56-0.71) at age 75. Shorter time horizons led to lower benefit, with MP of 0.70 (IQR 0.62-0.80) over 20 years and 0.54 (IQR 0.48-0.67) over 10 years. CONCLUSIONS: Our benefit-harm analysis provides information about net health benefit of screening participation, based on important characteristics and preferences of individuals, which could assist screening invitees in making informed decisions on screening participation.