Indomethacin with or without prophylactic pancreatic stent placement to prevent pancreatitis after ERCP: a randomised non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: The combination of rectally administered indomethacin and placement of a prophylactic pancreatic stent is recommended to prevent pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in high-risk patients. Preliminary evidence suggests that the use of indomethacin might eliminate or substantially reduce the need for stent placement, a technically complex, costly, and potentially harmful intervention. METHODS: In this randomised, non-inferiority trial conducted at 20 referral centres in the USA and Canada, patients (aged ≥18 years) at high risk for post-ERCP pancreatitis were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive rectal indomethacin alone or the combination of indomethacin plus a prophylactic pancreatic stent. Patients, treating clinicians, and outcomes assessors were masked to study group assignment. The primary outcome was post-ERCP pancreatitis. To declare non-inferiority, the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in post-ERCP pancreatitis (indomethacin alone minus indomethacin plus stent) would have to be less than 5% (non-inferiority margin) in both the intention-to-treat and per-protocol populations. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02476279), and is complete. FINDINGS: Between Sept 17, 2015, and Jan 25, 2023, a total of 1950 patients were randomly assigned. Post-ERCP pancreatitis occurred in 145 (14·9%) of 975 patients in the indomethacin alone group and in 110 (11·3%) of 975 in the indomethacin plus stent group (risk difference 3·6%; 95% CI 0·6-6·6; p=0·18 for non-inferiority). A post-hoc intention-to-treat analysis of the risk difference between groups showed that indomethacin alone was inferior to the combination of indomethacin plus prophylactic stent (p=0·011). The relative benefit of stent placement was generally consistent across study subgroups but appeared more prominent among patients at highest risk for pancreatitis. Safety outcomes (serious adverse events, intensive care unit admission, and hospital length of stay) did not differ between groups. INTERPRETATION: For preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis in high-risk patients, a strategy of indomethacin alone was not as effective as a strategy of indomethacin plus prophylactic pancreatic stent placement. These results support prophylactic pancreatic stent placement in addition to rectal indomethacin administration in high-risk patients, in accordance with clinical practice guidelines. FUNDING: US National Institutes of Health.

AGA Clinical Practice Guideline on Endoscopic Eradication Therapy of Barrett's Esophagus and Related Neoplasia.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Barrett's esophagus (BE) is the precursor to esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). Endoscopic eradication therapy (EET) can be effective in eradicating BE and related neoplasia and has greater risk of harms and resource use than surveillance endoscopy. This clinical practice guideline aims to inform clinicians and patients by providing evidence-based practice recommendations for the use of EET in BE and related neoplasia. METHODS: The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework was used to assess evidence and make recommendations. The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and patients, conducted an evidence review, and used the Evidence-to-Decision Framework to develop recommendations regarding the use of EET in patients with BE under the following scenarios: presence of (1) high-grade dysplasia, (2) low-grade dysplasia, (3) no dysplasia, and (4) choice of stepwise endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) or focal EMR plus ablation, and (5) endoscopic submucosal dissection vs EMR. Clinical recommendations were based on the balance between desirable and undesirable effects, patient values, costs, and health equity considerations. RESULTS: The panel agreed on 5 recommendations for the use of EET in BE and related neoplasia. Based on the available evidence, the panel made a strong recommendation in favor of EET in patients with BE high-grade dysplasia and conditional recommendation against EET in BE without dysplasia. The panel made a conditional recommendation in favor of EET in BE low-grade dysplasia; patients with BE low-grade dysplasia who place a higher value on the potential harms and lower value on the benefits (which are uncertain) regarding reduction of esophageal cancer mortality could reasonably select surveillance endoscopy. In patients with visible lesions, a conditional recommendation was made in favor of focal EMR plus ablation over stepwise EMR. In patients with visible neoplastic lesions undergoing resection, the use of either endoscopic mucosal resection or endoscopic submucosal dissection was suggested based on lesion characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: This document provides a comprehensive outline of the indications for EET in the management of BE and related neoplasia. Guidance is also provided regarding the considerations surrounding implementation of EET. Providers should engage in shared decision making based on patient preferences. Limitations and gaps in the evidence are highlighted to guide future research opportunities.

Magnitude and Time-Trends of Post-Endoscopy Esophageal Adenocarcinoma and Post-Endoscopy Esophageal Neoplasia in a Population-Based Cohort Study: The Nordic Barrett's Esophagus Study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Post-endoscopy esophageal adenocarcinoma (PEEC) and post-endoscopy esophageal neoplasia (PEEN) undermine early cancer detection in Barrett's esophagus (BE). We aimed to assess the magnitude and conduct time-trend analysis of PEEC and PEEN among patients with newly diagnosed BE. METHODS: This population-based cohort study was conducted in Denmark, Finland, and Sweden between 2006 and 2020 and included 20,588 patients with newly diagnosed BE. PEEC and PEEN were defined as esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) or high-grade dysplasia (HGD)/EAC, respectively, diagnosed 30-365 days from BE diagnosis (index endoscopy). HGD/EAC diagnosed from 0-29 days and HGD/EAC diagnosed >365 days from BE diagnosis (incident HGD/EAC) were assessed. Patients were followed up until HGD/EAC, death, or end of study period. Incidence rates (IR) per 100,000 person-years with 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were calculated using Poisson regression. RESULTS: Among 293 patients diagnosed with EAC, 69 (23.5%) were categorized as PEEC, 43 (14.7%) as index EAC, and 181 (61.8%) as incident EAC. The IRs/100,000 person-years for PEEC and incident EAC were 392 (95% CI, 309-496), and 208 (95% CI, 180-241), respectively. Among 279 patients diagnosed with HGD/EAC (Sweden only), 17.2% were categorized as PEEN, 14.6% as index HGD/EAC, and 68.1% as incident HGD/EAC. IRs/100,000 person-years for PEEN, and incident HGD/EAC were 421 (95% CI, 317-558), and 285 (95% CI, 247-328), respectively. Sensitivity analyses that varied time interval for occurrence of PEEC/PEEN demonstrated similar results. A time-trend analysis for IRs demonstrated rising incidence rates of PEEC/PEEN. CONCLUSIONS: Almost a quarter of all EACs are detected within a year after an ostensibly negative upper endoscopy in patients with newly diagnosed BE. Interventions to improve detection may reduce PEEC/PEEN rates.

Prevalence and Predictors of Barrett's Esophagus After Negative Initial Endoscopy: Analysis From Two National Databases.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Guidelines suggest a single screening esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) in patients with multiple risk factors for Barrett's esophagus (BE). We aimed to determine BE prevalence and predictors on repeat EGD after a negative initial EGD, using 2 large national databases (GI Quality Improvement Consortium [GIQuIC] and TriNetX). METHODS: Patients who underwent at least 2 EGDs were included and those with BE or esophageal adenocarcinoma detected at initial EGD were excluded. Patient demographics and prevalence of BE on repeat EGD were collected. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to assess for independent risk factors for BE detected on the repeat EGD. RESULTS: In 214,318 and 153,445 patients undergoing at least 2 EGDs over a median follow-up of 28-35 months, the prevalence of BE on repeat EGD was 1.7% in GIQuIC and 3.4% in TriNetX, respectively (26%-45% of baseline BE prevalence). Most (89%) patients had nondysplastic BE. The prevalence of BE remained stable over time (from 1 to >5 years from negative initial EGD) but increased with increasing number of risk factors. BE prevalence in a high-risk population (gastroesophageal reflux disease plus ≥1 risk factor for BE) was 3%-4%. CONCLUSIONS: In this study of >350,000 patients, rates of BE on repeat EGD ranged from 1.7%-3.4%, and were higher in those with multiple risk factors. Most were likely missed at initial evaluation, underscoring the importance of a high-quality initial endoscopic examination. Although routine repeat endoscopic BE screening after a negative initial examination is not recommended, repeat screening may be considered in carefully selected patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease and ≥2 risk factors for BE, potentially using nonendoscopic tools.

Pandemic-Related Changes in Incidence and Mortality Rates of Gastrointestinal Cancers During 2020.

INTRODUCTION: Coronavirus Disease 2019 disrupted cancer-related care in early 2020. METHODS: We used population-based cancer registry data to estimate incidence and mortality rates of gastrointestinal cancers between 2016 and 2020. RESULTS: Incidence rates were unchanged from 2016 to 2019 but decreased in 2020, with the largest declines for colorectal cancer (rate ratio [RR] 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.87-0.90) and hepatocellular carcinoma (RR 0.85; 95% CI 0.82-0.88). Mortality rates of colorectal cancer (RR 1.06; 95% CI 1.04-1.08) and esophageal adenocarcinoma (RR 1.06; 95% CI 1.00-1.13) increased in 2020. DISCUSSION: Incidence and mortality rates of gastrointestinal cancers may increase in the future given pandemic-related delays in 2020.

Significant Reduction in the Diagnosis of Barrett's Esophagus and Related Dysplasia During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: The coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) pandemic disrupted endoscopy practices, creating unprecedented decreases in cancer screening and surveillance services. We aimed to assess the impact of the pandemic on the proportion of patients diagnosed with Barrett's esophagus (BE) and BE-related dysplasia and adherence to established quality indicators. METHODS: Data from all esophagogastroduodenoscopies in the GI Quality Improvement Consortium, a national repository of matched endoscopy and pathology data, were analyzed from January 2018 to December 2022. Four cohorts were created based on procedure date and COVID-19 data: pre-pandemic (January 2018 to February 2020), pandemic-phase I (March 2020 to July 2020), pandemic-phase II (August 2020 to May 2021), and pandemic-phase III (June 2021 to December 2022). Observed and expected number of BE and BE-related dysplasia cases per month and adherence to the Seattle biopsy protocol and recommended surveillance intervals for nondysplastic BE (NDBE) were evaluated. RESULTS: Among 2,446,857 esophagogastroduodenoscopies performed during the study period, 104,124 (4.3%) had pathology-confirmed BE. The histologic distribution was 87.4% NDBE, 1.8% low-grade dysplasia, 2.4% indefinite for dysplasia, and 1.4% high-grade dysplasia. The number of monthly BE (-47.9% pandemic-phase I, -21.5% pandemic-phase II, and -19.0% pandemic-phase III) and BE-related dysplasia (high-grade dysplasia: 41.2%, -27.7%, and -19.0%; low-grade dysplasia: 49.1%, -35.3%, and -26.5%; any dysplasia: 46.7%, -32.3%, and -27.9%) diagnoses were significantly reduced during the pandemic phases compared with pre-pandemic data. Adherence rates to the Seattle protocol and recommended surveillance intervals for NDBE did not decline during the pandemic. DISCUSSION: There was a significant decline in the number of BE and BE-related dysplasia diagnoses during the COVID-19 pandemic, with an approximately 50% reduction in the number of cases of dysplasia diagnosed in the early pandemic. The absence of a compensatory increase in diagnoses in the pandemic-phase II and III periods may result in deleterious downstream effects on esophageal adenocarcinoma morbidity and mortality.

Limited exposure to pancreatic ERCP during advanced endoscopy training impacts competence and performance in independent practice.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: The impact of competency-based training programs on pancreatic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) performance remains unclear. This study aimed to describe the learning curves of pancreatic ERCP and subsequent performance during independent practice. METHODS: This was a multicenter prospective cohort study involving advanced endoscopy trainees (AETs). In the 1st phase, trainees were assessed on every 5th ERCP using the ERCP and EUS Skills Assessment Tool (TEESAT). Cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis of pancreatic ERCP evaluations was used to establish learning curves. During the 2nd phase (1st year of independent practice), now-graduated participants documented their performance on key ERCP quality indicators. RESULTS: A total of 24 AETs (20 training programs) received sufficient evaluations for CUSUM analysis. Pancreatic ERCP accounted for 14.6 % (196/1339) of all ERCPs evaluated with 45 % of pancreatic ERCPs carrying a Grade 3 level of complexity. A minority of AETs (16.7 %) performed enough pancreatic ERCPs to generate meaningful learning curves with no AETs achieving competence in pancreatic cannulation, sphincterotomy, or stone clearance during Phase 1. In Phase 2, a total of 3620 ERCPs were performed, of which 281 (7.8 %) were pancreatic ERCPs. While the overall pancreatic duct cannulation rate was 92.2 %, the native papilla pancreatic duct cannulation rate was 85.7 %, which was below the recommended 90 % threshold. CONCLUSIONS: Advanced endoscopy training offers a low level of exposure to pancreatic ERCP, which is mirrored in independent practice, highlighting the inadequate training in pancreatic ERCP. Given the complexity of pancreatic ERCP, novel strategies are warranted to improve training in pancreatic ERCP.

Effect of the number of passes on diagnostic performance of EUS-fine needle biopsy of solid pancreatic masses: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The optimal number of passes to maximize the diagnostic ability of endoscopic ultrasound fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) of solid pancreatic masses (SPMs) is not well known. We conducted a systematic review to evaluate the impact of the incremental number of passes on diagnostic accuracy, tissue adequacy, and diagnostic yield for EUS-FNB of SPMs. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, and Cochrane Central for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing per-pass diagnostic outcomes of FNB needles in patients with SPMs. Meta-analysis was conducted using random effects models. A separate analysis was performed on studies that used contemporary Franseen and fork-tip needles. RESULTS: Overall, 19 RCTs (N=3,552) were identified. For EUS-FNB of SPMs, three passes with any FNB needle outperformed two passes for accuracy (OR=1.58; 95%CI 1.20-2.09; I2=0%), adequacy (OR=1.97; 95%CI 1.30-2.83; I2=61%) and yield (OR=2.12; 95%CI 1.37-3.27; I2 14%). Adding a fourth or fifth pass resulted in no significant improvement in diagnostic parameters. When using contemporary FNB needles, adding a second to a single pass significantly improved accuracy (OR=1.80; 95%CI 1.23-2.63; I2=0%), adequacy (OR=2.19; 95% CI 1.65-2.90; I2=0%) and yield (OR=2.72; 95%CI 1.50-4.95; I2=0%). Adding a third pass to a second pass with contemporary needles improved adequacy (OR=2.96; 95%CI 1.97-4.46; I2=0%) but did not provide better diagnostic accuracy or yield. CONCLUSION: Two passes with Franseen or Fork-tip needles and three passes with any FNB needle suffice to provide optimal diagnostic performance for EUS-FNB of SPMs, without additional diagnostic benefits with more passes. Our results can inform future guidelines and quality benchmarks.

Development of American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy standards for training in advanced endoscopy within dedicated advanced endoscopy fellowship programs.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Training in interventional endoscopy is offered by nonaccredited advanced endoscopy fellowship programs (AEFPs). The number of these programs has increased dramatically with a concurrent increase in the breadth and complexity of interventional endoscopy procedures. Accreditation is governed by competency-based education, yet what constitutes a "high-quality" nonaccredited AEFP has not been defined. Using an evidence-based consensus process, we aimed to establish standards for AEFPs. METHODS: The RAND UCLA appropriateness method, a well-described modified Delphi process to develop quality indicators, was used. A task force established by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy drafted potential quality indicators (structure, process, and outcome) in 6 categories: activity preceding training; structure of AEFPs; training in ERCP, EUS, and EMR; and luminal stent placement. Three rounds of iterative feedback from 20 experts were conducted. Round 0 involved discussion of project details. In round 1, experts independently ranked proposed quality indicators on a 9-point interval scale ranging from highly inappropriate (1) to highly appropriate (9). Next, proposed quality indicators were discussed and reworded in a group meeting followed by round 2, in which experts independently reranked proposed quality indicators and provided benchmarks (when applicable). The median score for each quality indicator was calculated. Mean absolute deviation from the median was calculated, and appropriateness of potential quality indicators was assessed using the BIOMED concerted action on appropriateness definition, P value method, and interpercentile range adjusted for symmetry definition. A quality indicator was deemed appropriate if the median score was ≥7 and met criteria for appropriateness using all 3 defined statistical methods. RESULTS: Of 89 proposed quality indicators, 37 statements met criteria as appropriate for a quality indicator (activity preceding training, 2; structure of AEFPs, 10; training in ERCP, 7; training in EUS, 8; training in EMR, 7; luminal stent placement, 3). Minimum thresholds were defined for 19 relevant quality indicators for number of trainers, procedures during fellowship, and procedures before assessment of competence. Among the final appropriate quality indicators were that all trainees should undergo qualitative and quantitative competence assessments using validated tools at least quarterly with documented feedback throughout the training period and that trainees should track outcomes and relevant quality metrics for specific procedures. CONCLUSIONS: This consensus process using validated methodology established standards for an AEFP in an effort to ensure adequate training in the most commonly taught interventional endoscopic procedures (ERCP, EUS, EMR, and luminal stent placement) during fellowship. An important component of an AEFP is the use of competency-based assessments that are compliant with the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education's Next Accreditation System, with the goal of ensuring that trainees achieve specific milestones in their progression to achieving cognitive and technical competency.

Effect of an online educational module incorporating real-time feedback on accuracy of polyp sizing in trainees: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Although polyp size dictates surveillance intervals, endoscopists often estimate polyp size inaccurately. We hypothesized that an intervention providing didactic instruction and real-time feedback could significantly improve polyp size classification. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter randomized controlled trial to evaluate the impact of different components of an online educational module on polyp sizing. Participants were randomized to control (no video, no feedback), video only, feedback only, or video + feedback. The primary outcome was accuracy of polyp size classification into clinically relevant categories (diminutive [1-5mm], small [6-9mm], large [≥10mm]). Secondary outcomes included accuracy of exact polyp size (inmm), learning curves, and directionality of inaccuracy (over- vs. underestimation). RESULTS: 36 trainees from five training programs provided 1360 polyp size assessments. The feedback only (80.1%, P=0.01) and video + feedback (78.9%, P=0.02) groups had higher accuracy of polyp size classification compared with controls (71.6%). There was no significant difference in accuracy between the video only group (74.4%) and controls (P=0.42). Groups receiving feedback had higher accuracy of exact polyp size (inmm) and higher peak learning curves. Polyps were more likely to be overestimated than underestimated, and 29.3% of size inaccuracies impacted recommended surveillance intervals. CONCLUSIONS: Our online educational module significantly improved polyp size classification. Real-time feedback appeared to be a critical component in improving accuracy. This scalable and no-cost educational module could significantly decrease under- and overutilization of colonoscopy, improving patient outcomes while increasing colonoscopy access.

A machine learning-based choledocholithiasis prediction tool to improve ERCP decision making: a proof-of-concept study.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies demonstrated limited accuracy of existing guidelines for predicting choledocholithiasis, leading to overutilization of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). More accurate stratification may improve patient selection for ERCP and allow use of lower-risk modalities. METHODS: A machine learning model was developed using patient information from two published cohort studies that evaluated performance of guidelines in predicting choledocholithiasis. Prediction models were developed using the gradient boosting model (GBM) machine learning method. GBM performance was evaluated using 10-fold cross-validation and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Important predictors of choledocholithiasis were identified based on relative importance in the GBM. RESULTS: 1378 patients (mean age 43.3 years; 61.2% female) were included in the GBM and 59.4% had choledocholithiasis. Eight variables were identified as predictors of choledocholithiasis. The GBM had accuracy of 71.5% (SD 2.5%) (AUC 0.79 [SD 0.06]) and performed better than the 2019 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) guidelines (accuracy 62.4% [SD 2.6%]; AUC 0.63 [SD 0.03]) and European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guidelines (accuracy 62.8% [SD 2.6%]; AUC 0.67 [SD 0.02]). The GBM correctly categorized 22% of patients directed to unnecessary ERCP by ASGE guidelines, and appropriately recommended as the next management step 48% of ERCPs incorrectly rejected by ESGE guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: A machine learning-based tool was created, providing real-time, personalized, objective probability of choledocholithiasis and ERCP recommendations. This more accurately directed ERCP use than existing ASGE and ESGE guidelines, and has the potential to reduce morbidity associated with ERCP or missed choledocholithiasis.

Immune Landscape of Epstein-Barr Virus-Associated Gastric Cancer: Analysis From a Western Academic Institution.

INTRODUCTION: Epstein-Barr virus-associated gastric cancer (EBVaGC) may be a meaningful biomarker for potential benefit from immunotherapy. Further investigation is needed to characterize the immune landscape of EBVaGC. We assessed our institutional frequency of surgically treated EBVaGC and analyzed the immunologic biomarker profile and tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte (TIL) phenotypes of a series of EBVaGC compared to non-EBVaGC cases. METHODS: Available tissue samples from all patients with biopsy-confirmed gastric adenocarcinoma who underwent resection with curative intent from 2012 to 2020 at our institution were collected. In situ hybridization was used to assess EBV status; multiplex immunohistochemistry was performed to assess mismatch repair status, Programmed Death-Ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression, and phenotypic characterization of TILs. RESULTS: Sixty-eight samples were included in this study. EBVaGC was present in 3/68 (4%) patients. Among all patients, 27/68 (40%) had positive PD-L1 expression; two of three (67%) EBVaGC patients exhibited positive PD-L1 expression. Compared to non-EBVaGC, EBV-positive tumors showed 5-fold to 10-fold higher density of TILs in both tumor and stroma and substantially elevated CD8+ T cell to Tregulatory cell ratio. The memory subtypes of CD8+ and CD4+ T cells were upregulated in EBVaGC tumors and stromal tissue compared to non-EBVaGC. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of surgically resected EBVaGC at our center was 4%. EBVaGC tumors harbor elevated levels of TILs, including memory subtypes, within both tumor and tumor-related stroma. Robust TIL presence and upregulated PD-L1 positivity in EBVaGC may portend promising responses to immunotherapy agents. Further investigation into routine EBV testing and TIL phenotype of patients with gastric cancer to predict response to immunotherapy may be warranted.

A Delphi Method for Development of a Barrett's Esophagus Question Prompt List as a Communication Tool for Optimal Patient-physician Communication.

BACKGROUND METHODS: The question prompt list content was derived through a modified Delphi process consisting of 3 rounds. In round 1, experts provided 5 answers to the prompts "What general questions should patients ask when given a new diagnosis of Barrett's esophagus" and "What questions do I not hear patients asking, but given my expertise, I believe they should be asking?" Questions were reviewed and categorized into themes. In round 2, experts rated questions on a 5-point Likert scale. In round 3, experts rerated questions modified or reduced after the previous rounds. Only questions rated as "essential" or "important" were included in Barrett's esophagus question prompt list (BE-QPL). To improve usability, questions were reduced to minimize redundancy and simplified to use language at an eighth-grade level (Fig. 1). RESULTS: Twenty-one esophageal medical and surgical experts participated in both rounds (91% males; median age 52 years). The expert panel comprised of 33% esophagologists, 24% foregut surgeons, and 24% advanced endoscopists, with a median of 15 years in clinical practice. Most (81%), worked in an academic tertiary referral hospital. In this 3-round Delphi technique, 220 questions were proposed in round 1, 122 (55.5%) were accepted into the BE-QPL and reduced down to 76 questions (round 2), and 67 questions (round 3). These 67 questions reached a Flesch Reading Ease of 68.8, interpreted as easily understood by 13 to 15 years olds. CONCLUSIONS: With multidisciplinary input, we have developed a physician-derived BE-QPL to optimize patient-physician communication. Future directions will seek patient feedback to distill the questions further to a smaller number and then assess their usability.

The timing of recurrence after endoscopic papillectomy.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic papillectomy (EP) offers a safe and effective method for resection of ampullary adenomas. Data regarding the long-term resolution of adenoma following EP are limited. The aim of this study therefore was to examine the timing of recurrence after EP of ampullary adenomas. METHODS: This was a single-center retrospective study including patients who received EP for ampullary adenomas from 8/2000 to 1/2018. Patients with confirmed complete eradication of adenoma were included in the recurrence analysis with recurrence defined as finding adenomatous histology after 1 negative surveillance endoscopy. Kaplan-Meier estimates were calculated to determine recurrence rates. RESULTS: Of the 165 patients who underwent EP, 136 patients (mean age 61.9, 51.5% female) had adenomatous histology with a mean lesion size of 21.2 mm. A total of 124 (91.2%) achieved complete eradication with a follow-up of 345.8 person-years. Recurrence occurred in 20 (16.1%) patients at a mean of 3.2 (± 3) years (range 0.5-9.75 years) for a recurrence rate of 5.8 (95% CI 3.6-8.8) per 100 person-years. Nine (45%) recurrences occurred after the 1st 2 years of surveillance. Recurrence rate did not differ by baseline pathology [low-grade dysplasia: 5.2 (95% CI 3.0-9.0), high-grade dysplasia: 6.9 (95% CI 2.3-15.5), adenocarcinoma: 7.7 (95% CI 0.9-25.1)]. CONCLUSION: Recurrence remains a significant concern after EP. Given the timing of recurrence, long surveillance periods may be necessary. Larger multicenter studies are needed, however, to determine appropriate surveillance intervals.

First ever reported case of right-sided rupture of eventration of the diaphragm: Thoraco-laparoscopic approach.

ABSTRACT: Diaphragmatic eventration (DE) is an abnormal condition where a portion or the entire hemidiaphragm elevates due to insufficient muscle or nerve function while maintaining its anatomical attachments. On the other hand, congenital diaphragmatic hernias occur due to the abnormal development of muscular entities of the diaphragm, resulting in the displacement of abdominal contents into the thorax. The difference between diaphragmatic hernia and eventration is important as there is no true defect in DE. Ruptured eventration of the diaphragm is a rare entity, with only three cases reported in adults in literature till date, all on the left side. We report the first case of ruptured eventration of the diaphragm on the right side, which was repaired by a combination of laparoscopy and thoracoscopy and with double-mesh placement.

Combined Drainage and Protocolized Necrosectomy Through a Coaxial Lumen-apposing Metal Stent for Pancreatic Walled-off Necrosis: A Prospective Multicenter Trial.

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated a protocolized endoscopic necrosectomy approach with a lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS) in patients with large symptomatic walled-off pancreatic necrosis (WON) comprising significant necrotic content, with or without infection. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Randomized trials have shown similar efficacy of endoscopic treatment compared with surgery for infected WON. DESIGN: We conducted a regulatory, prospective, multicenter single-arm clinical trial examining the efficacy and safety of endoscopic ultrasound -guided LAMS with protocolized necrosectomy to treat symptomatic WON ≥6 cm in diameter with >30% solid necrosis. After LAMS placement, protocolized WON assessment was conducted and endoscopic necrosectomy was performed for insufficient WON size reduction and persistent symptoms. Patients with radiographic WON resolution to ≤ 3 cm and/or 60-day LAMS indwell had LAMS removal, then 6-month follow-up. Primary endpoints were probability of radiographic resolution by 60 days and procedure-related serious adverse events. RESULTS: Forty consecutive patients were enrolled September 2018 to March 2020, of whom 27 (67.5%) were inpatients and 19 (47.5%) had clinical evidence of infection at their index procedure. Mean WON size was 15.0 ± 5.6 cm with mean 53.2% ± 16.7% solid necrosis. Radiographic WON resolution was seen in 97.5% (95% CI, 86.8%, 99.9%) by 60 days, without recurrence in 34 patients with 6-month follow-up data. Mean time to radiographic WON resolution was 34.1 ± 16.8 days. Serious adverse events occurred in 3 patients (7.5%), including sepsis, vancomycin-resistant enterococcal bacteremia and shock, and upper gastrointestinal bleeding. There were no procedure-related deaths. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage with protocolized endoscopic necrosectomy to treat large symptomatic or infected walled-off necrotic pancreatic collections was highly effective and safe. Clinicaltrials.-gov no: NCT03525808.

Spectrum of Advanced Colorectal Neoplasia and Anticipated Yield of Average-Risk Screening in Veterans Under Age 50.

The incidence of early onset colorectal cancer, or colorectal cancer (CRC) diagnosed before age 50, is increasing.1 In response, multiple societal guidelines in the United States now recommend initiating CRC screening at age 45 in average-risk individuals (ie, those without high-risk clinical characteristics, such as bleeding, or iron deficiency anemia), inflammatory bowel disease, or family history of colorectal neoplasia.2 The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is the largest integrated health system in the United States and is contending with how best to expand CRC screening access to this younger population in the setting of limited colonoscopy resources. Understanding the rate and anatomic location of colorectal neoplasia in Veterans younger than age 50 can inform the expected yield of different screening modalities. Prior work has shown that individuals undergoing colonoscopy for low-risk diagnostic indications have equivalent risk of colorectal neoplasia as those undergoing average-risk screening.3 This study and a recent meta-analysis4 reported that 3.6% (95% confidence interval, 1.9%-6.7%) to 3.7% (95% confidence interval, 3.0%-4.7%) of average-risk individuals age 45-49 have advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACN), defined as an advanced polyp or carcinoma; however, data specific to the VHA population are lacking.

Wide Variability in Dysplasia Detection Rate and Adherence to Seattle Protocol and Surveillance Recommendations in Barrett's Esophagus: A Population-Based Analysis Using the GIQuIC National Quality Benchmarking Registry.

INTRODUCTION: Variability in adherence rates to the Seattle protocol and to surveillance interval recommendations, established quality indicators (QIs) in Barrett's esophagus (BE), is unknown. METHODS: We evaluated endoscopist and site-based adherence rates to these QIs from January 2018 to May 2021 using the GI Quality Improvement Consortium national registry with matched endoscopy and pathology data. RESULTS: Across 153 practices with 572 endoscopists performing 20,155 endoscopies, adherence to the Seattle protocol varied by endoscopists (median 93.8%, IQR 18.9%) and by site (median 90.0%, IQR 20.1%). Adherence to appropriate surveillance intervals for nondysplastic BE also varied by endoscopist (median 82.4%, IQR 36.3%) and site (median 77.2%, IQR 29.8%). The overall dysplasia detection rate was 3.1% and varied among endoscopists and sites. DISCUSSION: These US population-based results can serve as a benchmark for quality initiatives and intervention trials aimed at improving outcomes for patients with BE.

Patient Knowledge, Risk Perception, and Barriers to Barrett's Esophagus Screening.

INTRODUCTION: Most patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) do not have a previous diagnosis of Barrett's esophagus (BE), demonstrating a failure of current screening practices. An understanding of patient attitudes and barriers is essential to develop and implement interventions to improve BE screening adherence. METHODS: We conducted a Web-based survey of patients aged >50 years with chronic gastroesophageal reflux disease at 3 academic medical centers and 1 affiliated safety net health systems. Survey domains included patient characteristics, endoscopy history, familiarity with screening practices, perceived BE/EAC risk, and barriers to screening. RESULTS: We obtained a response rate of 22.6% (472/2,084) (74% men, mean age 67.9 years). Self-identified race and ethnicity of participants was 66.5% non-Hispanic White, 20.0% non-Hispanic Black, 13.4% other race, and 7.1% Hispanic. Screening for BE was recommended in only 13.2%, and only 5.3% reported previous screening. Respondents had notable gaps in knowledge about screening indications; only two-thirds correctly identified BE risk factors and only 19.5% believed BE screening was needed for gastroesophageal reflux disease. More than 1 in 5 respondents believed they would get BE (31.9%) or EAC (20.2%) but reported barriers to screening. Compared with White respondents, more Black respondents were concerned about getting BE/EAC and interested in screening but report higher barriers to screening. DISCUSSION: Patients at risk for BE, particularly racial and ethnic minorities, are worried about developing EAC but rarely undergo screening and have poor understanding of screening recommendations.

Varied Trainee Competence in Cold Snare Polypectomy: Results of the COMPLETE Randomized Controlled Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Cold snare polypectomy (CSP) is strongly recommended as the optimal technique for the complete removal of small polyps. Though significant variability in polypectomy technique and quality has been established, the learning curve and impact of targeted training on CSP are unknown. Video feedback has shown promise as an effective pedagogy to improve performance among surgical trainees. We aimed to compare CSP performance between trainees who received video-based feedback and those who received conventional apprentice-based concurrent feedback. We hypothesized that video-based feedback would accelerate competence. METHODS: We conducted a single-blinded, randomized controlled trial on competence for CSP of polyps <1 cm, comparing video-based feedback with conventional feedback. We randomly assigned deidentified consecutively recorded CSP videos to blinded raters to assess using the CSP Assessment Tool. We shared cumulative sum learning curves every 25 CSP with each trainee. The video feedback trainees also received biweekly individualized terminal feedback. Control trainees received conventional feedback during colonoscopy. The primary outcome was CSP competence. We also assessed competence across domains and change over polypectomy volume. RESULTS: We enrolled and randomized 22 trainees, 12 to video-based feedback and 10 to conventional feedback, and evaluated 2,339 CSP. The learning curve was long; 2 trainees (16.7%) in the video feedback achieved competence, after a mean of 135 polyps, and no one in the control ( P = 0.481) achieved competence. Overall and in all steps of CSP, a higher percentage of the video feedback group met competence, increasing 3% every 20 CSP ( P = 0.0004). DISCUSSION: Video feedback aided trainees to competence in CSP. However, the learning curve was long. Our findings strongly suggest that current training methods are not sufficient to support trainees to competency by the completion of their fellowship programs. The impact of new training methods, such as simulation-based mastery learning, should be assessed to determine whether such methods can result in achievement of competence at a faster rate; ClinicalTrials.gov : NCT03115008.