Computer-Aided Diagnosis for Leaving Colorectal Polyps In Situ : A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Computer-aided diagnosis (CADx) allows prediction of polyp histology during colonoscopy, which may reduce unnecessary removal of nonneoplastic polyps. However, the potential benefits and harms of CADx are still unclear. PURPOSE: To quantify the benefit and harm of using CADx in colonoscopy for the optical diagnosis of small (≤5-mm) rectosigmoid polyps. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, and Scopus were searched for articles published before 22 December 2023. STUDY SELECTION: Histologically verified diagnostic accuracy studies that evaluated the real-time performance of physicians in predicting neoplastic change of small rectosigmoid polyps without or with CADx assistance during colonoscopy. DATA EXTRACTION: The clinical benefit and harm were estimated on the basis of accuracy values of the endoscopist before and after CADx assistance. The certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) framework. The outcome measure for benefit was the proportion of polyps predicted to be nonneoplastic that would avoid removal with the use of CADx. The outcome measure for harm was the proportion of neoplastic polyps that would be not resected and left in situ due to an incorrect diagnosis with the use of CADx. Histology served as the reference standard for both outcomes. DATA SYNTHESIS: Ten studies, including 3620 patients with 4103 small rectosigmoid polyps, were analyzed. The studies that assessed the performance of CADx alone (9 studies; 3237 polyps) showed a sensitivity of 87.3% (95% CI, 79.2% to 92.5%) and specificity of 88.9% (CI, 81.7% to 93.5%) in predicting neoplastic change. In the studies that compared histology prediction performance before versus after CADx assistance (4 studies; 2503 polyps), there was no difference in the proportion of polyps predicted to be nonneoplastic that would avoid removal (55.4% vs. 58.4%; risk ratio [RR], 1.06 [CI, 0.96 to 1.17]; moderate-certainty evidence) or in the proportion of neoplastic polyps that would be erroneously left in situ (8.2% vs. 7.5%; RR, 0.95 [CI, 0.69 to 1.33]; moderate-certainty evidence). LIMITATION: The application of optical diagnosis was only simulated, potentially altering the decision-making process of the operator. CONCLUSION: Computer-aided diagnosis provided no incremental benefit or harm in the management of small rectosigmoid polyps during colonoscopy. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: European Commission. (PROSPERO: CRD42023402197).

Combination of Mucosa-Exposure Device and Computer-Aided Detection for Adenoma Detection During Colonoscopy: A Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Both computer-aided detection (CADe)-assisted and Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy have been found to increase adenoma detection. We investigated the performance of the combination of the 2 tools compared with CADe-assisted colonoscopy alone to detect colorectal neoplasias during colonoscopy in a multicenter randomized trial. METHODS: Men and women undergoing colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening, polyp surveillance, or clincial indications at 6 centers in Italy and Switzerland were enrolled. Patients were assigned (1:1) to colonoscopy with the combinations of CADe (GI-Genius; Medtronic) and a mucosal exposure device (Endocuff Vision [ECV]; Olympus) or to CADe-assisted colonoscopy alone (control group). All detected lesions were removed and sent to histopathology for diagnosis. The primary outcome was adenoma detection rate (percentage of patients with at least 1 histologically proven adenoma or carcinoma). Secondary outcomes were adenomas detected per colonoscopy, advanced adenomas and serrated lesions detection rate, the rate of unnecessary polypectomies (polyp resection without histologically proven adenomas), and withdrawal time. RESULTS: From July 1, 2021 to May 31, 2022, there were 1316 subjects randomized and eligible for analysis; 660 to the ECV group, 656 to the control group). The adenoma detection rate was significantly higher in the ECV group (49.6%) than in the control group (44.0%) (relative risk, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.00-1.26; P = .04). Adenomas detected per colonoscopy were significantly higher in the ECV group (mean ± SD, 0.94 ± 0.54) than in the control group (0.74 ± 0.21) (incidence rate ratio, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.04-1.54; P = .02). The 2 groups did not differ in term of detection of advanced adenomas and serrated lesions. There was no significant difference between groups in mean ± SD withdrawal time (9.01 ± 2.48 seconds for the ECV group vs 8.96 ± 2.24 seconds for controls; P = .69) or proportion of subjects undergoing unnecessary polypectomies (relative risk, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.69-1.14; P = .38). CONCLUSIONS: The combination of CADe and ECV during colonoscopy increases adenoma detection rate and adenomas detected per colonoscopy without increasing withdrawal time compared with CADe alone. CLINICALTRIALS: gov, Number: NCT04676308.

Comparative diagnostic yield of different endoscopic techniques for tissue sampling of upper gastrointestinal subepithelial lesions: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: There is limited evidence on the comparative diagnostic performance of endoscopic tissue sampling techniques for subepithelial lesions. We performed a systematic review with network meta-analysis to compare these techniques. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the sample adequacy and diagnostic accuracy of bite-on-bite biopsy, mucosal incision-assisted biopsy (MIAB), endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA), and EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (FNB). Results were expressed as relative risk (RR) and 95%CI. RESULTS: Eight RCTs were identified. EUS-FNB was significantly superior to EUS-FNA in terms of sample adequacy (RR 1.20 [95%CI 1.05-1.45]), whereas none of the other techniques significantly outperformed EUS-FNA. Additionally, bite-on-bite biopsy was significantly inferior to EUS-FNB (RR 0.55 [95%CI 0.33-0.98]). Overall, EUS-FNB appeared to be the best technique (surface under cumulative ranking [SUCRA] score 0.90) followed by MIAB (SUCRA 0.83), whereas bite-on-bite biopsy showed the poorest performance. When considering lesions <20 mm, MIAB, but not EUS-FNB, showed significantly higher accuracy rates compared with EUS-FNA (RR 1.68 [95%CI 1.02-2.88]). Overall, MIAB ranked as the best intervention for lesions <20 mm (SUCRA score 0.86 for adequacy and 0.91 for accuracy), with EUS-FNB only slightly superior to EUS-FNA. When rapid on-site cytological evaluation (ROSE) was available, no difference between EUS-FNB, EUS-FNA, and MIAB was observed. CONCLUSION: EUS-FNB and MIAB appeared to provide better performance, whereas bite-on-bite sampling was significantly inferior to the other techniques. MIAB seemed to be the best option for smaller lesions, whereas EUS-FNA remained competitive when ROSE was available.

Outcomes of ERCP in Patients With Cystic Fibrosis: A Nationwide Inpatient Assessment.

BACKGROUND: Cystic fibrosis (CF) is a multisystem disorder that leads to abnormal transport of chloride and sodium across secretory epithelia resulting in thickened, viscous secretions in the bronchi, biliary tract, pancreas, intestine, and the reproductive system. Defects in the biliary tract can predispose to stone formation requiring endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). However, there is a paucity of data assessing ERCP outcomes in patients with CF. METHODS: We identified patients from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP)-National Inpatient Sample (NIS) between the years 2016 and 2020. Our study group included patients with CF of all ages who underwent an inpatient ERCP. We used ICD10 diagnostic and procedural codes to identify patients, procedures, and complications of the procedure. RESULTS: From 2016 to 2020, a total of 860,679 inpatient ERCPs were identified. Of these procedures, 535 (0.06%) were performed in patients with CF. The mean age of patients with CF undergoing ERCP was 60.62 years, of which 48% were males and 52% were females. Patients in the CF group had a higher incidence of post-ERCP pneumothorax (0.93%) than the patients in the non-CF group (0.15%). The occurrence of other ERCP-related adverse events was similar in both groups (P>0.05). On multivariate regression analysis, patients with CF were 1.75 times more likely to develop post-ERCP infections [odds ratio (OR): 1.75; 95% CI: 1.03-2.94; P=0.035) and 7.64 times more likely to develop post-ERCP pneumothorax (OR: 7.64; 95% CI: 1.03-56.5; P=0.046) compared to patients without CF after adjusting for confounders. The groups had no significant difference in mortality, post-ERCP pancreatitis, bleeding, perforation, pneumoperitoneum, and gas embolism. There was also no significant difference in the length of stay between the study and control groups. CONCLUSIONS: ERCP is a safe procedure in patients with CF with a comparable risk of postprocedural complications and mortality to those who do not have cystic fibrosis. However, patients with CF may experience a higher risk of post-ERCP infections and post-ERCP pneumothorax. Further studies are needed to prospectively evaluate outcomes of ERCP in patients with CF and to determine methods of mitigating adverse events.

Real-Time Computer-Aided Detection of Colorectal Neoplasia During Colonoscopy : A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence computer-aided detection (CADe) of colorectal neoplasia during colonoscopy may increase adenoma detection rates (ADRs) and reduce adenoma miss rates, but it may increase overdiagnosis and overtreatment of nonneoplastic polyps. PURPOSE: To quantify the benefits and harms of CADe in randomized trials. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. (PROSPERO: CRD42022293181). DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, and Scopus databases through February 2023. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized trials comparing CADe-assisted with standard colonoscopy for polyp and cancer detection. DATA EXTRACTION: Adenoma detection rate (proportion of patients with ≥1 adenoma), number of adenomas detected per colonoscopy, advanced adenoma (≥10 mm with high-grade dysplasia and villous histology), number of serrated lesions per colonoscopy, and adenoma miss rate were extracted as benefit outcomes. Number of polypectomies for nonneoplastic lesions and withdrawal time were extracted as harm outcomes. For each outcome, studies were pooled using a random-effects model. Certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) framework. DATA SYNTHESIS: Twenty-one randomized trials on 18 232 patients were included. The ADR was higher in the CADe group than in the standard colonoscopy group (44.0% vs. 35.9%; relative risk, 1.24 [95% CI, 1.16 to 1.33]; low-certainty evidence), corresponding to a 55% (risk ratio, 0.45 [CI, 0.35 to 0.58]) relative reduction in miss rate (moderate-certainty evidence). More nonneoplastic polyps were removed in the CADe than the standard group (0.52 vs. 0.34 per colonoscopy; mean difference [MD], 0.18 polypectomy [CI, 0.11 to 0.26 polypectomy]; low-certainty evidence). Mean inspection time increased only marginally with CADe (MD, 0.47 minute [CI, 0.23 to 0.72 minute]; moderate-certainty evidence). LIMITATIONS: This review focused on surrogates of patient-important outcomes. Most patients, however, may consider cancer incidence and cancer-related mortality important outcomes. The effect of CADe on such patient-important outcomes remains unclear. CONCLUSION: The use of CADe for polyp detection during colonoscopy results in increased detection of adenomas but not advanced adenomas and in higher rates of unnecessary removal of nonneoplastic polyps. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: European Commission Horizon 2020 Marie Sklodowska-Curie Individual Fellowship.

The outcomes and safety of patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography combining a single-use cholangioscope and a single-use duodenoscope: A multicenter retrospective international study.

BACKGROUND: Duodenoscope-related multidrug-resistant organism (MDRO) infections raise concerns. Disposable duodenoscopes have been recently introduced in the market and approved by regulatory agencies with the aim to reduce the risk of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) associated infections. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcome of procedures performed with single-use duodenoscopes in patients with clinical indications to single-operator cholangiopancreatoscopy. METHODS: This is a multicenter international, retrospective study combining all patients who underwent complex biliopancreatic interventions using the combination of a single-use duodenoscope and a single-use cholangioscope. The primary outcome was technical success defined as ERCP completion for the intended clinical indication. Secondary outcomes were procedural duration, rate of cross-over to reusable duodenoscope, operator-reported satisfaction score (1 to 10) on performance rating of the single-use duodenoscope, and adverse event (AE) rate. RESULTS: A total of 66 patients (26, 39.4% female) were included in the study. ERCP was categorized according to ASGE ERCP grading system as 47 (71.2%) grade 3 and 19 (28.8%) grade 4. The technical success rate was 98.5% (65/66). Procedural duration was 64 (interquartile range 15-189) min, cross-over rate to reusable duodenoscope was 1/66 (1.5%). The satisfaction score of the single-use duodenoscope classified by the operators was 8.6 ± 1.3 points. Four patients (6.1%) experienced AEs not directly related to the single-use duodenoscope, namely 2 post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP), 1 cholangitis and 1 bleeding. CONCLUSIONS: Single-use duodenoscope is effective, reliable and safe even in technically challenging procedures with a non-inferiority to reusable duodenoscope, making these devices a viable alternative to standard reusable equipment.

From Staining Techniques to Artificial Intelligence: A Review of Colorectal Polyps Characterization.

This review article provides a comprehensive overview of the evolving techniques in image-enhanced endoscopy (IEE) for the characterization of colorectal polyps, and the potential of artificial intelligence (AI) in revolutionizing the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopy. We discuss the historical use of dye-spray and virtual chromoendoscopy for the characterization of colorectal polyps, which are now being replaced with more advanced technologies. Specifically, we focus on the application of AI to create a "virtual biopsy" for the detection and characterization of colorectal polyps, with potential for replacing histopathological diagnosis. The incorporation of AI has the potential to provide an evolutionary learning system that aids in the diagnosis and management of patients with the best possible outcomes. A detailed analysis of the literature supporting AI-assisted diagnostic techniques for the detection and characterization of colorectal polyps, with a particular emphasis on AI's characterization mechanism, is provided. The benefits of AI over traditional IEE techniques, including the reduction in human error in diagnosis, and its potential to provide an accurate diagnosis with similar accuracy to the gold standard are presented. However, the need for large-scale testing of AI in clinical practice and the importance of integrating patient data into the diagnostic process are acknowledged. In conclusion, the constant evolution of IEE technology and the potential for AI to revolutionize the field of endoscopy in the future are presented.

Management of Malignant Gastric Outlet Obstruction: A Comprehensive Review on the Old, the Classic and the Innovative Approaches.

Gastrojejunostomy is the principal method of palliation for unresectable malignant gastric outlet obstructions (GOO). Gastrojejunostomy was traditionally performed as a surgical procedure with an open approach butrecently, notable progress in the development of minimally invasive procedures such as laparoscopic gastrojejunostomies have emerged. Additionally, advancements in endoscopic techniques, including endoscopic stenting (ES) and endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE), are becoming more prominent. ES involves the placement of self-expandable metal stents (SEMS) to restore luminal patency. ES is commonly the first choice for patients deemed unfit for surgery or at high surgical risk. However, although ES leads to rapid improvement of symptoms, it carries limitations like higher stent dysfunction rates and the need for frequent re-interventions. Recently, EUS-GE has emerged as a potential alternative, combining the minimally invasive nature of the endoscopic approach with the long-lasting effects of a gastrojejunostomy. Having reviewed the advantages and disadvantages of these different techniques, this article aims to provide a comprehensive review regarding the management of unresectable malignant GOO.

Lack of Effectiveness of Computer Aided Detection for Colorectal Neoplasia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Nonrandomized Studies.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Benefits of computer-aided detection (CADe) in detecting colorectal neoplasia were shown in many randomized trials in which endoscopists' behavior was strictly controlled. However, the effect of CADe on endoscopists' performance in less-controlled setting is unclear. This systematic review and meta-analyses were aimed at clarifying benefits and harms of using CADe in real-world colonoscopy. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Google Scholar from inception to August 20, 2023. We included nonrandomized studies that compared the effectiveness between CADe-assisted and standard colonoscopy. Two investigators independently extracted study data and quality. Pairwise meta-analysis was performed utilizing risk ratio for dichotomous variables and mean difference (MD) for continuous variables with a 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: Eight studies were included, comprising 9782 patients (4569 with CADe and 5213 without CADe). Regarding benefits, there was a difference in neither adenoma detection rate (44% vs 38%; risk ratio, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.97 to 1.28) nor mean adenomas per colonoscopy (0.93 vs 0.79; MD, 0.14; 95% CI, -0.04 to 0.32) between CADe-assisted and standard colonoscopy, respectively. Regarding harms, there was no difference in the mean non-neoplastic lesions per colonoscopy (8 studies included for analysis; 0.52 vs 0.47; MD, 0.14; 95% CI, -0.07 to 0.34) and withdrawal time (6 studies included for analysis; 14.3 vs 13.4 minutes; MD, 0.8 minutes; 95% CI, -0.18 to 1.90). There was a substantial heterogeneity, and all outcomes were graded with a very low certainty of evidence. CONCLUSION: CADe in colonoscopies neither improves the detection of colorectal neoplasia nor increases burden of colonoscopy in real-world, nonrandomized studies, questioning the generalizability of the results of randomized trials.

Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Miss Rate of Colorectal Neoplasia.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Artificial intelligence (AI) may detect colorectal polyps that have been missed due to perceptual pitfalls. By reducing such miss rate, AI may increase the detection of colorectal neoplasia leading to a higher degree of colorectal cancer (CRC) prevention. METHODS: Patients undergoing CRC screening or surveillance were enrolled in 8 centers (Italy, UK, US), and randomized (1:1) to undergo 2 same-day, back-to-back colonoscopies with or without AI (deep learning computer aided diagnosis endoscopy) in 2 different arms, namely AI followed by colonoscopy without AI or vice-versa. Adenoma miss rate (AMR) was calculated as the number of histologically verified lesions detected at second colonoscopy divided by the total number of lesions detected at first and second colonoscopy. Mean number of lesions detected in the second colonoscopy and proportion of false negative subjects (no lesion at first colonoscopy and at least 1 at second) were calculated. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were adjusted by endoscopist, age, sex, and indication for colonoscopy. Adverse events were also measured. RESULTS: A total of 230 subjects (116 AI first, 114 standard colonoscopy first) were included in the study analysis. AMR was 15.5% (38 of 246) and 32.4% (80 of 247) in the arm with AI and non-AI colonoscopy first, respectively (adjusted OR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.23-0.62). In detail, AMR was lower for AI first for the ≤5 mm (15.9% vs 35.8%; OR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.21-0.55) and nonpolypoid lesions (16.8% vs 45.8%; OR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.13-0.43), and it was lower both in the proximal (18.3% vs 32.5%; OR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.26-0.78) and distal colon (10.8% vs 32.1%; OR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.11-0.57). Mean number of adenomas at second colonoscopy was lower in the AI-first group as compared with non-AI colonoscopy first (0.33 ± 0.63 vs 0.70 ± 0.97, P < .001). False negative rates were 6.8% (3 of 44 patients) and 29.6% (13 of 44) in the AI and non-AI first arms, respectively (OR, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.05-0.67). No difference in the rate of adverse events was found between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: AI resulted in an approximately 2-fold reduction in miss rate of colorectal neoplasia, supporting AI-benefit in reducing perceptual errors for small and subtle lesions at standard colonoscopy. CLINICALTRIALS: gov, Number: NCT03954548.

Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Colonoscopy Surveillance After Polyp Removal: A Pooled Analysis of Randomized Trials.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Artificial intelligence (AI) tools aimed at improving polyp detection have been shown to increase the adenoma detection rate during colonoscopy. However, it is unknown how increased polyp detection rates by AI affect the burden of patient surveillance after polyp removal. METHODS: We conducted a pooled analysis of 9 randomized controlled trials (5 in China, 2 in Italy, 1 in Japan, and 1 in the United States) comparing colonoscopy with or without AI detection aids. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients recommended to undergo intensive surveillance (ie, 3-year interval). We analyzed intervals for AI and non-AI colonoscopies for the U.S. and European recommendations separately. We estimated proportions by calculating relative risks using the Mantel-Haenszel method. RESULTS: A total of 5796 patients (51% male, mean 53 years of age) were included; 2894 underwent AI-assisted colonoscopy and 2902 non-AI colonoscopy. When following U.S. guidelines, the proportion of patients recommended intensive surveillance increased from 8.4% (95% CI, 7.4%-9.5%) in the non-AI group to 11.3% (95% CI, 10.2%-12.6%) in the AI group (absolute difference, 2.9% [95% CI, 1.4%-4.4%]; risk ratio, 1.35 [95% CI, 1.16-1.57]). When following European guidelines, it increased from 6.1% (95% CI, 5.3%-7.0%) to 7.4% (95% CI, 6.5%-8.4%) (absolute difference, 1.3% [95% CI, 0.01%-2.6%]; risk ratio, 1.22 [95% CI, 1.01-1.47]). CONCLUSIONS: The use of AI during colonoscopy increased the proportion of patients requiring intensive colonoscopy surveillance by approximately 35% in the United States and 20% in Europe (absolute increases of 2.9% and 1.3%, respectively). While this may contribute to improved cancer prevention, it significantly adds patient burden and healthcare costs.

Variability in adenoma detection rate in control groups of randomized colonoscopy trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is still the main surrogate outcome parameter of screening colonoscopy, but most studies include mixed indications, and basic ADR is quite variable. We therefore looked at the control groups in randomized ADR trials using advanced imaging or mechanical methods to find out whether indications or other factors influence ADR levels. METHODS: Patients in the control groups of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on ADR increase using various methods were collected based on a systematic review; this control group had to use high-definition white-light endoscopy performed between 2008 and 2021. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to pool ADR in control groups and its 95% confidence interval (CI) according to clinical (indication and demographic), study setting (tandem/parallel, number of centers, sample size), and technical (type of intervention, withdrawal time) parameters. Interstudy heterogeneity was reported with the I2 statistic. Multivariable mixed-effects meta-regression was performed for potentially relevant variables. RESULTS: From 80 studies, 25,304 patients in the respective control groups were included. ADR in control arms varied between 8.2% and 68.1% with a high degree of heterogeneity (I2 = 95.1%; random-effect pooled value, 37.5%; 95% CI, 34.6‒40.5). There was no difference in ADR levels between primary colonoscopy screening (12 RCTs, 15%) and mixed indications including screening/surveillance and diagnostic colonoscopy; however, fecal immunochemical testing as an indication for colonoscopy was an independent predictor of ADR (odds ratio [OR], 1.6; 95% CI, 1.1-2.4). Other well-known parameters were confirmed by our analysis such as age (OR, 1.038; 95% CI, 1.004-1.074), sex (male sex: OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.01-1.03), and withdrawal time (OR, 1.1; 95% CI, 1.0-1.1). The type of intervention (imaging vs mechanical) had no influence, but methodologic factors did: More recent year of publication and smaller sample size were associated with higher ADR. CONCLUSIONS: A high level of variability was found in the level of ADR in the control groups of RCTs. With regards to indications, only fecal immunochemical test-based colonoscopy studies influenced basic ADR, and primary colonoscopy screening appeared to be similar to other indications. Standardization for variables related to clinical, methodologic, and technical parameters is required to achieve generalizability and reproducibility.

Comparative diagnostic performance of different techniques for EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy sampling of solid pancreatic masses: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Evidence is limited on the comparative diagnostic performance of tissue sampling techniques for EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy sampling of pancreatic masses. We performed a systematic review with network meta-analysis to compare these techniques. METHODS: Rates of sample adequacy, blood contamination, and tissue integrity using fine-needle biopsy sampling needles were evaluated. Direct and indirect comparisons were performed among the slow-pull, dry-suction, modified wet-suction, or no-suction techniques. Results are expressed as risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: Overall, 9 randomized controlled trials (756 patients) were identified. On network meta-analysis, the no-suction technique was significantly inferior to the other techniques (RR, .85 [95% CI, .78-.92] vs slow pull; RR, .85 [95% CI, .78-.92] vs dry suction; RR, .83 [95% CI, .76-.90] vs modified wet suction) in terms of sample adequacy. Consequently, modified wet suction was shown to be the best technique (surface under the cumulative ranking curve score, .90), with the no-suction technique showing poorer performance in terms of sample adequacy (surface under the cumulative ranking curve score, .14). Dry suction was associated with significantly higher rates of blood contamination as compared with the slow-pull technique (RR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.15-1.80), whereas no suction led to less blood contamination of samples in comparison with other techniques (RR, .71 [95% CI, .52-.97] vs slow pull; RR, .49 [95% CI, .36-.66] vs dry suction; RR, .57 [95% CI, .40-.81] vs modified wet suction). The modified wet-suction technique significantly outperformed dry suction in terms of tissue integrity of the sample (RR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.06-1.75). CONCLUSIONS: Modified wet suction seemed to provide high rates of integrity and adequate samples, albeit with high blood contamination. The no-suction technique performed significantly worse than other sampling strategies.

Diagnostic accuracy and safety of EUS-guided end-cutting fine-needle biopsy needles for tissue sampling of abdominal and mediastinal lymphadenopathies: a prospective multicenter series.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The role of the newer EUS fine-needle biopsy needles in lymphadenopathies (LAs) is still under evaluation. We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy and adverse event rate of EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy sampling (EUS-FNB) in diagnosing LAs. METHODS: From June 2015 to June 2022, all patients referred to 4 institutions for EUS-FNB of mediastinal and abdominal LAs were enrolled. Twenty-two-gauge Franseen tip or 25-gauge fork-tip needles were used. The criterion standard for positive results was surgery or imaging and clinical evolution over a follow-up of at least 1 year. RESULTS: One hundred consecutive patients were enrolled, consisting of those with a new diagnosis of LA (40%), presence of LA with a previous history of neoplasia (51%), or suspected lymphoproliferative disease (9%). EUS-FNB was technically feasible in all LA patients with 2 to 3 passes (mean, 2.62 ± .93). The overall sensitivity, positive predictive value, specificity, negative predictive value, and accuracy for EUS-FNB were 96.20%, 100%, 100%, 87.50%, and 97.00%, respectively. Histologic analysis was feasible in 89% of cases. Cytologic evaluation was performed in 67% of specimens. A statistical difference between the accuracy of the 22-gauge or 25-gauge needle (P = .63) was not found. A subanalysis on lymphoproliferative disease revealed a sensitivity and accuracy of 89.29% and 90.0%, respectively. No adverse events were recorded. CONCLUSIONS: EUS-FNB with new end-cutting needles is a valuable and safe method to diagnose LAs. The high quality of histologic cores and the good amount of tissue allowed a complete immunohistochemical analysis of metastatic LAs and precise subtyping of the lymphomas. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02855151.).

Long-term outcomes of peroral endoscopic myotomy for achalasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The long-term outcomes of esophageal peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) are still unknown. METHODS: We searched electronic databases (MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus) for studies assessing outcomes after POEM for esophageal achalasia with a minimum median follow-up duration of 36 months. Pooled rates of clinical success and postoperative reflux were calculated and compared with the same values at 12/24/36 months when available. Subgroup analyses were performed to explore the interstudy heterogeneity. RESULTS: From 1528 initial records, 11 studies (2017-2021) were included. A total of 2342 patients (age 48.1 [SD 6.8] years; 50.1 % males) with a median follow-up of 48 months (interquartile range 45-60) were analyzed. The pooled clinical success rate was 87.3 % (95 %CI 83.6 %-91.0 %; I2  = 73.1 %). The symptomatic reflux pooled rate was 22.0 % (95 %CI 14.4 %-29.5 %; I2  = 92.7 %). Three cases of peptic strictures and one Barrett's esophagus were reported. The pooled rate of severe adverse events was 1.5 % (95 %CI 0.5 %-2.5 %; I2  = 52.8 %). CONCLUSIONS: Long-term clinical efficacy of POEM persisted in 87 % of patients with achalasia. Post-POEM symptomatic reflux remained stable over time. The risk for Barrett's esophagus and peptic strictures appeared minimal.

Artificial intelligence-assisted optical diagnosis for the resect-and-discard strategy in clinical practice: the Artificial intelligence BLI Characterization (ABC) study.

BACKGROUND: Optical diagnosis of colonic polyps is poorly reproducible outside of high volume referral centers. The present study aimed to assess whether real-time artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted optical diagnosis is accurate enough to implement the leave-in-situ strategy for diminutive (≤ 5 mm) rectosigmoid polyps (DRSPs). METHODS: Consecutive colonoscopy outpatients with ≥ 1 DRSP were included. DRSPs were categorized as adenomas or nonadenomas by the endoscopists, who had differing expertise in optical diagnosis, with the assistance of a real-time AI system (CAD-EYE). The primary end point was ≥ 90 % negative predictive value (NPV) for adenomatous histology in high confidence AI-assisted optical diagnosis of DRSPs (Preservation and Incorporation of Valuable endoscopic Innovations [PIVI-1] threshold), with histopathology as the reference standard. The agreement between optical- and histology-based post-polypectomy surveillance intervals (≥ 90 %; PIVI-2 threshold) was also calculated according to European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and United States Multi-Society Task Force (USMSTF) guidelines. RESULTS: Overall 596 DRSPs were retrieved for histology in 389 patients; an AI-assisted high confidence optical diagnosis was made in 92.3 %. The NPV of AI-assisted optical diagnosis for DRSPs (PIVI-1) was 91.0 % (95 %CI 87.1 %-93.9 %). The PIVI-2 threshold was met with 97.4 % (95 %CI 95.7 %-98.9 %) and 92.6 % (95 %CI 90.0 %-95.2 %) of patients according to ESGE and USMSTF, respectively. AI-assisted optical diagnosis accuracy was significantly lower for nonexperts (82.3 %, 95 %CI 76.4 %-87.3 %) than for experts (91.9 %, 95 %CI 88.5 %-94.5 %); however, nonexperts quickly approached the performance levels of experts over time. CONCLUSION: AI-assisted optical diagnosis matches the required PIVI thresholds. This does not however offset the need for endoscopists' high level confidence and expertise. The AI system seems to be useful, especially for nonexperts.

Predictors of long-term outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection of early gastric neoplasia in the West: a multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to determine long-term outcomes of gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in Western settings based on the latest Japanese indication criteria, and to examine predictors of outcomes and complications. METHODS: Data were collected from consecutive patients undergoing gastric ESD at four participating centers from 2009 to 2021. Retrospective analysis using logistic regression and survival analysis was performed. RESULTS: 415 patients were included (mean age 71.7 years; 56.4 % male). Absolute indication criteria (2018 guideline) were met in 75.3 % of patients. Median follow-up was 52 months. Post-resection histology was adenocarcinoma, high grade dysplasia, and low grade dysplasia in 49.9 %, 22.7 %, and 17.1 %, respectively. Perforation, early and delayed bleeding occurred in 2.4 %, 4.3 %, and 3.4 %, respectively. Rates of en bloc and R0 resection, and recurrence on first endoscopic follow-up were 94.7 %, 83.4 %, and 2.7 %, respectively. Relative indication (2018 guideline) for ESD was associated with R1 outcome (P = 0.02). Distal location (P = 0.002) and increased procedure time (P = 0.04) were associated with bleeding, and scarring (P = 0.009) and increased procedure duration (P = 0.003) were associated with perforation. Recurrence-free survival at 2 and 5 years was 94 % and 83 %, respectively. CONCLUSION: This is the largest Western multicenter cohort and suggests that gastric ESD is safe and effective in the Western setting. A quarter of patients fell outside the new absolute indications for ESD, suggesting that Western practice involves more advanced lesions. We identified the predictors of complications, which should help to inform future Western practice and research.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy with or without macroscopic on-site evaluation: a randomized controlled noninferiority trial.

BACKGROUND : The advantage of using the macroscopic on-site evaluation (MOSE) technique during endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) performed with 22G Franseen needles has not been investigated. We aimed to compare EUS-FNB with MOSE vs. EUS-FNB performed with three needle passes. METHODS : This randomized trial involved 10 Italian referral centers. Consecutive patients referred for EUS-FNB of pancreatic or nonpancreatic solid lesions were included in the study and randomized to the two groups. MOSE was performed by gross visualization of the collected material by the endoscopists and considered adequate when a white/yellowish aggregate core longer than 10 mm was retrieved. The primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy. Secondary outcomes were specimen adequacy, number of needle passes, and safety. RESULTS : 370 patients with 234 pancreatic lesions (63.2 %) and 136 nonpancreatic lesions (36.8 %) were randomized (190 EUS-FNB with MOSE and 180 with standard EUS-FNB). No statistically significant differences were found between EUS-FNB with MOSE and conventional EUS-FNB in terms of diagnostic accuracy (90.0 % [95 %CI 84.8 %-93.9 %] vs. 87.8 % [95 %CI 82.1 %-92.2 %]; P = 0.49), sample adequacy (93.1 % [95 %CI 88.6 %-96.3 %] vs. 95.5 % [95 %CI 91.4 %-98 %]; P = 0.31), and rate of adverse events (2.6 % vs. 1.1 %; P = 0.28). The median number of passes was significantly lower in the EUS-FNB with MOSE group (1 vs. 3; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS : The accuracy of EUS-FNB with MOSE is noninferior to that of EUS-FNB with three needle passes. MOSE reliably assesses sample adequacy and reduces the number of needle passes required to obtain the diagnosis with a 22G Franseen needle.

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.

Clinical outcome of non-curative endoscopic submucosal dissection for early colorectal cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in a curative intent for submucosa-invasive early (T1) colorectal cancers (T1-CRCs) often leads to subsequent surgical resection in case of histologic parameters indicating higher risk of nodal involvement. In some cases, however, the expected benefit may be offset by the surgical risks, suggesting a more conservative approach. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of consecutive patients with T1-CRC who underwent ESD at 13 centres ending inclusion in 2019 (n=3373). Cases with high risk of nodal involvement (non-curative ESD: G3, submucosal invasion>1000 µm, lymphovascular involvement, budding or incomplete resection/R1) were analysed if follow-up data (endoscopy/imaging) were available, regardless of the postendoscopic management (follow-up vs surgery) selected by the multidisciplinary teams in these institutions. Comorbidities were classified according to Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI). Outcomes were disease recurrence, death and disease-related death rates in the two groups. Rate of residual disease (RD) at both the previous resection site and regional lymph nodes was assessed in the surgical cases as well as from follow-up in the follow-up group. RESULTS: Of 604 patients treated by colorectal ESD for submucosally invasive cancer, 207 non-curative resections (34.3%) were included (138 male; mean age 67.6±10.9 years); in 65.2% of cases, no complete resection was achieved (R1). Of the 207 cases, 60.9% (n=126; median CCI: 3; IQR: 2-4) underwent surgical treatment with RD in 19.8% (25/126), while 39.1% (n=81, median CCI: 5; IQR: 4-6) were followed up by endoscopy in all cases. Patients in the follow-up group had a higher overall mortality (HR=3.95) due to non-CRC causes (n=9, mean survival after ESD 23.7±13.7 months). During this follow-up time, tumour recurrence and disease-specific survival rates were not different between the groups (median follow-up 30 months; range: 6-105). CONCLUSION: Following ESD for a lesion at high risk of RD, follow-up only may be a reasonable choice in patients at high risk for surgery. Also, endoscopic resection quality should be improved. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03987828.