Clinical significance of incidental 18 FDG PET uptake in the gastrointestinal tract: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Incidental gastrointestinal tract (GIT) uptake is found in up to 6.3% of patients undergoing positron emission tomography (PET). This may be physiologic or pathologic and requires endoscopic assessment. AIM: To determine the diagnostic yield of endoscopy in this setting and characterise PET avidity as a predictor of clinically significant findings. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed all consecutive patients undergoing upper endoscopy or colonoscopy for incidental 18 FDG PET positivity in the GIT. RESULTS: A total of 255 patients (62% male, median age 67 years) underwent colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy for 276 separate areas of PET avidity in the colon. Malignancy was found in 44 cases (16%), and a significant polyp was found in an additional 103 cases (37%). Neoplastic change was found more often in the case of intense compared with non-intense PET avidity (odds ratio (OR) 3.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.95-5.93, P < 0.001), and in focal compared with diffuse uptake (OR 5.97, 95% CI 2.9-12.2, P < 0.001). Upper GIT endoscopy was performed in 75 patients (46 male, median age 63 years) for 77 isolated areas with PET avidity. Malignancy was found in 16 cases (21%), and all were new primary lesions. Numerically, malignant findings were more common in intense (29.7%) than non-intense (12.5%) PET avidity (OR 2.96, 95%, CI 0.92-9.57, P = 0.069). CONCLUSIONS: Both focal and intense colonic 18 FDG uptake correlate strongly with a high-risk polyp or malignant lesion. Up to 21% of all gastroscopies performed for evaluation of incidental PET uptake diagnosed a new primary malignancy. These referrals need appropriate triaging and timely endoscopic assessment.

Endoscopy training in Australia during COVID-19: Efficacy and knowledge assessment of gastroenterology and general surgery trainees.

Background and Aim: During COVID-19, restrictions to elective endoscopy were introduced worldwide. A reduction in procedures may impact trainees' endoscopy learning. This study aims to assess Australian advanced gastroenterology and general surgery trainees' self-perceived efficacy and knowledge in endoscopy during the pandemic. Methods: All Australian gastroenterology and general surgery trainees in their last 2 years of accredited training were invited to participate through email (2020-2021 and 2021-2022 training cycles). The primary outcome was to assess trainees' self-efficacy and knowledge regarding gastrointestinal endoscopy. Secondary outcomes included subgroup analysis between gastroenterology and general surgery trainees. Self-perceived efficacy was assessed with Likert-scale questions on 20 endoscopy procedures and knowledge was assessed through 21 endoscopy-related multiple choice questions. Results: Eighty-one trainees responded to a self-efficacy questionnaire and 77 responded to the knowledge questionnaire. Over 90% of the trainees were confident or extremely confident in diagnostic endoscopy, but only half demonstrated similar efficacy for therapeutic endoscopy. The efficacy for basic endoscopy procedures was higher for gastroenterology trainees (64.0% vs 51.1%, P < 0.001). Last-year trainee achievement of conjoint committee requirements for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy was achieved in 95.8% of gastroenterology trainees versus 22.2% of surgical trainees (P < 0.001). The median score on the knowledge questionnaire was also higher for the gastroenterology subset (90.5% vs 71.4%, P < 0.001). Conclusion: During COVID-19, endoscopy trainees' self-efficacy in endoscopic diagnostic procedures was achieved for most trainees. The differences in self-perceived efficacy and knowledge between gastroenterology and surgical trainees may be reflective of the different opportunities for learning between the two groups.