Endoscopic powered resection device for residual colonic lesions: the first multicenter, prospective, international clinical study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic resection is standard treatment for adenomatous colorectal lesions. Depending on lesion morphology and resection technique, recurrence can occur. Scarred adenomas are challenging to resect and may require surgical management. This study evaluated the safety and effectiveness of an endoscopic powered resection (EPR) system for scarred adenomatous colorectal lesions. METHODS: This single-arm, prospective, multicenter study was conducted from January 2018 to January 2021 at 12 sites. Patients with persistent flat or sessile colorectal lesions were enrolled. Primary end points were technical success (the ability of the device to resect the lesion[s] without use of other resection devices without device-related serious adverse events [AEs]) and safety (the occurrence of AEs through 90 days). Secondary end points included endoscopic confirmation of resection completeness, occurrence of colon stenosis, disease persistence, and diagnostic value of resected specimens. RESULTS: Sixty-five patients were in the intention-to-treat/safety analysis population. Primary analysis was performed on 45 per-protocol (PP) patients with 48 lesions. All PP patients were solely treated by using the EPR device. Technical success was achieved in 44 (98%) patients. Three (5%) serious AEs occurred: 2 delayed self-limited bleeds and 1 perforation. Nonserious AEs included 4 (6%) cases of mild intraprocedural bleeding. Completeness of resection and histopathologic diagnosis of tissue specimens were achieved in all patients. Twenty-one (46.7%) patients had disease persistence after the first treatment, and there was no colon stenosis. CONCLUSIONS: EPR is safe and effective for benign, persistent, large (>20 mm), scarred colorectal adenomas and should be considered as an alternative treatment in lieu of surgery. A persistence rate of 46.7% indicates that >1 treatment is necessary for effective endoscopic treatment. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT04203667.).

THUNDER 2: THeragnostic Utilities for Neoplastic DisEases of the Rectum by MRI guided radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy (nCRT) is the standard treatment modality in locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). Since response to radiotherapy (RT) is dose dependent in rectal cancer, dose escalation may lead to higher complete response rates. The possibility to predict patients who will achieve complete response (CR) is fundamental. Recently, an early tumour regression index (ERI) was introduced to predict pathological CR (pCR) after nCRT in LARC patients. The primary endpoints will be the increase of CR rate and the evaluation of feasibility of delta radiomics-based predictive MRI guided Radiotherapy (MRgRT) model. METHODS: Patients affected by LARC cT2-3, N0-2 or cT4 for anal sphincter involvement N0-2a, M0 without high risk features will be enrolled in the trial. Neoadjuvant CRT will be administered using MRgRT. The initial RT treatment will consist in delivering 55 Gy in 25 fractions on Gross Tumor Volume (GTV) plus the corresponding mesorectum and 45 Gy in 25 fractions on the drainage nodes. Chemotherapy with 5-fluoracil (5-FU) or oral capecitabine will be administered continuously. A 0.35 Tesla MRI will be acquired at simulation and every day during MRgRT. At fraction 10, ERI will be calculated: if ERI will be inferior than 13.1, the patient will continue the original treatment; if ERI will be higher than 13.1 the treatment plan will be reoptimized, intensifying the dose to the residual tumor at the 11th fraction to reach 60.1 Gy. At the end of nCRT instrumental examinations are to be performed in order to restage patients. In case of stable disease or progression, the patient will undergo surgery. In case of major or complete clinical response, conservative approaches may be chosen. Patients will be followed up to evaluate toxicity and quality of life. The number of cases to be enrolled will be 63: all the patients will be treated at Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS in Rome. DISCUSSION: This clinical trial investigates the impact of RT dose escalation in poor responder LARC patients identified using ERI, with the aim of increasing the probability of CR and consequently an organ preservation benefit in this group of patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04815694 (25/03/2021).

Propensity score-matched comparison of short- and long-term outcomes between surgery and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for intestinal type early gastric cancer (EGC) of the middle and lower third of the stomach: a European tertiary referral center experience.

BACKGROUND: Despite the comparable results between ESD and gastrectomy reported in multiple Asiatic studies, limited data are currently present on the long-term efficacy of ESD for EGC in Western countries. The aim of this study was to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of the endoscopic submucosal dissection and surgery for non-diffuse early gastric cancer treatment in a Western cohort of patients. METHODS: All patients with a diagnosis of intestinal type EGC located in the middle and lower third of the stomach from 2005 to 2015 were enrolled in the study. All patients completed a 5-year follow-up. Patients were divided according to the procedure performed (ESD/subtotal gastrectomy). The two groups were matched for age, gender, ASA score, tumor dimension, and grade of infiltration (mucosa/submucosa). RESULTS: After matching, 84 patients (42 per group) were included in the analysis. Peri-procedural morbidity rate was 7.1% and no difference was observed between the two groups (4.8% vs 9.5% for ESD and STG groups, respectively; p = 0.3). Similar results in terms of 5-year OS and DFS were observed for ESD and STG (77.7% vs 71.8% ; p = 0.78 and 74.9% vs 72% ; p = 0.7, respectively). At the multivariate analysis, ASA3 score was recognized as the only negative predictor factor for the 5-year OS (OR 6.2; 95% CI 2.2-16.8; p < 0.001). Regarding the DFS, both ASA3 score (OR 4.4; 95% CI 1.7-10.9; p < 0.001) and submucosal infiltration(OR 5.1; 95% CI 1.2-22.4 ; p = 0.02) were identified as independent risk factors for a worse outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Our results confirm the safety and feasibility ESD for EGC treatment in a Western setting. In addition, this is one of the few reports showing comparable results both in terms of short- and long-term outcomes between ESD and surgery for intestinal type ECG treatment in Western countries.

Impact of 2 generational improvements in colonoscopes on adenoma miss rates: results of a prospective randomized multicenter tandem study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Numerous randomized studies have shown that changing certain features of colonoscopes, usually incorporated when switching from one endoscope generation to the next, mostly do not increase adenoma yield. There is, however, indirect evidence that it may be necessary to skip one instrument generation (ie, changing from one generation to the next but one) to achieve this effect. METHODS: We compared the latest-generation colonoscopes from one company (Olympus Exera III, 190-C) with the next to last one (Olympus 160/5-C) in a prospective multicenter study randomized for the order of colonoscopes in a tandem fashion, involving 2 different examiners. Patients with increased risk for colorectal neoplasia undergoing colonoscopy (positive fecal occult blood test, personal/familial history of colorectal cancer/adenoma, rectal bleeding, recent change in bowel movements) were included. The primary outcome was the adenoma miss rate with the 190 (190-C) colonoscope in comparison with the 160/5 colonoscope (160/5-C). RESULTS: A total of 856 patients (48.8% male; mean age, 58.3 years) with a personal (41%) or family (38%) history of colorectal neoplasia, rectal bleeding (19%), and other indications were included. Of the 429 patients in the 190-C first group, 16.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 13.0%-20.1%) had at least one adenoma missed during the first procedure, compared with 30.2% (95% CI, 25.9%-34.6%) in the group with 160/5-C first (P < .001). Similarly, the adenoma detection rate during the first colonoscopy was 43.8% versus 36.5% (P = .030) for 190-C versus 160/5-C, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This randomized tandem trial showed lower adenoma miss rates and higher adenoma detection rates for the newer 190 colonoscopes compared with the 160/5 series. These results suggest that it takes multiple improvements, such as those implemented over 2 instrument generations, before an effect on adenoma (miss) rate can be observed. (Study registration number: ISRCTN 2010-A01256-33.).

Endoscopic mucosal resection of non-ampullary sporadic duodenal adenomas: a retrospective analysis with long-term follow-up.

OBJECTIVE: We investigate the efficiency of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of non-ampullary sporadic duodenal adenomas (NASDA) in a retrospective analysis with long-term follow-up. METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing EMR of NASDA between May 2002 and December 2016 were retrospectively identified from an electronic database. Endoscopic follow-up was scheduled after 3, 6 and 12 months for the first year, then yearly for up to five years. RESULTS: EMR of 75 NASDA was performed in 68 patients (56% en-bloc, 44% piecemeal). Retroperitoneal perforations occurred in 3/68 (4.4%) patients, were treated by surgical (n = 2) or percutaneous (n = 1) drainage; delayed bleeding was reported in 13/75 (17.3%) resections and was successfully managed by endoscopy (n = 12) or radiologic embolization (n = 1). There was no procedure-related mortality. Follow-up was available in 61/68 patients (89.7%) after a median time of 59 months from resection. Residual and recurrent adenoma were diagnosed in 9 (14.5%) and 6 (10.9%) cases, respectively; all but one were successfully retreated endoscopically. CONCLUSIONS: EMR for NASDA is effective with a favorable long-term outcome. Local recurrences can be retreated endoscopically. A recall system, patient's compliance to endoscopic follow-up are mandatory to detect recurrences and their prompt treatment.

Colon capsule versus CT colonography in patients with incomplete colonoscopy: a prospective, comparative trial.

OBJECTIVE: In case of incomplete colonoscopy, several radiologic methods have traditionally been used, but more recently, capsule endoscopy was also shown to be accurate. Aim of this study was to compare colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) and CT colonography (CTC) in a prospective cohort of patients with incomplete colonoscopy. DESIGN: Consecutive patients with a previous incomplete colonoscopy underwent CCE and CTC followed by colonoscopy in case of positive findings on either test (polyps/mass lesions ≥6 mm). Clinical follow-up was performed in the other cases to rule out missed cancer. CTC was performed after colon capsule excretion or 10-12 h postingestion. Since the gold standard colonoscopy was performed only in positive cases, diagnostic yield and positive predictive values of CCE and CTC were used as study end-points. RESULTS: 100 patients were enrolled. CCE and CTC were able to achieve complete colonic evaluation in 98% of cases. In a per-patient analysis for polyps ≥6 mm, CCE detected 24 patients (24.5%) and CTC 12 patients (12.2%). The relative sensitivity of CCE compared to CTC was 2.0 (95% CI 1.34 to 2.98), indicating a significant increase in sensitivity for lesions ≥6 mm. Of larger polyps (≥10 mm), these values were 5.1% for CCE and 3.1% for CTC (relative sensitivity: 1.67 (95% CI 0.69 to 4.00)). Positive predictive values for polyps ≥6 mm and ≥10 mm were 96% and 85.7%, and 83.3% and 100% for CCE and CTC, respectively. No missed cancer occurred at clinical follow-up of a mean of 20 months. CONCLUSIONS: CCE and CTC were of comparable efficacy in completing colon evaluation after incomplete colonoscopy; the overall diagnostic yield of colon capsule was superior to CTC. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01525940.

Higher adenoma recurrence rate after left- versus right-sided colectomy for colon cancer.

BACKGROUND: Patients with history of colonic resection for cancer have an increased risk of the development of metachronous malignant and premalignant lesions. Scanty data are reported on detection rates of premalignant lesions during colonoscopy surveillance in this setting. OBJECTIVE: To assess the risk of metachronous precancerous lesions developing in patients with previous colonic surgery for cancer according to the resection type. DESIGN: Retrospective study. SETTING: Two academic centers in Italy. PATIENTS: A total of 441 patients; 256 with previous left-sided colectomy (LCR) (LCR group) and 185 with previous right-sided colectomy (RCR) (RCR group). INTERVENTIONS: Second surveillance colonoscopy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Polyp and adenoma detection rates. RESULTS: At least 1 adenoma was diagnosed in 76 of 256 patients (30% adenoma detection rate) and in 35 of 185 patients (19% adenoma detection rate) in the LCR and RCR groups, respectively (P=.014), yielding an odds ratio of 1.83 (95% confidence interval, 1.16-2.89). Corresponding figures for the polyp detection rate were 39% and 25%, respectively (P=.002; odds ratio 1.97; 95% confidence interval, 1.30-3.00). LIMITATIONS: Retrospective study with colonoscopy baseline information missing. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who have undergone LCR are at higher risk of the development of adenomas than those who have undergone RCR. If this result is confirmed by large prospective studies, surveillance programs could be targeted according to the type of colonic resection, with longer intervals for patients with previous RCR compared with LCR.

Clinical indications for computed tomographic colonography: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) Guideline.

This is an official guideline of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and the European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR). It addresses the clinical indications for the use of computed tomographic colonography (CTC). A targeted literature search was performed to evaluate the evidence supporting the use of CTC. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system was adopted to define the strength of recommendations and the quality of evidence. Main recommendations 1 ESGE/ESGAR recommend computed tomographic colonography (CTC) as the radiological examination of choice for the diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia. ESGE/ESGAR do not recommend barium enema in this setting (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). 2 ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC, preferably the same or next day, if colonoscopy is incomplete. Delay of CTC should be considered following endoscopic resection. In the case of obstructing colorectal cancer, preoperative contrast-enhanced CTC may also allow location or staging of malignant lesions (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). 3 When endoscopy is contraindicated or not possible, ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an acceptable and equally sensitive alternative for patients with symptoms suggestive of colorectal cancer (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). 4 ESGE/ESGAR recommend referral for endoscopic polypectomy in patients with at least one polyp  ≥  6  mm in diameter detected at CTC. CTC surveillance may be clinically considered if patients do not undergo polypectomy (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). 5 ESGE/ESGAR do not recommend CTC as a primary test for population screening or in individuals with a positive first-degree family history of colorectal cancer (CRC). However, it may be proposed as a CRC screening test on an individual basis providing the screenee is adequately informed about test characteristics, benefits, and risks (weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence).

Endoscopic full-thickness resection vs. endoscopic submucosal dissection of residual/recurrent colonic lesions on scars: a retrospective Italian and Japanese comparative study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic treatment of recurrent/residual colonic lesions on scars is a challenging procedure. In this setting, endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is considered the first choice, despite a significant rate of complications. Endoscopic full-thickness resection (eFTR) has been shown to be well-tolerated and effective for these lesions. The aim of this study is to conduct a comparison of outcomes for resection of such lesions between ESD and eFTR in an Italian and a Japanese referral center. METHODS: From January 2018 to July 2020, we retrospectively enrolled patients with residual/recurrent colonic lesions, 20 treated by eFTR in Italy and 43 treated by ESD in Japan. The primary outcome was to compare the two techniques in terms of en-bloc and R0-resection rates, whereas complications, time of procedure, and outcomes at 3-month follow-up were evaluated as secondary outcomes. RESULTS: R0 resection rate was not significantly different between the two groups [18/20 (90%) and 41/43 (95%); P= 0.66]. En-bloc resection was 100% in both groups. No significant difference was found in the procedure time (54 min vs. 61 min; P= 0.9). There was a higher perforation rate in the ESD group [11/43 (26%) vs. 0/20 (0%); P= 0.01]. At the 3-month follow-up, two lesions relapsed in the eFTR cohort and none in the ESD cohort (P= 0.1). CONCLUSION: eFTR is a safer, as effective and equally time-consuming technique compared with ESD for the treatment of residual/recurrent colonic lesions on scars and could become an alternative therapeutic option for such lesions.

Accuracy of narrow-band imaging in predicting the histology of anal intraepithelial lesions.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Anal intraepithelial neoplasia (AIN) is the precursor of anal squamous carcinoma, frequently underappreciated by most gastroenterologists. Purpose of the study is to assess the diagnostic accuracy of narrow-band imaging (NBI) in predicting the histology of anal lesions, considering a new NBI classification. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of consecutive patients with suspected anal squamous intraepithelial lesions (SILs) and superficially invasive squamous cell carcinoma (SISCCA) who underwent anorectal-sigmoidoscopy. Three expert endoscopists reviewed all the images collected during colonoscopies in white light and NBI in order to generate a practical classification of three main different NBI patterns. RESULTS: After the modified Delphi process, the final NBI classification, mainly based on intrapapillary capillary loops (IPCL) changes included three different NBI pattern. NBI pattern I: elongation of IPCL toward epithelial surface; NBI pattern 2: thickened and tortuous IPCL; NBI pattern 3: mosaic-like disposition of IPCL. We found that NBI pattern positively correlated to the histologic type of the lesions and tumor grade (Spearman's rho = 0.9671, P = 0.0000). Among 58 anal lesions included, 41/41 (100%) LSILs have been classified as NBI pattern I, 10/11 (90.91%) HSILs as NBI pattern II, 1/11 HSIL as NBI pattern I, 4/4 SISCCA as NBI pattern III and 2/2 invasive cancer as NBI pattern III. Diagnostic accuracy of NBI pattern II or III in predicting histology differentiating HSIL or SISCCA/IC versus LSIL showed a sensitivity of 100%, (95% CI: 92.3-100%) and a specificity of 94.1% (95% CI: 83.8-98.3%). CONCLUSION: The accuracy of this new NBI score system in predicting the histology of anal lesions showed encouraging data in term of sensitivity and specificity in differentiating HSIL or SISCCA/IC versus LSIL, but the clinical usefulness and application of these findings should be evaluated in a prospective larger study.

Clinical outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection for giant rectal tumors larger than 8 cm: A European referral center experience.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: To date, western data on colorectal ESD are limited. This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of rectal ESD for superficial lesions ≥ 8 cm. METHODS: A total of 138 superficial rectal neoplasms treated by ESD were allocated in two groups: 25 in the "giant" ESD group and 113 in the control group. RESULTS: En bloc resection was achieved in 96% of cases in both groups. En bloc R0 resection rate was similar between the "giant" ESD group and the control group (84% vs 86%; p: 0.5) and curative resection was higher in the control group (81%) than in "giant" ESD group (68%) without reaching statistical significance (p: 0.2). Dissection time was significantly longer in the "giant" ESD group (251 vs 108 min; p <0.001), however, dissection speed was significantly higher (0.35 vs 0.17 cm2/min; p: 0.02).). Post-ESD stenosis was observed in 2 patients from the "giant" ESD group (8% vs 0% of control group, p: 0.03). No significant differences were found in delayed bleeding, perforation, local recurrences, and need for additional surgery. CONCLUSIONS: ESD for superficial rectal tumors ≥ 8 cm is a feasible, safe, and effective therapeutic option.

Increasing the accuracy of colorectal cancer screening.

INTRODUCTION: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a major health issue, being responsible for nearly 10% of all cancer-related deaths. Since CRC is often an asymptomatic or paucisymptomatic disease until it reaches advanced stages, screening is crucial for the diagnosis of preneoplastic lesions or early CRC. AREAS COVERED: The aim of this review is to summarize the literature evidence on currently available CRC screening tools, with their pros and cons, focusing on the level of accuracy reached by each test over time. We also provide an overview of novel technologies and scientific advances that are currently being investigated and that in the future may represent real game-changers in the field of CRC screening. EXPERT OPINION: We suggest that best screening modalities are annual or biennial FIT and colonoscopy every 10 years. We believe that the introduction of artificial intelligence (AI)-tools in the CRC screening field could lead to a significant improvement of the screening efficacy in reducing CRC incidence and mortality in the future. More resources should be put into implementing CRC programs and support research project to further increase the accuracy of CRC screening tests and strategies.

Capsule endoscopy versus colonoscopy for the detection of polyps and cancer.

BACKGROUND: An ingestible capsule consisting of an endoscope equipped with a video camera at both ends was designed to explore the colon. This study compared capsule endoscopy with optical colonoscopy for the detection of colorectal polyps and cancer. METHODS: We performed a prospective, multicenter study comparing capsule endoscopy with optical colonoscopy (the standard for comparison) in a cohort of patients with known or suspected colonic disease for the detection of colorectal polyps or cancer. Patients underwent an adapted colon preparation, and colon cleanliness was graded from poor to excellent. We computed the sensitivity and specificity of capsule endoscopy for polyps, advanced adenoma, and cancer. RESULTS: A total of 328 patients (mean age, 58.6 years) were included in the study. The capsule was excreted within 10 hours after ingestion and before the end of the lifetime of the battery in 92.8% of the patients. The sensitivity and specificity of capsule endoscopy for detecting polyps that were 6 mm in size or bigger were 64% (95% confidence interval [CI], 59 to 72) and 84% (95% CI, 81 to 87), respectively, and for detecting advanced adenoma, the sensitivity and specificity were 73% (95% CI, 61 to 83) and 79% (95% CI, 77 to 81), respectively. Of 19 cancers detected by colonoscopy, 14 were detected by capsule endoscopy (sensitivity, 74%; 95% CI, 52 to 88). For all lesions, the sensitivity of capsule endoscopy was higher in patients with good or excellent colon cleanliness than in those with fair or poor colon cleanliness. Mild-to-moderate adverse events were reported in 26 patients (7.9%) and were mostly related to the colon preparation. CONCLUSIONS: The use of capsule endoscopy of the colon allows visualization of the colonic mucosa in most patients, but its sensitivity for detecting colonic lesions is low as compared with the use of optical colonoscopy. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00604162.)

Appropriateness of the indication for colonoscopy: is the endoscopist the 'gold standard'?

BACKGROUND: The appropriate selection of patients for colonoscopy is crucial for an efficient use of endoscopy. The role of endoscopist in filtering out inappropriate referrals is largely unknown. METHODS: A multicentre, prospective study was performed in which consecutive patients referred for colonoscopy during a 1-month period were enrolled. Before colonoscopy, the endoscopist assessed appropriateness of the endoscopic referral without directly consulting official guidelines, also collecting clinical and demographic variables. Appropriateness of the indication was eventually assessed by a group of experts based on the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guidelines, representing the gold standard. Outcomes of the study were the inappropriateness rate and the main related causes, as well as the concordance rate between the endoscopists and the experts. A multivariate analysis was performed to identify predictors of inappropriateness. RESULTS: One thousand seven hundred ninety-nine patients were enrolled in 20 centres, of which 1489 outpatients were included in the final analysis. According to the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guidelines, 432 referrals were inappropriate, corresponding to an inappropriateness rate of 29%. At multivariate analysis, prescription of a repeated colonoscopy (≥2 colonoscopies in the same patient) was strongly associated with the inappropriateness of the indication (odds ratio: 8.8; 95% confidence interval: 6.2, 12.7). Postpolypectomy or post-colorectal cancer surveillance accounted for 77% of the inappropriate control procedures. A 79% concordance rate between endoscopist and expert assessment was found. Among the 317 discordant cases, postpolypectomy or post-colorectal cancer surveillance accounted for 51% of the cases, the endoscopists mistakenly classifying it as appropriate in 55% to 61% of the inappropriate cases. CONCLUSIONS: Inappropriateness in outpatient colonoscopy referrals remains high, surveillance procedures representing the most frequent source of inappropriateness.

Efficacy and safety of endoscopic resection techniques of large colorectal lesions: experience of a referral center in Italy.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic mucosal resection and submucosal dissection (ESD) are treatments of choice for superficial neoplastic colorectal lesions. Only a few studies have compared these techniques. AIM: To compare the efficacy and safety of endoscopic piecemeal mucosal resection (EPMR), ESD and hybrid-endoscopic submucosal dissection (H-ESD) of large colorectal lesions in a Western endoscopic center. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis on a prospective medical database of consecutive colorectal superficial lesions larger than 20 mm, resected by EPMR, ESD or H-ESD collected from 2015 to 2019. RESULTS: Two hundred twenty-nine colorectal lesions were included. All lesions were completely endoscopically resected, 65.9% by EPMR, 19.7% by ESD and 14.4% by H-ESD. Endoscopic control after the index procedure was available for 86.5% patients. Among these patients, 80% had a second follow-up colonoscopy. The overall recurrence rate was 13.2, 0 and 6.1% for EPMR, ESD and H-ESD respectively, with a significant difference between EPMR and ESD. All recurrences were endoscopically treated during follow-up procedures. Risk of complications was not significantly different between the three groups. CONCLUSIONS: EPMR, ESD and H-ESD are effective and safe procedures. Recurrence rate in EPMR was higher but can be managed endoscopically with high success rates. EPMR is faster and technically simpler so should be considered a potential first-line therapy for colorectal superficial neoplastic lesions.

Factors Associated with Withdrawal Time in European Colonoscopy Practice: Findings of the European Colonoscopy Quality Investigation (ECQI) Group.

The European Colonoscopy Quality Investigation (ECQI) Group aims to raise awareness for improvement in colonoscopy standards across Europe. We analyzed data collected on a sample of procedures conducted across Europe to evaluate the achievement of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) mean withdrawal time (WT) target. We also investigated factors associated with WT, in the hope of establishing areas that could lead to a quality improvement. METHODS: 6445 form completions from 12 countries between 2 June 2016 and 30 April 2018 were considered for this analysis. We performed an exploratory analysis looking at WT according to the ESGE definition. Stepwise multivariable logistic regression analysis was conducted to determine the most influential associated factors after adjusting for the other pre-specified variables. RESULTS: In 1150 qualifying colonoscopies, the mean WT was 7.8 min. Stepwise analysis, including 587 procedures where all inputs were known, found that the variables most associated with mean WT were a previous total colonoscopy in the last five years (p = 0.0011) and the time of day the colonoscopy was performed (p = 0.0192). The main factor associated with a WT < 6 min was the time of day that a colonoscopy was performed. Use of sedation was the main factor associated with a higher proportion of WT > 10 min, along with a previous colonoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: On average, the sample of European practice captured by the ECQI survey met the minimum standard set by the ESGE. However, there was variation and potential for improvement.

Factors Associated with Polyp Detection Rate in European Colonoscopy Practice: Findings of The European Colonoscopy Quality Investigation (ECQI) Group.

Background: The European Colonoscopy Quality Investigation (ECQI) Group aims to raise awareness for improvement in colonoscopy standards across Europe. We analysed data collected on a sample of procedures conducted across Europe to evaluate the achievement of the polyp detection rate (PDR) target. We also investigated factors associated with PDR, in the hope of establishing areas that could lead to a quality improvement. Methods: 6445 form completions from 12 countries between 2 June 2016 and 30 April 2018 were considered for this analysis. We performed an exploratory analysis looking at PDR according to European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) definition. Stepwise multivariable logistic regression analysis was conducted to determine the most influential associated factors after adjusting for the other pre-specified variables. Results: In our sample there were 3365 screening and diagnostic procedures performed in those over 50 years. The PDR was 40.5%, which is comparable with the ESGE minimum standard of 40%. The variables found to be associated with PDR were in descending order: use of high-definition equipment, body mass index (BMI), patient gender, age group, and the reason for the procedure. Use of HD equipment was associated with a significant increase in the reporting of flat lesions (14.3% vs. 5.7%, p < 0.0001) and protruded lesions (34.7% vs. 25.4%, p < 0.0001). Conclusions: On average, the sample of European practice captured by the ECQI survey meets the minimum PDR standard set by the ESGE. Our findings support the ESGE recommendation for routine use of HD colonoscopy.

BRIDGE -1 TRIAL: BReak Interval Delayed surgery for Gastrointestinal Extraperitoneal rectal cancer, a multicentric phase III randomized trial.

Design: Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) followed by surgery is the standard of care for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC).Several studies have shown a correlation between a longer interval between the end of nCRT and surgery (surgical interval - SI) and an increased pathological complete response (pCR) rate, with a maximum obtained between 10 and 13 weeks.The primary endpoint of this multicenter, 2-arm randomised trial is to investigate SI lengthening, evaluating the difference in terms of complete response (CR) and Tumor Regression Grade (TRG)1 rate in the two arms. Secondly, the impact of SI lengthening on survival outcomes and quality of life (QoL) will be investigated. Methods: Intermediate-risk LARC patients undergoing nCRT will be prospectively included in the study. nCRT will be administered with a total dose of 55 Gy in 25 fractions on Gross Tumor Volume (GTV) plus the corresponding mesorectum of 45 Gy in 25 fractions on the whole pelvis. Chemotherapy with oral capecitabine will be administered continuously.The patients achieving a clinical major or complete response assessed at clinical-instrumental re-evaluation at 7-8 weeks after treatment completion, will be randomized into two groups, to undergo surgery or local excision at 9-11 weeks (control arm) or at 13-16 weeks (experimental arm). Pathological response will be assessed on the surgical specimen using the AJCC TNM v.7 and the TRG according to Mandard. Patients will be followed up to evaluate toxicity and QoL.The promoter center of the trial will conduct the randomization process through an automated procedure to prevent any possible bias.For sample size calculation, using CR difference of 20% as endpoint, 74 patients per arm will be enrolled. Conclusions: The results of this study may prospectively provide a new time frame for the clinical re-evaluation for complete/major responders patients in order to increase the CR rate to nCRT.Trial registration:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03581344.

Endoscopists performance in optical diagnosis of colorectal polyps in artificial intelligence studies.

Widespread adoption of optical diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia is prevented by suboptimal endoscopist performance and lack of standardized training and competence evaluation. We aimed to assess diagnostic accuracy of endoscopists in optical diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia in the framework of artificial intelligence (AI) validation studies. Literature searches of databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus) up to April 2022 were performed to identify articles evaluating accuracy of individual endoscopists in performing optical diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia within studies validating AI against a histologically verified ground-truth. The main outcomes were endoscopists' pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value (PPV/NPV), positive and negative likelihood ratio (LR) and area under the curve (AUC for sROC) for predicting adenomas versus non-adenomas. Six studies with 67 endoscopists and 2085 (IQR: 115-243,5) patients were evaluated. Pooled sensitivity and specificity for adenomatous histology was respectively 84.5% (95% CI 80.3%-88%) and 83% (95% CI 79.6%-85.9%), corresponding to a PPV, NPV, LR+, LR- of 89.5% (95% CI 87.1%-91.5%), 75.7% (95% CI 70.1%-80.7%), 5 (95% CI 3.9%-6.2%) and 0.19 (95% CI 0.14%-0.25%). The AUC was 0.82 (CI 0.76-0.90). Expert endoscopists showed a higher sensitivity than non-experts (90.5%, [95% CI 87.6%-92.7%] vs. 75.5%, [95% CI 66.5%-82.7%], p < 0.001), and Eastern endoscopists showed a higher sensitivity than Western (85%, [95% CI 80.5%-88.6%] vs. 75.8%, [95% CI 70.2%-80.6%]). Quality was graded high for 3 studies and low for 3 studies. We show that human accuracy for diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia in the setting of AI studies is suboptimal. Educational interventions could benefit by AI validation settings which seem a feasible framework for competence assessment.

Second-generation colon capsule endoscopy compared with colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND: Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) represents a noninvasive technology that allows visualization of the colon without requiring sedation and air insufflation. A second-generation colon capsule endoscopy system (PillCam Colon 2) (CCE-2) was developed to increase sensitivity for colorectal polyp detection compared with the first-generation system. OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility, accuracy, and safety of CCE-2 in a head-to-head comparison with colonoscopy. DESIGN AND SETTING: Prospective, multicenter trial including 8 European sites. PATIENTS: This study involved 117 patients (mean age 60 years). Data from 109 patients were analyzed. INTERVENTION: CCE-2 was prospectively compared with conventional colonoscopy as the criterion standard for the detection of colorectal polyps that are ≥6 mm or masses in a cohort of patients at average or increased risk of colorectal neoplasia. Colonoscopy was independently performed within 10 hours after capsule ingestion or on the next day. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: CCE-2 sensitivity and specificity for detecting patients with polyps ≥6 mm and ≥10 mm were assessed. Capsule-positive but colonoscopy-negative cases were counted as false positive. Capsule excretion rate, level of bowel preparation, and rate of adverse events also were assessed. RESULTS: Per-patient CCE-2 sensitivity for polyps ≥6 mm and ≥10 mm was 84% and 88%, with specificities of 64% and 95%, respectively. All 3 invasive carcinomas were detected by CCE-2. The capsule excretion rate was 88% within 10 hours. Overall colon cleanliness for CCE-2 was adequate in 81% of patients. LIMITATIONS: Not unblinding the CCE-2 results at colonoscopy; heterogenous patient population; nonconsecutive patients. CONCLUSION: In this European, multicenter study, CCE-2 appeared to have a high sensitivity for the detection of clinically relevant polypoid lesions, and it might be considered an adequate tool for colorectal imaging.