Effect of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic on colorectal cancer diagnosis and prognosis.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Our aim was to determine the impact of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic on the diagnosis and prognosis of colorectal cancer (CRC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This prospective cohort study included individuals diagnosed with CRC between March 13, 2019 and June 20, 2021 across 21 Spanish hospitals. Two time periods were compared: prepandemic (from March 13, 2019 to March 13, 2020) and pandemic (from March 14, 2020 to June 20, 2021, lockdown period and 1 year after lockdown). RESULTS: We observed a 46.9% decrease in the number of CRC diagnoses (95% confidence interval (CI): 45.1%-48.7%) during the lockdown and 29.7% decrease (95% CI: 28.1%-31.4%) in the year after the lockdown. The proportion of patients diagnosed at stage I significantly decreased during the pandemic (21.7% vs. 19.0%; p = 0.025). Centers that applied universal preprocedure SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing experienced a higher reduction in the number of colonoscopies performed during the pandemic post-lockdown (34.0% reduction; 95% CI: 33.6%-34.4% vs. 13.7; 95% CI: 13.4%-13.9%) and in the number of CRCs diagnosed (34.1% reduction; 95% CI: 31.4%-36.8% vs. 26.7%; 95% CI: 24.6%-28.8%). Curative treatment was received by 87.5% of patients diagnosed with rectal cancer prepandemic and 80.7% of patients during the pandemic post-lockdown period (p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a decrease in the number of diagnosed CRC cases and in the proportion of stage I CRC. The reduction in the number of colonoscopies and CRC diagnoses was higher in centers that applied universal SARS-CoV-2 PCR screening before colonoscopy. In addition, the COVID-19 pandemic has affected curative treatment of rectal cancers.

Applicability of the Barcelona scale to assess the quality of cleanliness of mucosa at esophagogastroduodenoscopy / Aplicabilidad de la escala Barcelona para valorar la calidad de la limpieza de la mucosa en la esofagogastroduodenoscopia

Background and objectives There are few scales with prospective validation for the assessment of the upper gastrointestinal mucosal cleanliness during an esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). The aim of this study was to develop a valid and reproducible cleanliness scale for use during an EGD. Methods We developed a cleanliness scale (Barcelona scale) with a score (0–2 points) of five segments of the upper gastrointestinal tract with thorough cleaning techniques (esophagus, fundus, body, antrum, and duodenum). First, 125 photos (25 of each area) were assessed, and a score was assigned to each image by consensus among 7 experts endoscopists. Subsequently, 100 of the 125 images were selected and the inter- and intra-observer variability of 15 previously trained endoscopists was evaluated using the same images at two different times. Results In total, 1500 assessments were performed. In 1336/1500 observations (89%) there was agreement with the consensus score, with a mean kappa value of 0.83 (0.45–0.96). In the second evaluation, in 1330/1500 observations (89%) there was agreement with the consensus score, with a mean kappa value of 0.82 (0.45–0.93). The intra-observer variability was 0.89 (0.76–0.99). Conclusions The Barcelona cleanliness scale is a valid measure and reproducible with minimal training. Its application in clinical practice is a significant step to standardize the quality of the EGD. (AU)

Introducción Existen pocas escalas validadas prospectivamente para evaluar la limpieza de la mucosa esofagogastroduodenal durante la endoscopia digestiva alta (EDA). El objetivo de este estudio fue desarrollar una escala válida y reproducible para su uso en la realización de una EDA. Métodos Desarrollamos una escala de limpieza (escala Barcelona) en la que se aplicó una puntuación de 0 a 2 a cinco áreas del tracto digestivo superior (esófago, fundus, cuerpo, antro y duodeno) después de haber realizado todas las maniobras de lavado necesarias. Inicialmente, se evaluaron 125 fotos (25 de cada área) y se asignó una puntuación (de 0 a 2) a cada una por consenso entre siete endoscopistas. Posteriormente, se seleccionaron 100 de las 125 fotografías y se evaluó la variabilidad inter e intraobservador de 15 endoscopistas previamente formados utilizando las mismas imágenes en dos momentos diferentes. Resultados Se efectuaron un total de 1.500 observaciones. En 1.336/1.500 de ellas (89%) hubo coincidencia con la puntuación del consenso, siendo el valor medio de kappa de 0,83 (0,45-0,96). En la segunda evaluación, en 1.330/1.500 observaciones (89%) hubo coincidencia con la puntuación del consenso, siendo el valor medio de kappa de 0,82 (mínimo 0,45 y máximo 0,93). La variabilidad intraobservador fue de 0,89 (0,76-0,99). Conclusiones La escala de limpieza Barcelona es una medida válida y reproducible con un mínimo entrenamiento. Su uso en la práctica clínica podría ser un paso significativo para estandarizar la calidad de la EDA. (AU)

Colonoscopy Satisfaction and Safety Questionnaire based on patient experience (CSSQP): A valuable quality tool for all colonoscopies / Cuestionario de Satisfacción y Seguridad de la Colonoscopia basado en la experiencia del Paciente (CSSQP): una valiosa herramienta de calidad para todas las colonoscopias

Introduction The Colonoscopy Satisfaction and Safety Questionnaire based on Patient experience (CSSQP) was recently developed and validated within a Bowel Cancer Screening Program. We aimed to identify factor related to patient experience through the CSSQP, including all indications for colonoscopy. Indicators of satisfaction and perceived safety with colonoscopy were also assessed to compare the different centers. Methods Multicenter study in nine Spanish hospitals. Consecutive patients who had undergone a colonoscopy completed the CSSQP adding a novel item on bowel preparation. Factors related to patient experiences and data from non-respondents were analyzed. Results Of 2200 patients, 1753 filled out the questionnaire (response rate 79.7%, sample error 2%). Patients whose colonoscopy indication was a primary colorectal cancer screening (OR: 1.68, 95% CI: 1.15–2.44, p=0.007) or due to a +FIT (OR: 1.73, 95% CI: 1.18–2.53) reported higher satisfaction than patients with gastrointestinal symptoms. In addition, college-educated patients (OR: 2.11, 95% CI: 1.25–3.56) were more likely to report better overall satisfaction than patients with lower education level. Significant differences were observed in the majority of the CSSQP items between centers. Safety incidents were reported by 35 (2%) patients, and 176 (10%) patients reported that they received insufficient information. Conclusion The CSSQP identifies several significant factors on satisfaction and perceived safety in patients referred for colonoscopy for any reason. The CSSQP also allows comparison of patient-identified colonoscopy quality indicators between centers (AU)

Introducción El Cuestionario de Satisfacción y Seguridad de la Colonoscopia basado en la experiencia del Paciente (CSSQP) ha sido desarrollado y validado recientemente en pacientes del Programa de cribado de cáncer colorrectal (CCR). El objetivo del estudio fue identificar los factores relacionados con la experiencia de los pacientes a través del CSSQP, incluyendo todas las indicaciones de la colonoscopia. Además, se evaluaron los factores relacionados con la satisfacción y la seguridad del paciente con el fin de comparar diferentes departamentos. Métodos Estudio multicéntrico de nueve hospitales españoles en el que se incluyeron pacientes consecutivos que completaron el CSSQP incorporando un nuevo ítem sobre la preparación intestinal. Se analizaron los factores relacionados con la experiencia de los pacientes y los datos de los no respondedores. Resultados De 2.200 pacientes, 1.753 completaron el cuestionario (tasa de respuesta del 79,7%, error muestral del 2%). Los pacientes en los que la indicación era por cribado de CCR (OR: 1,68; IC 95%: 1,15-2,44; p=0,007) o por FIT positivo (OR: 1,73; IC 95%: 1,18-2,53) informaron mayor satisfacción que en aquellos que se solicitó la colonoscopia por síntomas gastrointestinales. Además, los pacientes con estudios universitarios (OR: 2,11; IC 95%: 1,25-3,56) informaron mayor satisfacción que aquellos con menor nivel de estudios. Se observaron diferencias significativas en la mayoría de los ítems del CSSQP entre los centros participantes. Treinta y cinco (2%) pacientes reportaron incidentes de seguridad y 176 (10%) reconocieron haber recibido información insuficiente. Conclusiones El CSSQP identifica los factores determinantes que influyen en la satisfacción y la seguridad de los pacientes a los que se les realiza colonoscopia por cualquier indicación. Además, permite comparar los indicadores de calidad de la colonoscopia desde la perspectiva del paciente entre los distintos centros (AU)

Colonoscopy Satisfaction and Safety Questionnaire based on patient experience (CSSQP): A valuable quality tool for all colonoscopies.

INTRODUCTION: The Colonoscopy Satisfaction and Safety Questionnaire based on Patient experience (CSSQP) was recently developed and validated within a Bowel Cancer Screening Program. We aimed to identify factor related to patient experience through the CSSQP, including all indications for colonoscopy. Indicators of satisfaction and perceived safety with colonoscopy were also assessed to compare the different centers. METHODS: Multicenter study in nine Spanish hospitals. Consecutive patients who had undergone a colonoscopy completed the CSSQP adding a novel item on bowel preparation. Factors related to patient experiences and data from non-respondents were analyzed. RESULTS: Of 2200 patients, 1753 filled out the questionnaire (response rate 79.7%, sample error 2%). Patients whose colonoscopy indication was a primary colorectal cancer screening (OR: 1.68, 95% CI: 1.15-2.44, p=0.007) or due to a +FIT (OR: 1.73, 95% CI: 1.18-2.53) reported higher satisfaction than patients with gastrointestinal symptoms. In addition, college-educated patients (OR: 2.11, 95% CI: 1.25-3.56) were more likely to report better overall satisfaction than patients with lower education level. Significant differences were observed in the majority of the CSSQP items between centers. Safety incidents were reported by 35 (2%) patients, and 176 (10%) patients reported that they received insufficient information. CONCLUSION: The CSSQP identifies several significant factors on satisfaction and perceived safety in patients referred for colonoscopy for any reason. The CSSQP also allows comparison of patient-identified colonoscopy quality indicators between centers.

Applicability of the Barcelona scale to assess the quality of cleanliness of mucosa at esophagogastroduodenoscopy.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: There are few scales with prospective validation for the assessment of the upper gastrointestinal mucosal cleanliness during an esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). The aim of this study was to develop a valid and reproducible cleanliness scale for use during an EGD. METHODS: We developed a cleanliness scale (Barcelona scale) with a score (0-2 points) of five segments of the upper gastrointestinal tract with thorough cleaning techniques (esophagus, fundus, body, antrum, and duodenum). First, 125 photos (25 of each area) were assessed, and a score was assigned to each image by consensus among 7 experts endoscopists. Subsequently, 100 of the 125 images were selected and the inter- and intra-observer variability of 15 previously trained endoscopists was evaluated using the same images at two different times. RESULTS: In total, 1500 assessments were performed. In 1336/1500 observations (89%) there was agreement with the consensus score, with a mean kappa value of 0.83 (0.45-0.96). In the second evaluation, in 1330/1500 observations (89%) there was agreement with the consensus score, with a mean kappa value of 0.82 (0.45-0.93). The intra-observer variability was 0.89 (0.76-0.99). CONCLUSIONS: The Barcelona cleanliness scale is a valid measure and reproducible with minimal training. Its application in clinical practice is a significant step to standardize the quality of the EGD.

Role of Artificial Intelligence in Colonoscopy Detection of Advanced Neoplasias : A Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: The role of computer-aided detection in identifying advanced colorectal neoplasia is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the contribution of computer-aided detection to colonoscopic detection of advanced colorectal neoplasias as well as adenomas, serrated polyps, and nonpolypoid and right-sided lesions. DESIGN: Multicenter, parallel, randomized controlled trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04673136). SETTING: Spanish colorectal cancer screening program. PARTICIPANTS: 3213 persons with a positive fecal immunochemical test. INTERVENTION: Enrollees were randomly assigned to colonoscopy with or without computer-aided detection. MEASUREMENTS: Advanced colorectal neoplasia was defined as advanced adenoma and/or advanced serrated polyp. RESULTS: The 2 comparison groups showed no significant difference in advanced colorectal neoplasia detection rate (34.8% with intervention vs. 34.6% for controls; adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 1.01 [95% CI, 0.92 to 1.10]) or the mean number of advanced colorectal neoplasias detected per colonoscopy (0.54 [SD, 0.95] with intervention vs. 0.52 [SD, 0.95] for controls; adjusted rate ratio, 1.04 [99.9% CI, 0.88 to 1.22]). Adenoma detection rate also did not differ (64.2% with intervention vs. 62.0% for controls; aRR, 1.06 [99.9% CI, 0.91 to 1.23]). Computer-aided detection increased the mean number of nonpolypoid lesions (0.56 [SD, 1.25] vs. 0.47 [SD, 1.18] for controls; adjusted rate ratio, 1.19 [99.9% CI, 1.01 to 1.41]), proximal adenomas (0.94 [SD, 1.62] vs. 0.81 [SD, 1.52] for controls; adjusted rate ratio, 1.17 [99.9% CI, 1.03 to 1.33]), and lesions of 5 mm or smaller (polyps in general and adenomas and serrated lesions in particular) detected per colonoscopy. LIMITATIONS: The high adenoma detection rate in the control group may limit the generalizability of the findings to endoscopists with low detection rates. CONCLUSION: Computer-aided detection did not improve colonoscopic identification of advanced colorectal neoplasias. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Medtronic.

Findings in the distal and proximal colon in colonoscopy screening after positive FIT and related pre-procedure factors

Background: colonoscopy is the gold standard method forthe early diagnosis and prevention of colorectal cancer(CRC). Screening programs include immune determinationof blood in feces. Regardless of the method used, proximalcolon lesions appear to be detected less frequently.Objective: to analyze the characteristics of proximal anddistal lesions and possible predisposing factors.Methods: a cross-sectional study was performed of 692patients from the CRC screening program with fecal immunological test (FIT) ≥ 100 ngHb/ml (October 2017-October2018). The right colon was examined twice as patients wereparticipating in a randomized clinical trial to re-evaluatethe right colon by forward-viewing endoscope or proximalretroflexion. The adenoma detection rate (ADR), advancedneoplasia (AN) and CRC in the proximal and distal colon,histological and morphological characteristics in each section were analyzed.Results: in the study, 52.9 % of the patients were male, witha mean age of 59.5 years (standard deviation [SD]: 7.6);1,490 polyps were found and the ADR was 57.7 % (distal42 % and proximal 37 %). Detection rates were 45.8 % forAN, 40.9 % for advanced adenomas, 5.2 % for advancedsessile serrated lesions (SSL) and CRC was diagnosed in4.8 % of patients. Males had more AN than females. Themean age of patients with AN was significantly higher. ANwere associated with smoking and alcohol consumption (p = 0.0001). Globally, FIT levels were higher in patientswith AN (p = 0.003). Sixty-six per cent of cancers were distally located and 61.3 % of CRC were diagnosed in the earlystages.Conclusions: in an average-risk asymptomatic populationundergoing colonoscopy after positive FIT, AN were morecommon in the distal colon in males, older patients, smokers and those with alcohol intake. (AU)

Factors associated with lesion detection in colonoscopy among different indications.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Different factors may influence colonoscopy performance measures. We aimed to analyze procedure- and endoscopist-related factors associated with detection of colorectal lesions and whether these factors have a similar influence in the context of different colonoscopy indications: positive fecal immunochemical test (+FIT) and post-polypectomy surveillance colonoscopies. METHODS: This multicenter cross-sectional study included adults aged 40-80 years. Endoscopists (N = 96) who had performed ≥50 examinations were assessed for physician-related factors. Adenoma detection rate (ADR), adenomas per colonoscopy rate (APCR), advanced ADR, serrated polyp detection (SDR), and serrated polyps per colonoscopy rate (SPPCR) were calculated. RESULTS: We included 12,932 procedures, with 4810 carried out after a positive FIT and 1967 for surveillance. Of the 96 endoscopists evaluated, 43.8% were women, and the mean age was 41.9 years. The ADR, advanced ADR, and SDR were 39.7%, 17.7%, and 12.8%, respectively. Adenoma detection rate was higher in colonoscopies after a +FIT (50.3%) with a more than doubled advanced ADR compared to non-FIT procedures (27.6% vs. 13.0%) and similar results in serrated lesions (14.7% vs. 13.5%). Among all the detection indicators analyzed, withdrawal time was the only factor independently related to improvement (p < 0.001). Regarding FIT-positive and surveillance procedures, for both indications, withdrawal time was also the only factor associated with a higher detection of adenomas and serrated polyps (p < 0.001). Endoscopist-related factors (i.e., weekly hours dedicated to endoscopy, annual colonoscopy volume and lifetime number of colonoscopies performed) had also impact on lesion detection (APCR, advanced ADR and SPPCR). CONCLUSIONS: Withdrawal time was the factor most commonly associated with improved detection of colonic lesions globally and in endoscopies for + FIT and post-polypectomy surveillance. Physician-related factors may help to address strategies to support training and service provision. Our results can be used for establishing future benchmarking and quality improvement in different colonoscopy indications.

Findings in the distal and proximal colon in colonoscopy screening after positive FIT and related pre-procedure factors.

BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy is the gold standard method for the early diagnosis and prevention of colorectal cancer (CRC). Screening programs include immune determination of blood in feces. Regardless of the method used, proximal colon lesions appear to be detected less frequently. OBJECTIVE: Analyze the characteristics of proximal and distal lesions and possible predisposing factors. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was performed of 692 patients from the CRC screening program with FIT ≥ 100ngHb/ml (October 2017 - October 2018). The right colon was examined twice as patients were participating in a randomized clinical trial to re-evaluate the right colon by forward-viewing endoscope or proximal retroflexion. The adenoma detection rate (ADR), advanced neoplasia (AN) and CRC in the proximal and distal colon, the histological and morphological characteristics in each section were analyzed. RESULTS: 52.9% of the patients were male, with a mean age of 59.5 years (SD: 7.6). 1490 polyps were found and the ADR was 57.7% (distal 42% and proximal 37%). Detection rates were 45.8% for AN, 40.9% for advanced adenomas, 5.2% for advanced SSL and CRC was diagnosed in 4.8% of patients. Males had more AN than females. The mean age of patients with AN was significantly higher. AN were associated with smoking and alcohol consumption (p=0.0001). Globally, FIT levels were higher in patients with AN (p=0.003). Sixty-six per cent of cancers were distally located and 61.3% of CRC were diagnosed in the early stages. CONCLUSIONS: In an average-risk asymptomatic population undergoing colonoscopy after positive FIT, AN were more common in the distal colon in males, older patients, smokers and those with alcohol intake.

Prevalence of missed lesions in patients with inadequate bowel preparation through a very early repeat colonoscopy.

OBJECTIVES: When bowel preparation (BP) is inadequate, international guidelines recommend repeating the colonoscopy within 1 year to avoid missing clinically relevant lesions. We aimed to determine the rate of missed lesions in patients with inadequate BP through a very early repeat colonoscopy with adequate BP. METHODS: Post hoc analysis was conducted using data collected from a prospective multicenter randomized clinical trial including patients with inadequate BP and then repeat colonoscopy. Inadequate BP was defined as the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score <2 points in any segment. We included patients with any indication for colonoscopy. The adenoma detection rate (ADR), advanced ADR (AADR), and serrated polyp detection rate (SPDR) were calculated for index and repeat colonoscopies. RESULTS: Of the 651 patients with inadequate BP from the original trial, 413 (63.4%) achieved adequate BP on repeat colonoscopy. The median interval between index and repeat colonoscopies was 28 days. On repeat colonoscopy, the ADR was 45.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] 40.5-50.1%), the AADR was 10.9% (95% CI 8.1-14.3%), and the SPDR was 14.3% (95% CI 10.9-17.7%). Cancer was discovered in four patients (1%; 95% CI 0.2-2.5%). A total of 60.2% of all advanced adenoma (AA) were discovered on repeat colonoscopy. A colon segment scored BBPS = 0 had most AA (66.1%) and all four cancers. CONCLUSION: Patients with inadequate BP present a high rate of AAs on repeat colonoscopy. When a colonoscopy has a colon segment score BBPS = 0, we recommend repeating the colonoscopy as soon as possible.

Efficacy and safety of cold versus hot snare polypectomy for small (5-9 mm) colorectal polyps: a multicenter randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Resection techniques for small polyps include cold snare polypectomy (CSP) and hot snare polypectomy (HSP). This study compared CSP and HSP in 5-9 mm polyps in terms of complete resection and adverse events. METHODS: This was a multicenter, randomized trial conducted in seven Spanish centers between February and November 2019. Patients with ≥ 1 5-9 mm polyp were randomized to CSP or HSP, regardless of morphology or pit pattern. After polypectomy, two marginal biopsies were submitted to a pathologist who was blinded to polyp histology. Complete resection was defined as normal mucosa or burn artifacts in the biopsies. Abdominal pain was only assessed in patients without < 5 mm or > 9 mm polyps. RESULTS: 496 patients were randomized: 237 (394 polyps) to CSP and 259 (397 polyps) to HSP. Complete polypectomy rates were 92.5 % with CSP and 94.0 % with HSP (difference 1.5 %, 95 % confidence interval -1.9 % to 4.9 %). Intraprocedural bleeding occurred during three CSPs (0.8 %) and seven HSPs (1.8 %) (P = 0.34). One lesion per group (0.4 %) presented delayed hemorrhage. Post-colonoscopy abdominal pain presented similarly in both groups 1 hour after the procedure (CSP 18.8 % vs. HSP 18.4 %) but was higher in the HSP group after 5 hours (5.9 % vs. 16.5 %; P = 0.02). A higher proportion of patients were asymptomatic 24 hours after CSP than after HSP (97 % vs. 86.4 %; P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: We observed no differences in complete resection and bleeding rates between CSP and HSP. CSP reduced the intensity and duration of post-colonoscopy abdominal pain.

Compound Endoscopic Morphological Features for Identifying Non-Pedunculated Lesions ≥20 mm with Intramucosal Neoplasia.

BACKGROUND: The major limitation of piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is the inaccurate histological assessment of the resected specimen, especially in cases of submucosal invasion. OBJECTIVE: To classify non-pedunculated lesions ≥20 mm based on endoscopic morphological features, in order to identify those that present intramucosal neoplasia (includes low-grade neoplasia and high-grade neoplasia) and are suitable for piecemeal EMR. DESIGN: A post-hoc analysis from an observational prospective multicentre study conducted by 58 endoscopists at 17 academic and community hospitals was performed. Unbiased conditional inference trees (CTREE) were fitted to analyse the association between intramucosal neoplasia and the lesions' endoscopic characteristics. RESULT: 542 lesions from 517 patients were included in the analysis. Intramucosal neoplasia was present in 484 of 542 (89.3%) lesions. A conditional inference tree including all lesions' characteristics assessed with white light imaging and narrow-band imaging (NBI) found that ulceration, pseudodepressed type and sessile morphology changed the accuracy for predicting intramucosal neoplasia. In ulcerated lesions, the probability of intramucosal neoplasia was 25% (95%CI: 8.3-52.6%; p < 0.001). In non-ulcerated lesions, its probability in lateral spreading lesions (LST) non-granular (NG) pseudodepressed-type lesions rose to 64.0% (95%CI: 42.6-81.3%; p < 0.001). Sessile morphology also raised the probability of intramucosal neoplasia to 86.3% (95%CI: 80.2-90.7%; p < 0.001). In the remaining 319 (58.9%) non-ulcerated lesions that were of the LST-granular (G) homogeneous type, LST-G nodular-mixed type, and LST-NG flat elevated morphology, the probability of intramucosal neoplasia was 96.2% (95%CI: 93.5-97.8%; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Non-ulcerated LST-G type and LST-NG flat elevated lesions are the most common non-pedunculated lesions ≥20 mm and are associated with a high probability of intramucosal neoplasia. This means that they are good candidates for piecemeal EMR. In the remaining lesions, further diagnostic techniques like magnification or diagnostic +/- therapeutic endoscopic submucosal dissection should be considered.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy in patients with unexplained diffuse gastrointestinal wall thickening.

Background and study aims Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) is recommended after non-diagnostic biopsy in gastrointestinal wall thickening, although the performance of currently available FNB needles in this setting is unknown. We aimed to assess the diagnostic accuracy and safety of EUS-FNB and to evaluate the "T" wall staging in malignant pathology. Patients and methods This was a single center retrospective study that included all consecutive patients undergoing EUS-FNB for diffuse gastrointestinal wall thickening with at least one previous negative conventional endoscopic biopsy between January 2016 and November 2019. EUS-FNB was performed using linear-array echoendoscopes with slow-pull/fanning technique. Tissue acquisition was done with 19- or 22-gauge biopsy needles. Samples were included in formalin without rapid on-site evaluation and submitted for histopathological processing. The final diagnosis was based on conclusive histology or absence of evidence of disease progression after follow-up at least 6 months. Results Twenty-nine patients (21 men), with a median age of 68 (IQR: 56-77), were included. EUS-FNB was technically feasible and the sample quality was adequate for full histological assessment in all patients (100 %). Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and overall accuracy for diagnosis of malignancy were 95.5 %, 100 %, 100 %, 83.3 %, and 96.3 %, respectively. In patients with malignant disease, the samples obtained allowed detection of signs of deep layer infiltration ("histological staging") in 17 of 21 cases (81 %). No adverse events were noted. Conclusions The EUS-FNB technique demonstrated excellent diagnostic performance and safety in the study of unexplained diffuse gastrointestinal wall thickening. Histological staging was obtained in a high percentage of samples.

Quality in diagnostic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy for the detection and surveillance of gastric cancer precursor lesions: Position paper of AEG, SEED and SEAP. / Documento de posicionamiento de la AEG, la SEED y la SEAP sobre calidad de la endoscopia digestiva alta para la detección y vigilancia de las lesiones precursoras de cáncer gástrico.

This position paper, sponsored by the Asociación Española de Gastroenterología [Spanish Association of Gastroenterology], the Sociedad Española de Endoscopia Digestiva [Spanish Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Society] and the Sociedad Española de Anatomía Patológica [Spanish Anatomical Pathology Society], aims to establish recommendations for performing an high quality upper gastrointestinal endoscopy for the screening of gastric cancer precursor lesions (GCPL) in low-incidence populations, such as the Spanish population. To establish the quality of the evidence and the levels of recommendation, we used the methodology based on the GRADE system (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). We obtained a consensus among experts using a Delphi method. The document evaluates different measures to improve the quality of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in this setting and makes recommendations on how to evaluate and treat the identified lesions. We recommend that upper gastrointestinal endoscopy for surveillance of GCPL should be performed by endoscopists with adequate training, administering oral premedication and use of sedation. To improve the identification of GCPL, we recommend the use of high definition endoscopes and conventional or digital chromoendoscopy and, for biopsies, NBI should be used to target the most suspicious areas of intestinal metaplasia. Regarding the evaluation of visible lesions, the risk of submucosal invasion should be evaluated with magnifying endoscopes and endoscopic ultrasound should be reserved for those with suspected deep invasion. In lesions amenable to endoscopic resection, submucosal endoscopic dissection is considered the technique of choice.

Documento de posicionamiento de la AEG, la SEED y la SEAP sobre cribado de cáncer gástrico en poblaciones con baja incidencia / Gastric cancer screening in low incidence populations: Position statement of AEG, SEED and SEAP

Este documento de posicionamiento, auspiciado por la Asociación Española de Gastroenterología, la Sociedad Española de Endoscopia Digestiva y la Sociedad Española de Anatomía Patológica, tiene como objetivo establecer recomendaciones para el cribado del cáncer gástrico (CG) en poblaciones con incidencia baja, como la española. Para establecer la calidad de la evidencia y los niveles de recomendación se ha utilizado la metodología basada en el sistema GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). Se obtuvo el consenso entre expertos mediante un método Delphi. El documento evalúa el cribado en población general, individuos con familiares con CG y lesiones precursoras de CG (LPCG). El objetivo de las intervenciones debe ser la reducción de la mortalidad por CG. Se recomienda el uso de la clasificación OLGIM y determinar el subtipo de metaplasia intestinal (MI) para evaluar las LPCG. No se recomienda establecer cribado poblacional endoscópico de CG ni de Helicobacter pylori. Sin embargo, el documento establece una recomendación fuerte para el tratamiento de H.pylori si se detecta la infección, y su investigación y tratamiento en individuos con antecedentes familiares de CG o con LPCG. En cambio, no se recomienda el uso de test serológicos para detectar LPCG. Se sugiere cribado endoscópico únicamente en los individuos con criterios de CG familiar. En cuanto a los individuos con LPCG, solo se sugiere vigilancia endoscópica ante MI extensa asociada a algún factor de riesgo adicional (MI incompleta y/o antecedentes familiares de CG) tras la resección de lesiones displásicas o en pacientes con displasia sin lesión visible tras una endoscopia digestiva alta de calidad con cromoendoscopia

This positioning document, sponsored by the Asociación Española de Gastroenterología, the Sociedad Española de Endoscopia Digestiva and the Sociedad Española de Anatomía Patológica, aims to establish recommendations for the screening of gastric cancer (GC) in low incidence populations, such as the Spanish. To establish the quality of the evidence and the levels of recommendation, we used the methodology based on the GRADE system (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). We obtained a consensus among experts using a Delphi method. The document evaluates screening in the general population, individuals with relatives with GC and subjects with GC precursor lesions (GCPL). The goal of the interventions should be to reduce GC related mortality. We recommend the use of the OLGIM classification and determine the intestinal metaplasia (IM) subtype in the evaluation of GCPL. We do not recommend to establish endoscopic mass screening for GC or Helicobacter pylori. However, the document strongly recommends to treat H.pylori if the infection is detected, and the investigation and treatment in individuals with a family history of GC or with GCPL. Instead, we recommend against the use of serological tests to detect GCPL. Endoscopic screening is suggested only in individuals that meet familial GC criteria. As for individuals with GCPL, endoscopic surveillance is only suggested in extensive IM associated with additional risk factors (incomplete IM and/or a family history of GC), after resection of dysplastic lesions or in patients with dysplasia without visible lesion after a high quality gastroscopy with chromoendoscopy

Gastric cancer screening in low incidence populations: Position statement of AEG, SEED and SEAP. / Documento de posicionamiento de la AEG, la SEED y la SEAP sobre cribado de cáncer gástrico en poblaciones con baja incidencia.

This positioning document, sponsored by the Asociación Española de Gastroenterología, the Sociedad Española de Endoscopia Digestiva and the Sociedad Española de Anatomía Patológica, aims to establish recommendations for the screening of gastric cancer (GC) in low incidence populations, such as the Spanish. To establish the quality of the evidence and the levels of recommendation, we used the methodology based on the GRADE system (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). We obtained a consensus among experts using a Delphi method. The document evaluates screening in the general population, individuals with relatives with GC and subjects with GC precursor lesions (GCPL). The goal of the interventions should be to reduce GC related mortality. We recommend the use of the OLGIM classification and determine the intestinal metaplasia (IM) subtype in the evaluation of GCPL. We do not recommend to establish endoscopic mass screening for GC or Helicobacter pylori. However, the document strongly recommends to treat H.pylori if the infection is detected, and the investigation and treatment in individuals with a family history of GC or with GCPL. Instead, we recommend against the use of serological tests to detect GCPL. Endoscopic screening is suggested only in individuals that meet familial GC criteria. As for individuals with GCPL, endoscopic surveillance is only suggested in extensive IM associated with additional risk factors (incomplete IM and/or a family history of GC), after resection of dysplastic lesions or in patients with dysplasia without visible lesion after a high quality gastroscopy with chromoendoscopy.

Valoración de las peticiones de endoscopia para reanudar la actividad durante la pandemia por SARS-CoV-2: denegación de las no indicadas y priorización de las aceptadas / No disponible

INTRODUCCIÓN: la pandemia mundial por SARS-CoV-2 obligó a paralizar las unidades de endoscopia. Previamente a la reanudación de la actividad endoscópica diseñamos un protocolo de valoración de gastroscopias y colonoscopias, desprogramadas durante la pandemia, denegando las no indicadas y priorizando las indicadas. MÉTODOS: establecimos dos tipos de denegación: a) contexto covid-19 en ≤ 50 años sin síntomas de alarma y baja probabilidad de hallazgos endoscópicos relevantes; y b) contexto inadecuado por no ser acordes con las guías o protocolos clínicos. Las denegaciones se archivaron en la historia clínica del paciente. Clasificamos las adecuadas en preferentes, convencionales y seguimiento. Comparamos las denegadas por especialidad. Valoramos los hallazgos de las preferentes. RESULTADOS: valoramos 1.658 peticiones (44 % gastroscopias, 56 % colonoscopias) entre el 16 marzo y el 30 junio de 2020. Se consideraron adecuadas 1.164 (70 %), de ellas preferentes el 8,5 %, convencionales el 48 %, seguimiento el 43 % y no valorables el 0,5 %. Se denegaron 494 (30 %): 20 % "contexto covid-19" y 80 % "contexto inadecuado". Los motivos de denegación en las gastroscopias fueron: seguimiento de lesiones (33 %), síntomas insuficientemente estudiados (20 %) y síntomas recidivantes con gastroscopia previa (18 %). Los motivos de denegación en las colonoscopias fueron: vigilancia pospolipectomía (25 %), cáncer colorrectal intervenido (21 %) y antecedentes familiares de cáncer (13 %). Encontramos diferencias significativas en la denegación según la especialidad: Cirugía General (52 %), Hematología (37 %) y Atención Primaria (29 %). Un 31 % de las preferentes mostraron hallazgos relevantes. CONCLUSIONES: un 24 % de nuestras endoscopias son discordantes con las recomendaciones científicas. Su denegación y la priorización de las adecuadas optimizan la utilización de recursos

No disponible

Evaluation of endoscopy requests in the resumption of activity during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: denial of nonindicated requests and prioritization of accepted requests.

INTRODUCTION: the global SARS-CoV-2 pandemic forced the closure of endoscopy units. Before resuming endoscopic activity, we designed a protocol to evaluate gastroscopies and colonoscopies cancelled during the pandemic, denying inappropriate requests and prioritizing appropriate ones. METHODS: two types of inappropriate request were established: a) COVID-19 context, people aged ≤ 50 years without alarm symptoms and a low probability of relevant endoscopic findings; and b) inappropriate context, requests not in line with clinical guidelines or protocols. Denials were filed in the medical record. Appropriate requests were classified into priority, conventional and follow-up. Requests denied by specialty were compared and the findings of priority requests were evaluated. RESULTS: between March 16th and June 30th 2020, 1,658 requests (44 % gastroscopies and 56 % colonoscopies) were evaluated, of which 1,164 (70 %) were considered as appropriate (priority 8.5 %, conventional 48 %, follow-up 43 % and non-evaluable 0.5 %) and 494 (30 %) as inappropriate (20 % COVID-19 context, 80 % inappropriate context). The reasons for denial of gastroscopy were follow-up of lesions (33 %), insufficiently studied symptoms (20 %) and relapsing symptoms after a previous gastroscopy (18 %). The reasons for denial of colonoscopies were post-polypectomy surveillance (25 %), colorectal cancer after surgery (21 %) and a family history of cancer (13 %). There were significant differences in denied requests according to specialty: General Surgery (52 %), Hematology (37 %) and Primary Care (29 %); 31 % of priority cases showed relevant findings. CONCLUSIONS: according to our study, 24 % of endoscopies were discordant with scientific recommendations. Therefore, their denial and the prioritization of appropriate ones optimize the use of resources.

Educational nurse-led telephone intervention shortly before colonoscopy as a salvage strategy after previous bowel preparation failure: a multicenter randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: The most important predictor of unsuccessful bowel preparation is previous failure. For those patients with previous failure, we hypothesized that a nurse-led educational intervention by telephone shortly before the colonoscopy appointment could improve cleansing efficacy. METHODS: We performed a multicenter, endoscopist-blinded, randomized controlled trial. Consecutive outpatients with previous inadequate bowel preparation were enrolled. Both groups received the same standard bowel preparation protocol. The intervention group also received reinforced education by telephone within 48 hours before the colonoscopy. The primary outcome was effective bowel preparation according to the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale. Intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis included all randomized patients. Per-protocol analysis included patients who could be contacted by telephone and the control cases. RESULTS: 657 participants were recruited by 11 Spanish hospitals. In the ITT analysis, there was no significant difference between the intervention and control groups in the rate of successful bowel preparation (77.3 % vs. 72 %; P = 0.12). In the intervention group, 267 patients (82.9 %) were contacted by telephone. Per-protocol analysis revealed significantly improved bowel preparation in the intervention group (83.5 % vs. 72.0 %; P = 0.001). CONCLUSION: Among all patients with previous inadequate bowel preparation, nurse-led telephone education did not result in a significant improvement in bowel cleansing. However, in the 83 % of patients who could be contacted, bowel preparation was substantially improved. Phone education may therefore be a useful tool for improving the quality of bowel preparation in those cases.