NCCN Guidelines Insights: Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Colorectal, Version 2.2019.

Identifying individuals with hereditary syndromes allows for improved cancer surveillance, risk reduction, and optimized management. Establishing criteria for assessment allows for the identification of individuals who are carriers of pathogenic genetic variants. The NCCN Guidelines for Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Colorectal provide recommendations for the assessment and management of patients with high-risk colorectal cancer syndromes. These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on criteria for the evaluation of Lynch syndrome and considerations for use of multigene testing in the assessment of hereditary colorectal cancer syndromes.

Setting minimum standards for training in EUS and ERCP: results from a prospective multicenter study evaluating learning curves and competence among advanced endoscopy trainees.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Minimum EUS and ERCP volumes that should be offered per trainee in "high quality" advanced endoscopy training programs (AETPs) are not established. We aimed to define the number of procedures required by an "average" advanced endoscopy trainee (AET) to achieve competence in technical and cognitive EUS and ERCP tasks to help structure AETPs. METHODS: American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE)-recognized AETPs were invited to participate; AETs were graded on every fifth EUS and ERCP examination using a validated tool. Grading for each skill was done using a 4-point scoring system, and learning curves using cumulative sum analysis for overall, technical, and cognitive components of EUS and ERCP were shared with AETs and trainers quarterly. Generalized linear mixed-effects models with a random intercept for each AET were used to generate aggregate learning curves, allowing us to use data from all AETs to estimate the average learning experience for trainees. RESULTS: Among 62 invited AETPs, 37 AETs from 32 AETPs participated. Most AETs reported hands-on EUS (52%, median 20 cases) and ERCP (68%, median 50 cases) experience before starting an AETP. The median number of EUS and ERCPs performed per AET was 400 (range, 200-750) and 361 (range, 250-650), respectively. Overall, 2616 examinations were graded (EUS, 1277; ERCP-biliary, 1143; pancreatic, 196). Most graded EUS examinations were performed for pancreatobiliary indications (69.9%) and ERCP examinations for ASGE biliary grade of difficulty 1 (72.1%). The average AET achieved competence in core EUS and ERCP skills at approximately 225 and 250 cases, respectively. However, overall technical competence was achieved for grade 2 ERCP at about 300 cases. CONCLUSION: The thresholds provided for an average AET to achieve competence in EUS and ERCP may be used by the ASGE and AETPs in establishing the minimal standards for case volume exposure for AETs during their training. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02509416.).

NCCN Guidelines Insights: Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Colorectal, Version 3.2017.

The NCCN Guidelines for Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Colorectal provide recommendations for the management of patients with high-risk syndromes associated with an increased risk of colorectal cancer (CRC). The NCCN Panel for Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Colorectal meets at least annually to assess comments from reviewers within their institutions, examine relevant data, and reevaluate and update their recommendations. These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on genes newly associated with CRC risk on multigene panels, the associated evidence, and currently recommended management strategies.

Wide disparities in attitudes and practices regarding Type II sphincter of Oddi dysfunction: a survey of expert U.S. endoscopists.

BACKGROUND: Sphincter of Oddi manometry (SOM) is recommended in the evaluation of suspected Type II sphincter of Oddi dysfunction (SOD2), though its utility is uncertain. Little is known about the practice of expert endoscopists in the United States regarding SOD2. METHODS: An anonymous electronic survey was distributed to 128 expert biliary endoscopists identified from U.S. advanced endoscopy training programs. RESULTS: The response rate was 46.1 % (59/128). Only 55.6 % received training in SOM, and 49.2 % currently perform SOM. For biliary SOD2, 33.3 % routinely obtain SOM, 33.3 % perform empiric sphincterotomy, and 26.3 % perform single session endoscopic ultrasound/endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (EUS/ERCP). In contrast, an equal number (35.1 %) favor SOM or single session EUS/ERCP for suspected acute idiopathic recurrent pancreatitis, while 19.3 % would perform empiric sphincterotomy. Those who perform SOM believe it to be important in predicting response to treatment compared with those who do not (71.8 % vs 23.1 %, P = 0.01). Yet only 51.7 % of this group performs SOM for suspected SOD2. Most (78.6 %) believe that < 50 % of patients report improvement in symptoms after sphincterotomy. Common reasons for not obtaining SOM included unreliable results (50 %), and procedure-related risks (39.3 %). Most (59.3 %) believe SOD2 is at least in part a functional disorder; only 3.7 % felt SOD is a legitimate disorder of the sphincter of Oddi. CONCLUSIONS: Our survey of U.S. expert endoscopists suggests that SOM is not routinely performed for SOD2 and concerns regarding its associated risks and validity persist. Most endoscopists believe SOD2 is at least in part a functional disorder that will not respond to sphincterotomy in the majority of cases.

Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Colorectal Version 1.2016, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

This is a focused update highlighting the most current NCCN Guidelines for diagnosis and management of Lynch syndrome. Lynch syndrome is the most common cause of hereditary colorectal cancer, usually resulting from a germline mutation in 1 of 4 DNA mismatch repair genes (MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, or PMS2), or deletions in the EPCAM promoter. Patients with Lynch syndrome are at an increased lifetime risk, compared with the general population, for colorectal cancer, endometrial cancer, and other cancers, including of the stomach and ovary. As of 2016, the panel recommends screening all patients with colorectal cancer for Lynch syndrome and provides recommendations for surveillance for early detection and prevention of Lynch syndrome-associated cancers.

A randomized controlled cross-over trial and cost analysis comparing endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspiration and fine needle biopsy.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Techniques to optimize endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) in a variety of lesion types have not yet been established. The primary aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic yield (DY) of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) to endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) for pancreatic and non-pancreatic masses. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Consecutive patients referred for EUS-TA underwent randomization to EUS-FNA or EUS-FNB at four tertiary-care medical centers. A maximum of three passes were allowed for the initial method of EUS-TA and patients were crossed over to the other arm based on on-site specimen adequacy. RESULTS: A total of 140 patients were enrolled. The overall DY was significantly higher with specimens obtained by EUS-FNB compared to EUS-FNA (90.0 % vs. 67.1 %, P = 0.002). While there was no difference in the DY between the two groups for pancreatic masses (FNB: 91.7 % vs. FNA: 78.4 %, P = 0.19), the DY of EUS-FNB was higher than the EUS-FNA for non-pancreatic lesions (88.2 % vs. 54.5 %, P = 0.006). Specimen adequacy was higher for EUS-FNB compared to EUS-FNA for all lesions (P = 0.006). There was a significant rescue effect of crossover from failed FNA to FNB in 27 out of 28 cases (96.5 %, P = 0.0003). Decision analysis showed that the strategy of EUS-FNB was cost saving compared to EUS-FNA over a wide range of cost and outcome probabilities. CONCLUSIONS: RESULTS of this RCT and decision analysis demonstrate superior DY and specimen adequacy for solid mass lesions sampled by EUS-FNB.

Endoscopic resection is cost-effective compared with laparoscopic resection in the management of complex colon polyps: an economic analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic resection (ER) is an efficacious treatment for complex colon polyps (CCPs). Many patients are referred for surgical resection because of concerns over procedural safety, incomplete polyp resection, and adenoma recurrence after ER. Efficacy data for both resection strategies are widely available, but a paucity of data exist on the cost-effectiveness of each modality. The aim of this study was to perform an economic analysis comparing ER and laparoscopic resection (LR) strategies in patients with CCP. METHODS: A decision analysis tree was constructed using decision analysis software. The 2 strategies (ER vs LR) were evaluated in a hypothetical cohort of patients with CCPs. A hybrid Markov model with a 10-year time horizon was used. Patients entered the model after colonoscopic diagnosis at age 50. Under Strategy I, patients underwent ER followed by surveillance colonoscopy at 3 to 6 months and 12 months. Patients with failed ER and residual adenoma at 12 months were referred for LR. Under Strategy II, patients underwent LR as primary treatment. Patients with invasive cancer were excluded. Estimates regarding ER performance characteristics were obtained from a systematic review of published literature. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (2012-2013) and the 2012 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project databases were used to determine the costs and loss of utility. We assumed that all procedures were performed with anesthesia support, and patients with adverse events in both strategies required inpatient hospitalization. Baseline estimates and costs were varied by using a sensitivity analysis through the ranges. RESULTS: LR was found to be more costly and yielded fewer quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) compared with ER. The cost of ER of a CCP was $5570 per patient and yielded 9.640 QALYs. LR of a CCP cost $18,717 per patient and yielded fewer QALYs (9.577). For LR to be more cost-effective, the thresholds of 1-way sensitivity analyses were (1) technical success of ER for complete resection in <75.8% of cases, (2) adverse event rates for ER > 12%, and (3) LR cost of <$14,000. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that ER is a cost-effective strategy for removal of CCPs. The effectiveness is driven by high technical success and low adverse event rates associated with ER, in addition to the increased cost of LR.