Postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer: Prevalence, categorization and root-cause analysis based on the World Endoscopic Organization systemCáncer colorrectal poscolonoscopia / Prevalencia, categorización y análisis de las causas subyacentes basado en las recomendaciones de la Organización Mundial de Endoscopia

Aims: The World Endoscopy Organization (WEO) recommends that endoscopy units implement a process to identify postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC). The aims of this study were to assess the 3-year PCCRC rate and to perform root-cause analyses and categorization in accordance with the WEO recommendations.Patients and methods: Cases of colorectal cancers (CRCs) in a tertiary care center were retrospectively included from January 2018 to December 2019. The 3-year and 4-year PCCRC rates were calculated. A root-cause analysis and categorization of PCCRCs (interval and type A, B, C noninterval PCCRCs) were performed. The level of agreement between two expert endoscopists was assessed. Results: A total of 530 cases of CRC were included. A total of 33 were deemed PCCRCs (age 75.8±9.5 years; 51.5% women). The 3-year and 4-year PCCRC rates were 3.4% and 4.7%, respectively. The level of agreement between the two endoscopists was acceptable either for the root-cause analysis (k=0.958) or for the categorization (k=0.76). The most plausible explanations of the PCCRCs were 8 “likely new PCCRCs”, 1 (4%) “detected, not resected”, 3 (12%) “detected, incomplete resection”, 8 (32%) “missed lesion, inadequate examination”, and 13 (52%) “missed lesion, adequate examination”. Most PCCRCs were deemed noninterval Type C PCCRCs (N=17, 51.5%). Conclusion: WEO recommendations for root-cause analysis and categorization are useful to detect areas for improvement. Most PCCRCs were avoidable and were likely due to missed lesions during an otherwise adequate examination.(AU)

Objetivo: La Organización Mundial de Endoscopia recomienda que las unidades de endoscopia implementen procedimientos para identificar el cáncer colorrectal poscolonoscopia (CCRPC). Los objetivos de este estudio fueron evaluar la tasa de CCRPCP a los 3 y 4 años, realizar un análisis de causalidad potencial y categorización siguiendo las recomendaciones de la Organización Mundial de Endoscopia.Pacientes y métodos: Se incluyeron retrospectivamente los cánceres colorrectales diagnosticados de enero de 2018 a diciembre de 2019 en un hospital de tercer nivel. Se calculó la tasa de CCRPC a 3 años. Se realizó un análisis de causalidad potencial y categorización de los CCRPC (intervalo y CCRPC de no intervalo tipo A, B, C). Se evaluó la concordancia entre dos endoscopistas expertos. Resultados: Se incluyeron 530 cánceres colorrectales. Un total de 33 se consideraron CCRPC (edad 75,8±9,5 años; 51,5% mujeres). La tasa de CCRPC a 3 y 4 años fue del 3,4% y 4,7% respectivamente. La concordancia entre los dos endoscopistas fue aceptable para el análisis de causalidad (k=0,958) y para la categorización (k=0,76). La explicación probable de los CCRPC fue: 8 «probable CCRPC de novo», 1 (4%) «detectado, no resecado», 3 (12%) «detectado, resección incompleta», 8 (32%) «no detectado, examen inadecuado» y 13 (52%) «no detectado, examen adecuado». La mayoría de los CCRPC se consideraron de no intervalo tipo C (N=17, 51,5%). Conclusión: Las recomendaciones de la Organización Mundial de Endoscopia para el análisis de causalidad y la categorización son útiles para detectar áreas de mejora. La mayoría de los CCRPC eran evitables debido a lesiones no detectadas a pesar de realizar un examen adecuado.(AU)

Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Single-Use Duodenoscope Applied to Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography.

OBJECTIVES: Secondary infections due to transmission via the duodenoscope have been reported in up to 3% of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatographies. The use of single-use duodenoscopes has been suggested. We investigate the cost-effectiveness of these duodenoscopes use in cholangiopancreatography. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was implemented to compare the performance of cholangiopancreatographies with reusable duodenoscopes versus single-use duodenoscopes. Effectiveness was analyzed by calculating quality-adjusted life years (QALY) from the perspective of the National Health System. Possibility of crossover from single-use to reusable duodenoscopes was considered. A willingness-to-pay of €25,000/QALY was set, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated, and deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Considering cholangiopancreatographies with single-use and reusable duodenoscopes at a cost of €2900 and €1333, respectively, and a 10% rate of single-use duodenoscopes, ICER was greater than €3,000,000/QALY. A lower single-use duodenoscope cost of €1211 resulted in an ICER of €23,583/QALY. When the unit cost of the single-use duodenoscope was €1211, a crossover rate of more than 9.5% made the use of the single-use duodenoscope inefficient. CONCLUSIONS: Single-use duodenoscopes are cost-effective in a proportion of cholangiopancreatographies if its cost is reduced. Increased crossover rate makes single-use duodenoscope use not cost-effective.

Agreement between the perception of colon cleansing reported by patients and colon cleansing assessed by a validated colon cleansing scale / Concordancia entre la percepción de limpieza colónica referida por los pacientes y la limpieza colónica evaluada mediante una escala de limpieza validada

Aims Patients’ perception of their cleansing quality can guide strategies to improve cleansing during colonoscopy. There are no studies assessing the agreement between the quality of cleansing perceived by patients and cleansing quality assessed during colonoscopy using validated bowel preparation scales. The main aim of this study was to compare the cleansing quality reported by patients with the quality during colonoscopy using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). Patients and methods Consecutive patients referred to an outpatient colonoscopy were included. Four drawings representing different degrees of cleansing were designed. Patients chose the drawing that most resembled the last stool. The predictive ability of the patient's perception and agreement between the patient's perception and the BBPS were calculated. A BBPS score of <2 points in any segment was considered inadequate. Results Six hundred and thirty-three patients were included (age: 62.8 ± 13.7 years, male: 53.4%). Overall, 107 patients (16.9%) had inadequate cleansing during colonoscopy, and in 12.2% of cases, the patient's perception was poor. The patient's perception compared to the quality of cleanliness during colonoscopy presented a positive and negative predictive value of 54.6% and 88.3%, respectively. The agreement between patient perception and the BBPS was significant (P < 0.001), although fair (k = 0.37). The results were similar in a validation cohort of 378 patients (k = 0.41). Conclusions The cleanliness perceived by the patient and the quality of cleanliness using a validated scale were correlated, although fair. However, this measure satisfactorily identified patients with adequate preparation. Cleansing rescue strategies may target patients who self-report improper cleaning (AU)

Objetivos La percepción de los pacientes sobre su calidad de limpieza previa a la colonoscopia puede guiar estrategias de rescate para mejorar la limpieza durante la colonoscopia. El objetivo fue evaluar la concordancia entre la calidad de limpieza percibida por los pacientes con la calidad durante la colonoscopia utilizando la escala de preparación colónica de Boston (BBPS). Pacientes y métodos Se incluyeron pacientes consecutivos remitidos a una colonoscopia ambulatoria. Se diseñó un set de 4 imágenes representativas de diferentes grados de limpieza. Los pacientes elegían la imagen que se asemejaba más a la última deposición. Se calculó la concordancia entre la percepción del paciente y la BBPS. Una puntuación de la BBPS < 2 puntos en cualquier segmento se consideró una limpieza inadecuada. Resultados Se incluyeron 633 pacientes. Globalmente, 107 pacientes (16,9%) presentaron una limpieza inadecuada durante la colonoscopia, y en el 12,2% de los casos, la percepción del paciente fue de limpieza inadecuada. La percepción del paciente presentó un valor predictivo positivo y negativo de 54,6 y 88,3%, respectivamente, para predecir la calidad de limpieza mediante la BBPS. La concordancia entre la percepción del paciente y la BBPS fue significativa (p < 0,001), aunque aceptable (k = 0,37). Los resultados fueron similares en una cohorte de validación de 378 pacientes (k = 0,41). Conclusiones Existe concordancia entre la limpieza percibida por el paciente y la calidad de la limpieza mediante una escala validada, aunque esta fue aceptable. Estos resultados sustentan el uso de estrategias de rescate en los pacientes con percepción de una limpieza colónica inadecuada (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)

Comparative Study of Predictive Models for the Detection of Patients at High Risk of Inadequate Colonic Cleansing.

Background: Various predictive models have been published to identify outpatients with inadequate colonic cleansing who may benefit from intensified preparations to improve colonoscopy quality. The main objective of this study was to compare the accuracy of three predictive models for identifying poor bowel preparation in outpatients undergoing colonoscopy. Methods: This cross-sectional study included patients scheduled for outpatient colonoscopy over a 3-month period. We evaluated and compared three predictive models (Models 1-3). The quality of colonic cleansing was assessed using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale. We calculated the area under the curve (AUC) and the corresponding 95% confidence interval for each model. Additionally, we performed simple and multiple logistic regression analyses to identify variables associated with inadequate colonic cleansing and developed a new model. Results: A total of 649 consecutive patients were included in the study, of whom 84.3% had adequate colonic cleansing quality. The AUCs of Model 1 (AUC = 0.67, 95% CI [0.63-0.70]) and Model 2 (AUC = 0.62, 95% CI [0.58-0.66]) were significantly higher than that of Model 3 (AUC = 0.54, 95% CI [0.50-0.58]; p < 0.001). Moreover, Model 1 outperformed Model 2 (p = 0.013). However, the new model did not demonstrate improved accuracy compared to the older models (AUC = 0.671). Conclusions: Among the three compared models, Model 1 showed the highest accuracy for predicting poor bowel preparation in outpatients undergoing colonoscopy and could be useful in clinical practice to decrease the percentage of inadequately prepared patients.

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.

Agreement between the perception of colon cleansing reported by patients and colon cleansing assessed by a validated colon cleansing scale.

AIMS: Patients' perception of their cleansing quality can guide strategies to improve cleansing during colonoscopy. There are no studies assessing the agreement between the quality of cleansing perceived by patients and cleansing quality assessed during colonoscopy using validated bowel preparation scales. The main aim of this study was to compare the cleansing quality reported by patients with the quality during colonoscopy using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Consecutive patients referred to an outpatient colonoscopy were included. Four drawings representing different degrees of cleansing were designed. Patients chose the drawing that most resembled the last stool. The predictive ability of the patient's perception and agreement between the patient's perception and the BBPS were calculated. A BBPS score of <2 points in any segment was considered inadequate. RESULTS: Six hundred and thirty-three patients were included (age: 62.8±13.7 years, male: 53.4%). Overall, 107 patients (16.9%) had inadequate cleansing during colonoscopy, and in 12.2% of cases, the patient's perception was poor. The patient's perception compared to the quality of cleanliness during colonoscopy presented a positive and negative predictive value of 54.6% and 88.3%, respectively. The agreement between patient perception and the BBPS was significant (P<0.001), although fair (k=0.37). The results were similar in a validation cohort of 378 patients (k=0.41). CONCLUSIONS: The cleanliness perceived by the patient and the quality of cleanliness using a validated scale were correlated, although fair. However, this measure satisfactorily identified patients with adequate preparation. Cleansing rescue strategies may target patients who self-report improper cleaning. Registration number of the trial: NCT03830489.

Design and validation of an artificial intelligence system to detect the quality of colon cleansing before colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Patients' perception of their bowel cleansing quality may guide rescue cleansing strategies before colonoscopy. The main aim of this study was to train and validate a convolutional neural network (CNN) for classifying rectal effluent during bowel preparation intake as "adequate" or "inadequate" cleansing before colonoscopy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients referred for outpatient colonoscopy were asked to provide images of their rectal effluent during the bowel preparation process. The images were categorized as adequate or inadequate cleansing based on a predefined 4-picture quality scale. A total of 1203 images were collected from 660 patients. The initial dataset (799 images), was split into a training set (80%) and a validation set (20%). The second dataset (404 images) was used to develop a second test of the CNN accuracy. Afterward, CNN prediction was prospectively compared with the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) in 200 additional patients who provided a picture of their last rectal effluent. RESULTS: On the initial dataset, a global accuracy of 97.49%, a sensitivity of 98.17% and a specificity of 96.66% were obtained using the CNN model. On the second dataset, an accuracy of 95%, a sensitivity of 99.60% and a specificity of 87.41% were obtained. The results from the CNN model were significantly associated with those from the BBPS (P<0.001), and 77.78% of the patients with poor bowel preparation were correctly classified. CONCLUSION: The designed CNN is capable of classifying "adequate cleansing" and "inadequate cleansing" images with high accuracy.

Colon Bowel Preparation in the Era of Artificial Intelligence: Is There Potential for Enhancing Colon Bowel Cleansing?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Proper bowel preparation is of paramount importance for enhancing adenoma detection rates and reducing postcolonoscopic colorectal cancer risk. Despite recommendations from gastroenterology societies regarding the optimal rates of successful bowel preparation, these guidelines are frequently unmet. Various approaches have been employed to enhance the rates of successful bowel preparation, yet the quality of cleansing remains suboptimal. Intensive bowel preparation techniques, supplementary administration of bowel solutions, and educational interventions aimed at improving patient adherence to instructions have been commonly utilized, particularly among patients at a high risk of inadequate bowel preparation. Expedited strategies conducted on the same day as the procedure have also been endorsed by scientific organizations. More recently, the utilization of artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged for the preprocedural detection of inadequate bowel preparation, holding the potential to guide the preparation process immediately preceding colonoscopy. This manuscript comprehensively reviews the current strategies employed to optimize bowel cleansing, with a specific focus on patients with elevated risks for inadequate bowel preparation. Additionally, the prospective role of AI in this context is thoroughly examined. CONCLUSIONS: While a majority of outpatients may achieve cleanliness with standard cleansing protocols, dealing with hard-to-prepare patients remains a challenge. Rescue strategies based on AI are promising, but such evidence remains limited. To ensure proper bowel cleansing, a combination of strategies should be performed.

Screening uptake of colonoscopy versus fecal immunochemical testing in first-degree relatives of patients with non-syndromic colorectal cancer: A multicenter, open-label, parallel-group, randomized trial (ParCoFit study).

BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy screening is underused by first-degree relatives (FDRs) of patients with non-syndromic colorectal cancer (CRC) with screening completion rates below 50%. Studies conducted in FDR referred for screening suggest that fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) was not inferior to colonoscopy in terms of diagnostic yield and tumor staging, but screening uptake of FIT has not yet been tested in this population. In this study, we investigated whether the uptake of FIT screening is superior to the uptake of colonoscopy screening in the familial-risk population, with an equivalent effect on CRC detection. METHODS AND FINDINGS: This open-label, parallel-group, randomized trial was conducted in 12 Spanish centers between February 2016 and December 2021. Eligible individuals included asymptomatic FDR of index cases <60 years, siblings or ≥2 FDR with CRC. The primary outcome was to compare screening uptake between colonoscopy and FIT. The secondary outcome was to determine the efficacy of each strategy to detect advanced colorectal neoplasia (adenoma or serrated polyps ≥10 mm, polyps with tubulovillous architecture, high-grade dysplasia, and/or CRC). Screening-naïve FDR were randomized (1:1) to one-time colonoscopy versus annual FIT during 3 consecutive years followed by a work-up colonoscopy in the case of a positive test. Randomization was performed before signing the informed consent using computer-generated allocation algorithm based on stratified block randomization. Multivariable regression analysis was performed by intention-to-screen. On December 31, 2019, when 81% of the estimated sample size was reached, the trial was terminated prematurely after an interim analysis for futility. Study outcomes were further analyzed through 2-year follow-up. The main limitation of this study was the impossibility of collecting information on eligible individuals who declined to participate. A total of 1,790 FDR of 460 index cases were evaluated for inclusion, of whom 870 were assigned to undergo one-time colonoscopy (n = 431) or FIT (n = 439). Of them, 383 (44.0%) attended the appointment and signed the informed consent: 147/431 (34.1%) FDR received colonoscopy-based screening and 158/439 (35.9%) underwent FIT-based screening (odds ratio [OR] 1.08; 95% confidence intervals [CI] [0.82, 1.44], p = 0.564). The detection rate of advanced colorectal neoplasia was significantly higher in the colonoscopy group than in the FIT group (OR 3.64, 95% CI [1.55, 8.53], p = 0.003). Study outcomes did not change throughout follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, compared to colonoscopy, FIT screening did not improve screening uptake by individuals at high risk of CRC, resulting in less detection of advanced colorectal neoplasia. Further studies are needed to assess how screening uptake could be improved in this high-risk group, including by inclusion in population-based screening programs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02567045).

Postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer: Prevalence, categorization and root-cause analysis based on the World Endoscopic Organization system.

AIMS: The World Endoscopy Organization (WEO) recommends that endoscopy units implement a process to identify postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC). The aims of this study were to assess the 3-year PCCRC rate and to perform root-cause analyses and categorization in accordance with the WEO recommendations. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Cases of colorectal cancers (CRCs) in a tertiary care center were retrospectively included from January 2018 to December 2019. The 3-year and 4-year PCCRC rates were calculated. A root-cause analysis and categorization of PCCRCs (interval and type A, B, C noninterval PCCRCs) were performed. The level of agreement between two expert endoscopists was assessed. RESULTS: A total of 530 cases of CRC were included. A total of 33 were deemed PCCRCs (age 75.8±9.5 years; 51.5% women). The 3-year and 4-year PCCRC rates were 3.4% and 4.7%, respectively. The level of agreement between the two endoscopists was acceptable either for the root-cause analysis (k=0.958) or for the categorization (k=0.76). The most plausible explanations of the PCCRCs were 8 "likely new PCCRCs", 1 (4%) "detected, not resected", 3 (12%) "detected, incomplete resection", 8 (32%) "missed lesion, inadequate examination", and 13 (52%) "missed lesion, adequate examination". Most PCCRCs were deemed noninterval Type C PCCRCs (N=17, 51.5%). CONCLUSION: WEO recommendations for root-cause analysis and categorization are useful to detect areas for improvement. Most PCCRCs were avoidable and were likely due to missed lesions during an otherwise adequate examination.

Artificial Intelligence Applied to Colonoscopy: Is It Time to Take a Step Forward?

Growing evidence indicates that artificial intelligence (AI) applied to medicine is here to stay. In gastroenterology, AI computer vision applications have been stated as a research priority. The two main AI system categories are computer-aided polyp detection (CADe) and computer-assisted diagnosis (CADx). However, other fields of expansion are those related to colonoscopy quality, such as methods to objectively assess colon cleansing during the colonoscopy, as well as devices to automatically predict and improve bowel cleansing before the examination, predict deep submucosal invasion, obtain a reliable measurement of colorectal polyps and accurately locate colorectal lesions in the colon. Although growing evidence indicates that AI systems could improve some of these quality metrics, there are concerns regarding cost-effectiveness, and large and multicentric randomized studies with strong outcomes, such as post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer incidence and mortality, are lacking. The integration of all these tasks into one quality-improvement device could facilitate the incorporation of AI systems in clinical practice. In this manuscript, the current status of the role of AI in colonoscopy is reviewed, as well as its current applications, drawbacks and areas for improvement.

Reengagement strategies for hepatitis C patients lost to follow-up: A randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: To achieve the World Health Organization's goal of eliminating HCV by 2030, reengagement of lost to follow-up cases is mandatory. However, there is lack of evidence concerning the best strategy. Our study evaluated the effectiveness, efficiency, predictive factors, and costs of 2 different strategies. METHODS: We identified patients positive for HCV antibodies without RNA requests from 2005 to 2018. Patients fulfilling trial criteria (NCT04153708) were randomized to (1) phone call or (2) letter of invitation to schedule an appointment, followed by switching strategy. RESULTS: Three hundred forty-five patients among 1167 lost to follow-up were identified. An analysis of the first 270 randomized patients (72% male, 51±13 y) showed a higher contact rate in the mail than in the phone call strategy (84.5% vs. 50.3%). In the intention-to-treat analysis, no differences were found related to appointment attendance (26.5% vs. 28.5%). Regarding efficiency, 3.1 letters and 8 phone calls were needed to successfully link 1 patient (p<0.001) but dropped down to 2.3 phone calls if we only considered the first call attempt (p=0.008). Prior specialist's evaluation and HCV testing in the predirect-acting antiviral era were the only factors associated with no showing up for the appointment. The cost per patient was €621.3 (2.5 quality-adjusted life-years) in the phone call strategy and €611.8 (2.4 quality-adjusted life-years) in the mail letter strategy. CONCLUSIONS: Reengagement of patients with HCV is feasible, and equally effective with similar costs in both strategies. The mail letter was more efficient, except when only 1 phone call was considered. Prior specialist's evaluation and testing in the predirect-acting antiviral era were factors associated with nonattendance to the appointment.

Usefulness of a novel computer-aided detection system for colorectal neoplasia: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Artificial intelligence-based computer-aid detection (CADe) devices have been recently tested in colonoscopies, increasing the adenoma detection rate (ADR), mainly in Asian populations. However, evidence for the benefit of these devices in the occidental population is still low. We tested a new CADe device, namely, ENDO-AID (OIP-1) (Olympus, Tokyo, Japan), in clinical practice. METHODS: This randomized controlled trial included 370 consecutive patients who were randomized 1:1 to CADe (n = 185) versus standard exploration (n = 185) from November 2021 to January 2022. The primary endpoint was the ADR. Advanced adenoma was defined as ≥10 mm, harboring high-grade dysplasia, or with a villous pattern. Otherwise, the adenoma was nonadvanced. ADR was assessed in both groups stratified by endoscopist ADR and colon cleansing. RESULTS: In the intention-to-treat analysis, the ADR was 55.1% (102/185) in the CADe group and 43.8% (81/185) in the control group (P = .029). Nonadvanced ADRs (54.8% vs 40.8%, P = .01) and flat ADRs (39.4 vs 24.8, P = .006), polyp detection rate (67.1% vs 51%; P = .004), and number of adenomas per colonoscopy were significantly higher in the CADe group than in the control group (median [25th-75th percentile], 1 [0-2] vs 0 [0-1.5], respectively; P = .014). No significant differences were found in serrated ADR. After stratification by endoscopist and bowel cleansing, no statistically significant differences in ADR were found. CONCLUSIONS: Colonoscopy assisted by ENDO-AID (OIP-1) increases ADR and number of adenomas per colonoscopy, suggesting it may aid in the detection of colorectal neoplastic lesions, especially because of its detection of diminutive and flat adenomas. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT04945044.).

Hepatitis C virus infection screening reduces mortality and is cost-effective independently of the intervention test

Introduction: chronic infection due to hepatitis C virus (HCV)is frequently asymptomatic even in advanced stages of liverdisease. Implementation of a screening program based ondifferent HCV tests may enable an earlier diagnosis of HCVliver disease and subsequent application of highly effectivetreatment.Patients and methods: a Markov model which comparesthree different screening strategies for hepatitis C versus noscreening in low-risk prevalence (general population) andhigh-risk prevalence population (people who inject drugs orprison population) was designed, taking into account age atthe start of screening and participation. The three strategieswere: a) serological detection of antibodies against the HCV;b) dried blood spot test (DBS) to detect antibodies againstHCV; and c) detection of ribonucleic acid (RNA) from HCV.Quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) were taken as a measurement of effectiveness. The incremental cost-effectivenessratio (ICER) was calculated and a deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed.Results: all three screening strategies were found to becost-effective, with an ICER of €13,633, €12,015 and €12,328/QALY for antiHCV, DBS-antiHCV and DBS-RNA HCV, respectively. There was a decrease in mortality due to liver disease in comparison to no screening for antiHCV (40.7 % and52 %), DBS-antiHCV (45 % and 80 %) and DBS-RNA HCV (45.2 % and 80 %) for low-prevalence and high-prevalencepopulations, respectively.Conclusion: all test interventions for HCV screening arecost-effective for the early detection of HCV infection, alsoachieving a reduction in mortality. Thus, implementationof screening programs for HCV should not be halted by decisions on monetary policy. (AU)

Appropriateness of high-priority criteria and safety of endoscopy procedures during the COVID-19 lockdown.

BACKGROUND: During the coronavirus-19 disease (COVID-19) pandemic, gastroenterology guidelines recommended the suspension or reduction of non-urgent endoscopy. We aimed to assess the appropriateness and safety of endoscopic activity during the pandemic first wave lockdown using European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) recommendations. METHODS: We identified scheduled patients from the onset of the lockdown in Spain since March 16, 2020) to April 14, 2020. Daily hospital COVID-19-related burden was also registered. A similar cohort from a period immediately before the lockdown was studied (pre-lockdown cohort) to compare appropriateness. RESULTS: 454 endoscopy procedures were performed during the studied period, comprising a 49.7% reduction compared to the pre-lockdown cohort (n = 913). There was a significant increase in ESGE high-priority indications (62.1% vs. 45.6%, p<0.001) associated with an increase in relevant endoscopic findings (p = 0.006), advanced neoplasia/cancer (p = 0.004) and cancer detection rate (p = 0.010). There were no differences in the rate of admissions or infection among scheduled patients in the lockdown cohort. None of the staff members tested positive for COVID-19 in the 7 days after the adoption of protective measures. CONCLUSION: A prioritized endoscopic activity is not associated with higher contagion after adopting protective measures. In addition, a triage of procedures that follow the ESGE criteria increases the rate of relevant endoscopic findings. These considerations may reduce the impact of the delays of diagnosis after the pandemic.

Hepatitis C virus infection screening reduces mortality and is cost-effective independently of the intervention test.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic infection due to hepatitis C virus (HCV) is frequently asymptomatic even in advanced stages of liver disease. Implementation of a screening program based on different HCV tests may enable an earlier diagnosis of HCV liver disease and subsequent application of highly effective treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A Markov model which compares three different screening strategies for hepatitis C versus no screening in low-risk prevalence (general population) and high-risk prevalence population (people who inject drugs or prison population) was designed, taking into account age at the start of screening and participation. The three strategies were: 1) serological detection of antibodies against the HCV, 2) dried blood spot test (DBS) to detect antibodies against HCV and 3) detection of RNA from HCV. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) were taken as a measurement of effectiveness. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated and a deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed. RESULTS: All three screening strategies were found to be cost-effective with an ICER of €13,633, €12,015 and €12,328/QALY for AntiHCV, DBS-AntiHCV and DBS-RNA HCV, respectively. There was a decrease in mortality due to liver disease in comparison to no screening for AntiHCV (40.7% and 52%), DBS-AntiHCV (45% and 80%) and DBS-RNA HCV (45.2% and 80%) for low-prevalence and high-prevalence populations, respectively. CONCLUSION: All test interventions for HCV screening are cost-effective for the early detection of HCV infection, also achieving a reduction in mortality. Thus, implementation of screening programs for HCV should not be halted by decisions on monetary policy.

An Enhanced High-Volume Preparation for Colonoscopy Is Not Better Than a Conventional Low-Volume One in Patients at Risk of Poor Bowel Cleansing: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Objective: We tested the hypothesis that an enhanced bowel preparation strategy (EBS) improves colonic cleansing in patients at high risk for inadequate bowel cleansing (HRI). Methods: This prospective randomized clinical trial included consecutive HRI patients referred for outpatient colonoscopy between February and October 2019. HRI was considered if patients scored >1.225 according to a previously validated bowel-cleansing predictive score. HRI patients were randomized (1:1) to a low-volume conventional bowel cleansing strategy (CBS) (1-day low residue diet (LRD) plus 2 L of polyethylene glycol (PEG) plus ascorbic acid) or to an EBS (3-day LRD plus 10 mg oral bisacodyl plus 4 L PEG). The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) was used to assess the quality of cleanliness. Intention-to-treat (ITT) and per protocol (PP) analyses were performed. A sample size of 130 patients per group was estimated to reach a 15% difference in favor of EBP. Results: A total of 253 HRI patients were included (mean age 69.8 ± 9.5 years, 51.8% women). No statistically significant differences were found in the BBPS scale between the two groups in the ITT analysis (CBS 76.8% vs. EBS 79.7%, P = 0.58) or PP analysis (CBS 78% vs. EBS 84.3%, P = 0.21), risk difference 2.9% (95% CI-7.26 to 39.16) in the ITT analysis, or risk difference 6.3% (95% CI-3.48 to 16.08) in PP analysis. No differences in preparation tolerance, compliance, adverse effects, or colonoscopy findings were found. Conclusion: EBS is not superior to CBS in hard-to-prepare patients. (EUDRACT: 2017-000787-15, NCT03830489). Clinical Trial Registration: www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT03830489.