Accuracy in optical diagnosis for polyps between 5 and 15 mm and its implications on surveillance. A prospective, multicenter study. (POPS study).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Polyps histology and diameter up to 1 cm determine whether a patient needs a colonoscopy after 3 years or less, or far ahead. Endoscopists' and pathologists' size estimations can be imprecise. Our aim was to assess endoscopist ability to correctly recommend surveillance colonoscopies for patients with polyps around the 10 mm threshold, based on its endoscopic sizing and optical diagnosis by NBI. METHODS: NBI-assisted diagnosis and endoscopist estimation of polyp size were compared with reference standard, considering this as the post resection polyp measurements by the nurse assistant and the pathologic results, in a prospective, multicenter, real life study, that recruited adults undergoing colonoscopy in five hospitals. By comparing the endoscopic and pathologist size estimation, with polyps' measurement after resection, and optical and histological diagnoses in patients with polyps between 5 and 15 mm, sensitivity was assessed at the patient level by means of two characteristics: the presence of adenoma, and the surveillance interval. Surveillance intervals were established by the endoscopist, based on optical diagnosis, and by another gastroenterologist, grounded on the pathologic report. Determinants of accuracy were explored at the polyp level. RESULTS: 532 polyps were resected in 451 patients. Size estimation was more precise for the endoscopist. Endoscopist sensitivity for the presence of adenoma or carcinoma was 98.7%. Considering the presence of high-grade dysplasia or cancer, sensitivity was 82.6% for the endoscopic optical diagnosis. Sensitivity for a correct 3-year surveillance interval was 91.5%, specificity 82.3%, with a PPV of 93.2% and NPV of 78.5% for the endoscopist. 6.51% of patients would have had their follow-up colonoscopy delayed, whereas 22 (4.8%) would have it been performed earlier, had endoscopist recommendations been followed. CONCLUSION: Our study observes that NBI optical diagnosis can be recommended in routine practice to establish surveillance intervals for polyps between 5 and 15 mm. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04232176.

ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) secondary to splenic rupture after colonoscopy.

We have read with interest the recently published case on splenic rupture after colonoscopy. Although this complication is being observed more frequently, in the case presented here, the particularity lies in the myocardial ischemia caused as a consequence of stasis at coronary level, determining a situation of extreme gravity, a diagnostic challenge and a therapeutic emergency.

Endoscopic ultrasound in gastric cancer staging before and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. A comparison with PET-CT in a clinical series.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of gastric cancer is based on accurate staging. Emerging methods, such as PET-CT, are increasingly being used for this purpose. Our aim was to analyze the results of EUS and PET-CT in staging and restaging our patients with gastric cancer, comparing both of them with the histological results. METHODS: Patients with confirmed gastric cancer were prospectively enrolled. Inclusion criteria for the final analysis included only patients who finally received a surgical resection. All patients underwent preoperative TNM staging by means of EUS and PET-CT within 21 days prior to the surgical treatment. RESULTS: A total of 256 patients were included. The overall EUS accuracy for T staging was 78% and 80.2% in restaging. EUS showed its best accuracy when distinguishing T1-T2 tumors vs. T3-T4, with an increased accuracy in restaging. Regarding N staging, the overall accuracy of EUS was 76.2%, and 72.5% for PET-CT (p = 0.02). With regards to restaging, accuracy of EUS and PET-CT for N staging was 88.5% and 69%, respectively, with significant differences (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: EUS performed better than PET-CT in gastric cancer N staging and restaging. EUS accuracy in this setting is still suboptimal and probably more than one single diagnostic procedure should be used.

Extracción endoscópica de cuerpos extraños múltiples, grandes y cortantes. Transitando los límites de la endoscopia / Endoscopic retrieval of multiple large sharp foreign bodies from the stomach. Testing the limits of endoscopy

No disponible

Una imagen sorprendente en tránsito baritado / A strange shadow in a small bowel series

No disponible