Diagnostic yield from symptomatic gastroscopy in the UK: British Society of Gastroenterology analysis using data from the National Endoscopy Database.

OBJECTIVE: This national analysis aimed to calculate the diagnostic yield from gastroscopy for common symptoms, guiding improved resource utilisation. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study was conducted of diagnostic gastroscopies between 1 March 2019 and 29 February 2020 using the UK National Endoscopy Database. Mixed-effect logistic regression models were used, incorporating random (endoscopist) and fixed (symptoms, age and sex) effects on two dependent variables (endoscopic cancer; Barrett's oesophagus (BO) diagnosis). Adjusted positive predictive values (aPPVs) were calculated. RESULTS: 382 370 diagnostic gastroscopies were analysed; 30.4% were performed in patients aged <50 and 57.7% on female patients. The overall unadjusted PPV for cancer was 1.0% (males 1.7%; females 0.6%, p<0.01). Other major pathology was found in 9.1% of procedures, whereas 89.9% reported only normal findings or minor pathology (92.5% in females; 94.6% in patients <50).Highest cancer aPPVs were reached in the over 50s (1.3%), in those with dysphagia (3.0%) or weight loss plus another symptom (1.4%). Cancer aPPVs for all other symptoms were below 1%, and for those under 50, remained below 1% regardless of symptom. Overall, 73.7% of gastroscopies were carried out in patient groups where aPPV cancer was <1%.The overall unadjusted PPV for BO was 4.1% (males 6.1%; females 2.7%, p<0.01). The aPPV for BO for reflux was 5.8% and ranged from 3.2% to 4.0% for other symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Cancer yield was highest in elderly male patients, and those over 50 with dysphagia. Three-quarters of all gastroscopies were performed on patients whose cancer risk was <1%, suggesting inefficient resource utilisation.

Postcolonoscopy Diverticulitis.

Colonoscopy, generally safe but not devoid of risks, can lead to rare complications. We present 2 cases of postcolonoscopy diverticulitis (PCD). Case 1 was a 63-year-old woman, following colonoscopy, who developed acute sigmoid diverticulitis, despite a Diverticular Inflammation and Complication Assessment (DICA) score of 2, indicating extensive diverticulosis without inflammation. Conservative management with antibiotics led to recovery. Remarkably, she experienced a recurrent episode. Case 2 was a 74-year-old woman who had 2 colonoscopies, revealing pancolonic diverticulosis (DICA score: 2) without inflammation. After the second procedure, she developed severe sigmoid diverticulitis, managed conservatively with antibiotics. Discussion highlights PCD's rarity (prevalence: 0.04%-0.08%) and unclear pathogenesis. Both cases had DICA scores ≥2, suggesting a potential risk factor. Clinicians should recognize PCD, as it can mimic more common postcolonoscopy complications. Early recognition and management are vital.

Colorectal polypectomy and endoscopic mucosal resection: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline - Update 2024.

1: ESGE recommends cold snare polypectomy (CSP), to include a clear margin of normal tissue (1-2 mm) surrounding the polyp, for the removal of diminutive polyps (≤ 5 mm).Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 2: ESGE recommends against the use of cold biopsy forceps excision because of its high rate of incomplete resection.Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. 3: ESGE recommends CSP, to include a clear margin of normal tissue (1-2 mm) surrounding the polyp, for the removal of small polyps (6-9 mm).Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 4: ESGE recommends hot snare polypectomy for the removal of nonpedunculated adenomatous polyps of 10-19 mm in size.Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 5: ESGE recommends conventional (diathermy-based) endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for large (≥ 20 mm) nonpedunculated adenomatous polyps (LNPCPs).Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 6: ESGE suggests that underwater EMR can be considered an alternative to conventional hot EMR for the treatment of adenomatous LNPCPs.Weak recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. 7: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) may also be suggested as an alternative for removal of LNPCPs of ≥ 20 mm in selected cases and in high-volume centers.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 8: ESGE recommends that, after piecemeal EMR of LNPCPs by hot snare, the resection margins should be treated by thermal ablation using snare-tip soft coagulation to prevent adenoma recurrence.Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 9: ESGE recommends (piecemeal) cold snare polypectomy or cold EMR for SSLs of all sizes without suspected dysplasia.Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. 10: ESGE recommends prophylactic endoscopic clip closure of the mucosal defect after EMR of LNPCPs in the right colon to reduce to reduce the risk of delayed bleeding.Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 11: ESGE recommends that en bloc resection techniques, such as en bloc EMR, ESD, endoscopic intermuscular dissection, endoscopic full-thickness resection, or surgery should be the techniques of choice in cases with suspected superficial invasive carcinoma, which otherwise cannot be removed en bloc by standard polypectomy or EMR.Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence.

Adenoma characteristics in the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme.

AIM: The English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme detects colorectal cancers and premalignant polyps in a faecal occult blood test-positive population. The aim of this work is to describe the detection rates and characteristics of adenomas within the programme, identify predictive factors influencing the presence or absence of carcinoma within adenomas and identify the factors predicting the presence of advanced colonic neoplasia in different colon segments. METHOD: The Bowel Cancer Screening System was retrospectively searched for polyps detected during colonoscopies between June 2006 and June 2012, at which time a guaiac test was being used. Data on size, location and histological features were collected, and described. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to determine the significant factors influencing the development of carcinoma within an adenoma. RESULTS: A total of 229 419 polyps were identified; after exclusions 136 973 adenomas from 58 334 patients were evaluated. Over half were in the rectum or sigmoid colon. Subcentimetre adenomas accounted for 69.8% of the total. The proportion of adenomas containing advanced histological features increased with increasing adenoma size up to 35 mm, then plateaued. A focus of carcinoma was found in 2282 (1.7%) adenomas, of which 95.6% were located distally. Carcinoma was identified even in diminutive adenomas (0.1%). The proportion of adenomas containing cancer was significantly higher in women than men (2.0% vs. 1.5%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: This national, prospectively captured dataset adds robust information about histological features of adenomas that convey an increased risk for colorectal cancer, and identifies caecal adenomas, high-grade dysplasia, increasing adenoma size, distal location and female sex as independent risk factors associated with carcinoma.

Initiatives to increase colonoscopy capacity - is there an impact on polyp detection? A UK National Endoscopy Database analysis.

BACKGROUND: To address mismatch between routine endoscopy capacity and demand, centers often implement initiatives to increase capacity, such as weekend working or using locums/agency staff (insourcing). However, there are concerns that such initiatives may negatively impact quality. We investigated polyp detection for weekend vs. weekday and insourced vs. standard procedures using data from the UK National Endoscopy Database. METHODS: We conducted a national, retrospective, cross-sectional study of diagnostic colonoscopies performed during 01/01-04/04/2019. The primary outcome was mean number of polyps (MNP) and the secondary outcome was polyp detection rate (PDR). Multi-level mixed-effect regression, fitting endoscopist as a random effect, was used to examine associations between procedure day (weekend/weekday) and type (insourced/standard) and these outcomes, adjusting for patient age, sex, and indication. RESULTS: 92 879 colonoscopies (weekends: 19 977 [21.5 %]; insourced: 9909 [10.7 %]) were performed by 2496 endoscopists. For weekend colonoscopies, patients were less often male or undergoing screening-related procedures; for insourced colonoscopies, patients were younger and less often undergoing screening-related procedures (all P < 0.05). Fully adjusted MNP was significantly lower for weekend vs. weekday (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0.86 [95 %CI 0.83-0.89]) and for insourced vs. standard procedures (IRR 0.91 [95 %CI 0.87-0.95]). MNP was highest for weekday standard procedures and lowest for weekend insourced procedures; there was no interaction between procedure day and type. Similar associations were found for PDR. CONCLUSIONS: Strategies to increase colonoscopy capacity may negatively impact polyp detection and should be monitored for quality. Reasons for this unwarranted variation require investigation.

Colorectal cancer and advanced adenoma incidence during post-polypectomy surveillance: a national cohort study in the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme.

BACKGROUND: Improved colonoscopy quality has led to debate about whether all post-polypectomy surveillance is justified. We evaluated surveillance within the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) to determine the yield of surveillance and identify predictive factors for surveillance outcome. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of individuals undergoing post-polypectomy surveillance between July 2006 and January 2017. BCSP records were linked to the National Cancer Registration Database to identify interval-type post-colonoscopy colorectal cancers (CRCs). Advanced adenoma and CRC at surveillance were documented. CRC incidence was compared with the general population using standardized incidence ratios (SIRs). Predictors of advanced adenomas at first surveillance (S1), and CRC during follow-up, were identified. RESULTS: 44 151 individuals (23 078 intermediate risk; 21 073 high risk) underwent 64 544 surveillance episodes. Advanced adenoma and CRC yields were, respectively, 10.0 % and 0.5 % at S1, 8.5 % and 0.4 % at S2, and 10.8 % and 0.4 % at S3. S1 yield was lowest in those with one index adenoma ≥ 10 mm (advanced adenoma 6.1 %; CRC 0.3 %). The SIR was 0.76 (95 %CI 0.66-0.88), accounted for by the intermediate risk group (intermediate risk SIR 0.61, 95 %CI 0.49-0.75; high risk SIR 0.95, 95 %CI 0.79-1.15). Adenoma multiplicity, presence of a large nonpedunculated adenoma, and greater villous component were associated with advanced adenoma at S1. Older age and multiplicity were significantly associated with CRC risk. CONCLUSION: This large, national analysis found low levels of CRC in those undergoing surveillance and low advanced adenoma yield in most subgroups. Less intensive surveillance in some subgroups is warranted, and surveillance may be avoided in those with a single large adenoma.

Risk Factors for Metachronous Colorectal Cancer or Advanced Adenomas After Endoscopic Resection of High-risk Adenomas.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Among the characteristics of high-risk adenomas (HRAs), some may predict a higher risk of metachronous advanced lesions. Our aim was to assess which HRA characteristics are associated with high risk of metachronous colorectal cancer (CRC) or advanced adenomas (AAs). METHODS: We systematically searched Pubmed, EMBASE, and Cochrane for cohort studies and clinical trials of CRC or AA incidence at surveillance stratified by baseline lesion size, histology, and multiplicity. We calculated pooled relative risks (RRs) using a random-effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed with the I2 statistic. RESULTS: Fifty-five studies were included, with 936,540 patients with mean follow-up 5.4 ± 2.9 years. CRC incidence per 1000 person-years was 2.6 (2.1-3.0) for adenomas ≥20 mm, 2.7 (2.2-3.2) for high-grade dysplasia (HGD), 2.0 (1.8-2.3) for villous component, 0.8 (0.1-1.4) for ≥5 adenomas, 1.0 (0.7-1.2) for ≥3 adenomas. Metachronous CRC risk was higher in adenomas ≥20 mm vs 10 to 19 mm (RR, 2.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.20-3.61), HGD vs low-grade dysplasia (RR, 2.89; 95% CI, 1.88-4.44), villous vs tubular (RR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.33-2.31). No significant differences in CRC risk were found in ≥3 adenomas vs 1 to 2 (RR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.84-1.83), nor in ≥5 adenomas vs 3 to 4 (RR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.30-2.11). Compared with normal colonoscopy, RR for CRC risk was 2.61 (95% CI, 2.06-3.32) for ≥10mm, 6.62 (95% CI, 4.60-9.52) for HGD, 3.58 (95% CI, 2.24-5.73) for villous component, and 2.03 (95% CI, 1.40-2.94) for ≥3 adenomas. Similar trends were seen for metachronous AAs. CONCLUSION: Metachronous CRC risk is highest in patients with baseline adenomas with ≥20 mm or HGD. Multiplicity does not seem to be associated with substantially higher CRC risk in the near term.

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

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

Third Asia-Pacific consensus recommendations on colorectal cancer screening and postpolypectomy surveillance.

The Asia-Pacific region has the largest number of cases of colorectal cancer (CRC) and one of the highest levels of mortality due to this condition in the world. Since the publishing of two consensus recommendations in 2008 and 2015, significant advancements have been made in our knowledge of epidemiology, pathology and the natural history of the adenoma-carcinoma progression. Based on the most updated epidemiological and clinical studies in this region, considering literature from international studies, and adopting the modified Delphi process, the Asia-Pacific Working Group on Colorectal Cancer Screening has updated and revised their recommendations on (1) screening methods and preferred strategies; (2) age for starting and terminating screening for CRC; (3) screening for individuals with a family history of CRC or advanced adenoma; (4) surveillance for those with adenomas; (5) screening and surveillance for sessile serrated lesions and (6) quality assurance of screening programmes. Thirteen countries/regions in the Asia-Pacific region were represented in this exercise. International advisors from North America and Europe were invited to participate.

Performance measures for colonoscopy in inflammatory bowel disease patients: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Quality Improvement Initiative.

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) presents a short list of performance measures for colonoscopy in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients. Current performance measures for colonoscopy mainly focus on detecting (pre)malignant lesions. However, these performance measures are not relevant for all colonoscopy indications in IBD patients. Therefore, our aim was to provide endoscopy services across Europe and other interested countries with a tool for quality monitoring and improvement in IBD colonoscopy. Eight key performance measures and one minor performance measure were recommended for measurement and evaluation in daily endoscopy practice.

Colonoscopy surveillance following adenoma removal to reduce the risk of colorectal cancer: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy surveillance is recommended for some patients post polypectomy. The 2002 UK surveillance guidelines classify post-polypectomy patients into low, intermediate and high risk, and recommend different strategies for each classification. Limited evidence supports these guidelines. OBJECTIVES: To examine, for each risk group, long-term colorectal cancer incidence by baseline characteristics and the number of surveillance visits; the effects of interval length on detection rates of advanced adenomas and colorectal cancer at first surveillance; and the cost-effectiveness of surveillance compared with no surveillance. DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study and economic evaluation. SETTING: Seventeen NHS hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with a colonoscopy and at least one adenoma at baseline. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Long-term colorectal cancer incidence after baseline and detection rates of advanced adenomas and colorectal cancer at first surveillance. DATA SOURCES: Hospital databases, NHS Digital, the Office for National Statistics, National Services Scotland and Public Health England. METHODS: Cox regression was used to compare colorectal cancer incidence in the presence and absence of surveillance and to identify colorectal cancer risk factors. Risk factors were used to stratify risk groups into higher- and lower-risk subgroups. We examined detection rates of advanced adenomas and colorectal cancer at first surveillance by interval length. Cost-effectiveness of surveillance compared with no surveillance was evaluated in terms of incremental costs per colorectal cancer prevented and per quality-adjusted life-year gained. RESULTS: Our study included 28,972 patients, of whom 14,401 (50%), 11,852 (41%) and 2719 (9%) were classed as low, intermediate and high risk, respectively. The median follow-up time was 9.3 years. Colorectal cancer incidence was 140, 221 and 366 per 100,000 person-years among low-, intermediate- and high-risk patients, respectively. Attendance at one surveillance visit was associated with reduced colorectal cancer incidence among low-, intermediate- and high-risk patients [hazard ratios were 0.56 (95% confidence interval 0.39 to 0.80), 0.59 (95% confidence interval 0.43 to 0.81) and 0.49 (95% confidence interval 0.29 to 0.82), respectively]. Compared with the general population, colorectal cancer incidence without surveillance was similar among low-risk patients and higher among high-risk patients [standardised incidence ratios were 0.86 (95% confidence interval 0.73 to 1.02) and 1.91 (95% confidence interval 1.39 to 2.56), respectively]. For intermediate-risk patients, standardised incidence ratios differed for the lower- (0.70, 95% confidence interval 0.48 to 0.99) and higher-risk (1.46, 95% confidence interval 1.19 to 1.78) subgroups. In each risk group, incremental costs per colorectal cancer prevented and per quality-adjusted life-year gained with surveillance were lower for the higher-risk subgroup than for the lower-risk subgroup. Incremental costs per quality-adjusted life-year gained were lowest for the higher-risk subgroup of high-risk patients at £7821. LIMITATIONS: The observational design means that we cannot assume that surveillance caused the reductions in cancer incidence. The fact that some cancer staging data were missing places uncertainty on our cost-effectiveness estimates. CONCLUSIONS: Surveillance was associated with reduced colorectal cancer incidence in all risk groups. However, in low-risk patients and the lower-risk subgroup of intermediate-risk patients, colorectal cancer incidence was no higher than in the general population without surveillance, indicating that surveillance might not be necessary. Surveillance was most cost-effective for the higher-risk subgroup of high-risk patients. FUTURE WORK: Studies should examine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of post-polypectomy surveillance without prior classification of patients into risk groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN15213649. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 26. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Bowel cancers develop from polyps, also called adenomas, which are growths on the lining of the bowel. Removal of adenomas, therefore, helps prevent bowel cancer. Adenomas can be detected and removed during colonoscopy, when a thin tube with a camera on one end is used to examine the bowel lining. In the UK, patients with adenomas are divided into three risk groups. Low-risk patients (i.e. those with one or two adenomas that are < 10 mm in size) are thought to be unlikely to develop bowel cancer after adenoma removal and follow-up colonoscopy is not recommended in this group. Intermediate-risk patients (i.e. those with three or four adenomas that are < 10 mm in size, or one or two adenomas with at least one ≥ 10 mm in size) are recommended to have another colonoscopy 3 years after adenoma removal. High-risk patients (i.e. those with five or more adenomas that are < 10 mm in size, or three or more adenomas with at least one ≥ 10 mm in size) are recommended to have another colonoscopy after 1 year and then usually again after 3 years. The number of follow-up colonoscopies carried out is stretching health-care resources and each procedure carries a small risk of complications for patients. It is possible that too many follow-up colonoscopies are being carried out. This study aimed to determine which patients require follow-up colonoscopies and how many are required to detect adenomas and prevent bowel cancer, while also being resource-efficient, cost-effective and not exposing patients to unnecessary risks. The study used data from 17 hospitals and cancer registries in the UK. In each risk group, one follow-up colonoscopy after adenoma removal was associated with a 40­50% reduction in bowel cancer risk. However, even without any follow-up, bowel cancer risk was no higher in some low- and intermediate-risk patients than in the general population. These patients may not need as many follow-up colonoscopies as recommended. In the case of higher-risk patients, who even after adenoma removal have a higher bowel cancer risk than the general population, follow-up colonoscopies are necessary and cost-effective.

Performance measures for the SACRED team-centered approach to advanced gastrointestinal endoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Quality Improvement Initiative.

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and United European Gastroenterology have defined performance measures for upper and lower gastrointestinal, pancreaticobiliary, and small-bowel endoscopy. Quality indicators to guide endoscopists in the growing field of advanced endoscopy are also underway. We propose that equal attention is given to developing the entire advanced endoscopy team and not the individual endoscopist alone.We suggest that the practice of teams intending to deliver high quality advanced endoscopy is underpinned by six crucial principles concerning: selection, acceptance, complications, reconnaissance, envelopment, and documentation (SACRED).

Post-polypectomy surveillance interval and advanced neoplasia detection rates: a multicenter, retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Longer post-polypectomy surveillance intervals are associated with increased colorectal neoplasia detection at surveillance in some studies. We investigated this association to inform optimal surveillance intervals. METHODS: Patients who underwent colonoscopy and post-polypectomy surveillance at 17 UK hospitals were classified as low/high risk by baseline findings. We compared detection rates of advanced adenomas (≥ 10 mm, tubulovillous/villous, high grade dysplasia), high risk findings (HRFs: ≥ 2 serrated polyps/[adenomas] of which ≥ 1 is ≥ 10 mm or has [high grade] dysplasia; ≥ 5 serrated polyps/adenomas; or ≥ 1 nonpedunculated polyp ≥ 20 mm), or colorectal cancer (CRC) at surveillance colonoscopy by surveillance interval (< 18 months, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 years). Risk ratios (RRs) were estimated using multivariable regression. RESULTS: Of 11 214 patients, 7216 (64 %) were low risk and 3998 (36 %) were high risk. Among low risk patients, advanced adenoma, HRF, and CRC detection rates at first surveillance were 7.8 %, 3.7 %, and 1.1 %, respectively. Advanced adenoma detection increased with increasing surveillance interval, reaching 9.8 % with a 6-year interval (P trend < 0.001). Among high risk patients, advanced adenoma, HRF, and CRC detection rates at first surveillance were 15.3 %, 10.0 %, and 1.5 %, respectively. Advanced adenoma and CRC detection rates (P trends < 0.001) increased with increasing surveillance interval; RRs (95 % confidence intervals) for CRC were 1.54 (0.68-3.48), 4.44 (1.95-10.08), and 5.80 (2.51-13.40) with 3-, 4-, and 5-year intervals, respectively, versus an interval of < 18 months. CONCLUSIONS: Metachronous neoplasia was uncommon among low risk patients, even with long surveillance intervals, supporting recommendations for no surveillance in these patients. For high risk patients, a 3-year surveillance interval would ensure timely CRC detection.

Utilization and reproducibility of World Endoscopy Organization post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer algorithms: retrospective analysis.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) diagnosed following a cancer-negative colonoscopy is termed post-colonoscopy CRC (PCCRC). In addition to calculating PCCRC rates, the World Endoscopy Organization (WEO) recommends review of individual PCCRC cases, including categorization into interval/non-interval PCCRCs, and root cause analysis to determine the most plausible explanation. We aimed to test the usability, reproducibility, and outcomes of the WEO algorithms. METHODS: All CRC cases diagnosed from January 2015 to December 2016 in a single organization were cross referenced with local endoscopy and pathology databases to identify cases of PCCRC. We assessed: 1) WEO most plausible explanation for PCCRC; and 2) WEO PCCRC interval/non-interval subtype categorization. Interobserver agreement was measured using Cohen's kappa (κ). Cases with interobserver variation underwent panel discussion to reach consensus. RESULTS: Among 527 patients with CRC, 48 PCCRCs were identified. A consistent most plausible explanation was found in 97 % of cases, showing almost perfect agreement (κ = 0.94). Most PCCRCs (66 %) were attributed to "possible missed lesion, prior examination adequate." Interval/non-interval categorization was consistent in 77 %, showing substantial agreement (κ = 0.67). Following panel discussion, consensus was reached in all cases. Overall, 15 % were categorized as interval and 85 % as non-interval PCCRCs (12 % type A, 31 % type B, and 42 % type C). CONCLUSIONS: Review of PCCRC cases using WEO recommendations was performed accurately at a local level using readily available clinical information. The high number of non-interval type B PCCRCs suggests a significant proportion of PCCRCs could be avoided by better adherence to recommended surveillance intervals.

Definition of competence standards for optical diagnosis of diminutive colorectal polyps: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Position Statement.

BACKGROUND : The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) has developed a core curriculum for high quality optical diagnosis training for practice across Europe. The development of easy-to-measure competence standards for optical diagnosis can optimize clinical decision-making in endoscopy. This manuscript represents an official Position Statement of the ESGE aiming to define simple, safe, and easy-to-measure competence standards for endoscopists and artificial intelligence systems performing optical diagnosis of diminutive colorectal polyps (1 - 5 mm). METHODS : A panel of European experts in optical diagnosis participated in a modified Delphi process to reach consensus on Simple Optical Diagnosis Accuracy (SODA) competence standards for implementation of the optical diagnosis strategy for diminutive colorectal polyps. In order to assess the clinical benefits and harms of implementing optical diagnosis with different competence standards, a systematic literature search was performed. This was complemented with the results from a recently performed simulation study that provides guidance for setting alternative competence standards for optical diagnosis. Proposed competence standards were based on literature search and simulation study results. Competence standards were accepted if at least 80 % agreement was reached after a maximum of three voting rounds. RECOMMENDATION 1: In order to implement the leave-in-situ strategy for diminutive colorectal lesions (1-5 mm), it is clinically acceptable if, during real-time colonoscopy, at least 90 % sensitivity and 80 % specificity is achieved for high confidence endoscopic characterization of colorectal neoplasia of 1-5 mm in the rectosigmoid. Histopathology is used as the gold standard.Level of agreement 95 %. RECOMMENDATION 2: In order to implement the resect-and-discard strategy for diminutive colorectal lesions (1-5 mm), it is clinically acceptable if, during real-time colonoscopy, at least 80 % sensitivity and 80 % specificity is achieved for high confidence endoscopic characterization of colorectal neoplasia of 1-5 mm. Histopathology is used as the gold standard.Level of agreement 100 %. CONCLUSION : The developed SODA competence standards define diagnostic performance thresholds in relation to clinical consequences, for training and for use when auditing the optical diagnosis of diminutive colorectal polyps.

Colorectal cancer risk following polypectomy in a multicentre, retrospective, cohort study: an evaluation of the 2020 UK post-polypectomy surveillance guidelines.

OBJECTIVE: Colonoscopy surveillance aims to reduce colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence after polypectomy. The 2020 UK guidelines recommend surveillance at 3 years for 'high-risk' patients with ≥2 premalignant polyps (PMPs), of which ≥1 is 'advanced' (serrated polyp (or adenoma) ≥10 mm or with (high-grade) dysplasia); ≥5 PMPs; or ≥1 non-pedunculated polyp ≥20 mm; 'low-risk' patients without these findings are instead encouraged to participate in population-based CRC screening. We examined the appropriateness of these risk classification criteria and recommendations. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of patients who underwent colonoscopy and polypectomy mostly between 2000 and 2010 at 17 UK hospitals, followed-up through 2017. We examined CRC incidence by baseline characteristics, risk group and number of surveillance visits using Cox regression, and compared incidence with that in the general population using standardised incidence ratios (SIRs). RESULTS: Among 21 318 patients, 368 CRCs occurred during follow-up (median: 10.1 years). Baseline CRC risk factors included age ≥55 years, ≥2 PMPs, adenomas with tubulovillous/villous/unknown histology or high-grade dysplasia, proximal polyps and a baseline visit spanning 2-90 days. Compared with the general population, CRC incidence without surveillance was higher among those with adenomas with high-grade dysplasia (SIR 1.74, 95% CI 1.21 to 2.42) or ≥2 PMPs, of which ≥1 was advanced (1.39, 1.09 to 1.75). For low-risk (71%) and high-risk (29%) patients, SIRs without surveillance were 0.75 (95% CI 0.63 to 0.88) and 1.30 (1.03 to 1.62), respectively; for high-risk patients after first surveillance, the SIR was 1.22 (0.91 to 1.60). CONCLUSION: These guidelines accurately classify post-polypectomy patients into those at high risk, for whom one surveillance colonoscopy appears appropriate, and those at low risk who can be managed by non-invasive screening.

Predicting endoscopic activity recovery in England after COVID-19: a national analysis.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a substantial reduction in gastrointestinal endoscopies, creating a backlog of procedures. We aimed to quantify this backlog nationally for England and assess how various interventions might mitigate the backlog. METHODS: We did a national analysis of data for colonoscopies, flexible sigmoidoscopies, and gastroscopies from National Health Service (NHS) trusts in NHS England's Monthly Diagnostic Waiting Times and Activity dataset. Trusts were excluded if monthly data were incomplete. To estimate the potential backlog, we used linear logistic regression to project the cumulative deficit between actual procedures performed and expected procedures, based on historical pre-pandemic trends. We then made further estimations of the change to the backlog under three scenarios: recovery to a set level of capacity, ranging from 90% to 130%; further disruption to activity (eg, second pandemic wave); or introduction of faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) triaging. FINDINGS: We included data from Jan 1, 2018, to Oct 31, 2020, from 125 NHS trusts. 10 476 endoscopy procedures were done in April, 2020, representing 9·5% of those done in April, 2019 (n=110 584), before recovering to 105 716 by October, 2020 (84·5% of those done in October, 2019 [n=125 072]). Recovering to 100% capacity on the current trajectory would lead to a projected backlog of 162 735 (95% CI 143 775-181 695) colonoscopies, 119 025 (107 398-130 651) flexible sigmoidoscopies, and 194 087 (172 564-215 611) gastroscopies in January, 2021, attributable to the pandemic. Increasing capacity to 130% would still take up to June, 2022, to eliminate the backlog. A further 2-month interruption would add an extra 15·4%, a 4-month interruption would add an extra 43·8%, and a 6-month interruption would add an extra 82·5% to the potential backlog. FIT triaging of cases that are found to have greater than 10 µg haemoglobin per g would reduce colonoscopy referrals to around 75% of usual levels, with the backlog cleared in early 2022. INTERPRETATION: Our work highlights the impact of the pandemic on endoscopy services nationally. Even with mitigation measures, it could take much longer than a year to eliminate the pandemic-related backlog. Urgent action is required by key stakeholders (ie, individual NHS trusts, Clinical Commissioning Groups, British Society of Gastroenterology, and NHS England) to tackle the backlog and prevent delays to patient management. FUNDING: Wellcome/EPSRC Centre for Interventional and Surgical Sciences (WEISS) at University College London, National Institute for Health Research University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre, and DATA-CAN, Health Data Research UK.

When and How To Use Endoscopic Tattooing in the Colon: An International Delphi Agreement.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: There is a lack of clinical studies to establish indications and methodology for tattooing, therefore technique and practice of tattooing is very variable. We aimed to establish a consensus on the indications and appropriate techniques for colonic tattoo through a modified Delphi process. METHODS: The baseline questionnaire was classified into 3 areas: where tattooing should not be used (1 domain, 6 questions), where tattooing should be used (4 domains, 20 questions), and how to perform tattooing (1 domain 20 questions). A total of 29 experts participated in the 3 rounds of the Delphi process. RESULTS: A total of 15 statements were approved. The statements that achieved the highest agreement were as follows: tattooing should always be used after endoscopic resection of a lesion with suspicion of submucosal invasion (agreement score, 4.59; degree of consensus, 97%). For a colorectal lesion that is left in situ but considered suitable for endoscopic resection, tattooing may be used if the lesion is considered difficult to detect at a subsequent endoscopy (agreement score, 4.62; degree of consensus, 100%). A tattoo should never be injected directly into or underneath a lesion that might be removed endoscopically at a later point in time (agreement score, 4.79; degree of consensus, 97%). Details of the tattoo injection should be stated clearly in the endoscopy report (agreement score, 4.76; degree of consensus, 100%). CONCLUSIONS: This expert consensus has developed different statements about where tattooing should not be used, when it should be used, and how that should be done.