Success rate of fiducial marker placement for treatment of esophageal or rectal cancers: a prospective multicenter study (FIDECHO study) (with video).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: EUS-guided placement of fiducial markers in patients with esophageal or rectal cancer who have been referred for radiation therapy lacks data regarding its feasibility and safety. The aim of this study was to assess the success rate of EUS-guided fiducial marker placement in these indications. METHODS: This prospective multicenter study enrolled patients with rectal or esophageal tumors who were treated between March 2017 and June 2021. The primary endpoint was the success of fiducial marker placement under EUS guidance utilizing the preloaded 22-gauge EchoTip Ultra Fiducial Needle (Cook Medical, Limerick, Ireland), defined by the ability to release fiducials at least at the proximal and distal ends of the tumor. Secondary endpoints were the adverse events, length of procedure, and fiducial markers remaining throughout radiation therapy. RESULTS: A total of 33 patients were included in this study, with a mean age of 64.2 ± 11.3 years; 66.7% were male. Twenty patients had rectal adenocarcinoma, and 13 had esophageal malignancies. The success rate of fiducial marker placement was 93.9%. Markers could only be released at the proximal end of the tumor in 2 cases. The average procedure time (±SD) was 12.5 ± 4.8 minutes. The number of fiducial markers placed for each patient was 3.8 ± .5. No adverse events were reported. At the end of radiotherapy, markers were still visible on imaging in all patients. CONCLUSIONS: This prospective multicenter study highlights the safety and high success of the placement of fiducial markers under EUS guidance for rectal and esophageal tumors, with no adverse events and with a short procedure time. Fiducial markers remained in place over time during radiation therapy. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03057288.).

Impact of surgery after endoscopically resected high-risk T1 colorectal cancer: results of an emulated target trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: We aimed to compare the long-term outcomes of patients with high-risk T1 colorectal cancer (CRC) resected endoscopically who received either additional surgery or surveillance. METHODS: We used data from routine care to emulate a target trial aimed at comparing 2 strategies after endoscopic resection of high-risk T1 CRC: surgery with lymph node dissection (treatment group) versus surveillance alone (control group). All patients from 14 tertiary centers who underwent an endoscopic resection for high-risk T1 CRC between March 2012 and August 2019 were included. The primary outcome was a composite outcome of cancer recurrence or death at 48 months. RESULTS: Of 197 patients included in the analysis, 107 were categorized in the treatment group and 90 were categorized in the control group. From baseline to 48 months, 4 of 107 patients (3.7%) died in the treatment group and 6 of 90 patients (6.7%) died in the control group. Four of 107 patients (3.7%) in the treatment group experienced a cancer recurrence and 4 of 90 patients (4.4%) in the control group experienced a cancer recurrence. After balancing the baseline covariates by inverse probability of treatment weighting, we found no significant difference in the rate of death and cancer recurrence between patients in the 2 groups (weighted hazard ratio, .95; 95% confidence interval, .52-1.75). CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that patients with high-risk T1 CRC initially treated with endoscopic resection may not benefit from additional surgery.

Impact of linked color imaging on the proximal adenoma miss rate: a multicenter tandem randomized controlled trial (the COCORICO trial).

BACKGROUND: Missed lesions are common during standard colonoscopy and are correlated with post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer. Contrast-enhanced technologies have recently been developed to improve polyp detection. We aimed to evaluate the impact of linked color imaging (LCI) on the proximal adenoma miss rate in routine colonoscopy. METHODS: This national, multicenter, tandem, randomized trial compared the outcomes of colonoscopy with white-light imaging (WLI) versus LCI for polyp detection in the right colon. Two consecutive examinations of the right colon (upstream of the hepatic flexure) were made with WLI and LCI by the same operator. First-pass examination by WLI or LCI was randomized 1:1 after cecal intubation. According to statistical calculations, 10 endoscopy units had to include approximately 700 patients. The primary outcome was proximal adenoma miss rate. Secondary outcomes were the proximal miss rates for sessile serrated lesions (SSL), advanced adenomas, and polyps. RESULTS: 764 patients were included from 1 January 2020 to 22 December 2022, and 686 patients were randomized (345 WLI first vs. 341 LCI first). Both groups were comparable in terms of demographics and indications. The proximal adenoma miss rate was not significantly higher in the WLI-first group (36.7%) vs. the LCI-first group (31.8%) (estimated mean absolute difference: 4.9% [95%CI -5.2% to 15.0%], P = 0.34). There was also no significant difference in miss rates for SSLs, advanced adenomas, and polyps in the proximal colon. CONCLUSIONS: In contrast to previous data, this study does not support the benefit of LCI to the proximal adenoma miss rate in routine colonoscopy.

Multicenter randomized trial comparing diagnostic sensitivity and cellular abundance with aggressive versus standard biliary brushing for bile duct stenosis without mass syndrome.

BACKGROUND : The diagnosis of cholangiocarcinoma in patients with a biliary stricture without mass syndrome can be obtained by biliary brushing with a sensitivity of ~50 %. We performed a multicenter randomized crossover trial comparing the aggressive Infinity brush with the standard RX Cytology Brush. The aims were to compare sensitivity for cholangiocarcinoma diagnosis and cellularity obtained. METHODS : Biliary brushing was performed consecutively with each brush, in a randomized order. Cytological material was studied with blinding to the brush type used and order. The primary end point was sensitivity for cholangiocarcinoma diagnosis; the secondary end point was the abundance of cellularity obtained with each brush, with cellularity quantified in order to determine if one brush strongly outperformed the other. RESULTS : 51 patients were included. Final diagnoses were cholangiocarcinoma (n = 43; 84 %), benign (n = 7; 14 %), and indeterminate (n = 1; 2 %). Sensitivity for cholangiocarcinoma was 79 % (34 /43) for the Infinity brush versus 67 % (29/43) for the RX Cytology Brush (P = 0.10). Cellularity was rich in 31/51 cases (61 %) with the Infinity brush and in 10/51 cases (20 %) with the RX Cytology Brush (P < 0.001). In terms of quantification of cellularity, the Infinity brush strongly outperformed the RX Cytology Brush in 28/51 cases (55 %), while the RX Cytology Brush strongly outperformed the Infinity brush in 4/51 cases (8 %; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS : This randomized crossover trial showed that the Infinity brush is not significantly more effective than the RX Cytology Brush for biliary stenosis without mass syndrome in terms of sensitivity for cholangiocarcinoma diagnosis, but does offer a significantly higher abundance of cellularity.

Early double-guidewire versus repeated single-guidewire technique to facilitate selective bile duct cannulation: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: During endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), access to the common bile duct (CBD) can be problematic after unintentional insertion of the guidewire into the pancreatic duct. We conducted a prospective, randomized study in order to compare biliary cannulation success rates of early double-guidewire (EDG) and repeated single-guidewire (RSG) techniques in patients with inadvertent passage of the guidewire into the pancreatic duct. METHODS: Patients with a native papilla were randomly assigned to either the EDG or RSG groups after unintentional insertion of the guidewire into the pancreatic duct. The primary outcome was successful selective CBD cannulation within 10 minutes. The secondary outcomes were successful final selective bile duct cannulation, time to bile duct cannulation, and frequency of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). RESULTS: 142 patients were randomized and selective bile duct cannulation was achieved in 57/68 patients (84 %) in the EDG group and in 37/74 patients (50 %) in the RSG group within 10 minutes (relative risk 1.34; 95 % confidence interval 1.08-6.18; P < 0.001). The overall final selective bile duct cannulation rate was 99.3 %. The time to access the CBD was shorter using the EDG technique (6.0 vs. 10.4 minutes; P = 0.002). Mild PEP was not observed more frequently in the EDG group than in the RSG group. CONCLUSION: The EDG technique significantly increased the success rate of biliary duct cannulation within 10 minutes compared with an RSG approach.

Adenoma detection by Endocuff-assisted versus standard colonoscopy in routine practice: a cluster-randomised crossover trial.

OBJECTIVE: Endocuff Vision (ECV) is the second generation of a device designed to improve polyp detection. The aim of this study was to evaluate its impact on adenoma detection rate (ADR) in routine colonoscopy. DESIGN: This cluster-randomised crossover trial compared Endocuff-assisted (ECV+) with standard (ECV-) colonoscopy. Two teams of 11 endoscopists each with prior ECV experience, balanced in terms of basal ADR, gender and case volume were compared. In randomised fashion, the teams started with ECV+ or ECV- and switched group after inclusion of half of the cases. The main outcome criterion was ADR difference between ECV+ and ECV-. Subgroup analysis was done for physicians with low and high ADR (< or ≥ 25%). RESULTS: During two periods of 20 and 21 weeks, respectively, the 22 endoscopists included 2058 patients (1032 ECV- vs 1026 ECV+, both groups being comparable). Overall ADR for both groups taken together was higher with ECV (39.2%) than without (29.4%; p<0.001) irrespective of the sequence of use (ECV+ or ECV- first), but mostly in adenomas <1 cm. In the physician subgroup analysis, only high detectors showed a significant ADR increase (from 31% to 41%, p<0.001), while the increase in the low detectors was not significant (from 24% to 30%, p=0.11). ECV had a positive impact in all colonic locations, except for the rectum. No ECV- related complication was reported. CONCLUSION: We observed a significant ADR difference of approximately 10% by the use of ECV. By subgroup analysis, this increase was significant only in physicians classified as high detectors. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03344055).

22G Acquire vs. 20G Procore needle for endoscopic ultrasound-guided biopsy of pancreatic masses: a randomized study comparing histologic sample quantity and diagnostic accuracy.

BACKGROUND : Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) has been suggested for obtaining high quality tissue samples from pancreatic tumors. We performed a multicenter randomized crossover trial comparing EUS-FNB with a 20G Procore needle vs. a 22G Acquire needle. The aims were to compare the quantity of targeted tissue (pancreas) and diagnostic accuracy for the two needles. METHODS : 60 patients admitted for EUS-FNB in three endoscopy units were included. One pass was performed consecutively with each needle, in a randomized order. Histologic material was studied in a blinded manner with respect to the needle. The primary end point was mean cumulative length of tissue core biopsies per needle pass. RESULTS : Final diagnosis was adenocarcinoma (n = 46; 77 %), neuroendocrine neoplasm (n = 11; 18 %), autoimmune pancreatitis (n = 2), and mass-forming chronic pancreatitis (n = 1). The mean cumulative length of tissue core biopsies per needle pass was significantly higher with the 22G Acquire needle at 11.4 mm (95 % confidence interval [CI] 9.0 - 13.8] vs. 5.4 mm (95 %CI 3.8 - 7.0) for the 20G Procore needle (P < 0.001), as was the mean surface area (3.5 mm2 [95 %CI 2.7 - 4.3] vs. 1.8 mm2 [95 %CI 1.2 - 2.3]; P < 0.001). Diagnostic adequacy and accuracy were 100 % and 87 % with the 22G Acquire needle, and 82 % and 67 % with the 20G Procore needle (P = 0.001 and P = 0.02, respectively). CONCLUSIONS : EUS-guided biopsy of pancreatic masses with the 22G Acquire needle provided more tissue for histologic evaluation and better diagnostic accuracy than the 20G Procore needle.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on gastrointestinal endoscopy activity in France.

BACKGROUND: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has majorly affected medical activity around the world. We sought to measure the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy activity in France. METHODS: We performed a web-based survey, including 35 questions on the responders and their endoscopic practice, from 23 March to 27 March 2020, sent to the 3300 French gastroenterologists practicing endoscopy. RESULTS: 694 GI endoscopists (21 %) provided analyzable data; of these, 29.4 % (204/694) were involved in the management of COVID-19 patients outside the endoscopy department. During the study period, 98.7 % (685/694) of endoscopists had had to cancel procedures. There were 89 gastroenterologists (12.8 %) who reported symptoms compatible with COVID-19 infection, and a positive PCR test was recorded in 12/197 (6.1 %) vs. 3/497 (0.6 %) endoscopists in the high vs. low prevalence areas, respectively (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic led to a major reduction in the volume of GI endoscopies performed in France in March 2020. The prolonged limited access to GI endoscopy could lead to a delay in the management of patients with GI cancers.

Comparison of 20-gauge Procore® and 22-gauge Acquire® needles for EUS-FNB of solid pancreatic masses: an observational study.

Background and Aims: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) has been proposed to obtain high-quality tissue samples for pancreatic tumors. We performed an observational study to compare EUS-FNB with a 20-gauge Procore® needle versus a 22-gauge Acquire® needle. Our primary endpoint was the quantity of the obtained tissue, as defined by the mean cumulative length of tissue core biopsies per needle pass. Methods: Sixty-eight EUS-FNB were consecutively performed on patients with a pancreatic mass. The choice of needle depended on availability at the time of admission: 34 punctures were performed with each needle. Histological material was studied in a blinded manner with respect to the needle, and the cumulative length of tissue core biopsies per needle pass was determined. Intraobserver and interobserver variability of this criterion was then evaluated. Results: There were no between-group differences. Histological diagnosis was achieved and core biopsy specimens were obtained in 28 out of 34 patients (82%) in the 20-gauge Procore® group and in 33 out of 34 patients (97%) in the 22-gauge Acquire® group (p = .1). The mean cumulative length of tissue core biopsies per needle pass was significantly higher with the 22-gauge Acquire® needle with 8.2 ± 4.2 mm versus 4.2 ± 3.8 mm for the 20-gauge Procore® needle (p < .01). No intra and inter-observer variability of this criterion was observed. Conclusions: Our results suggest significant differences, with a mean cumulative length of tissue core biopsies per needle pass significantly higher with the 22-gauge Acquire® needle. This simple criterion seems reliable and reproducible.

Difference in Physician- and Patient-Dependent Factors Contributing to Adenoma Detection Rate and Serrated Polyp Detection Rate.

BACKGROUND: Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is correlated with the risk of interval colorectal cancer and is considered as a quality benchmark for colonoscopy. Serrated polyp detection rate (SPDR) might be a more stringent indicator of quality in polyp detection. AIMS: To evaluate in a 2-year monocentric observational study patient-dependent and endoscopist-dependent factors influencing ADR and SPDR in daily practice. METHODS: We determined ADR and SPDR. We collected patient-dependent factors and endoscopist-dependent factors. Links between these data and detection rates were assessed by uni- and multivariate analysis. RESULTS: A total of 11682 colonoscopies were performed (female: 54.3%; male: 45.7%; median age 58) by 30 endoscopists (female: 9; male: 21). ADR and SPDR were 29.2% and 8%, respectively. In multivariate analysis, ADR was associated with patient-dependent factors: age (OR 1.044, CI 95% 1.040-1.048), male gender (OR 1.7, CI 95% 1.56-1.85), personal history of polyp/cancer (OR 1.53, CI 95% 1.3-1.9), and positive fecal immunochemical test (OR 2.47, CI 95% 2.0-3.1). In multivariate analysis, SPDR was associated with withdrawal time (OR 1.25, CI 95% 1.17-1.32), low volume activity (OR 1.3, CI 95% 1.1-1.52), and personal history of polyp/cancer (OR 1.61, CI 95% 1.15-2.25). CONCLUSION: In this large series of routine colonoscopies, we found that ADR was mainly driven by patient-dependent conditions, i.e., age, male gender, colonoscopy indication for positive FIT, and a personal history of polyp or cancer. In contrast, SPDR was mainly related to endoscopist-dependent factor, i.e., withdrawal time and low volume activity.

Complete endoscopic sphincterotomy with vs. without large-balloon dilation for the removal of large bile duct stones: randomized multicenter study.

Background and study aims Endoscopic sphincterotomy plus large-balloon dilation (ES-LBD) has been reported as an alternative to endoscopic sphincterotomy for the removal of bile duct stones. This multicenter study compared complete endoscopic sphincterotomy with vs. without large-balloon dilation for the removal of large bile duct stones. This is the first randomized multicenter study to evaluate these procedures in patients with exclusively large common bile duct (CBD) stones. Methods Between 2010 and 2015, 150 patients with one or more common bile duct stones ≥ 13 mm were randomized to two groups: 73 without balloon dilation (conventional group), 77 with balloon dilation (ES-LBD group). Mechanical lithotripsy was subsequently performed only if the stones were too large for removal through the papilla. Endoscopic sphincterotomy was complete in both groups. Patients could switch to ES-LBD if the conventional procedure failed. Results There was no between-group difference in number and size of stones. CBD stone clearance was achieved in 74.0 % of patients in the conventional group and 96.1 % of patients in the ES-LBD group (P < 0.001). Mechanical lithotripsy was needed significantly more often in the conventional group (35.6 % vs. 3.9 %; P < 0.001). There was no difference in terms of morbidity (9.3 % in the conventional group vs. 8.1 % in the ES-LBD group; P = 0.82). The cost and procedure time were not significantly different between the groups overall, but became significantly higher for patients in the conventional group who underwent mechanical lithotripsy. The conventional procedure failed in 19 patients, 15 of whom underwent a rescue ES-LBD procedure that successfully cleared all stones. Conclusions Complete endoscopic sphincterotomy with large-balloon dilation for the removal of large CBD stones has similar safety but superior efficiency to conventional treatment, and should be considered as the first-line step in the treatment of large bile duct stones and in rescue treatment.Trial registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02592811).

Core needle versus standard needle for endoscopic ultrasound-guided biopsy of solid pancreatic masses: a randomized crossover study.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: A new core biopsy needle for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided sampling has recently been developed. The aim of this prospective multicenter study was to compare this needle with a standard needle in patients with solid pancreatic masses. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Consecutive patients with solid pancreatic masses referred to 17 centers for EUS-guided sampling were included. Each patient had two passes with a standard 22G needle and a single pass with a 22G core needle performed in a randomized order. Samples from both needles were separately processed for liquid-based cytology and cell-block preparation and were assessed independently by two blinded expert pathologists. The primary endpoint was the accuracy of the detection of malignancy. The reference standard was based on further cytohistological analysis obtained under ultrasound or computed tomography scanning, endoscopic or surgical guidance, and/or by clinical follow-up with repeated imaging examinations for at least 12 months. The secondary endpoints were the rate of technical failure and the quality of the cytohistological samples obtained. RESULTS: Of the 80 patients included (49 men; mean age 67.1 ±â€Š11.1), 87.5 % had final malignant diagnoses (adenocarcinoma n = 62, 77.5 %). There was no difference between the needles in diagnostic accuracy (standard needle 92.5 % vs. core needle 90 %; P = 0.68) or technical failure. Both pathologists found the overall sample quality significantly better for the standard needle (expert 1, P = 0.009; expert 2, P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: The diagnostic accuracy of EUS sampling for solid pancreatic masses using standard and core needles seems comparable but with a better overall histological sample quality for the former. ClinicalTrial.gov identifier: NCT01479803.

Standard screening high-definition colonoscopy without any optimization device is no longer relevant: Time to move to optimized screening colonoscopy.

Optimizing the adenoma detection rate (ADR) is a major goal in colorectal cancer (CCR) screening, as it has long been established that ADR is inversely proportional to the risk of post-colonoscopy CRC occurrence. To achieve this goal, many optimization devices have been developed, and numerous randomized controlled trials have been conducted to evaluate the benefits of these devices compared with a "standard arm," which corresponds to date to high-definition white light (HD-WLI) colonoscopy. Numerous studies have confirmed the positive impact of various optimization devices, such as caps, computer-aided detection, and contrast-enhanced technologies. Moreover, the different ways in which the devices can impact ADR make them complementary. However, despite substantial and consistent data, practices remain unchanged, and HD-WLI colonoscopy, considered the "standard," is still routinely performed without any optimization devices. The objective of this viewpoint is to understand the barriers to change and to show why standard screening colonoscopy without the use of any optimization devices should no longer be considered relevant in 2024.

Antibiotic prophylaxis in digestive endoscopy: Guidelines from the French Society of Digestive Endoscopy.

Digestive endoscopy is a highly dynamic medical discipline, with the recent adoption of new endoscopic procedures. However, comprehensive guidelines on the role of antibiotic prophylaxis in these new procedures have been lacking for many years. The Guidelines Commission of the French Society of Digestive Endoscopy (SFED) convened in 2023 to establish guidelines on antibiotic prophylaxis in digestive endoscopy for all digestive endoscopic procedures, based on literature data up to September 1, 2023. This article summarizes these new guidelines and describes the literature review that fed into them.

The level of glucose in pancreatic cyst fluid is more accurate than carcinoembryonic antigen to identify mucinous tumors: A French multicenter study.

Background and Objectives: Pancreatic cyst fluid level of glucose is a promising marker to identify mucinous from nonmucinous tumors, but the glucose assay has not yet been recommended. The objective of this study is to compare the diagnostic performances of pancreatic cyst fluid level of glucose and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA). Methods: In this French multicenter study, data of consecutive patients who underwent fine-needle aspiration of pancreatic cyst with intracyst glucose assay between 2018 and 2022 were retrospectively reviewed. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of glucose and corresponding sensitivity (Se), specificity (Sp), accuracy (Acc), positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated and compared with those of CEA. The best threshold of glucose was identified using the Youden index. Results: Of the 121 patients identified, 81 had a definitive diagnosis (46 mucinous, 35 nonmucinous tumors) and were included for analysis. An intracystic glucose level <41.8 mg/dL allowed identification of mucinous tumors with better diagnostic performances (AUROC, 93.6%; 95% confidence interval, 87.2%-100%; Se, 95.3%; Sp, 91.2%; Acc, 93.5%; PPV, 93.2%; NPV, 93.9%) compared with CEA level >192 ng/mL (AUROC, 81.2%; 95% confidence interval, 71.3%-91.1%; Se, 41.7%; Sp, 96.9%; Acc, 67.6%; PPV, 93.8%; NPV, 59.6%) (P = 0.035). Combining values of glucose and CEA did not offer additional benefit in terms of diagnosis. Conclusion: Our results confirm previously published data and support the use of pancreatic cyst fluid glucose for the identification of mucinous tumors when the definitive diagnosis remains uncertain.

Effect of real-time computer-aided detection of colorectal adenoma in routine colonoscopy (COLO-GENIUS): a single-centre randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence systems have been developed to improve polyp detection. We aimed to evaluate the effect of real-time computer-aided detection (CADe) on the adenoma detection rate (ADR) in routine colonoscopy. METHODS: This single-centre randomised controlled trial (COLO-GENIUS) was done at the Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Pôle Digestif Paris-Bercy, Clinique Paris-Bercy, Charenton-le-Pont, France. All consecutive individuals aged 18 years or older who were scheduled for a total colonoscopy and had an American Society of Anesthesiologists score of 1-3 were screened for inclusion. After the caecum was reached and the colonic preparation was appropriate, eligible participants were randomly assigned (1:1; computer-generated random numbers list) to either standard colonoscopy or CADe-assisted colonoscopy (GI Genius 2.0.2; Medtronic). Participants and cytopathologists were masked to study assignment, whereas endoscopists were not. The primary outcome was ADR, which was assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population (all randomly assigned participants except those with misplaced consent forms). Safety was analysed in all included patients. According to statistical calculations, 20 endoscopists from the Clinique Paris-Bercy had to include approximately 2100 participants with 1:1 randomisation. The trial is complete and registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04440865. FINDINGS: Between May 1, 2021, and May 1, 2022, 2592 participants were assessed for eligibility, of whom 2039 were randomly assigned to standard colonoscopy (n=1026) or CADe-assisted colonoscopy (n=1013). 14 participants in the standard group and ten participants in the CADe group were then excluded due to misplaced consent forms, leaving 2015 participants (979 [48·6%] men and 1036 [51·4%] women) in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. ADR was 33·7% (341 of 1012 colonoscopies) in the standard group and 37·5% (376 of 1003 colonoscopies) in the CADe group (estimated mean absolute difference 4·1 percentage points [95% CI 0·0-8·1]; p=0·051). One bleeding event without deglobulisation occurred in the CADe group after a large (>2 cm) polyp resection and resolved after a haemostasis clip was placed during a second colonoscopy. INTERPRETATION: Our findings support the benefits of CADe, even in a non-academic centre. Systematic use of CADe in routine colonoscopy should be considered. FUNDING: None.

Safety of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration for Pancreatic Solid Pseudopapillary Neoplasm Before Surgical Resection: A European Multicenter Registry-Based Study on 149 Patients.

OBJECTIVES: The results of only a few endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) for pancreatic solid pseudopapillary neoplasm (SPN) have been published, and the safety of the procedure has never been investigated. Our study compared the recurrence rate in patients with and without preoperative EUS-FNA. METHODS: This European multicenter registry-based study was conducted in 22 digestive units, and retrospectively included all patients who underwent complete resection of a pancreatic SPN from 2000 to 2018. Patients with and without initial EUS-FNA were compared, and postsurgery recurrence and the associated risk factors were evaluated. RESULTS: A complete resection of a pancreatic SPN was performed in 149 patients (133 women, 89%), with a mean age of 34 (standard deviation, 14) years. There were no significant differences between the with (78 patients) and without (71 patients) EUS-FNA groups, except for age and tumor size and location.Preoperative EUS-FNA allowed pancreatic SPN diagnosis in 63/78 cases (81%). After a mean follow-up of 43 (standard deviation, 36) months, recurrence was noted in 4 patients (2.7%). Preoperative EUS-FNA was not correlated with recurrence, but an older age (P = 0.005) was significant. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative EUS-FNA does not affect pancreatic SPN recurrence. In this series, old age was significantly correlated with recurrence.

Adenoma and advanced neoplasia detection rates increase from 45 years of age.

BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy is considered a valid primary screening tool for colorectal cancer (CRC). The decreasing risk of CRC observed in patients undergoing colonoscopy is correlated with the adenoma detection rate (ADR). Due to the fact that screening programs usually start from the age of 50, very few data are available on the risk of adenoma between 40 and 49 years. However, the incidence of CRC is increasing in young populations and it is not uncommon in routine practice to detect adenomas or even advanced neoplasia during colonoscopy in patients under 50 years. AIM: To compare the ADR and advanced neoplasia detection rate (ANDR) according to age in a large series of patients during routine colonoscopy. METHODS: All consecutive patients who were scheduled for colonoscopy were included. Exclusion criteria were as follows: patients scheduled for partial colonoscopy or interventional colonoscopy (for stent insertion or stenosis dilation). Colonoscopies were performed in our unit by a team of 30 gastroenterologists in 2016. We determined the ADR and ANDR in each age group in the whole population and in the population with an average risk of CRC (excluding patients with personal or family history of advanced adenoma or cancer). RESULTS: 6027 colonoscopies were performed in patients with a median age of 57 years (range, 15-96). The ADR and ANDR were 28.6% and 9.7%, respectively, in the whole population. When comparing patients aged 40-44 (n = 382) and 45-49 years (n = 515), a strong increase in all parameters from 45 years was observed, with the ADR rising from 9.7% in patients aged 40-44 to 21.2% between 45 and 49 (P < 0.001) and the ANDR increasing from 3.1% in patients aged 40-44 to 6.4% in those aged 45-49 years (P < 0.03). With regard to patients aged 50-54 (n = 849), a statistically significant increase in the ADR and ANDR was not observed between patients aged 45-49 and those aged 50-54 years. In the population with an average risk of CRC, the ADR and ANDR were still significantly higher in patients aged 45-49 compared with those aged 40-44 years. CONCLUSION: This study shows a significant two-fold increase in the ADR and ANDR in patients aged 45 years and over.