Artificial intelligence in colorectal surgery: an AI-powered systematic review.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to revolutionize surgery in the coming years. Still, it is essential to clarify what the meaningful current applications are and what can be reasonably expected. This AI-powered review assessed the role of AI in colorectal surgery. A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)-compliant systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library databases, and gray literature was conducted on all available articles on AI in colorectal surgery (from January 1 1997 to March 1 2021), aiming to define the perioperative applications of AI. Potentially eligible studies were identified using novel software powered by natural language processing (NLP) and machine learning (ML) technologies dedicated to systematic reviews. Out of 1238 articles identified, 115 were included in the final analysis. Available articles addressed the role of AI in several areas of interest. In the preoperative phase, AI can be used to define tailored treatment algorithms, support clinical decision-making, assess the risk of complications, and predict surgical outcomes and survival. Intraoperatively, AI-enhanced surgery and integration of AI in robotic platforms have been suggested. After surgery, AI can be implemented in the Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) pathway. Additional areas of applications included the assessment of patient-reported outcomes, automated pathology assessment, and research. Available data on these aspects are limited, and AI in colorectal surgery is still in its infancy. However, the rapid evolution of technologies makes it likely that it will increasingly be incorporated into everyday practice.

Quality of endoscopic screening for colorectal cancer in Italy: A national survey.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a major healthcare problem all over the world and screening is effective in reducing mortality and increasing survival. Since colonoscopy has a central role in faecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based CRC screening and surveillance, consistent quality measures are essential to ensure quality and outcomes. Nevertheless, screening modalities in clinical practice may differ according to the centers experience and the local availability of instrumentation and devices. AIMS: to assess the quality of endoscopic screening for CRC and adherence to international guidelines across Gastroenterology Departments in Italy. METHODS: All members of the Italian Society of Gastroenterology (SIGE) were invited to answer a web-based survey. RESULTS: Data from 64 hospitals from 17 Italian regions were analyzed. 32/64 (50.0%) were from northern, 12/64 (18.75%) from central and 20/64 (31.25%) from southern Italy. Each center is equipped with a median of 5.0 (3.5-7.0) endoscopists involved in CRC screening, 71.4% of which are gastroenterologists. After a positive FIT, most centers (93.8%) schedule a colonoscopy within 3 months. High-definition video endoscopy is routinely performed in 68.8% and chromoendoscopy in 53.1% of centers. Withdrawal time is ≥6 min in 79.9% and cecal intubation rate is ≥90% in 94.4% of departments. Finally, in 92.7% of centers adenoma detection rate (ADR) overcome the minimum standard of 25%. Analyzing the data by regional areas, a significant higher number of median endoscopic examinations/year (6500 vs 4000 and 3000, respectively, p = 0.024) and of endoscopists per center (6.5 vs 5.0 and 3.5, respectively, p < 0.001) has been registered in the northern compared to central-southern centers. CONCLUSIONS: Data from this survey show adequacy and good quality of endoscopic screening for CRC in Italy, highlighting, at the same time, relevant deficiencies and a discrepancy in procedural attitudes between the different centers. These findings call for a urgent action to overcome the shortcomings, refine and homogenize the behaviour of all screening centers in the national territory and improve the outcomes.

Analysis of patients attitude to undergo urgent endoscopic procedures during COVID-19 outbreak in Italy.

We conducted a survey to investigate to what extent the fear of COVID-19 has influenced the patients decision to undergo or to cancel endoscopic procedures. We collected data from 847 patients from 13 centres. The main indication for endoscopy was anemia, followed by pain and unexplained weight loss. The percentage of not presenters progressively increased throughout the three weeks of study, from 15.1% at the beginning to 48.2% at the end. 37 (34.2%) upper GI endoscopies and 112 (56.3 %) colonoscopies showed an organic cause explaining the symptoms presented by the patients, respectively; 5 cases of gastric cancer (4.6%) and 16 cases of colorectal cancer (CRC) (6.0%), respectively, were detected; during the second week the percentage of organic diseases found at upper endoscopy was 19 (33.3%) with 5 cancer (8.7%), and 61 (49.1% ) at colonoscopy, with 2 CRC (1.6%); finally, during the third week the corresponding figures were 19 (48.7%) for upper GI examinations, with 3 gastric cancers (7.7%), and 43 (60.5%) with 4 (6.5%) CRC cases found.We conclude that patients weighted the fear of having a clinically relevant disease with the fear of becoming infected by coronavirus, and a relevant percentage of them (29.4%) decided not to attend the endoscopy suites at the scheduled date.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Gastroenterology Divisions in Italy: A national survey.

BACKGROUND: In Italy, the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic has stressed the entire healthcare system and required a huge re-organization of many Divisions, including those of Gastroenterology. AIMS: to assess the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on Gastroenterology Divisions across Italy. METHODS: All members of the Italian Society of Gastroenterology (SIGE) were invited to answer a web-based survey. RESULTS: Data of 121 hospitals from all 20 Italian regions were analyzed. Overall, 10.7% Gastroenterology Divisions have been converted to Covid Units. Outpatients consultations, endoscopic and ultrasound procedures were limited to urgencies and oncology indications in 85.1%, 96.2% and 72.2% of Units, respectively, and 46.7% of them suspended the screening for colorectal cancer. Moreover, 72.2% of the staff received a training for use of personal protective equipment, although 45.5% did not have sufficient devices for adequate replacement. Overall, 132 healthcare workers in 41 Gastroenterology Divisions were found to be infected. CONCLUSION: This is the first study to evaluate, at a country level, the impact of COVID-19 outbreak on Gastroenterology Divisions. Substantial changes of practice and reduction of procedures have been recorded in the entire country. The long-term impact of such modifications is difficult to estimate but potentially very risky for many digestive diseases.

Endoscopic Resections in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Multicentre European Outcomes Study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Inflammatory bowel disease is associated with an increased risk of colorectal cancer, with estimates ranging 2-18%, depending on the duration of colitis. The management of neoplasia in colitis remains controversial. Current guidelines recommend endoscopic resection if the lesion is clearly visible with distinct margins. Colectomy is recommended if complete endoscopic resection is not guaranteed. We aimed to assess the outcomes of all neoplastic endoscopic resections in inflammatory bowel disease. METHODS: This was a multicentre retrospective cohort study of 119 lesions of visible dysplasia in 93 patients, resected endoscopically in inflammatory bowel disease. RESULTS: A total of 6/65 [9.2%] lesions <20 mm in size were treated by ESD [endoscopic submucosal dissection] compared with 59/65 [90.8%] lesions <20 mm treated by EMR [endoscopic mucosal resection]; 16/51 [31.4%] lesions >20 mm in size were treated by EMR vs 35/51 [68.6%] by ESD. Almost all patients [97%] without fibrosis were treated by EMR, and patients with fibrosis were treated by ESD [87%], p < 0.001. In all, 49/78 [63%] lesions treated by EMR were resected en-bloc and 27/41 [65.9%] of the ESD/KAR [knife-assisted resection] cases were resected en-bloc, compared with 15/41 [36.6%] resected piecemeal. Seven recurrences occurred in the cohort. Seven complications occurred in the cohort; six were managed endoscopically and one patient with a delayed perforation underwent surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Larger lesions with fibrosis are best treated by ESD, whereas smaller lesions without fibrosis are best managed by EMR. Both EMR and ESD are feasible in the management of endoscopic resections in colitis.

Methylene blue MMX® tablets for chromoendoscopy. Bioavailability, colon staining and safety in healthy volunteers undergoing a full colonoscopy.

Methylene blue-MMX® tablets are proposed as an aid for detection and visualisation of adenomas and carcinomas in patients undergoing colonoscopy, by improving their detection rate and highlighting the presence of the intestinal dysplastic lesions. Single total doses of 100 and 200 mg were administered to healthy volunteers undergoing a bowel cleansing preparation and a full colonoscopy to investigate the colonic staining. The pharmacokinetics of methylene blue and the safety after exposure to the tablets were also investigated. With 200 mg, the best staining, assessed as the sum of acceptable and good staining, was achieved in the ascending colon and rectosigmoid (75% subjects each), the transverse and the descending colon (approximately 63% each). Absence of staining or overstaining were reported for no colonic region of interest in any subject. Similar results were observed in the 100 mg dose group. Methylene blue blood concentrations reached a peak (Cmax) in a median time (Tmax) of 12 h with 100 mg and 16 h with 200 mg. AUC0-t was 10.7 ±â€¯6.7 µg/mLxh after 100 mg and 25.2 ±â€¯7.4 µg/mLxh after 200 mg. Half-life ranged between 9 and 22 h after the lower dose and between 6 and 26 h after the higher dose. The cumulative urinary excretion was about 28% after 100 mg and about 39% after 200 mg up to 60 h post-dose. The overall frequency of adverse events after single dose of the test product administered along with a bowel cleansing preparation was 39%, but only one was related to the test product: abnormal transaminases. The most frequent adverse event was a transient polyuria (17%). One serious adverse event (gastrointestinal haemorrhage) led the subject to study discontinuation and hospitalisation and another subject withdrew the study due to one adverse event (haematemesis). Either event was not related to methylene blue.

Peroral endoscopic myotomy versus surgical myotomy for primary achalasia: single-center, retrospective analysis of 74 patients.

Achalasia is a neurodegenerative motility disorder of the esophagus; dysphagia, weight loss, chest pain, and regurgitation are its main symptoms. Surgical myotomy (HM) is considered the gold standard treatment. However, peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) seems to be a safe and effective alternative option. The aim of this study is to compare the safety and efficacy of these techniques. From March 2012 to June 2015, 74 patients with symptomatic primary achalasia underwent myotomy. The two groups were compared in terms of intraoperative and postoperative outcomes and Eckardt score at last follow-up. A morphofunctional comparison was also performed. Thirty-two myotomies were performed endoscopically (POEM group) and 42 were performed laparoscopically with a 180° anterior fundoplication (surgical myotomy [SM] group). Operative time was significantly shorter for the POEM group (63 [range: 32-114] vs. 76 minutes [54-152]; P = 0.0005). Myotomy was significantly longer for the POEM group (12 [range: 10-15] vs. 9 cm [range: 7-10]; P = 0.0001). Postoperative morbidity occurred in two patients (4.7%) in the SM group; no complications (P = not significant) were recorded for the POEM group. The median Eckardt score at last follow-up decreased for each group from 6 to 1 (P < 0.001). Morphological evaluation was performed for 20 patients and functional evaluation was performed in 18 patients of each group. Lower esophageal sphincter resting and relaxation pressures were significantly reduced in both groups (P < 0.001). Eight patients in the POEM group (40%) had esophagitis at endoscopy: 4 (20%) with Los Angeles (LA) grade A, 3 (15%) with LA grade B, and 1 patient with LA grade D (5%). Five patients in POEM group (28%) had a pathologic DeMeester score. In the SM group, one patient (5%) had esophagitis (P = 0.04; 95% CI) and 4 patients (22%) presented a pathological DeMeester score. Perioperative results for POEM and SM are similar. The absence of an antireflux wrap leads to an increased risk of reflux with consequent esophagitis. SM with an antireflux wrap could be a preferred choice when a long standing gastroesophageal reflux could potentially lead to a damage as, for example, in young patients.

Split-dose preparation for colonoscopy increases adenoma detection rate: a randomised controlled trial in an organised screening programme.

OBJECTIVE: Although a split regimen of bowel preparation has been associated with higher levels of bowel cleansing, it is still uncertain whether it has a favourable effect on the adenoma detection rate (ADR). The present study was aimed at evaluating whether a split regimen was superior to the traditional 'full-dose, day-before' regimen in terms of ADR. DESIGN: In a multicentre, randomised, endoscopist-blinded study, 50-69-year-old subjects undergoing first colonoscopy after positive-faecal immunochemical test within an organised colorectal cancer organised screening programmes were 1:1 randomised to receive low-volume 2-L polyethylene glycol (PEG)-ascorbate solution in a 'split-dose' (Split-Dose Group, SDG) or 'day-before' regimen (Day-Before Group, DBG). The primary endpoint was the proportion of subjects with at least one adenoma. Secondary endpoints were the detection rates of advanced adenomas and serrated lesions at per-patient analysis and the total number of lesions. RESULTS: 690 subjects were included in the study. At per-patient analysis, the proportion of subjects with at least one adenoma was significantly higher in the SDG than in the DBG (183/345, 53.0% vs 141/345, 40.9%, relative risk (RR) 1.22, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.46); corresponding figures for advanced adenomas were 26.4% (91/345) versus 20.0% (69/345, RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.73). At per-polyp analysis, the total numbers of both adenomas and advanced adenomas per subject were significantly higher in the SDG (1.15 vs 0.8, p <0.001; 0.36 vs 0.22, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In an organised screening setting, the adoption of a split regimen resulted into a higher detection rate of clinically relevant neoplastic lesions, thus improving the effectiveness of colonoscopy. Based on such evidence, the adoption of a split regimen for colonoscopy should be strongly recommended. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02178033.

Detection rate of serrated polyps and serrated polyposis syndrome in colorectal cancer screening cohorts: a European overview.

OBJECTIVE: The role of serrated polyps (SPs) as colorectal cancer precursor is increasingly recognised. However, the true prevalence SPs is largely unknown. We aimed to evaluate the detection rate of SPs subtypes as well as serrated polyposis syndrome (SPS) among European screening cohorts. METHODS: Prospectively collected screening cohorts of ≥1000 individuals were eligible for inclusion. Colonoscopies performed before 2009 and/or in individuals aged below 50 were excluded. Rate of SPs was assessed, categorised for histology, location and size. Age-sex-standardised number needed to screen (NNS) to detect SPs were calculated. Rate of SPS was assessed in cohorts with known colonoscopy follow-up data. Clinically relevant SPs (regarded as a separate entity) were defined as SPs ≥10 mm and/or SPs >5 mm in the proximal colon. RESULTS: Three faecal occult blood test (FOBT) screening cohorts and two primary colonoscopy screening cohorts (range 1.426-205.949 individuals) were included. Rate of SPs ranged between 15.1% and 27.2% (median 19.5%), of sessile serrated polyps between 2.2% and 4.8% (median 3.3%) and of clinically relevant SPs between 2.1% and 7.8% (median 4.6%). Rate of SPs was similar in FOBT-based cohorts as in colonoscopy screening cohorts. No apparent association between the rate of SP and gender or age was shown. Rate of SPS ranged from 0% to 0.5%, which increased to 0.4% to 0.8% after follow-up colonoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: The detection rate of SPs is variable among screening cohorts, and standards for reporting, detection and histopathological assessment should be established. The median rate, as found in this study, may contribute to define uniform minimum standards for males and females between 50 and 75 years of age.

Barriers against split-dose bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

OBJECTIVE: Although split regimen is associated with higher adenoma detection and is recommended for elective colonoscopy, its adoption remains suboptimal. The identification of patient-related barriers may improve its implementation. Our aim was to assess patients' attitude towards split regimen and patient-related factors associated with its uptake. DESIGN: In a multicentre, prospective study, outpatients undergoing colonoscopy from 8:00 to 14:00 were given written instructions for 4 L polyethylene glycol bowel preparation, offering the choice between split-dose and day-before regimens and emphasising the superiority of split regimen on colonoscopy outcomes. Uptake of split regimen and association with patient-related factors were explored by a 20-item questionnaire. RESULTS: Of the 1447 patients (mean age 59.2±13.5 years, men 54.3%), 61.7% and 38.3% chose a split-dose and day-before regimens, respectively. A linear correlation was observed between time of colonoscopy appointments and split-dose uptake, from 27.3% in 8:00 patients to 96% in 14:00 patients (p<0.001, χ2 for linear trend). At multivariate analysis, colonoscopy appointment before 10:00 (OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.18), travel time to endoscopy service >1 h (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.79), low education level (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.96) and female gender (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.95) were inversely correlated with the uptake of split-dose. Overall, the risk of travel interruption and faecal incontinence was slightly increased in split regimen patients (3.0% vs 1.4% and 1.5% vs 0.9%, respectively; p=NS). Split regimen was an independent predictor of adequate colon cleansing (OR 3.34, 95% CI 2.40 to 4.63) and polyp detection (OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.92). CONCLUSION: Patient attitude towards split regimen is suboptimal, especially for early morning examinations. Interventions to improve patient compliance (ie, policies to reorganise colonoscopy timetable, educational initiatives for patient and healthcare providers) should be considered. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02287051; pre-result.

Esophageal stenting for benign and malignant disease: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Clinical Guideline

This Guideline is an official statement of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), endorsed by the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO), the European Society of Digestive Endoscopy (ESDO), and the European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN). The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system was adopted to define the strength of recommendations and the quality of evidence. Main recommendations for malignant disease 1 ESGE recommends placement of partially or fully covered self-expandable metal stents (SEMSs) for palliative treatment of malignant dysphagia over laser therapy, photodynamic therapy, and esophageal bypass (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). 2 For patients with longer life expectancy, ESGE recommends brachytherapy as a valid alternative or in addition to stenting in esophageal cancer patients with malignant dysphagia. Brachytherapy may provide a survival advantage and possibly a better quality of life compared to SEMS placement alone. (Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.) 3 ESGE recommends esophageal SEMS placement as the preferred treatment for sealing malignant tracheoesophageal or bronchoesophageal fistula (strong recommendation, low quality evidence). 4 ESGE does not recommend the use of concurrent external radiotherapy and esophageal stent treatment. SEMS placement is also not recommended as a bridge to surgery or prior to preoperative chemoradiotherapy. It is associated with a high incidence of adverse events and alternative satisfactory options such as placement of a feeding tube are available. (Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.) Main recommendations for benign disease 1 ESGE recommends against the use of self-expandable stents (SEMSs) as first-line therapy for the management of benign esophageal strictures because of the potential for adverse events, the availability of alternative therapies, and costs (strong recommendation, low quality evidence). 2 ESGE suggests consideration of temporary placement of SEMSs as therapy for refractory benign esophageal strictures (weak recommendation, moderate evidence). Stents should usually be removed at a maximum of 3 months (strong recommendation, weak quality evidence). 3 ESGE suggests that fully covered SEMSs be preferred over partially covered SEMSs for the treatment of refractory benign esophageal strictures, because of their lack of embedment and ease of removability (weak recommendation, low quality evidence). 4 For the removal of partially covered esophageal SEMSs that are embedded, ESGE recommends the stent-in-stent technique (strong recommendation, low quality evidence). 5 ESGE recommends that temporary stent placement can be considered for treating esophageal leaks, fistulas, and perforations. The optimal stenting duration remains unclear and should be individualized. (Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.) 6 ESGE recommends placement of a SEMS for the treatment of esophageal variceal bleeding refractory to medical, endoscopic, and/or radiological therapy, or as initial therapy for patients with massive esophageal variceal bleeding (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence).

Efficacy and safety of endoscopic resection of large colorectal polyps: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of endoscopic resection of large colorectal polyps. DESIGN: Relevant publications were identified in MEDLINE/EMBASE/Cochrane Central Register for the period 1966-2014. Studies in which ≥20 mm colorectal neoplastic lesions were treated with endoscopic resection were included. Rates of postendoscopic resection surgery due to non-curative resection or adverse events, as well as the rates of complete endoscopic removal, invasive cancer, adverse events, recurrence and mortality, were extracted. Study quality was ascertained according to Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Forest plot was produced based on random effect models. I2 statistic was used to describe the variation across studies due to heterogeneity. Meta-regression analysis was also performed. RESULTS: 50 studies including 6442 patients and 6779 large polyps were included in the analyses. Overall, 503 out of 6442 patients (pooled rate: 8%, 95% CI 7% to 10%, I2=78.6%) underwent surgery due to non-curative endoscopic resection, and 31/6442 (pooled rate: 1%, 95% CI 0.7% to 1.4%, I2=0%) to adverse events. Invasive cancer at histology, non-curative endoscopic resection, synchronous lesions and recurrence accounted for 58%, 28%, 2.2% and 5.9% of all the surgeries, respectively. Endoscopic perforation occurred in 96/6595 (1.5%, 95% CI 1.2% to 1.7%) polyps, while bleeding in 423/6474 (6.5%, 95% CI 5.9% to 7.1%). Overall, 5334 patients entered in surveillance, 502/5836 (8.6%, 95% CI 7.9% to 9.3%) being lost at follow-up. Endoscopic recurrence was detected in 735/5334 patients (13.8%, 95% CI 12.9% to 14.7%), being an invasive cancer in 14/5334 (0.3%, 95% CI 0.1% to 0.4%). Endoscopic treatment was successful in 664/735 cases (90.3%, 95% CI 88.2% to 92.5%). Mortality related with management of large polyps was reported in 5/6278 cases (0.08%, 95% CI 0.01% to 0.15%). CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic resection of large polyps appeared to be an extremely effective and safe intervention. However, an adequate endoscopic surveillance is necessary for its long-term efficacy.