Cold Versus Hot Snare Endoscopic Resection of Large Nonpedunculated Colorectal Polyps: Randomized Controlled German CHRONICLE Trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is standard therapy for nonpedunculated colorectal polyps ≥20 mm. It has been suggested recently that polyp resection without current (cold resection) may be superior to the standard technique using cutting/coagulation current (hot resection) by reducing adverse events (AEs), but evidence from a randomized trial is missing. METHODS: In this randomized controlled multicentric trial involving 19 centers, nonpedunculated colorectal polyps ≥20 mm were randomly assigned to cold or hot EMR. The primary outcome was major AE (eg, perforation or postendoscopic bleeding). Among secondary outcomes, major AE subcategories, postpolypectomy syndrome, and residual adenoma were most relevant. RESULTS: Between 2021 and 2023, there were 396 polyps in 363 patients (48.2% were female) enrolled for the intention-to-treat analysis. Major AEs occurred in 1.0% of the cold group and in 7.9% of the hot group (P = .001; odds ratio [OR], 0.12; 95% CI, 0.03-0.54). Rates for perforation and postendoscopic bleeding were significantly lower in the cold group, with 0% vs 3.9% (P = .007) and 1.0% vs 4.4% (P = .040). Postpolypectomy syndrome occurred with similar frequency (3.1% vs 4.4%; P = .490). After cold resection, residual adenoma was found more frequently, with 23.7% vs 13.8% (P = .020; OR, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.12-3.38). In multivariable analysis, lesion diameter of ≥4 cm was an independent predictor both for major AEs (OR, 3.37) and residual adenoma (OR, 2.47) and high-grade dysplasia/cancer for residual adenoma (OR, 2.92). CONCLUSIONS: Cold resection of large, nonpedunculated colorectal polyps appears to be considerably safer than hot EMR; however, at the cost of a higher residual adenoma rate. Further studies have to confirm to what extent polyp size and histology can determine an individualized approach. German Clinical Trials Registry (Deutsches Register Klinischer Studien), Number DRKS00025170.

Clinical consequences of computer-aided colorectal polyp detection.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Randomised trials show improved polyp detection with computer-aided detection (CADe), mostly of small lesions. However, operator and selection bias may affect CADe's true benefit. Clinical outcomes of increased detection have not yet been fully elucidated. METHODS: In this multicentre trial, CADe combining convolutional and recurrent neural networks was used for polyp detection. Blinded endoscopists were monitored in real time by a second observer with CADe access. CADe detections prompted reinspection. Adenoma detection rates (ADR) and polyp detection rates were measured prestudy and poststudy. Histological assessments were done by independent histopathologists. The primary outcome compared polyp detection between endoscopists and CADe. RESULTS: In 946 patients (51.9% male, mean age 64), a total of 2141 polyps were identified, including 989 adenomas. CADe was not superior to human polyp detection (sensitivity 94.6% vs 96.0%) but outperformed them when restricted to adenomas. Unblinding led to an additional yield of 86 true positive polyp detections (1.1% ADR increase per patient; 73.8% were <5 mm). CADe also increased non-neoplastic polyp detection by an absolute value of 4.9% of the cases (1.8% increase of entire polyp load). Procedure time increased with 6.6±6.5 min (+42.6%). In 22/946 patients, the additional detection of adenomas changed surveillance intervals (2.3%), mostly by increasing the number of small adenomas beyond the cut-off. CONCLUSION: Even if CADe appears to be slightly more sensitive than human endoscopists, the additional gain in ADR was minimal and follow-up intervals rarely changed. Additional inspection of non-neoplastic lesions was increased, adding to the inspection and/or polypectomy workload.

Accuracy of Computer-aided Diagnosis in Colonoscopy Varies according to Polyp Location. A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Computer-Aided Diagnosis (CADx) assists endoscopists in differentiating between neoplastic and non-neoplastic polyps during colonoscopy. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of polyp location (proximal vs. distal colon) on the diagnostic performance of CADx for ≤5mm polyps. METHODS: We searched for studies evaluating the performance of real-time CADx alone (i.e., independently of endoscopist judgement) for predicting the histology of colorectal polyps ≤5mm. The primary endpoints were CADx sensitivity and specificity in the proximal and distal colon. Secondary outcomes were the negative predictive value (NPV), positive predictive value (PPV), and the accuracy of the CADx alone. Distal colon was limited to the rectum and sigmoid. RESULTS: We included 11 studies for analysis with a total of 7,782 <5mm polyps. CADx specificity was significantly lower in the proximal colon compared to the distal colon (62% versus 85%; Risk ratio (RR): 0.74 [95% CI: 0.72-0.84]). Conversely, sensitivity was similar (89% vs 87% (EC-1); RR: 1.00 [95% CI: 0.97-1.03]. The NPV (64% versus 93%; RR: 0.71 [95% CI: 0.64-0.79]) and accuracy (81% vs 86%; RR: 0.95 [95% CI: 0.91-0.99]) were significantly lower in the proximal than distal colon, while PPV was higher in the proximal colon (87% vs 76%; RR: 1.11 [95% CI: 1.06-1.17]). CONCLUSION: The diagnostic performance of CADx for polyps in the proximal colon is inadequate, exhibiting significantly lower specificity compared to its performance for distal polyps. While current CADx systems are suitable for use in the distal colon, they should not be employed for proximal polyps until more performant systems are developed specifically for these lesions.

Computer-aided diagnosis improves characterization of Barrett's neoplasia by general endoscopists (with video).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Characterization of visible abnormalities in patients with Barrett's esophagus (BE) can be challenging, especially for inexperienced endoscopists. This results in suboptimal diagnostic accuracy and poor interobserver agreement. Computer-aided diagnosis (CADx) systems may assist endoscopists. We aimed to develop, validate, and benchmark a CADx system for BE neoplasia. METHODS: The CADx system received pretraining with ImageNet and then consecutive domain-specific pretraining with GastroNet, which includes 5 million endoscopic images. It was subsequently trained and internally validated using 1758 narrow-band imaging (NBI) images of early BE neoplasia (352 patients) and 1838 NBI images of nondysplastic BE (173 patients) from 8 international centers. CADx was tested prospectively on corresponding image and video test sets with 30 cases (20 patients) of BE neoplasia and 60 cases (31 patients) of nondysplastic BE. The test set was benchmarked by 44 general endoscopists in 2 phases (phase 1, no CADx assistance; phase 2, with CADx assistance). Ten international BE experts provided additional benchmark performance. RESULTS: Stand-alone sensitivity and specificity of the CADx system were 100% and 98% for images and 93% and 96% for videos, respectively. CADx outperformed general endoscopists without CADx assistance in terms of sensitivity (P = .04). Sensitivity and specificity of general endoscopists increased from 84% to 96% and 90% to 98% with CAD assistance (P < .001). CADx assistance increased endoscopists' confidence in characterization (P < .001). CADx performance was similar to that of the BE experts. CONCLUSIONS: CADx assistance significantly increased characterization performance of BE neoplasia by general endoscopists to the level of expert endoscopists. The use of this CADx system may thereby improve daily Barrett surveillance.

Can optical evaluation distinguish between t1a and t1b esophageal adenocarcinoma: an international expert inter-observer agreement study.

INTRODUCTION: While piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for T1a oesophageal adenocarcinoma is acceptable, enbloc-R0 excision is advocated for T1b disease as it may offer a potential cure and mitigate recurrence. Thus, distinguishing between T1a and T1b disease is imperative under current treatment paradigms. We sought to ascertain whether expert Barrett's endoscopists were able to make this distinction based on optical evaluation. METHODS: Sixty sets of endoscopic images of histologically confirmed high grade dysplasia (HGD), T1a and T1b disease (n=20 for each) were compiled from consecutive patients at a single institution. Each set contained four images, and were standardized to include an overview, a close-up in high-definition white light, a near-focus magnification image, and a narrow-band image. Experts were invited to predict histology for each set. RESULTS: 19 experts from 8 countries (Australia, USA, Italy, Netherlands, Germany, Canada, Belgium, and Portugal) participated. The majority had been practicing for >20 years, with a median annual case volume for Barrett's EMR of 50 (IQR 18-75), and Barrett's ESD of 25 (IQR 10-45). Oesophageal adenocarcinoma (T1a/b) could be distinguished from HGD, with a pooled sensitivity of 89.1% (95% CI:84.7-93.4. When predicting T-stage for T1b adenocarcinoma cases, pooled sensitivity was 43.8% (95% CI:29.9-57.7). Fleiss' kappa was 0.421 (95% CI:0.399-0.442, P<0.001), indicating fair-to-moderate agreement. CONCLUSIONS: Expert Barrett's endoscopists can reliably differentiate T1a/T1b oesophageal adenocarcinoma from HGD. Although there is fair-to-moderate agreement for T-staging, T1b disease cannot be reliably distinguished from T1a disease. This may have implications on clinical decision making and selection of endoscopic treatment methods.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection techniques and technology: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Technical Review.

ESGE suggests conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD; marking and mucosal incision followed by circumferential incision and stepwise submucosal dissection) for most esophageal and gastric lesions. ESGE suggests tunneling ESD for esophageal lesions involving more than two-thirds of the esophageal circumference. ESGE recommends the pocket-creation method for colorectal ESD, at least if traction devices are not used. The use of dedicated ESD knives with size adequate to the location/thickness of the gastrointestinal wall is recommended. It is suggested that isotonic saline or viscous solutions can be used for submucosal injection. ESGE recommends traction methods in esophageal and colorectal ESD and in selected gastric lesions. After gastric ESD, coagulation of visible vessels is recommended, and post-procedural high dose proton pump inhibitor (PPI) (or vonoprazan). ESGE recommends against routine closure of the ESD defect, except in duodenal ESD. ESGE recommends corticosteroids after resection of  > 50 % of the esophageal circumference. The use of carbon dioxide when performing ESD is recommended. ESGE recommends against the performance of second-look endoscopy after ESD. ESGE recommends endoscopy/colonoscopy in the case of significant bleeding (hemodynamic instability, drop in hemoglobin > 2 g/dL, severe ongoing bleeding) to perform endoscopic hemostasis with thermal methods or clipping; hemostatic powders represent rescue therapies. ESGE recommends closure of immediate perforations with clips (through-the-scope or cap-mounted, depending on the size and shape of the perforation), as soon as possible but ideally after securing a good plane for further dissection.

Wide-area transepithelial sampling with computer-assisted analysis to detect high grade dysplasia and cancer in Barrett's esophagus: a multicenter randomized study.

BACKGROUND: Current surveillance for Barrett's esophagus (BE), consisting of four-quadrant random forceps biopsies (FBs), has an inherent risk of sampling error. Wide-area transepithelial sampling (WATS) may increase detection of high grade dysplasia (HGD) and esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). In this multicenter randomized trial, we aimed to evaluate WATS as a substitute for FB. METHODS: Patients with known BE and a recent history of dysplasia, without visible lesions, at 17 hospitals were randomized to receive either WATS followed by FB or vice versa. All WATS samples were examined, with computer assistance, by at least two experienced pathologists at the CDx Diagnostics laboratory. Similarly, all FBs were examined by two expert pathologists. The primary end point was concordance/discordance for detection of HGD/EAC between the two techniques. RESULTS: 172 patients were included, of whom 21 had HGD/EAC detected by both modalities, 18 had HGD/EAC detected by WATS but missed by FB, and 12 were detected by FB but missed by WATS. The detection rate of HGD/EAC did not differ between WATS and FB (P = 0.36). Using WATS as an adjunct to FB significantly increased the detection of HGD/EAC vs. FB alone (absolute increase 10 % [95 %CI 6 % to 16 %]). Mean procedural times in minutes for FB alone, WATS alone, and the combination were 6.6 (95 %CI 5.9 to 7.1), 4.9 (95 %CI 4.1 to 5.4), and 11.2 (95 %CI 10.5 to 14.0), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Although the combination of WATS and FB increases dysplasia detection in a population of BE patients enriched for dysplasia, we did not find a statistically significant difference between WATS and FB for the detection of HGD/EAC as single modality.

Diagnosis and management of Barrett esophagus: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline.

MR1 : ESGE recommends the following standards for Barrett esophagus (BE) surveillance:- a minimum of 1-minute inspection time per cm of BE length during a surveillance endoscopy- photodocumentation of landmarks, the BE segment including one picture per cm of BE length, and the esophagogastric junction in retroflexed position, and any visible lesions- use of the Prague and (for visible lesions) Paris classification- collection of biopsies from all visible abnormalities (if present), followed by random four-quadrant biopsies for every 2-cm BE length.Strong recommendation, weak quality of evidence. MR2: ESGE suggests varying surveillance intervals for different BE lengths. For BE with a maximum extent of ≥ 1 cm and < 3 cm, BE surveillance should be repeated every 5 years. For BE with a maximum extent of ≥ 3 cm and < 10 cm, the interval for endoscopic surveillance should be 3 years. Patients with BE with a maximum extent of ≥ 10 cm should be referred to a BE expert center for surveillance endoscopies. For patients with an irregular Z-line/columnar-lined esophagus of < 1 cm, no routine biopsies or endoscopic surveillance are advised.Weak recommendation, low quality of evidence. MR3: ESGE suggests that, if a patient has reached 75 years of age at the time of the last surveillance endoscopy and/or the patient's life expectancy is less than 5 years, the discontinuation of further surveillance endoscopies can be considered. Weak recommendation, very low quality of evidence. MR4: ESGE recommends offering endoscopic eradication therapy using ablation to patients with BE and low grade dysplasia (LGD) on at least two separate endoscopies, both confirmed by a second experienced pathologist.Strong recommendation, high level of evidence. MR5: ESGE recommends endoscopic ablation treatment for BE with confirmed high grade dysplasia (HGD) without visible lesions, to prevent progression to invasive cancer.Strong recommendation, high level of evidence. MR6: ESGE recommends offering complete eradication of all remaining Barrett epithelium by ablation after endoscopic resection of visible abnormalities containing any degree of dysplasia or esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC).Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. MR7: ESGE recommends endoscopic resection as curative treatment for T1a Barrett's cancer with well/moderate differentiation and no signs of lymphovascular invasion.Strong recommendation, high level of evidence. MR8: ESGE suggests that low risk submucosal (T1b) EAC (i. e. submucosal invasion depth ≤ 500 µm AND no [lympho]vascular invasion AND no poor tumor differentiation) can be treated by endoscopic resection, provided that adequate follow-up with gastroscopy, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), and computed tomography (CT)/positrion emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) is performed in expert centers.Weak recommendation, low quality of evidence. MR9: ESGE suggests that submucosal (T1b) esophageal adenocarcinoma with deep submucosal invasion (tumor invasion > 500 µm into the submucosa), and/or (lympho)vascular invasion, and/or a poor tumor differentiation should be considered high risk. Complete staging and consideration of additional treatments (chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy and/or surgery) or strict endoscopic follow-up should be undertaken on an individual basis in a multidisciplinary discussion.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence. MR10 A: ESGE recommends that the first endoscopic follow-up after successful endoscopic eradication therapy (EET) of BE is performed in an expert center.Strong recommendation, very low quality of evidence. B: ESGE recommends careful inspection of the neo-squamocolumnar junction and neo-squamous epithelium with high definition white-light endoscopy and virtual chromoendoscopy during post-EET surveillance, to detect recurrent dysplasia.Strong recommendation, very low level of evidence. C: ESGE recommends against routine four-quadrant biopsies of neo-squamous epithelium after successful EET of BE.Strong recommendation, low level of evidence. D: ESGE suggests, after successful EET, obtaining four-quadrant random biopsies just distal to a normal-appearing neo-squamocolumnar junction to detect dysplasia in the absence of visible lesions.Weak recommendation, low level of evidence. E: ESGE recommends targeted biopsies are obtained where there is a suspicion of recurrent BE in the tubular esophagus, or where there are visible lesions suspicious for dysplasia.Strong recommendation, very low level of evidence. MR11: After successful EET, ESGE recommends the following surveillance intervals:- For patients with a baseline diagnosis of HGD or EAC:at 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 10 years after last treatment, after which surveillance may be stopped.- For patients with a baseline diagnosis of LGD:at 1, 3, and 5 years after last treatment, after which surveillance may be stopped.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence.

Cystic pancreatic neoplasms in a tertiary gastroenterologic referral center: Evaluation of the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound, progression rate and malignancy rate in a large unicentric cohort.

INTRODUCTION: Cystic pancreatic neoplasms (CPN) are frequently diagnosed due to better diagnostic techniques and patients becoming older. However, diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and value of follow-up are still unclear. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The aim of our retrospective study was to investigate the frequency of different cystic pancreatic neoplasms (intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm [IPMN], serous and mucinous cystadenoma, solid pseudopapillary neoplasia), diagnostic accuracy, size progression, and rate of malignancy using EUS in a tertiary reference center in Germany. Between January 1, 2012 and December 31, 2018, 455 patients were diagnosed with cystic pancreatic lesions (798 EUS examinations). RESULTS: Endoscopic ultrasound diagnosed 223 patients with cystic pancreatic neoplasms, including 138 (61.9%) patients with branch duct IPMN, 16 (7.2%) with main duct IPMN, and five (2.2%) with mixed-type IPMN. In the largest subgroup of branch duct IPMN, cysts were size progressive in 20 patients (38.5%). Fine needle aspiration (FNA) was performed in 21 patients, and confirmed the suspected diagnosis in 12/21 patients. 28 surgical resections were performed, in 7/28 patients (25%), high-grade dysplasia or cancer was diagnosed. Endoscopic ultrasound diagnosis of serous and mucinous cystic pancreatic neoplasms was correct in 68.4%. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic ultrasound differential diagnosis of CPNs is challenging. Even in a tertiary expert center, differentiation of serous and mucinous cystic neoplasia is not guaranteed. Relevant size progression of CPN, however, is rare, as is the rate of malignancy. The data of this study suggest that morphologic criteria to assess pancreatic cysts alone are not sufficient to allow a clear diagnosis. Hence, for the improved assessment of pancreatic cysts, EUS should be combined with additional tests and techniques such as MRT/MRCP, contrast-enhanced EUS, and/or FNA/fine needle biopsy including fluid analysis. The combination and correlation of imaging studies with EUS findings is mandatory.

[Sarcopenia in patients with pancreatic cancer, an independant prognostic factor]. / Sarkopenie als unabhängiger Prognosefaktor bei Pankreaskarzinom.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic cancer is despite modern diagnostic tools and treatment regimen associated with poor outcome. Many patients show cachexia and sarcopenia. METHODS: In a retrospective analysis the SMI (cm²/m²) was measured by determining the skelettal muscle area in a computed tomography image at lumbar vertebrae 3. Further clinical parameters were measured to determine the outcome. RESULTS: The mean survival after diagnosis in the population with sarcopenia was significantly lower (14,4 vs 17,7 months, p=0,046). Significantly shorter survival was also seen for higher age (p=0,006), no tumor resection (p=0,004), metastases (p=0,002) and high CA19-9 level (p=0,002) CONCLUSION: Sarcopenia is an indipendant prognostic factor in patients with pancreatic cancer. SMI should be measured clinical practice and further studies are necessary to asses a potential therapeutic strategy.

Hybrid APC in Combination With Resection for the Endoscopic Treatment of Neoplastic Barrett's Esophagus: A Prospective, Multicenter Study.

INTRODUCTION: The current therapy of neoplastic Barrett's esophagus (BE) consists of endoscopic resection plus ablation, with radiofrequency ablation as the best studied technique. This prospective trial assesses a potential alternative, namely hybrid argon plasma ablation. METHODS: Consecutive patients with neoplastic BE undergoing ablation after curative endoscopic resection (89.6%) or primarily were included into this prospective trial in 9 European centers. Up to 5 ablation sessions were allowed for complete eradication of BE (initial complete eradication of intestinal metaplasia [CE-IM]), by definition including BE-associated neoplasia, documented by 1 negative endoscopy with biopsies. The main outcome was the rate of initial CE-IM in intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) samples at 2 years. The secondary end points were the rate of recurrence-free cases (sustained CE-IM) documented by negative follow-up endoscopies with biopsies and immediate/delayed adverse events. RESULTS: One hundred fifty-four patients (133 men and 21 women, mean age 64 years) received a mean of 1.2 resection and 2.7 ablation sessions (range 1-5). Initial CE-IM was achieved in 87.2% of 148 cases in the PP analysis (ITT 88.4%); initial BE-associated neoplasia was 98.0%. On 2-year follow-up of the 129 successfully treated cases, 70.8% (PP) or 65.9% (ITT) showed sustained CE-IM; recurrences were mostly endoscopy-negative biopsy-proven BE epithelium and neoplasia in 3 cases. Adverse events were seen in 6.1%. DISCUSSION: Eradication and recurrence rates of Barrett's intestinal metaplasia and neoplasia by means of hybrid argon plasma coagulation at 2 years seem to be within expected ranges. Final evidence in comparison to radiofrequency ablation can only be provided by a randomized comparative trial.

Diagnostic accuracy of a novel artificial intelligence system for adenoma detection in daily practice: a prospective nonrandomized comparative study.

BACKGROUND: Adenoma detection rate (ADR) varies significantly between endoscopists, with adenoma miss rates (AMRs) up to 26 %. Artificial intelligence (AI) systems may improve endoscopy quality and reduce the rate of interval cancer. We evaluated the efficacy of an AI system in real-time colonoscopy and its influence on AMR and ADR. METHODS: This prospective, nonrandomized, comparative study analyzed patients undergoing diagnostic colonoscopy at a single endoscopy center in Germany from June to October 2020. Every patient was examined concurrently by an endoscopist and AI using two opposing screens. The AI system, overseen by a second observer, was not visible to the endoscopist. AMR was the primary outcome. Both methods were compared using McNemar test. RESULTS: 150 patients were included (mean age 65 years [standard deviation 14]; 69 women). There was no significant or clinically relevant difference (P = 0.75) in AMR between the AI system (6/197, 3.0 %; 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.1-6.5) and routine colonoscopy (4/197, 2.0 %; 95 %CI 0.6-5.1). The polyp miss rate of the AI system (14/311, 4.5 %; 95 %CI 2.5-7.4) was not significantly different (P = 0.72) from routine colonoscopy (17/311, 5.5 %; 95 %CI 3.2-8.6). There was no significant difference (P = 0.50) in ADR between routine colonoscopy (78/150, 52.0 %; 95 %CI 43.7-60.2) and the AI system (76/150, 50.7 %; 95 %CI 42.4-58.9). Routine colonoscopy detected adenomas in two patients that were missed by the AI system. CONCLUSION: The AI system performance was comparable to that of experienced endoscopists during real-time colonoscopy with similar high ADR (> 50 %).

Endoscopic submucosal dissection for superficial gastrointestinal lesions: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline - Update 2022.

ESGE recommends that the evaluation of superficial gastrointestinal (GI) lesions should be made by an experienced endoscopist, using high definition white-light and chromoendoscopy (virtual or dye-based).ESGE does not recommend routine performance of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS), computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), or positron emission tomography (PET)-CT prior to endoscopic resection.ESGE recommends endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) as the treatment of choice for most superficial esophageal squamous cell and superficial gastric lesions.For Barrett's esophagus (BE)-associated lesions, ESGE suggests the use of ESD for lesions suspicious of submucosal invasion (Paris type 0-Is, 0-IIc), for malignant lesions > 20 mm, and for lesions in scarred/fibrotic areas.ESGE does not recommend routine use of ESD for duodenal or small-bowel lesions.ESGE suggests that ESD should be considered for en bloc resection of colorectal (but particularly rectal) lesions with suspicion of limited submucosal invasion (demarcated depressed area with irregular surface pattern or a large protruding or bulky component, particularly if the lesions are larger than 20 mm) or for lesions that otherwise cannot be completely removed by snare-based techniques.ESGE recommends that an en bloc R0 resection of a superficial GI lesion with histology no more advanced than intramucosal cancer (no more than m2 in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma), well to moderately differentiated, with no lymphovascular invasion or ulceration, should be considered a very low risk (curative) resection, and no further staging procedure or treatment is generally recommended.ESGE recommends that the following should be considered to be a low risk (curative) resection and no further treatment is generally recommended: an en bloc R0 resection of a superficial GI lesion with superficial submucosal invasion (sm1), that is well to moderately differentiated, with no lymphovascular invasion, of size ≤ 20 mm for an esophageal squamous cell carcinoma or ≤ 30 mm for a stomach lesion or of any size for a BE-related or colorectal lesion, and with no lymphovascular invasion, and no budding grade 2 or 3 for colorectal lesions.ESGE recommends that, after an endoscopically complete resection, if there is a positive horizontal margin or if resection is piecemeal, but there is no submucosal invasion and no other high risk criteria are met, this should be considered a local-risk resection and endoscopic surveillance or re-treatment is recommended rather than surgery or other additional treatment.ESGE recommends that when there is a diagnosis of lymphovascular invasion, or deeper infiltration than sm1, or positive vertical margins, or undifferentiated tumor, or, for colorectal lesions, budding grade 2 or 3, this should be considered a high risk (noncurative) resection, and complete staging and strong consideration for additional treatments should be considered on an individual basis in a multidisciplinary discussion.ESGE recommends scheduled endoscopic surveillance with high definition white-light and chromoendoscopy (virtual or dye-based) with biopsies of only the suspicious areas after a curative ESD.

Deep-Learning System Detects Neoplasia in Patients With Barrett's Esophagus With Higher Accuracy Than Endoscopists in a Multistep Training and Validation Study With Benchmarking.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: We aimed to develop and validate a deep-learning computer-aided detection (CAD) system, suitable for use in real time in clinical practice, to improve endoscopic detection of early neoplasia in patients with Barrett's esophagus (BE). METHODS: We developed a hybrid ResNet-UNet model CAD system using 5 independent endoscopy data sets. We performed pretraining using 494,364 labeled endoscopic images collected from all intestinal segments. Then, we used 1704 unique esophageal high-resolution images of rigorously confirmed early-stage neoplasia in BE and nondysplastic BE, derived from 669 patients. System performance was assessed by using data sets 4 and 5. Data set 5 was also scored by 53 general endoscopists with a wide range of experience from 4 countries to benchmark CAD system performance. Coupled with histopathology findings, scoring of images that contained early-stage neoplasia in data sets 2-5 were delineated in detail for neoplasm position and extent by multiple experts whose evaluations served as the ground truth for segmentation. RESULTS: The CAD system classified images as containing neoplasms or nondysplastic BE with 89% accuracy, 90% sensitivity, and 88% specificity (data set 4, 80 patients and images). In data set 5 (80 patients and images) values for the CAD system vs those of the general endoscopists were 88% vs 73% accuracy, 93% vs 72% sensitivity, and 83% vs 74% specificity. The CAD system achieved higher accuracy than any of the individual 53 nonexpert endoscopists, with comparable delineation performance. CAD delineations of the area of neoplasm overlapped with those from the BE experts in all detected neoplasia in data sets 4 and 5. The CAD system identified the optimal site for biopsy of detected neoplasia in 97% and 92% of cases (data sets 4 and 5, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: We developed, validated, and benchmarked a deep-learning computer-aided system for primary detection of neoplasia in patients with BE. The system detected neoplasia with high accuracy and near-perfect delineation performance. The Netherlands National Trials Registry, Number: NTR7072.

A clinically interpretable convolutional neural network for the real-time prediction of early squamous cell cancer of the esophagus: comparing diagnostic performance with a panel of expert European and Asian endoscopists.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Intrapapillary capillary loops (IPCLs) are microvascular structures that correlate with the invasion depth of early squamous cell neoplasia and allow accurate prediction of histology. Artificial intelligence may improve human recognition of IPCL patterns and prediction of histology to allow prompt access to endoscopic therapy for early squamous cell neoplasia where appropriate. METHODS: One hundred fifteen patients were recruited at 2 academic Taiwanese hospitals. Magnification endoscopy narrow-band imaging videos of squamous mucosa were labeled as dysplastic or normal according to their histology, and IPCL patterns were classified by consensus of 3 experienced clinicians. A convolutional neural network (CNN) was trained to classify IPCLs, using 67,742 high-quality magnification endoscopy narrow-band images by 5-fold cross validation. Performance measures were calculated to give an average F1 score, accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity. A panel of 5 Asian and 4 European experts predicted the histology of a random selection of 158 images using the Japanese Endoscopic Society IPCL classification; accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were calculated. RESULTS: Expert European Union (EU) and Asian endoscopists attained F1 scores (a measure of binary classification accuracy) of 97.0% and 98%, respectively. Sensitivity and accuracy of the EU and Asian clinicians were 97%, 98% and 96.9%, 97.1%, respectively. The CNN average F1 score was 94%, sensitivity 93.7%, and accuracy 91.7%. Our CNN operates at video rate and generates class activation maps that can be used to visually validate CNN predictions. CONCLUSIONS: We report a clinically interpretable CNN developed to predict histology based on IPCL patterns, in real time, using the largest reported dataset of images for this purpose. Our CNN achieved diagnostic performance comparable with an expert panel of endoscopists.

Radiofrequency ablation for low-grade dysplasia in Barrett's esophagus: long-term outcome of a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: A prior randomized study (Surveillance versus Radiofrequency Ablation study [SURF study]) demonstrated that radiofrequency ablation (RFA) of Barrett's esophagus (BE) with confirmed low-grade dysplasia (LGD) significantly reduces the risk of esophageal adenocarcinoma. Our aim was to report the long-term outcomes of this study. METHODS: The SURF study randomized BE patients with confirmed LGD to RFA or surveillance. For this retrospective cohort study, all endoscopic and histologic data acquired at the end of the SURF study in May 2013 until December 2017 were collected. The primary outcome was rate of progression to high-grade dysplasia (HGD)/cancer. All 136 patients randomized to RFA (n = 68) or surveillance (n = 68) in the SURF study were included. After closure of the SURF study, 15 surveillance patients underwent RFA based on patient preference and study outcomes. RESULTS: With 40 additional months (interquartile range, 12-51), the total median follow-up from randomization to last endoscopy was 73 months (interquartile range, 46-85). HGD/cancer was diagnosed in 1 patient in the RFA group (1.5%) and in 23 in the surveillance group (33.8%) (P = .000), resulting in an absolute risk reduction of 32.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 22.4%-44.2%) with a number needed to treat of 3.1 (95% CI, 2.3-4.5). Seventy-five of 83 patients (90%; 95% CI, 82.1%-95.0%) treated with RFA for BE reached complete clearance of BE and dysplasia. BE recurred in 7 of 75 patients (9%; 95% CI, 4.6%-18.0%), mostly minute islands or tongues, and LGD in 3 of 75 (4%; 95% CI, 1.4%-11.1%). CONCLUSIONS: RFA of BE with confirmed LGD significantly reduces the risk of malignant progression, with sustained clearance of BE in 91% and LGD in 96% of patients, after a median follow-up of 73 months. (Clinical trial registration number: NTR1198.).

Predictive rules for optical diagnosis of < 10-mm colorectal polyps based on a dedicated software.

BACKGROUND: The BASIC classification for predicting in vivo colorectal polyp histology incorporates both surface and pit/vessel descriptor domains. This study aimed to define new BASIC classes for adenomatous and hyperplastic polyps. METHODS: A video library (102 still images/videos of < 10-mm polyps using white-light [WLI] and blue-light imaging [BLI]) was reviewed by seven expert endoscopists. Polyps were rated according to the individual descriptors of the three BASIC domains (surface/pit/vessel). A model to predict polyp histology (adenomatous or hyperplastic) was developed using multivariable logistic regression and subsequent "leave-one-out" cross-validation. New BASIC rules were then defined by Delphi agreement. The overall accuracy of these rules when used by experts was evaluated according to the level of confidence and light type. RESULTS: The strength of prediction for adenomatous histology from 2175 observations assessed by area under the curve (AUC; 95 % confidence interval) was poor-to-fair for the surface descriptors (0.50 [0.33 - 0.69] for mucus; 0.68 [0.57 - 0.79] for irregular surface), but stronger for pits (0.87 [0.80 - 0.96] for featureless/round/not round) and vessels (0.80 [0.65 - 0.87] for not present/lacy/pericryptal). By combining the domains, a good-to-excellent prediction was shown (AUC 0.89 [0.81 - 0.96]). After the definition of new BASIC rules for adenomatous and hyperplastic polyps, accuracy for high confidence BLI predictions was 90.3 % (86.3 % - 93.2 %), which was superior to high confidence WLI (83.7 % [77.3 % - 87.7 %]) and low confidence BLI predictions (77.7 % [61.1 % - 88.6 %]). CONCLUSIONS: Based on the strength of prediction, the new BASIC classes for adenomatous and hyperplastic histology show favorable results for accuracy and confidence levels.

Acute sedation-associated complications in GI endoscopy (ProSed 2 Study): results from the prospective multicentre electronic registry of sedation-associated complications.

OBJECTIVES: Sedation has been established for GI endoscopic procedures in most countries, but it is also associated with an added risk of complications. Reported complication rates are variable due to different study methodologies and often limited sample size. DESIGNS: Acute sedation-associated complications were prospectively recorded in an electronic endoscopy documentation in 39 study centres between December 2011 and August 2014 (median inclusion period 24 months). The sedation regimen was decided by each study centre. RESULTS: A total of 368 206 endoscopies was recorded; 11% without sedation. Propofol was the dominant drug used (62% only, 22.5% in combination with midazolam). Of the sedated patients, 38 (0.01%) suffered a major complication, and overall mortality was 0.005% (n=15); minor complications occurred in 0.3%. Multivariate analysis showed the following independent risk factors for all complications: American Society of Anesthesiologists class >2 (OR 2.29) and type and duration of endoscopy. Of the sedation regimens, propofol monosedation had the lowest rate (OR 0.75) compared with midazolam (reference) and combinations (OR 1.0-1.5). Compared with primary care hospitals, tertiary referral centres had higher complication rates (OR 1.61). Notably, compared with sedation by a two-person endoscopy team (endoscopist/assistant; 53.5% of all procedures), adding another person for sedation (nurse, physician) was associated with higher complication rates (ORs 1.40-4.46), probably due to higher complexity of procedures not evident in the multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: This large multicentre registry study confirmed that severe acute sedation-related complications are rare during GI endoscopy with a very low mortality. The data are useful for planning risk factor-adapted sedation management to further prevent sedation-associated complications in selected patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: DRKS00007768; Pre-results.

Self-sizing radiofrequency ablation balloon for eradication of Barrett's esophagus: results of an international multicenter randomized trial comparing 3 different treatment regimens.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Recently, the 360 Express radiofrequency ablation balloon catheter (360 Express, Medtronic, Minneapolis, Minn, USA) has replaced the traditional system for circumferential radiofrequency ablation (RFA) of Barrett's esophagus (BE). The aim was to compare 3 different ablation regimens for the 360 Express. METHODS: An international multicenter noninferiority randomized controlled trial was conducted in which patients with a BE (2-15 cm) with dysplasia or early cancer were randomly assigned to the standard (1 × 10 J/cm2-clean-1 × 10 J/cm2), simple-double (2 × 10 J/cm2-no clean), or simple-single ablation regimen (1 × 10 J/cm2-no clean). The primary outcome was the percentage endoscopically visual BE regression at 3 months. Secondary outcomes were procedure time, adverse events, and patient discomfort. RESULTS: Between September 2015 and October 2017, 104 patients were enrolled. The simple-double ablation arm was closed prematurely because of a 21% stenosis rate. The trial continued with the standard (n = 37) and simple-single arm (n = 38). Both arms were comparable at baseline. Noninferiority of the simple-single arm could not be demonstrated: BE regression was 73% in the simple-single arm versus 85% in the standard arm; the median difference was 13% (95% confidence interval, 5%-23%). The procedure time was significantly longer in the standard arm (31 vs 17 minutes, P < .001). Both groups were comparable with regard to adverse events and patient discomfort. CONCLUSIONS: This randomized trial shows that circumferential RFA with the 360 Express using the simple-double ablation regimen results in an unacceptable high risk of stenosis. Furthermore, the results suggest that a single ablation at 10 J/cm2 results in inferior BE regression at 3 months. We therefore advise using the standard ablation regimen (1 × 10 J/cm2-clean-1 × 10 J/cm2) for treatment of BE using the 360 Express. (Clinical trial registration number: NTR5191.).

Blue-light imaging has an additional value to white-light endoscopy in visualization of early Barrett's neoplasia: an international multicenter cohort study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic features of early neoplasia in Barrett's esophagus (BE) are subtle. Blue-light imaging (BLI) may improve visualization of neoplastic lesions. The aim of this study was to evaluate BLI in visualization of Barrett's neoplasia. METHODS: Corresponding white-light endoscopy (WLE) and BLI images of 40 BE lesions were obtained prospectively and assessed by 6 international experts in 3 assessments. Each assessment consisted of overview and magnification images. Assessments were as follows: assessment 1, WLE only; assessment 2, BLI only; and assessment 3, corresponding WLE and BLI images. Outcome parameters were as follows: (1) appreciation of macroscopic appearance and surface relief (visual analog scale scores); (2) ability to delineate lesions (visual analog scale scores); (3) preferred technique for delineation (ordinal scores); and (4) quantitative agreement on delineations (AND/OR scores). RESULTS: Experts appreciated BLI significantly better than WLE for visualization of macroscopic appearance (median 8.0 vs 7.0, P < .001) and surface relief (8.0 vs 6.0, P < .001). For both overview and magnification images, experts appreciated BLI significantly better than WLE for ability to delineate lesions (8.0 vs 6.0, P < .001 and 8.0 vs 5.0, P < .001). There was no overall significant difference in AND/OR scores of WLE + BLI when compared with WLE, yet agreement increased significantly with WLE + BLI for cases with a low baseline AND/OR score on WLE, both in overview (mean difference, 0.15; P = .015) and magnification (mean difference, 0.10; P = .01). CONCLUSIONS: BLI has additional value for visualization of BE neoplasia. Experts appreciated BLI better than WLE for visualization and delineation of BE neoplasia. Quantitative agreement increased significantly when BLI was offered next to WLE for lesions that were hard to delineate with WLE alone. (ISRCTN registry study ID: ISRCTN15916689.).