Endoscopic Gastrointestinal Placement of Capsule Endoscopy to Investigate the Small Bowel: a Multicentric European Retrospective Series of 630 Procedures in Adult Patients.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Small bowel (SB) capsule endoscopy (CE) is a first line procedure for exploring the SB. Endoscopic GastroIntestinal PlacemenT (EGIPT) of SB CE is sometimes necessary. While the experience of EGIPT is large in pediatric populations, we aimed to describe the safety, efficacy and outcomes of EGIPT of SB CE in adult patients. METHODS: The international CApsule endoscopy REsearch (iCARE) group set up a retrospective multicenter study. Patients over 18 year-old who underwent EGIPT of SB CE before May 2022 were included. Data were collected from medical records and capsule recordings. The primary endpoint was the technical success rate of the EGIPT procedures. RESULTS: 630 patients were included (mean age 62.5 years old, 55.9% female) from 39,565 patients (1.6%) issued from 29 centers. EGIPT technical success was achieved in 610 procedures (96.8%). Anesthesia (moderate/deep sedation or general anesthesia) and centers with intermediate or high procedure loads were independent factors of technical success. Severe adverse events occurred in three (0.5%) patients. When technically successful, EGIPT was associated with a high SB CE completion rate (84.4%) and with a substantial diagnostic yield (61.1%). Completion rate was significantly higher when the capsule was delivered in the SB compared to when delivered in the stomach. CONCLUSION: EGIPT of SB CE is highly feasible, safe and comes with high completion rate and diagnostic yield. When indicated, it should rather be performed under anesthesia and the capsule should be delivered in the duodenum rather than in the stomach, for better SB examination outcomes.

A computer-aided detection system in the everyday setting of diagnostic, screening, and surveillance colonoscopy: an international, randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Computer-aided detection (CADe) has been developed to improve detection during colonoscopy. After initial reports of high efficacy, there has been an increasing recognition of variability in the effectiveness of CADe systems. The aim of this study was to evaluate a CADe system in a varied colonoscopy population. METHODS: A multicenter, randomized trial was conducted at seven hospitals (both university and non-university) in Europe and Canada. Participants referred for diagnostic, non-immunochemical fecal occult blood test (iFOBT) screening, or surveillance colonoscopy were randomized (1:1) to undergo CADe-assisted or conventional colonoscopy by experienced endoscopists. Participants with insufficient bowel preparation were excluded from the analysis. The primary outcome was adenoma detection rate (ADR). Secondary outcomes included adenomas per colonoscopy (APC) and sessile serrated lesions (SSLs) per colonoscopy. RESULTS: 581 participants were enrolled, of whom 497 were included in the final analysis: 250 in the CADe arm and 247 in the conventional colonoscopy arm. The indication was surveillance in 202/497 colonoscopies (40.6 %), diagnostic in 199/497 (40.0 %), and non-iFOBT screening in 96/497 (19.3 %). Overall, ADR (38.4 % vs. 37.7 %; P = 0.43) and APC (0.66 vs. 0.66; P = 0.97) were similar between CADe and conventional colonoscopy. SSLs per colonoscopy was increased (0.30 vs. 0.19; P = 0.049) in the CADe arm vs. the conventional colonoscopy arm. CONCLUSIONS: In this study conducted by experienced endoscopists, CADe did not result in a statistically significant increase in ADR. However, the ADR of our control group substantially surpassed our sample size assumptions, increasing the risk of an underpowered trial.

Technical failure during colorectal endoscopic full-thickness resection: the "through thick and thin" study.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) is an effective and safe technique for nonlifting colorectal lesions. Technical issues or failures with the full-thickness resection device (FTRD) system are reported, but there are no detailed data. The aim of our study was to quantify and classify FTRD technical failures. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study involving 17 Italian centers with experience in advanced resection techniques and the required devices. Each center shared and classified all prospectively collected consecutive failures during colorectal EFTR using the FTRD from 2018 to 2022. The primary outcome was the technical failure rate and their classification; secondary outcomes included subsequent management, clinical success, and complications. RESULTS: Included lesions were mainly recurrent (52 %), with a mean (SD) dimension of 18.4 (7.5) mm. Among 750 EFTRs, failures occurred in 77 patients (35 women; mean [SD] age 69.4 [8.9] years). A classification was proposed: type I, snare noncutting (53 %); type II, clip misdeployment (31 %); and type III, cap misplacement (16 %). Among endoscopic treatments completed, rescue endoscopic mucosal resection was performed in 57 patients (74 %), allowing en bloc and R0 resection in 71 % and 64 %, respectively. The overall adverse event rate was 27.3 %. Pooled estimates for the rates of failure, complications, and rescue endoscopic therapy were similar for low and high volume centers (P = 0.08, P = 0.70, and P = 0.71, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Colorectal EFTR with the FTRD is a challenging technique with a non-negligible rate of technical failure and complications. Experience in rescue resection techniques and multidisciplinary management are mandatory in this setting.

Safety and efficacy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided radiofrequency ablation for pancreatic insulinoma: A single-center experience.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Insulinomas are rare, functioning pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (pNEN), whose gold standard therapy is surgical resection. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided radiofrequency ablation (EUS-RFA) is a recent technique that has emerged as a minimally invasive therapeutic option for patients with pancreatic lesions not eligible for surgery. In this study, we aimed to describe a series of patients with unresectable pancreatic insulinoma treated with EUS-RFA. METHODS: This is a single-center, retrospective study including all consecutive patients with functioning pancreatic insulinoma undergoing EUS-RFA for surgical unfitness or surgery refusal, between March 2017 and September 2021. Technical success (i.e., complete mass ablation), adverse event rate and severity, clinical and radiologic outcomes (i.e., symptom remission with a normal concentration of blood glucose, and the presence of intralesional necrosis), and post-procedural follow-up were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 10 patients (mean age: 67.1 ± 10.1years; F:M 7:3) were included. The mean size of insulinoma was 11.9 ± 3.3 mm. Technical success and clinical remission were achieved in 100% of patients. Only one (10%) patient was successfully treated with two RFA sessions. Two procedure-related early adverse events occurred, including two (20%) cases of mild abdominal pain. No major complications were observed. The complete radiologic response within 3 months after EUS-RFA was observed in all patients (100%). After a median follow-up of 19.5 (range12-59) months, symptom remission and persistent euglycemia were assessed in all the patients. CONCLUSIONS: Data from this case series suggest that EUS-RFA is a feasible and safe therapeutic approach for pancreatic insulinomas in patients unwilling or unable to undergo surgery with medium-term efficacy.

Endoscopic powered resection device for residual colonic lesions: the first multicenter, prospective, international clinical study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic resection is standard treatment for adenomatous colorectal lesions. Depending on lesion morphology and resection technique, recurrence can occur. Scarred adenomas are challenging to resect and may require surgical management. This study evaluated the safety and effectiveness of an endoscopic powered resection (EPR) system for scarred adenomatous colorectal lesions. METHODS: This single-arm, prospective, multicenter study was conducted from January 2018 to January 2021 at 12 sites. Patients with persistent flat or sessile colorectal lesions were enrolled. Primary end points were technical success (the ability of the device to resect the lesion[s] without use of other resection devices without device-related serious adverse events [AEs]) and safety (the occurrence of AEs through 90 days). Secondary end points included endoscopic confirmation of resection completeness, occurrence of colon stenosis, disease persistence, and diagnostic value of resected specimens. RESULTS: Sixty-five patients were in the intention-to-treat/safety analysis population. Primary analysis was performed on 45 per-protocol (PP) patients with 48 lesions. All PP patients were solely treated by using the EPR device. Technical success was achieved in 44 (98%) patients. Three (5%) serious AEs occurred: 2 delayed self-limited bleeds and 1 perforation. Nonserious AEs included 4 (6%) cases of mild intraprocedural bleeding. Completeness of resection and histopathologic diagnosis of tissue specimens were achieved in all patients. Twenty-one (46.7%) patients had disease persistence after the first treatment, and there was no colon stenosis. CONCLUSIONS: EPR is safe and effective for benign, persistent, large (>20 mm), scarred colorectal adenomas and should be considered as an alternative treatment in lieu of surgery. A persistence rate of 46.7% indicates that >1 treatment is necessary for effective endoscopic treatment. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT04203667.).

Small-bowel capsule endoscopy in patients with Meckel's diverticulum: clinical features, diagnostic workup, and findings. A European multicenter I-CARE study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Meckel's diverticulum (MD) may remain silent or be associated with adverse events such as GI bleeding. The main aim of this study was to evaluate indicative small-bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE) findings, and the secondary aim was to describe clinical presentation in patients with MD. METHODS: This retrospective European multicenter study included patients with MD undergoing SBCE from 2001 until July 2021. RESULTS: Sixty-nine patients with a confirmed MD were included. Median age was 32 years with a male-to-female ratio of approximately 3:1. GI bleeding or iron-deficiency anemia was present in nearly all patients. Mean hemoglobin was 7.63 ± 1.8 g/dL with a transfusion requirement of 52.2%. Typical capsule endoscopy (CE) findings were double lumen (n = 49 [71%]), visible entrance into the MD (n = 49 [71%]), mucosal webs (n = 30 [43.5%]), and bulges (n = 19 [27.5%]). Two or more of these findings were seen in 48 patients (69.6%). Ulcers were detected in 52.2% of patients (n = 36). In 63.8% of patients (n = 44), a combination of double lumen and visible entrance into the MD was evident, additionally revealing ulcers in 39.1% (n = 27). Mean percent SB (small bowel) transit time for the first indicative image of MD was 57% of the total SB transit time. CONCLUSIONS: Diagnosis of MD is rare and sometimes challenging, and a preoperative criterion standard does not exist. In SBCE, the most frequent findings were double-lumen sign and visible diverticular entrance, sometimes together with ulcers.

Clinical value of alarm features for colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a common neoplasm in Western countries. Prioritizing access to colonoscopy appears of critical relevance. Alarm features are considered to increase the likelihood of CRC. Our aim was to assess the diagnostic performance of alarm features for CRC diagnosis. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting the diagnostic accuracy of alarm features (rectal bleeding, anemia, change in bowel habit, and weight loss) for CRC, published up to September 2021. Colonoscopy was required as the reference diagnostic test. Diagnostic accuracy measures were pooled by a bivariate mixed-effects regression model. The number needed to scope (NNS; i. e. the number of patients who need to undergo colonoscopy to diagnose one CRC) according to each alarm feature was calculated. RESULTS: 31 studies with 45 100 patients (mean age 31-88 years; men 36 %-63 %) were included. The prevalence of CRC ranged from 0.2 % to 22 %. Sensitivity was suboptimal, ranging from 12.4 % for weight loss to 49 % for rectal bleeding, whereas specificity ranged from 69.8 % for rectal bleeding to 91.9 % for weight loss. Taken individually, rectal bleeding and anemia would be the only practical alarm features mandating colonoscopy (NNS 5.3 and 6.7, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: When considered independently, alarm features have variable accuracy for CRC, given the high heterogeneity of study populations reflected by wide variability in CRC prevalence. Rectal bleeding and anemia are the most practical to select patients for colonoscopy. Integration of alarm features in a comprehensive evaluation of patients should be considered.

Texture and color enhancement imaging versus high definition white-light endoscopy for detection of colorectal neoplasia: a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Texture and color enhancement imaging (TXI) was recently proposed as a substitute for standard high definition white-light imaging (WLI) to increase lesion detection during colonoscopy. This international, multicenter randomized trial assessed the efficacy of TXI in detection of colorectal neoplasia. METHODS: Consecutive patients aged ≥ 40 years undergoing screening, surveillance, or diagnostic colonoscopies at five centers (Italy, Germany, Japan) between September 2021 and May 2022 were enrolled. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to TXI or WLI. Primary outcome was adenoma detection rate (ADR). Secondary outcomes were adenomas per colonoscopy (APC) and withdrawal time. Relative risks (RRs) adjusted for age, sex, and colonoscopy indication were calculated. RESULTS: We enrolled 747 patients (mean age 62.3 [SD 9.5] years, 50.2 % male). ADR was significantly higher with TXI (221/375, 58.9 %) vs. WLI (159/372, 42.7 %; adjusted RR 1.38 [95 %CI 1.20-1.59]). This was significant for ≤ 5 mm (RR 1.42 [1.16-1.73]) and 6-9 mm (RR 1.36 [1.01-1.83]) adenomas. A higher proportion of polypoid (151/375 [40.3 %] vs. 104/372 [28.0 %]; RR 1.43 [1.17-1.75]) and nonpolypoid (136/375 [36.3 %] vs. 102/372 [27.4 %]; RR 1.30 [1.05-1.61]) adenomas, and proximal (143/375 [38.1 %] vs. 111/372 [29.8 %]; RR 1.28 [1.05-1.57]) and distal (144/375 [38.4 %] vs. 98/372 [26.3 %]; RR 1.46 [1.18-1.80]) lesions were found with TXI. APC was higher with TXI (1.36 [SD 1.79] vs. 0.89 [SD 1.35]; incident rate ratio 1.53 [1.25-1.88]). CONCLUSIONS: TXI increased ADR and APC among patients undergoing colonoscopy for various indications. TXI increased detection of polyps < 10 mm, both in the proximal and distal colon, and may help to improve colonoscopy quality indicators.

Small-bowel capsule endoscopy and device-assisted enteroscopy for diagnosis and treatment of small-bowel disorders: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline - Update 2022.

MR1: ESGE recommends small-bowel capsule endoscopy as the first-line examination, before consideration of other endoscopic and radiological diagnostic tests for suspected small-bowel bleeding, given the excellent safety profile of capsule endoscopy, its patient tolerability, and its potential to visualize the entire small-bowel mucosa.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. MR2: ESGE recommends small-bowel capsule endoscopy in patients with overt suspected small-bowel bleeding as soon as possible after the bleeding episode, ideally within 48 hours, to maximize the diagnostic and subsequent therapeutic yield.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. MR3: ESGE does not recommend routine second-look endoscopy prior to small-bowel capsule endoscopy in patients with suspected small-bowel bleeding or iron-deficiency anemia.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. MR4: ESGE recommends conservative management in those patients with suspected small-bowel bleeding and high quality negative small-bowel capsule endoscopy.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. MR5: ESGE recommends device-assisted enteroscopy to confirm and possibly treat lesions identified by small-bowel capsule endoscopy.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. MR6: ESGE recommends the performance of small-bowel capsule endoscopy as a first-line examination in patients with iron-deficiency anemia when small bowel evaluation is indicated.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. MR7: ESGE recommends small-bowel capsule endoscopy in patients with suspected Crohn's disease and negative ileocolonoscopy findings as the initial diagnostic modality for investigating the small bowel, in the absence of obstructive symptoms or known bowel stenosis.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. MR8: ESGE recommends, in patients with unremarkable or nondiagnostic findings from dedicated small-bowel cross-sectional imaging, small-bowel capsule endoscopy as a subsequent investigation if deemed likely to influence patient management.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. MR9: ESGE recommends, in patients with established Crohn's disease, the use of a patency capsule before small-bowel capsule endoscopy to decrease the capsule retention rate.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. MR10: ESGE recommends device-assisted enteroscopy (DAE) as an alternative to surgery for foreign bodies retained in the small bowel requiring retrieval in patients without acute intestinal obstruction.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. MR11: ESGE recommends DAE-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (DAE-ERCP) as a first-line endoscopic approach to treat pancreaticobiliary diseases in patients with surgically altered anatomy (except for Billroth II patients).Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.

Rapid on-site evaluation improves the sensitivity of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) for solid pancreatic lesions irrespective of technique: A single-centre experience.

OBJECTIVE: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is the first-line technique for the sampling of pancreatic lesions. Many factors can influence the diagnostic performance of this procedure, including the use of rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE). The primary aim of this study was to compare the adequacy, diagnostic yield, accuracy, sensitivity and specificity of EUS-FNA for solid pancreatic lesions before and after the introduction of ROSE. METHODS: This retrospective single-centre study evaluated all consecutive patients who underwent EUS-FNA for suspicious, solid pancreatic masses from April 2012 to March 2015. We compared the findings of EUS-FNA procedures performed during the first and second years following the adoption of ROSE ("ROSE1" and "ROSE2", respectively) to those performed the year before ROSE introduction (the "pre-ROSE" group). RESULTS: Ninety-one consecutive patients with a total of 93 pancreatic lesions were enrolled. For the pre-ROSE, ROSE1 and ROSE2 groups, the adequacy rates were 96.2%, 96.6% and 100%, the diagnostic yield values were 76.9%, 89.7% and 92.1% and accuracy values were 69.2%, 86.2% and 89.5% (p = NS). Sensitivity for malignancy improved from 63.7% in the pre-ROSE group to 91.7% and 91.2% in the post-ROSE groups (p < 0.05). Specificity for malignancy was 100% in all groups. CONCLUSIONS: ROSE can improve the diagnostic performance of EUS-FNA for solid pancreatic lesions, although only sensitivity reached statistical significance.

Artificial intelligence and colonoscopy experience: lessons from two randomised trials.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Artificial intelligence has been shown to increase adenoma detection rate (ADR) as the main surrogate outcome parameter of colonoscopy quality. To which extent this effect may be related to physician experience is not known. We performed a randomised trial with colonoscopists in their qualification period (AID-2) and compared these data with a previously published randomised trial in expert endoscopists (AID-1). METHODS: In this prospective, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial (AID-2), 10 non-expert endoscopists (<2000 colonoscopies) performed screening/surveillance/diagnostic colonoscopies in consecutive 40-80 year-old subjects using high-definition colonoscopy with or without a real-time deep-learning computer-aided detection (CADe) (GI Genius, Medtronic). The primary outcome was ADR in both groups with histology of resected lesions as reference. In a post-hoc analysis, data from this randomised controlled trial (RCT) were compared with data from the previous AID-1 RCT involving six experienced endoscopists in an otherwise similar setting. RESULTS: In 660 patients (62.3±10 years; men/women: 330/330) with equal distribution of study parameters, overall ADR was higher in the CADe than in the control group (53.3% vs 44.5%; relative risk (RR): 1.22; 95% CI: 1.04 to 1.40; p<0.01 for non-inferiority and p=0.02 for superiority). Similar increases were seen in adenoma numbers per colonoscopy and in small and distal lesions. No differences were observed with regards to detection of non-neoplastic lesions. When pooling these data with those from the AID-1 study, use of CADe (RR 1.29; 95% CI: 1.16 to 1.42) and colonoscopy indication, but not the level of examiner experience (RR 1.02; 95% CI: 0.89 to 1.16) were associated with ADR differences in a multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: In less experienced examiners, CADe assistance during colonoscopy increased ADR and a number of related polyp parameters as compared with the control group. Experience appears to play a minor role as determining factor for ADR. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT:04260321.

Population-Based Prevalence of Gastrointestinal Abnormalities at Colon Capsule Endoscopy.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The population prevalence of gastrointestinal (GI) disease is unclear and difficult to assess in an asymptomatic population. The aim of this study was to determine prevalence of GI lesions in a largely asymptomatic population undergoing colon capsule endoscopy (CCE). METHODS: Participants aged between 50-75 years were retrieved from the Rotterdam Study, a longitudinal epidemiological study, between 2017-2019. Participants received CCE with bowel preparation. Abnormalities defined as clinically relevant were Barrett segment >3cm, severe ulceration, polyp >10 mm or ≥3 polyps in small bowel (SB) or colon, and cancer. RESULTS: Of 2800 invited subjects, 462 (16.5%) participants (mean age 66.8 years, female 53.5%) ingested the colon capsule. A total of 451 videos were analyzed, and in 94.7% the capsule reached the descending colon. At least 1 abnormal finding was seen in 448 (99.3%) participants. The prevalence of abnormalities per GI segment, and the most common type of abnormality, were as follows: Esophageal 14.8% (Barrett's esophagus <3 cm in 8.3%), gastric 27.9% (fundic gland polyps in 18.1%), SB abnormalities 33.9% (erosions in 23.8%), colon 93.3% (diverticula in 81.2%). A total of 54 participants (12%) had clinically relevant abnormalities, 3 (0.7%) in esophagus/stomach (reflux esophagitis grade D, Mallory Weiss lesion and severe gastritis), 5 (1.1%) in SB (polyps > 10 mm; n = 4, severe ulcer n = 1,) and 46 (10.2%) in colon (polyp > 10 mm or ≥3 polyps n = 46, colorectal cancer n = 1). CONCLUSIONS: GI lesions are very common in a mostly asymptomatic Western population, and clinically relevant lesions were found in 12% at CCE. These findings provide a frame of reference for the prevalence rates of GI lesions in the general population.

The Colon Endoscopic Bubble Scale (CEBuS): a two-phase evaluation study.

BACKGROUND: To date, no scale has been validated to assess bubbles associated with bowel preparation. This study aimed to develop and assess the reliability of a novel scale - the Colon Endoscopic Bubble Scale (CEBuS). METHODS: This was a multicenter, prospective, observational study with two online evaluation phases of 45 randomly distributed still colonoscopy images (15 per scale grade). Observers assessed images twice, 2 weeks apart, using CEBuS (CEBuS-0 - no or minimal bubbles, covering < 5 % of the surface; CEBuS-1 - bubbles covering 5 %-50 %; CEBuS-2 - bubbles covering > 50 %) and reporting the clinical action (do nothing; wash with water; wash with simethicone). RESULTS: CEBuS provided high levels of agreement both in evaluation Phase 1 (4 experts) and Phase 2 (6 experts and 13 non-experts), with almost perfect intraobserver reliability: kappa 0.82 (95 % confidence interval 0.75-0.88) and 0.86 (0.85-0.88); interobserver agreement - intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) 0.83 (0.73-0.89) and 0.90 (0.86-0.94). Previous endoscopic experience had no influence on agreement among experts vs. non-experts: kappa 0.86 (0.80-0.91) vs. 0.87 (0.84-0.89) and ICC 0.91 (0.87-0.94) vs. 0.90 (0.86-0.94), respectively. Interobserver agreement on clinical action was ICC 0.63 (0.43-0.78) in Phase 1 and 0.77 (0.68-0.84) in Phase 2. Absolute agreement on clinical action per scale grade was 85 % (82-88) for CEBuS-0, 21 % (16-26) for CEBuS-1, and 74 % (70-78) for CEBuS-2. CONCLUSION: CEBuS proved to be a reliable instrument to standardize the evaluation of colonic bubbles during colonoscopy. Assessment in daily practice is warranted.

Expected value of artificial intelligence in gastrointestinal endoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Position Statement.

This ESGE Position Statement defines the expected value of artificial intelligence (AI) for the diagnosis and management of gastrointestinal neoplasia within the framework of the performance measures already defined by ESGE. This is based on the clinical relevance of the expected task and the preliminary evidence regarding artificial intelligence in artificial or clinical settings. MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS:: (1) For acceptance of AI in assessment of completeness of upper GI endoscopy, the adequate level of mucosal inspection with AI should be comparable to that assessed by experienced endoscopists. (2) For acceptance of AI in assessment of completeness of upper GI endoscopy, automated recognition and photodocumentation of relevant anatomical landmarks should be obtained in ≥90% of the procedures. (3) For acceptance of AI in the detection of Barrett's high grade intraepithelial neoplasia or cancer, the AI-assisted detection rate for suspicious lesions for targeted biopsies should be comparable to that of experienced endoscopists with or without advanced imaging techniques. (4) For acceptance of AI in the management of Barrett's neoplasia, AI-assisted selection of lesions amenable to endoscopic resection should be comparable to that of experienced endoscopists. (5) For acceptance of AI in the diagnosis of gastric precancerous conditions, AI-assisted diagnosis of atrophy and intestinal metaplasia should be comparable to that provided by the established biopsy protocol, including the estimation of extent, and consequent allocation to the correct endoscopic surveillance interval. (6) For acceptance of artificial intelligence for automated lesion detection in small-bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE), the performance of AI-assisted reading should be comparable to that of experienced endoscopists for lesion detection, without increasing but possibly reducing the reading time of the operator. (7) For acceptance of AI in the detection of colorectal polyps, the AI-assisted adenoma detection rate should be comparable to that of experienced endoscopists. (8) For acceptance of AI optical diagnosis (computer-aided diagnosis [CADx]) of diminutive polyps (≤5 mm), AI-assisted characterization should match performance standards for implementing resect-and-discard and diagnose-and-leave strategies. (9) For acceptance of AI in the management of polyps ≥ 6 mm, AI-assisted characterization should be comparable to that of experienced endoscopists in selecting lesions amenable to endoscopic resection.

Oral mannitol for bowel preparation: a dose-finding phase II study.

BACKGROUND: Successful bowel preparation (BP) for colonoscopy depends on the instructions, diet, the laxative product, and patient adherence, which all affect colonoscopy quality. Nevertheless, there are no laxatives which combine effectiveness, safety, easy self-administration, good patient acceptance, and low cost. However, mannitol, a sugar alcohol, could be an attractive candidate for use in clinical practice if it is shown to demonstrate adequate efficacy and safety. AIMS: The present phase II dose-finding study compared three doses of mannitol (50, 100, and 150 g) to identify the best dose to be used in a subsequent phase III study. METHODS: The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale, caecal intubation rate, adherence, acceptability, and safety profile, including measurement of potentially dangerous colonic gas concentrations (CH4, H2, O2), were considered in all patients. A weighted algorithm was used to identify the best mannitol dose for use in the subsequent study. RESULTS: The per-protocol population included 60 patients in the 50 g group, 54 in the 100 g group, and 49 in the 150 g group. The 100 g dose was the best as it afforded optimal colon cleansing efficacy (94.4% of patients had adequate BP), adherence, acceptability, and safety, including negligible gas concentrations. CONCLUSIONS: The present study demonstrated that the colon cleansing efficacy and safety of mannitol were dose dependent. Conversely, gas concentrations were not dose dependent and negligible in all patients. Combined evaluation of efficacy, tolerability, and safety, using a weighted algorithm, determined that mannitol 100 g was the best dose for the phase III study.

Factors That Affect Adequacy of Colon Cleansing for Colonoscopy in Hospitalized Patients.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Hospitalization is associated with inadequate colon cleansing before colonoscopy. We aimed to identify factors associated to inadequate colon cleansing among inpatients, and to derive and validate a model to identify inpatients with inadequate cleansing. METHODS: We performed a prospective observational study at 12 hospitals in Italy. Consecutive adult inpatients scheduled for colonoscopy for any indication were enrolled from February through May 2019 (derivation cohort, n = 1016) and from June through August 2019 (validation cohort, n = 508). Inadequate cleansing was defined as Boston bowel preparation scale scores below 2 in any colon segment. We performed multivariate logistic regression to identify factors associated with inadequate cleansing. RESULTS: In the combined cohorts, 1032 patients (68%) had adequate colon cleansing. Physicians' meetings to optimize bowel preparation (odds ratio [OR], 0.42; 95% CI, 0.27-0.65), written and oral instructions to patients (OR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.36-0.65), admission to gastroenterology unit (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.51-0.98), split-dose regimens (OR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.20-0.35), a 1-liter polyethylene glycol-based bowel purge (OR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.23-0.65), and 75% or more intake of bowel preparation (OR, 0.09; 95% CI, 0.05-0.15) significantly reduced odds of inadequate colon cleansing. Alternatively, bedridden status (OR, 2.14; 95% CI, 1.55-2.98), constipation (OR, 2.16; 95% CI, 1.55-3.0), diabetes mellitus (OR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.18-2.20), use of anti-psychotic drugs (OR, 3.26; 95% CI, 1.62-6.56), and 7 or more days of hospitalization (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.00-1.04) increased risk of inadequate colon cleansing. We developed a model to identify patients with inadequate cleaning using data from patients in the derivation cohort and tested it in the validation cohort. Calibration values were P = .218 for the discrimination cohort and P = .232 for the validation cohort. Discrimination values were c-statistic, 0.78 (95% CI, 0.74-0.81) for the discrimination cohort and c-statistic, 0.73 (95% CI, 0.69-0.78) for the validation cohort. We developed app for use by clinicians. CONCLUSIONS: In a prospective observational study, we identified setting-, patient- and preparation-related factors that affect colon cleansing among inpatients. We derived and validated a model to identify patients with inadequate preparation and developed an app for clinicians. ClinicalTrials.gov no: NCT03925506.

Novel 1-L polyethylene glycol + ascorbate versus high-volume polyethylene glycol regimen for colonoscopy cleansing: a multicenter, randomized, phase IV study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Adequate bowel cleansing is critical to ensure quality and safety of a colonoscopy. A novel 1-L polyethylene glycol plus ascorbate (1L-PEG+ASC) regimen was previously validated against low-volume regimens but was never compared with high-volume regimens. METHODS: In a phase IV study, patients undergoing colonoscopy were randomized 1:1 to receive split-dose 1L PEG+ASC or a split-dose 4-L PEG-based regimen (4L-PEG) in 5 Italian centers. Preparation was assessed with the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) by local endoscopists and centralized reading, both blinded to the randomization arm. The primary endpoint was noninferiority of 1L-PEG+ASC in colon cleansing. Secondary endpoints were superiority of 1L-PEG+ASC, patient compliance, segmental colon cleansing, adenoma detection rate, tolerability, and safety. RESULTS: Three hundred eighty-eight patients (median age, 59.8 years) were randomized between January 2019 and October 2019: 195 to 1L-PEG+ASC and 193 to 4L-PEG. Noninferiority of 1L-PEG+ASC was demonstrated for cleansing in both the entire colon (BBPS ≥ 6: 97.9% vs 93%; relative risk [RR], 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.001-1.04; P superiority = .027) and in the right-sided colon segment (98.4% vs 96.0%; RR, 1.02; 95% CI, .99-1.02; P noninferiority = .013). Compliance was higher with 1L-PEG+ASC than with 4L-PEG (178/192 [92.7%] vs 154/190 patients [81.1%]; RR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.05-1.12), whereas no difference was found regarding safety (moderate/severe side effects: 20.8% vs 25.8%; P = .253). No difference in adenoma detection rate (38.8% vs 43.0%) was found. CONCLUSIONS: One-liter PEG+ASC showed noninferiority compared with 4L-PEG in achieving adequate colon cleansing and provided a higher patient compliance. No differences in tolerability and safety were detected. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03742232.).

Colon capsule endoscopy in colorectal cancer screening: a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Primary colonoscopy and fecal immunochemical test (FIT) are the most commonly used colorectal cancer (CRC) screening modalities. Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) might be an alternative. Data on the performance of CCE as a CRC screening tool in a screening population remain scarce. This is the first systematic review to provide an overview of the applicability of CCE as a CRC screening tool. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted of literature published up to September 2020. Studies reporting on CRC screening by second-generation CCE in an average-risk screening population were included. RESULTS: 582 studies were identified and 13 were included, comprising 2485 patients. Eight studies used CCE as a filter test after a positive FIT result and five studies used CCE for primary screening. The polyp detection rate of CCE was 24 % - 74 %. For polyps > 6 mm, sensitivity of CCE was 79 % - 96 % and specificity was 66 % - 97 %. For polyps ≥ 10 mm, sensitivity of CCE was 84 % - 97 %, which was superior to computed tomographic colonography (CTC). The CRC detection rate for completed CCEs was 93 % (25/27). Bowel preparation was adequate in 70 % - 92 % of examinations, and completion rates varied from 57 % to 92 %, depending on the booster used. No CCE-related complications were described. CONCLUSION: CCE appeared to be a safe and effective tool for the detection of CRC and polyps in a screening setting. Accuracy was comparable to colonoscopy and superior to CTC, making CCE a good alternative to colonoscopy in CRC screening programs, although completion rates require improvement.

Overcoming the barriers to dissemination and implementation of quality measures for gastrointestinal endoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and United European Gastroenterology (UEG) position statement.

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) has developed performance measures and established a framework for quality assessment for gastrointestinal endoscopy in Europe. Most national societies actively undertake initiatives to implement and explicitly endorse these quality indicators. Given this, ESGE proposes that, at a national level, strong leadership should exist to disseminate and implement quality parameters. Thus, understanding the potential barriers that may vary locally is of paramount importance. ESGE suggests that each national society should prioritize quality and standards of care in gastrointestinal endoscopy in their activities and should survey/understand which measures are a local priority to their members and make measuring quality intrinsic to daily endoscopy practice.

Revising the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) research priorities: a research progress update.

BACKGROUND: One of the aims of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) is to encourage high quality endoscopic research at a European level. In 2016, the ESGE research committee published a set of research priorities. As endoscopic research is flourishing, we aimed to review the literature and determine whether endoscopic research over the last 4 years had managed to address any of our previously published priorities. METHODS: As the previously published priorities were grouped under seven different domains, a working party with at least two European experts was created for each domain to review all the priorities under that domain. A structured review form was developed to standardize the review process. The group conducted an extensive literature search relevant to each of the priorities and then graded the priorities into three categories: (1) no longer a priority (well-designed trial, incorporated in national/international guidelines or adopted in routine clinical practice); (2) remains a priority (i. e. the above criterion was not met); (3) redefine the existing priority (i. e. the priority was too vague with the research question not clearly defined). RESULTS: The previous ESGE research priorities document published in 2016 had 26 research priorities under seven domains. Our review of these priorities has resulted in seven priorities being removed from the list, one priority being partially removed, another seven being redefined to make them more precise, with eleven priorities remaining unchanged. This is a reflection of a rapid surge in endoscopic research, resulting in 27 % of research questions having already been answered and another 27 % requiring redefinition. CONCLUSIONS: Our extensive review process has led to the removal of seven research priorities from the previous (2016) list, leaving 19 research priorities that have been redefined to make them more precise and relevant for researchers and funding bodies to target.