Expert endoscopist assessment of colorectal polyp size using virtual scale endoscopy, visual or snare-based estimation: a prospective video-based study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Accurate polyp size estimation during colonoscopy has an impact on clinical decision-making. A laser-based virtual scale endoscope (VSE) is available to allow measuring polyp size using a virtual adaptive scale. This study evaluates video-based polyp size measurement accuracy among expert endoscopists using either VSE or visual assessment (VA) with either snare as reference size or without any reference size information. METHODS: A prospective, video-based study was conducted with 10 expert endoscopists. Video sequences from 90 polyps with known reference size (fresh specimen measured using calipers) were distributed on three different slide sets so that each slide set showed the same polyp only once with either VSE, VA or snare-based information. A slide set was randomly assigned to each endoscopist. Endoscopists were asked to provide size estimation based on video review. RESULTS: Relative accuracies for VSE, VA, and snare-based estimation were 75.1% (95% CI [71.6-78.5]), 65.0% (95% CI [59.5-70.4]) and 62.0% (95% CI [54.8-69.0]), respectively. VSE yielded significantly higher relative accuracy compared to VA (p = 0.002) and to snare (p = 0.001). A significantly lower percentage of polyps 1-5 mm were misclassified as >5 mm using VSE versus VA and snare (6.52% vs. 19.6% and 17.5%, p = 0.004) and a significantly lower percentage of polyps >5 mm were misclassified as 1-5 mm using VSE versus VA and snare (11.4% vs. 31.9% and 14.9%, p = 0.038). CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopists estimate polyp size with the highest accuracy when virtual adaptive scale information is displayed. Using a snare to assist sizing did not improve measurement accuracy compared to displaying visual information alone.

Comparing the resource implications of old and new colorectal adenoma surveillance guidelines in Australia.

BACKGROUND: The latest update to the Australian adenoma surveillance guideline in 2018 introduced a novel risk stratification system with updated surveillance recommendations. The resource implications of adopting this new system are unclear. AIMS: To quanitfy the resource demands of adopting new over old adenoma surveillance guidelines. METHODS: We studied data from 2443 patients undergoing colonoscopies, in which a clinically significant lesion was identified in their latest, or previous procedure(s) across five Australian hospitals. We excluded procedures with inflammatory bowel disease, new or prior history of colorectal cancer or resection, inadequate bowel preparation and incomplete procedures. Old and new Australian surveillance intervals were calculated according to the number, size and histological characteristics of lesions identified. We used these data to compare the rate of procedures according to each guideline. RESULTS: Based on the procedures for 766 patients, the new surveillance guidelines significantly increased the number of procedures allocated an interval of 1 year (relative risk (RR): 1.57, P = 0.009) and 10 years (RR: 3.83, P < 0.00001) and reduced those allocated to half a year (RR: 0.08, P = 0.00219), 3 years (RR: 0.51, P < 0.00001) and 5 years (RR: 0.59, P < 0.00001). Overall, this reduced the relative number of surveillance procedures by 21% over 10 years (25.92 vs 32.78 procedures/100 patient-years), which increased to 22% after excluding patients 75 or older at the time of surveillance (19.9 vs 25.65 procedures/100 patient-years). CONCLUSION: The adoption of the latest Australian adenoma surveillance guidelines can reduce demand for surveillance colonoscopy by more than a fifth (21-22%) over 10 years.

One-device colonoscopy: feasibility, cost savings, and plastic waste reduction by procedure indication, when performed by a high detecting colonoscopist.

BACKGROUND: Cold forceps and snares are each effective for removing polyps of 1-3 mm, while snares are more effective for polyps of 4-10 mm in size. If, in the same patient, polyps of 1-3 mm are removed with forceps and those of 4-10 mm with snares, two devices are used. If cold snares are used to resect all lesions of 1-10 mm (one-device colonoscopy), there is a potential for lower costs and less plastic waste. METHODS: A single high detecting colonoscopist prospectively measured the feasibility of cold snaring all colorectal lesions of ≤10 mm in size, along with the associated costs and plastic waste reduction. RESULTS: 677 consecutive lower gastrointestinal endoscopies (not for inflammatory bowel disease) were assessed. Of 1430 lesions of 1-3 mm and 1685 lesions of 4-10 mm in size, 1428 (99.9%, 95%CI 99.5%-100%) and 1674 (99.3%, 95%CI 98.8%-99.7%), respectively, were successfully resected using cold snaring. Among 379 screening and surveillance patients, universal cold snaring of lesions ≤10 mm saved 35 and 47 cold forceps per 100 screening and surveillance patients, respectively. CONCLUSION: Cold snare resection of all lesions ≤10 mm (one-device colonoscopy) was feasible, and reduced costs and plastic waste.

Colonoscopic-assisted laparoscopic wedge resection versus segmental colon resection for benign colonic polyps: a comparative cost analysis.

AIM: The colonoscopic-assisted laparoscopic wedge resection (CAL-WR) is proven to be an effective and safe alternative to a segmental colon resection (SCR) for large or complex benign colonic polyps that are not eligible for endoscopic removal. This analysis aimed to evaluate the costs of CAL-WR and compare them to the costs of an SCR. METHOD: A single-centre 90-day 'in-hospital' comparative cost analysis was performed on patients undergoing CAL-WR or SCR for complex benign polyps between 2016 and 2020. The CAL-WR group consisted of 44 patients who participated in a prospective multicentre study (LIMERIC study). Inclusion criteria were (1) endoscopically unresectable benign polyps; (2) residual or recurrence after previous polypectomy; or (3) irradically resected low risk pT1 colon carcinoma. The comparison group, which was retrospectively identified, included 32 patients who underwent an elective SCR in the same period. RESULTS: Colonoscopic-assisted laparoscopic wedge resection was associated with significantly fewer complications (7% in the CAL-WR group vs. 45% in the SCR group, P < 0.001), shorter operation time (50 min in the CAL-WR group vs. 119 min in the SCR group, P < 0.001), shorter length of hospital stay (median length of stay 2 days in the CAL-WR group vs. 4 days in the SCR group, P < 0.001) and less use of surgical resources (reduction in costs of 32% per patient), resulting in a cost savings of €2372 (£2099 GBP) per patient (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Given the clinical and financial benefits, CAL-WR should be recommended for complex benign polyps that are not eligible for endoscopic resection before major surgery is considered.

Cost and related factors analysis for patients undergoing colon polyp surgery based on DRG mode.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to analyze the hospitalization costs of patients with intestinal polyps undergoing colonic polyp surgery and associated influencing factors and to explore the entry point of cost control and the way of fine management. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One year before (2021) and one year after (2022) the implementation of the Diagnosis Related Grouping (DRG), the patients receiving APC, CSP and EMR in GK39 (colonoscopy operation) group were included in a second Affiliated Hospital in Nanjing according to the Nanjing grouping scheme. Descriptive analysis method and multiple linear regression method were used for analysis. RESULTS: After the implementation of DRG in 2022, the average hospitalization cost of patients decreased by 19.46% compared with the same period last year. Before and after the implementation of DRG, medical technology costs accounted for the highest proportion of hospitalization costs. Age, hospitalization days, number of polyps, number of clamps and clinical pathway had statistically significant effects on hospitalization cost (p<0.05), among which hospitalization days, number of polyps, and number of clamps had the greatest impact on hospitalization cost, followed by age and clinical pathway. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of DRG has a positive effect on guiding hospitalization cost control. It is suggested to realize accurate cost control by analyzing the cost structure of the disease group. Clinical pathway completion rate has a direct impact on the implementation effect of DRG, including cost control. It is suggested to refine clinical pathway management and achieve scientific cost control through continuous optimization and improvement of clinical pathway management.

Performing High-Quality, Safe, Cost-Effective, and Efficient Basic Colonoscopy in 2023: Advice From Two Experts.

Based on published evidence and our expert experience, we provide recommendations to maximize the efficacy, safety, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness of routine colonoscopy. High-quality colonoscopy begins with colon preparation using a split or same-day dose and preferably a low-volume regimen for optimal patient tolerance and compliance. Successful cecal intubation can be achieved by choosing the correct colonoscope and using techniques to facilitate navigation through challenges such as severe angulations and redundant colons. Safety is a primary goal, and complications such as perforation and splenic rupture can be prevented by avoiding pushing through fixed resistance and avoiding loops in proximal colon. Furthermore, barotrauma can be avoided by converting to water filling only (no gas insufflation) in every patient with a narrowed, angulated sigmoid. Optimal polyp detection relies primarily on compulsive attention to inspection as manifested by adequate inspection time, vigorous probing of the spaces between haustral folds, washing and removing residual debris, and achieving full distention. Achieving minimum recommended adenoma detection rate thresholds (30% in men and 20% in women) is mandatory, and colonoscopists should aspire to adenoma detection rate approaching 50% in screening patients. Distal attachments can improve mucosal exposure and increase detection while shortening withdrawal times. Complete resection of polyps complements polyp detection in preventing colorectal cancer. Cold resection is the preferred method for all polyps < 10 mm. For effective cold resection, an adequate rim of normal tissue should be captured in the snare. Finally, cost-effective high-quality colonoscopy requires the procedure not be overused, as demonstrated by following updated United States Multi Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer postpolypectomy surveillance recommendations.

Planning management for complex colorectal polyps: a qualitative assessment of factors influencing decision-making among colonoscopists.

OBJECTIVE: Endoscopic therapy is the recommended primary treatment for most complex colorectal polyps, but high colonic resection rates are reported. The aim of this qualitative study was to understand and compare between specialities, the clinical and non-clinical factors influencing decision making when planning management. DESIGN: Semi-structured interviews were performed among colonoscopists across the UK. Interviews were conducted virtually and transcribed verbatim. Complex polyps were defined as lesions requiring further management planning rather than those treatable at the time of endoscopy. A thematic analysis was performed. Findings were coded to identify themes and reported narratively. RESULTS: Twenty colonoscopists were interviewed. Four major themes were identified including gathering information regarding the patient and their polyp, aids to decision making, barriers in achieving optimal management and improving services. Participants advocated endoscopic management where possible. Factors such as younger age, suspicion of malignancy, right colon or difficult polyp location lead towards surgical intervention and were similar between surgical and medical specialties. Availability of expertise, timely endoscopy and challenges in referral pathways were reported barriers to optimal management. Experiences of team decision-making strategies were positive and advocated in improving complex polyp management. Recommendations based on these findings to improve complex polyp management are provided. CONCLUSION: The increasing recognition of complex colorectal polyps requires consistency in decision making and access to a full range of treatment options. Colonoscopists advocated the availability of clinical expertise, timely treatment and education in avoiding surgical intervention and providing good patient outcomes. Team decision-making strategies for complex polyps may provide an opportunity to coordinate and improve these issues.

A multi-centre polyp detection and segmentation dataset for generalisability assessment.

Polyps in the colon are widely known cancer precursors identified by colonoscopy. Whilst most polyps are benign, the polyp's number, size and surface structure are linked to the risk of colon cancer. Several methods have been developed to automate polyp detection and segmentation. However, the main issue is that they are not tested rigorously on a large multicentre purpose-built dataset, one reason being the lack of a comprehensive public dataset. As a result, the developed methods may not generalise to different population datasets. To this extent, we have curated a dataset from six unique centres incorporating more than 300 patients. The dataset includes both single frame and sequence data with 3762 annotated polyp labels with precise delineation of polyp boundaries verified by six senior gastroenterologists. To our knowledge, this is the most comprehensive detection and pixel-level segmentation dataset (referred to as PolypGen) curated by a team of computational scientists and expert gastroenterologists. The paper provides insight into data construction and annotation strategies, quality assurance, and technical validation.

Economic impact of implementing optical diagnosis with a "resect and discard" strategy within the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme: findings from the DISCARD3 study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Advances in endoscopic technology, such as narrow-band imaging and high-definition colonoscopes, offer the potential for optical diagnosis (OD) with a "resect and discard" (RD) strategy for diminutive (≤5 mm) and small (6-9 mm) colorectal polyps. This could help alleviate the huge cost and time burden required for histopathology. The aim of this study was to conduct an economic analysis of an RD strategy within the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP). METHODS: A decision tree was designed to compare an RD strategy with standard histopathology for patients included in the DISCARD3 study (Detect InSpect ChAracterise Resect and Discard 3) and was extrapolated to a national BCSP patient cohort. RESULTS: Of the 525 patients in the DISCARD3 study, 354 were assessed for surveillance intervals (after excluding cases with colorectal cancer and at least 1 polyp >10 mm). Of 354 patients, 269 had polyps, of which 182 had only diminutive polyps, 77 had both small and diminutive polyps, and 10 had only small polyps. Surveillance interval concordance was 97.9% in patients with at least 1 diminutive polyp and 98.7% in patients with at least 1 diminutive or small polyp. In DISCARD3, an RD approach was found to reduce overall direct healthcare costs by $44,285.63 (-72.3%) for patients with diminutive polyps or by $66,129.13 (-75.0%) for patients with diminutive or small polyps. When extrapolated to the entire English BCSP, the annual savings were almost $3 million for patients with diminutive polyps or $4.3 million for patients with diminutive or small polyps, after adjusting for the costs of an OD quality assurance process. CONCLUSIONS: OD with an RD strategy for diminutive and small polyps during BCSP colonoscopy would offer substantial cost savings without adversely affecting surveillance interval concordance.

Colonoscopy performance monitoring: do we need to adjust for case mix?

INTRODUCTION: Overall caecum intubation rate(oCIR) and overall polyp detection rate(oPDR) have been proposed as performance indicators, but varying complexity in case mix among endoscopists may potentially affect validity. The study aims to explore the effect of adjusting for case mix on individual endoscopist performance by calculating case mix-adjusted performance estimates (cmCIR and cmPDR) and comparing them to overall performance estimates (oCIR and oPDR). The study also provides an R program for case mix analysis. METHODS: Logistic regression associated endoscopist, colonoscopy indication, patient age and patient gender with the binary outcomes of cecum intubation and polyp detection. Case mix-adjusted performance indicators were calculated for each endoscopist based on logistic regression and bootstraps. Endoscopists were ranked from best to worst by overall and case mix-adjusted performance estimates, and differences were evaluated using percentage points(pp) and rank changes. RESULTS: The dataset consisted of 7376 colonoscopies performed by 47 endoscopists. The maximum rank change for an endoscopist comparing oCIR and cmCIR was eight positions, interquartile range (IQR 1-3). The maximum change in CIR was 1.95 percentage point (pp) (IQR 0.27-0.86). The maximum rank change in the oPDR versus cmPDR analysis was 17 positions (IQR 1.5-8.5). The maximum change in PDR was 11.21 pp (IQR 2.05-6.70). Three endoscopists improved their performance from significantly inferior to within the 95% confidence interval (CI) range of performance targets using case mix-adjusted estimates. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of endoscopists were unaffected by adjustment for case mix, but a few unfortunate endoscopists had an unfavourable case mix that could invite incorrect suspicion of inferior performance.

Does completing advanced endoscopy fellowship improve outcomes after endoscopic mucosal resection?

BACKGROUND: It was reported that about 60% of the physicians in the USA believed that their Gastroenterology fellowship poorly prepared them for large polyp resection. The aim of this study was to compare endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) efficacy and complication rates between skilled general gastroenterologists who perform high volume of EMR and advanced endoscopists. METHODS: We identified 140 patients with documented large colonic polyps treated by 4 providers using EMR technique at Carilion Clinic, in Roanoke, Virginia, USA between 01/01/2014-12/31/2017, with follow-up through 10-2018. Information on demographics, clinical and pathological features of high-risk polyps (i.e., size, histology, site, and degree of dysplasia), timing of surveillance endoscopies, tools used during resection, and skills of performing endoscopist's were extracted. The cumulative risks of polyp recurrence after first resection using EMR technique were estimated using Kaplan-Meier curves. RESULTS: One hundred and forty patients were identified (mean age, 64.1±11.2 years; 47.1% males). Fifty-five polyps (39.3%) were removed by 2 skilled gastroenterologists and 85 (60.7%) were removed by advanced endoscopists. Most of the polyps resected were located in the right colon (63.6%) and roughly half of the polyps were removed in piecemeal fashion. At follow-up endoscopy, the advanced endoscopy group had lower polyp recurrence rates. The median recurrence after polypectomy was significantly different between the groups (0.88 and 1.03 years for skilled gastroenterologists who did not complete and completed EMR hands-on workshops; respectively vs. 3.99 years for the advanced endoscopist who did not complete EMR hands-on workshop, P=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: There is a need for additional EMR training since polyp recurrence was significantly different between the groups despite high rates of piecemeal resection in the advanced endoscopy groups.

Cost-utility advantage of interventional endoscopy.

BACKGROUND: Gastroenterologists frequently face the dilemma of how to choose among different management options. AIM: To develop a tool of medical decision analysis that helps choosing between competing management options of interventional endoscopy and surgery. METHODS: Carcinoma-in-situ of the esophagus, large colonic polyps, and ampullary adenoma serve as three examples for disorders being managed by both techniques. A threshold analysis using a decision tree was modeled to compare the costs and utility values associated with managing the three examples. If the expected healing or success rate of interventional endoscopy exceeds a threshold calculated as the ratio of endoscopy costs over surgery costs, endoscopy becomes the preferred management option. A low threshold speaks in favor of endoscopic intervention as initial management strategy. RESULTS: If the decision in favor of surgery is focused exclusively on preventing death from a given disease, surgical intervention may seem to provide the best treatment option. However, interventional endoscopy becomes a viable alternative, if the comparison is based on a broader perspective that includes adverse events and long-term disability, as well as the healthcare costs of both procedures. For carcinoma-in-situ of the esophagus, the threshold for the expected success rate is 24% (range in the sensitivity analysis: 7-29%); for large colonic polyps it is 10% (5-12%), and for duodenal papillary adenoma it is 17% (5-21%). CONCLUSIONS: Even if a management strategy surpasses its alternative with respect to one important outcome parameter, there is often still room for the lesser alternative to be considered as viable option.

Sporadic rectocolic polyps prevalence and management

Objective: To evaluate the prevalence of polyps and their treatments. Materials and Method: This is a retrospective study conducted in our department over 20 years and 3 months between January 2000 and March 2021. All patients with colorectal polyps who underwent endoscopic resection were included. We evaluated the resection techniques and the management of complications. Results: The total number of patients was 273, with a mean age of 57.26 ± 14.058 (18-90) and a M/W sex ratio of 2. The prevalence was 3.35% and the mean number of polyps was 1.33 ± 0.69. The most frequent symptoms were rectal bleeding (23.5%) and constipation (12.1%). The median size was 6 mm (4-12 mm). The left colonic location was the most frequent site (43%). All polyps were classified according to the Paris classification, with a predominance of sessile polyps in 45.75%, followed by pedunculated polyps, representing 42.4%. Endoscopic resection was performed either by biopsy forceps, polypectomy, or mucosectomy in 30.2%, 27.4%, and 25.4% of cases, respectively. Our study noted immediate bleeding in 1.5% of cases, and no perforations or late complications. All complications were treated endoscopically, and no patient required blood transfusion or surgical intervention. Conclusion: Endoscopic resection of rectocolic polyps is the ideal treatment for these lesions. In our department, the prevalence was 3.35%, the most used resection techniques were forceps resection and polypectomy, and the complication rate was 1.5%. (AU)

Serrated polyposis syndrome; epidemiology and management.

Serrated colorectal polyps, long considered innocent, are currently recognized as the precursors to one-third of all colorectal cancers (CRC). Serrated polyposis syndrome (SPS), characterized by accumulation of multiple and/or large serrated polyps, symbolizes the highest expression of serrated pathway of carcinogenesis, leading to a high risk of CRC when it is not detected or treated on time. Although previously considered uncommon, SPS is now acknowledged as the most prevalent colorectal polyposis. This syndrome has attracted increasing interest over the past decade and has become a hot topic in the field of gastrointestinal oncology. Besides a small proportion of cases caused by germline mutations in RNF43, no clear genetic cause has been identified. Both epigenetic and environmental factors, especially smoking, have been related to this syndrome, but the etiology of SPS remains uncertain and diagnosis is based on endoscopic criteria. Recent studies on SPS have focused on identifying the underlying risk-factors for CRC, defining the best endoscopic techniques for surveillance and establishing optimal preventive strategies aimed at reducing CRC-incidence without exposing patients to unnecessary procedures. The purpose of this chapter is to review, from a practical perspective, current knowledge and future directions in the diagnosis and management of serrated polyposis syndrome.

Factores de riesgo asociados a sepsis neonatal en pacientes en cuidados mínimos, de la unidad de cuidados intensivos neonatales / Risk factors associated with neonatal sepsis in minimum care, in the neonatal intensive care unith

Antecedentes: La sepsis neonatal representa un desa- fío para los Servicios de Neonatología en el mundo, a pesar de los avances en estudios diagnósticos y te- rapia antimicrobiana, más del 46% de las muertes en menores de 5 años corresponden al periodo neo- natal, y dentro de ese porcentaje 15% es por sepsis. Objetivo: Caracterizar los factores de riesgo aso- ciados a sepsis neonatal en los recién nacidos ingre- sados en UCIN (Unidad de Cuidados Intensivos), en área de Cuidados Mínimos del Instituto Hondu- reño de Seguridad Social, de enero a junio del 2022. Pacientes y Metodología: Estudio cuantitativo con un alcance descriptivo, se estudiaron a 100 neonatos con el diagnóstico de sepsis neonatal ingresados en UCIN en área de cuidados mínimos, muestreo no probabilísti- co a conveniencia, con revisión de expedientes clínicos y aplicación de consentimiento informado a padre y/o tutor. Resultados: El 57% tenían entre 1 ­ 24 horas de vida al ingreso, 65.0% de género masculino, un 93.0% de raza mestiza y un 7% de raza negra. El 83.0% de las madres eran primigestas, con antecedente de infección urinaria en un 70.0% durante el tercer trimestre de ges- tación y el 15.5% con antecedente de infecciones vagi- nales. Un 7.8% con ruptura prematura de membranas, 3.9% corioamnionitis, 6.49% fiebre intraparto y 10.0% con infecciones respiratorias maternas. La fiebre fue el signo de sepsis predominante en todos los pacientes.Conclusiones: Madre entre 26-35 años, ser primípara, tener menos de tres controles prenatales durante su ges- tación se consideran factores de riesgo para sepsis neo- natal con una relación estadísticamente significativa ...(AU)

Trial protocol for COLO-DETECT: A randomized controlled trial of lesion detection comparing colonoscopy assisted by the GI Genius™ artificial intelligence endoscopy module with standard colonoscopy.

AIM: Colorectal cancer is the second commonest cause of cancer death worldwide. Colonoscopy plays a key role in the control of colorectal cancer and, in that regard, maximizing detection (and removal) of pre-cancerous adenomas at colonoscopy is imperative. GI Genius™ (Medtronic Ltd) is a computer-aided detection system that integrates with existing endoscopy systems and improves adenoma detection during colonoscopy. COLO-DETECT aims to assess the clinical and cost effectiveness of GI Genius™ in UK routine colonoscopy practice. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Participants will be recruited from patients attending for colonoscopy at National Health Service sites in England, for clinical symptoms, surveillance or within the national Bowel Cancer Screening Programme. Randomization will involve a 1:1 allocation ratio (GI Genius™-assisted colonoscopy:standard colonoscopy) and will be stratified by age category (<60 years, 60-<74 years, ≥74 years), sex, hospital site and indication for colonoscopy. Demographic data, procedural data, histology and post-procedure patient experience and quality of life will be recorded. COLO-DETECT is designed and powered to detect clinically meaningful differences in mean adenomas per procedure and adenoma detection rate between GI Genius™-assisted colonoscopy and standard colonoscopy groups. The study will close when 1828 participants have had a complete colonoscopy. An economic evaluation will be conducted from the perspective of the National Health Service. A patient and public representative is contributing to all stages of the trial. Registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04723758) and ISRCTN (10451355). WHAT WILL THIS TRIAL ADD TO THE LITERATURE?: COLO-DETECT will be the first multi-centre randomized controlled trial evaluating GI Genius™ in real world colonoscopy practice and will, uniquely, evaluate both clinical and cost effectiveness.

Visual gaze patterns in trainee endoscopists - a novel assessment tool.

BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy proficiency is significantly influenced by skills achieved during training. Although assessment scores exist, they do not evaluate the impact of visual search strategies and their use is time and labour intensive. Eye-tracking has shown significant differences in visual gaze patterns (VGPs) between expert endoscopists with varying polyp detection rates, so may provide a means of automated assessment and guidance for trainees. This study aimed to assess the feasibility of eye-tracking as a novel assessment method for trainee endoscopists. METHODS: Eye-tracking glasses were used to record 26 colonoscopies from 12 endoscopy trainees who were assessed with directly observed procedural scores (DOPS), devised by the Joint Advisory Group (JAG) on GI endoscopy, and a visual analogue score of overall competence. A 'total weighted procedure score' (TWPS) was calculated from 1 to 20. Primary outcomes of fixation duration (FixD) and fixation frequency (FixF) were analysed according to areas of interest (AOIs) with the bowel surface and lumen represented by three concentric rings. Correlation was assessed using Pearson's coefficient. Significance was set at p<.050. RESULTS: Trainees displayed a significant positive correlation between TWPS and FixD (R = 0.943, p<.0001) and FixF (R = 0.936, p<.0001) in the anatomical bowel mucosa peripheries. Conversely, they had significant negative correlations between TWPS and the anatomical bowel lumen (FixD: R= -0.546, p=.004; FixF: R= -0.568, p=.002). CONCLUSIONS: Higher objective performance scores were associated with VGPs focussing on bowel mucosa. This is consistent with prior analysis showing peripheral VGPs correspond with higher polyp detection rates. Analysis of VGPs, therefore, has potential for training and assessment in colonoscopy.

Impact of surgical versus endoscopic management of complex nonmalignant polyps in a colorectal cancer screening program.

BACKGROUND: When complex nonmalignant polyps are detected in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs, patients may be referred directly to surgery or may first undergo additional endoscopy for attempted endoscopic removal by an expert. We compared the impact of both strategies on screening effectiveness and costs. METHODS: We used MISCAN-Colon to simulate the Dutch screening program, and projected CRC deaths prevented, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained, and costs for two scenarios: 1) surgery for all complex nonmalignant polyps; 2) attempted removal by an expert endoscopist first. We made the following assumptions: 3.9 % of screen-detected large nonmalignant polyps were complex; associated surgery mortality was 0.7 %; the rate of successful removal by an expert was 87 %, with 0.11 % mortality. RESULTS: The screening program was estimated to prevent 11.2 CRC cases (-16.7 %) and 10.1 CRC deaths (-27.1 %), resulting in 32.9 QALYs gained (+ 17.2 %) per 1000 simulated individuals over their lifetimes compared with no screening. The program would also result in 2.1 surgeries for complex nonmalignant polyps with 0.015 associated deaths per 1000 individuals. If, instead, these patients were referred to an expert endoscopist first, only 0.2 patients required surgery, reducing associated deaths by 0.013 at the expense of 0.003 extra colonoscopy deaths. Compared with direct referral to surgery, referral to an expert endoscopist gained 0.2 QALYs and saved €12 500 per 1000 individuals in the target population. CONCLUSION: Referring patients with complex polyps to an expert endoscopist first reduced some surgery-related deaths while substantially improving cost-effectiveness of the screening program.

CC-CLEAR (Colon Capsule Cleansing Assessment and Report): the novel scale to evaluate the clinical impact of bowel preparation in capsule colonoscopy - a multicentric validation study.

BACKGROUND: Colon Capsule Cleansing Assessment and Report (CC-CLEAR) is a novel quantitative bowel preparation scale for colon capsule. AIM: The aim of this study is to validate the association between CC-CLEAR's classification and major CC outcomes: lesion detection rate, surveillance recommendations and post-CC endoscopic treatment. METHODS: Multicentric cohort of consecutive CCs. An expert's panel decided post-CC recommendations. Data included CC-CLEAR and Leighton-REX scales. Major CC outcomes were associated with the different cleansing grades. RESULTS: From 168 CC's included, findings were reported in 123 (73.2%), 67 (54.4%) of those being colorectal polyps. CC-CLEAR influenced CC's lesion detection (OR 1.25 95% IC [1.07-1.46], p-value .004) and polyp detection rate (OR 1.22 95% IC [1.04-1.43], p-value.014). Thirty-two (19%) post-CC colonoscopies were recommended, including 22 (68.75%) with at least one polypectomy. CC-CLEAR was associated with post-CC colonoscopy treatment (OR 1.40 95% IC [1.07-1.84], p-value .015). Regarding surveillance, CC-CLEAR influenced the decision for immediate CC repetition (OR 0.21 95% IC [0.12-0.36], p-value < .001) and the recommendation for CC in 3-5 years' time (OR 1.47 95% IC [1.50-1.86], p-value < .002). The Leighton-Rex scale was not correlated with major CC outcomes. CONCLUSION: CC-CLEAR impacts major CC outcomes: lesion detection, surveillance recommendations and post-CC endoscopic treatment.