Prevalence of Endoscopically Curable Low-Risk Cancer Among Large (≥20 mm) Nonpedunculated Polyps in the Right Colon.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic submucosal dissection is increasingly promoted for the treatment of all large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs) to cure potential low-risk cancers (superficial submucosal invasion without additional high-risk histopathologic features). The effect of a universal en bloc strategy on oncologic outcomes for the treatment of LNPCPs in the right colon is unknown. We evaluated this in a large Western population. METHODS: A prospective cohort of patients referred for endoscopic resection (ER) of LNPCPs was analyzed. Patients found to have cancer after ER and those referred directly to surgery were included. The primary outcome was to determine the proportion of right colon LNPCPs with low-risk cancer. RESULTS: Over 180 months until June 2023, 3294 sporadic right colon LNPCPs in 2956 patients were referred for ER at 7 sites (median size 30 [interquartile range 22.5-37.5] mm). A total of 63 (2.1%) patients were referred directly to surgery, and cancer was proven in 56 (88.9%). A total of 2851 (96.4%) of 2956 LNPCPs underwent ER (median size 35 [interquartile range 25-45] mm), of which 75 (2.6%) were cancers. The overall prevalence of cancer in the right colon was 4.4% (n = 131 of 2956). Detailed histopathologic analysis was possible in 115 (88%) of 131 cancers (71 after ER, 44 direct to surgery). After excluding missing histopathologic data, 23 (0.78%) of 2940 sporadic right colon LNPCPs were low-risk cancers. CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of right colon LNPCPs referred for ER containing low-risk cancer amenable to endoscopic cure was <1%, in a large, multicenter Western cohort. A universal endoscopic submucosal dissection strategy for the management of right colon LNPCPs is unlikely to yield improved patient outcomes given the minimal impact on oncologic outcomes. CLINICALTRIALS: gov, Numbers: NCT01368289, NCT02000141.

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

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

Medical management of painful achalasia: a patient-driven systematic review.

Achalasia is a rare esophageal disorder characterized by abnormal esophageal motility and swallowing difficulties. Pain and/or spasms often persist or recur despite effective relief of the obstruction. A survey by UK charity 'Achalasia Action' highlighted treatments for achalasia pain/spasms as a key research priority. In this patient-requested systematic review, we assessed the existing literature on pharmacological therapies for painful achalasia. A systematic review of the literature using Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases was performed to identify studies evaluating pharmacological therapies for achalasia. Methodological quality of included randomized controlled trials was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. In total, 70% (40/57) of survey respondents reported experiencing pain/spasms. A range of management strategies were reported. Thirteen studies were included in the review. Seven were randomized controlled trials. Most studies were >30 years old, had limited follow-up, and focussed on esophageal manometry as the key endpoint. Generally, studies found improvements in lower esophageal pressures with medications. Only one study evaluated pain/spasm specifically, precluding meta-analysis. Overall risk of bias was high. The achalasia patient survey identified that pain/spasms are common and difficult to treat. This patient-requested review identified a gap in the literature regarding pharmacological treatments for these symptoms. We provide an algorithm for investigating achalasia-related pain/spasms. Calcium channel blockers or nitrates may be helpful when esophageal obstruction and reflux have been excluded. We advocate for registry-based clinical trials to expand the evidence base for these patients.

Comparison of Over-the-Scope Clips to Standard Endoscopic Treatment as the Initial Treatment in Patients With Bleeding From a Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Cause : A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Current endoscopic methods in the control of acute nonvariceal bleeding have a small but clinically significant failure rate. The role of over-the-scope clips (OTSCs) as the first treatment has not been defined. OBJECTIVE: To compare OTSCs with standard endoscopic hemostatic treatments in the control of bleeding from nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal causes. DESIGN: A multicenter, randomized controlled trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03216395). SETTING: University teaching hospitals in Hong Kong, China, and Australia. PATIENTS: 190 adult patients with active bleeding or a nonbleeding visible vessel from a nonvariceal cause on upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. INTERVENTION: Standard hemostatic treatment (n = 97) or OTSC (n = 93). MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was 30-day probability of further bleeds. Other outcomes included failure to control bleeding after assigned endoscopic treatment, recurrent bleeding after initial hemostasis, further intervention, blood transfusion, and hospitalization. RESULTS: The 30-day probability of further bleeding in the standard treatment and OTSC groups was 14.6% (14 of 97) and 3.2% (3 of 93), respectively (risk difference, 11.4 percentage points [95% CI, 3.3 to 20.0 percentage points]; P = 0.006). Failure to control bleeding after assigned endoscopic treatment in the standard treatment and OTSC groups was 6 versus 1 (risk difference, 5.1 percentage points [CI, 0.7 to 11.8 percentage points]), respectively, and 30-day recurrent bleeding was 8 versus 2 (risk difference, 6.6 percentage points [CI, -0.3 to 14.4 percentage points]), respectively. The need for further interventions was 8 versus 2, respectively. Thirty-day mortality was 4 versus 2, respectively. In a post hoc analysis with a composite end point of failure to successfully apply assigned treatment and further bleeds, the event rate was 15 of 97 (15.6%) and 6 of 93 (6.5%) in the standard and OTSC groups, respectively (risk difference, 9.1 percentage points [CI, 0.004 to 18.3 percentage points]). LIMITATION: Clinicians were not blinded to treatment and the option of crossover treatment. CONCLUSION: Over-the-scope clips, as an initial treatment, may be better than standard treatment in reducing the risk for further bleeding from nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal causes that are amenable to OTSC placement. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: General Research Fund to the University Grant Committee, Hong Kong SAR Government.

The Surface Morphology of Large Nonpedunculated Colonic Polyps Predicts Synchronous Large Lesions.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Large (≥20 mm) nonpedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs) may have synchronous LNPCPs in up to 18% of cases. The nature of this relationship has not been investigated. We aimed to examine the relationship between individual LNPCP characteristics and synchronous colonic LNPCPs. METHODS: Consecutive patients referred for resection of LNPCPs over 130 months until March 2022 were enrolled. Serrated lesions and mixed granularity LNPCPs were excluded from analysis. Patients with multiple LNPCPs resected were identified, and the largest was labelled as dominant. The primary outcome was the identification of individual lesion characteristics associated with the presence of synchronous LNPCPs. RESULTS: There were 3149 of 3381 patients (93.1%) who had a single LNPCP. In 232 (6.9%) a synchronous lesion was detected. Solitary lesions had a median size of 35 mm with a predominant Paris 0-IIa morphology (42.9%) and right colon location (59.5%). In patients with ≥2 LNPCPs, the dominant lesion had a median size of 40 mm, Paris 0-IIa (47.6%) morphology, and right colon location (65.9%). In this group, 35.8% of dominant LNPCPs were non-granular compared with 18.7% in the solitary LNPCP cohort. Non-granular (NG)-LNPCPs were more likely to demonstrate synchronous disease, with left colon NG-LNPCPs demonstrating greater risk (odds ratio, 4.78; 95% confidence interval, 2.95-7.73) than right colon NG-LNPCPs (odds ratio, 1.99; 95% confidence interval, 1.39-2.86). CONCLUSIONS: We found that 6.9% of LNPCPs have synchronous disease, with NG-LNPCPs demonstrating a greater than 4-fold increased risk. With post-colonoscopy interval cancers exceeding 5%, endoscopists must be cognizant of an individual's LNPCP phenotype when examining the colon at both index procedure and surveillance. CLINICALTRIALS: gov, NCT01368289; NCT02000141; NCT02198729.

Effectiveness and safety of cold snare polypectomy and cold endoscopic mucosal resection for nonpedunculated colorectal polyps of 10-19 mm: a multicenter observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND : Cold snare polypectomy (CSP) is the standard of care for the resection of small (< 10 mm) colonic polyps. Limited data exist for its efficacy for medium-sized (10-19 mm) nonpedunculated polyps, especially conventional adenomas. This study evaluated the effectiveness and safety of CSP/cold endoscopic mucosal resection (C-EMR) for medium-sized nonpedunculated colonic polyps. METHODS : A prospective multicenter observational study was conducted of all morphologically suitable nonpedunculated colonic polyps of 10-19 mm removed by CSP/C-EMR between May 2018 and June 2021. Once resection was complete, multiple biopsies were taken of the margins circumferentially and centrally. The primary outcome was the incomplete resection rate (IRR), based on residual polyp in these biopsy specimens. Secondary outcomes were recurrence rate at first surveillance colonoscopy and rates of adverse events (AEs). RESULTS : CSP/C-EMR was performed for 350 polyps (median size 15 mm; 266 [76.0 %] Paris 0-IIa classification) in 295 patients. Submucosal injection was used for 87.1 % (n = 305) of polyps. Histology showed 68.6 % adenomas, 26.0 % sessile serrated lesions (SSLs) without dysplasia, 4.0 % SSL with dysplasia, and 1.4 % hyperplastic polyps. The IRRs based on margin or central biopsies being positive were 1.7 % (n = 6) and 0.3 % (n = 1), respectively. The polyp recurrence rate was 1.7 % (n = 4) at first surveillance colonoscopy - completed for 65.4 % (n = 229) of polyps at a median interval of 9.7 months. AEs occurred in 3.4 % (n = 10) of patients: four with post-polypectomy pain; three self-limiting post-polypectomy bleeds; two post-polypectomy-syndrome-like presentations; and one intraprocedural bleed treated with clips. There were no perforations. CONCLUSION : CSP/C-EMR for morphologically suitable nonpedunculated colonic polyps of 10-19 mm is effective and safe, including for conventional adenomas. Rates of incomplete resection and recurrence were low, with few AEs. Studies directly comparing this method with hot snare resection are required.

Oncological outcomes after piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection of large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps with covert submucosal invasive cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Management of covert submucosal invasive cancer (SMIC) discovered after piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection (pEMR) of large (>20 mm) non-pedunculated colorectal polyps is challenging. The residual cancer risk is largely unknown. We sought to evaluate this in a large tertiary referral cohort. DESIGN: Cases of covert SMIC following pEMR were identified and followed. Oncological outcomes after surgery were divided based on residual intramural cancer, lymph node metastases (LNM) or both. Risk factors for residual intramural cancer and LNM were analysed based on the original pEMR histological variables. Risk parameters were analysed with respect to low and high-risk variables for residual intramural cancer and LNM. RESULTS: Among 3372 cases of large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps, 143 cases of covert SMIC (4.2%) were identified. 109 underwent surgical resection. Histological analysis of pEMR histology was available in 98 of 109 (90%) cases. 62 cases (63%) had no residual malignancy. 36 cases had residual malignancy (residual intramural cancer n=24; LNM n=5; both n=7). All cases of residual intramural cancer could be identified by a R1 histological deep margin. Cases with poor differentiation (PD) and/or lymphovascular invasion (LVI) had a high risk of LNM (12/33), with a very low risk without these criteria (<1%; 0/65). Cases at low risk for LNM with R0 deep margin have a low risk of residual intramural cancer (<1%; 0/35). CONCLUSION: The majority of cases of large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps with covert SMIC following pEMR will have no residual malignancy. The risk of residual malignancy can be ascertained from three key variables: PD, LVI and R1 deep margin.

Outcomes of Thermal Ablation of the Mucosal Defect Margin After Endoscopic Mucosal Resection: A Prospective, International, Multicenter Trial of 1000 Large Nonpedunculated Colorectal Polyps.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Thermal ablation of the defect margin after endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR-T) for treating large (≥20 mm) nonpedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs) has shown efficacy in a randomized trial, with a 4-fold reduction, in residual or recurrent adenoma (RRA) at first surveillance colonoscopy (SC1). The clinical effectiveness of this treatment, in the real world, remains unknown. METHODS: We sought to evaluate the effectiveness of EMR-T in an international multicenter prospective trial (NCT02957058). The primary endpoint was the frequency of RRA at SC1. Detailed demographic, procedural, and outcome data were recorded. Exclusion criteria were LNPCPs involving the ileo-caecal valve, the appendiceal orifice, and circumferential LNPCPs. RESULTS: During 51 months (May 2016-August 2020) 1049 LNPCPs in 1049 patients (median size, 35 mm; interquartile range, 25-45 mm; right colon location, 53.5%) were enrolled. Uniform completeness of EMR-T was achieved in 989 LNPCPs (95.4%). In this study, 755/803 (94.0%) eligible LNPCPs underwent SC1 (median time to SC1, 6 months; interquartile range, 5-7 months). For LNPCPs that underwent complete EMR-T, the frequency of RRA at SC1 was 1.4% (10/707). CONCLUSIONS: In clinical practice, EMR-T is a simple, inexpensive, and highly effective auxiliary technique that is likely to significantly reduce RRA at first surveillance. It should be universally used for the management of LNPCPs after EMR. https://clinicaltrials.gov; Clinical Trial Number, NCT02957058.

Outcomes of Deep Mural Injury After Endoscopic Resection: An International Cohort of 3717 Large Non-Pedunculated Colorectal Polyps.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Although perforation is the most feared adverse event associated with endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), limited data exists concerning its management. Therefore, we sought to evaluate the short- and long-term outcomes of intra-procedural deep mural injury (DMI) in an international multi-center observational cohort of large (≥20 mm) non-pedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs). METHODS: Consecutive patients who underwent EMR for a LNPCP ≥20 mm were evaluated. Significant DMI (S-DMI) was defined as Sydney DMI Classification type III (muscularis propria injury, target sign) or type IV/V (perforation without or with contamination, respectively). The primary outcome was successful S-DMI defect closure. Secondary outcomes included technical success (removal of all visible polypoid tissue during index EMR), surgical referral and recurrence at first surveillance colonscopy (SC1). RESULTS: Between July 2008 to May 2020, 3717 LNPCPs underwent EMR. Median lesion size was 35mm (interquartile range (IQR) 25 to 45mm). Significant DMI was identified in 101 cases (2.7%), with successful defect closure in 98 (97.0%) using a median of 4 through-the-scope clips (TTSCs; IQR 3 to 6 TTSCs). Three (3.0%) patients underwent S-DMI-related urgent surgery. Technical success was achieved in 94 (93.1%) patients, with 46 (45.5%) admitted to hospital (median duration 1 day; IQR 1 to 2 days). Comparing LNPCPs with and without S-DMI, no differences in technical success (94 (93.1%) vs 3316 (91.7%); P = .62) or SC1 recurrence (12 (20.0%) vs 363 (13.6%); P = .15) were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Significant DMI is readily managed endoscopically and does not appear to affect technical success or recurrence.

Body mass index is inversely associated with capillary ketones at the time of colonoscopy: Implications for SGLT2i use.

OBJECTIVE: Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) have been associated with diabetic ketoacidosis at the time of colonoscopy. This study aimed to identify factors associated with ketone concentrations in SGLT2i-treated type 2 diabetes compared with non-SGLT2i-treated diabetes, and those with impaired fasting glycaemia (IFG) and normoglycaemia. DESIGN: Cross-sectional, multicentre, observational study June-December 2020 in four Australian tertiary hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Capillary glucose and ketones were measured in people undergoing colonoscopy: 37 SGLT2i-treated and 105 non-SGLT2i-treated type 2 diabetes, 65 IFG and 151 normoglycaemia. MEASUREMENTS: Body mass index (BMI), age, glucose, fasting duration and where relevant, HbA1c and time since last SGLT2i dose. RESULTS: In SGLT2i-treated diabetes, BMI (ρ = -0.43 [95% confidence interval: -0.67, -0.11]) and duration since last SGLT2i dose (ρ = -0.33 [-0.60, 0.00]) correlated negatively with increasing ketones, but there was no correlation with fasting duration. In non-SGLT2i-treated diabetes, BMI correlated negatively (ρ = -0.24 [-0.42, -0.05]) and fasting duration positively (ρ = 0.26 [0.07, 0.43]) with ketones. In IFG participants, only fasting duration correlated with ketones (ρ = 0.28 [0.03, 0.49]). In normoglycaemic participants, there were negative correlations with BMI (ρ = -0.20 [-0.35, -0.04]) and fasting glucose (ρ = -0.31 [-0.45, -0.15]) and positive correlations with fasting duration (ρ = 0.20 [0.04, 0.35]) and age (ρ = 0.19 [0.03, 0.34]). Multiple regression analysis of the entire cohort showed BMI, age and fasting glucose remained independently associated with ketones, but in SGLT2i-treated participants only BMI remained independently associated. CONCLUSIONS: In SGLT2i-treated diabetes, lower BMI was a novel risk factor for higher ketones precolonoscopy. Pending larger confirmatory studies, extra vigilance for ketoacidosis is warranted in these people.

Clinical utility of purgative bowel preparation before capsule endoscopy: a multicenter, blinded, randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Optimal bowel preparation before capsule endoscopy (CE) is currently unknown. In this multicenter, blinded, randomized controlled trial, we assessed clinical effectiveness of 2 types of purgative regimen and a control arm of clear fluid only. METHODS: Patients with suspected small intestinal bleeding were randomized into 3 arms: arm A, clear fluids only for 18 hours before CE and simethicone 200 mg in 150 mL water immediately before CE; arm B, same as A + 2 L of polyethylene glycol (PEG) 12 hours before CE; and arm C, same as A + 1 L PEG + sodium ascorbate 3 hours before CE. To assess diagnostic yield, lesions were classified either as highly relevant (P2) or less relevant (P0 or P1) lesions. Small-bowel visualization quality (SBVQ) was assessed using the Brotz score. Patient tolerability was assessed using the visual analog scale (0-10, with lower scores indicating better tolerability). RESULTS: Two hundred twenty-nine patients completed the study. The mean age was 58.7 years (95% confidence interval, 29.3-87.9), and 47.2% were men. There was no significant difference in diagnosis of P2 lesions in arms A, B, and C (48.7%, 48.0%, and 45.9%, respectively; P = .94). Overall SBVQ and distal SBVQ were similar across the 3 arms (P = .94 and P = .68, respectively). Patients reported better tolerability in arm A (mean score, 1.5) compared with arms B and C (mean score, 3.5 and 2.6, respectively; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The use of a purgative bowel preparation before CE does not improve diagnostic yield or small-bowel visualization and is associated with lower patient tolerance. (Clinical trial registration number: ACTRN 12614000883617.).

Evaluation of Endoscopic Practices and Outcomes in Follow-up of Gastric Ulcers.

GOAL: The aim of this study was to evaluate current practice in gastric ulcer follow-up to establish diagnostic yield and predictors of malignancy. BACKGROUND: Repeat gastroscopy is routinely performed to confirm gastric ulcer healing and exclude malignancy. However, the incidence of malignancy at follow-up endoscopy is low, without consensus regarding case selection and timing. STUDY: New gastric ulcers diagnosed on gastroscopy at 2 institutions in Australia were identified through keyword search of endoscopy reports over a 5-year period (2013 to 2017). Data collected included patient demographics, clinical presentation, and endoscopic and histologic findings from initial and subsequent gastroscopies. RESULTS: Of 795 patients, repeat gastroscopy was performed in 440 (55%). Malignancy was diagnosed in 52 (7%) with 83% identified at initial gastroscopy. Eight cancers were identified at repeat gastroscopy with malignancy yield of 2% (8/440). Three were diagnosed in patients with benign initial ulcer histology (3/286, 1%). One cancer was diagnosed during follow-up in a patient with benign histology but no repeat gastroscopy (1/286, 0.3%). Predictors of benign ulcers were absence of endoscopic suspicion [odds ratio (OR) 0.1 (0.03-0.13), P≤0.005], complete healing on repeat gastroscopy [OR 0.5 (0.34-0.70), P=0.036] and benign initial histology [OR 0.12 (0.43-0.90), P≤0.005]. CONCLUSIONS: Seven percent of new gastric ulcers were malignant with most identified with biopsy on initial gastroscopy. Malignancy yield from follow-up gastroscopy was 2%. Diagnostic yield of endoscopic follow-up may be low in ulcers with benign appearance and adequate histology. However, current practice of repeat gastroscopy is warranted in the absence of patient-based and lesion-based predictors of malignancy.

Piecemeal cold snare polypectomy versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for large sessile serrated lesions: a retrospective comparison across two successive periods.

OBJECTIVE: Large (≥20 mm) sessile serrated lesions (L-SSL) are premalignant lesions that require endoscopic removal. Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is the existing standard of care but carries some risk of adverse events including clinically significant post-EMR bleeding and deep mural injury (DMI). The respective risk-effectiveness ratio of piecemeal cold snare polypectomy (p-CSP) in L-SSL management is not fully known. DESIGN: Consecutive patients referred for L-SSL management were treated by p-CSP from April 2016 to January 2020 or by conventional EMR in the preceding period between July 2008 and March 2016 at four Australian tertiary centres. Surveillance colonoscopies were conducted at 6 months (SC1) and 18 months (SC2). Outcomes on technical success, adverse events and recurrence were documented prospectively and then compared retrospectively between the subsequent time periods. RESULTS: A total of 562 L-SSL in 474 patients were evaluated of which 156 L-SSL in 121 patients were treated by p-CSP and 406 L-SSL in 353 patients by EMR. Technical success was equal in both periods (100.0% (n=156) vs 99.0% (n=402)). No adverse events occurred in p-CSP, whereas delayed bleeding and DMI were encountered in 5.1% (n=18) and 3.4% (n=12) of L-SSL treated by EMR, respectively. Recurrence rates following p-CSP were similar to EMR at 4.3% (n=4) versus 4.6% (n=14) and 2.0% (n=1) versus 1.2% (n=3) for surveillance colonoscopy (SC)1 and SC2, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In a historical comparison on the endoscopic management of L-SSL, p-CSP is technically equally efficacious to EMR but virtually eliminates the risk of delayed bleeding and perforation. p-CSP should therefore be considered as the new standard of care for L-SSL treatment.

Optical Evaluation for Predicting Cancer in Large Nonpedunculated Colorectal Polyps Is Accurate for Flat Lesions.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The ability of optical evaluation to diagnose submucosal invasive cancer (SMIC) prior to endoscopic resection of large (≥20 mm) nonpedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs) is critical to inform therapeutic decisions. Prior studies suggest that it is insufficiently accurate to detect SMIC. It is unknown whether lesion morphology influences optical evaluation performance. METHODS: LNPCPs ≥20 mm referred for endoscopic resection within a prospective, multicenter, observational cohort were evaluated. Optical evaluation was performed prior to endoscopic resection with the optical prediction of SMIC based on established features (Kudo V pit pattern, depressed morphology, rigidity/fixation, ulceration). Optical evaluation performance outcomes were calculated. Outcomes were reported by dominant morphology: nodular (Paris 0-Is/0-IIa+Is) vs flat (Paris 0-IIa/0-IIb) morphology. RESULTS: From July 2013 to July 2019, 1583 LNPCPs (median size 35 [interquartile range, 25-50] mm; 855 flat, 728 nodular) were assessed. SMIC was identified in 146 (9.2%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 7.9%-10.8%). Overall sensitivity and specificity were 67.1% (95% CI, 59.2%-74.2%) and 95.1% (95% CI, 93.9%-96.1%), respectively. The overall SMIC miss rate was 3.0% (95% CI, 2.3%-4.0%). Significant differences in sensitivity (90.9% vs 52.7%), specificity (96.3% vs 93.7%), and SMIC miss rate (0.6% vs 5.9%) between flat and nodular LNPCPs were identified (all P < .027). Multiple logistic regression identified size ≥40 mm (odds ratio [OR], 2.0; 95% CI, 1.0-3.8), rectosigmoid location (OR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.1-3.7), and nodular morphology (OR, 7.2; 95% CI, 2.8-18.9) as predictors of missed SMIC (all P < .039). CONCLUSIONS: Optical evaluation performance is dependent on lesion morphology. In the absence of features suggestive of SMIC, flat lesions can be presumed benign and be managed accordingly.

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

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

P033 Moving the Needle on Speaker Diversity at AIBD.

BACKGROUND: Diversity of invited speakers at academic conferences is a topic of increased focus in recent years. While there have been efforts to improve speaker diversity, an evaluation of this in the IBD field has not been undertaken to date. We aimed to address gaps in knowledge of speaker gender, race, and experience at a major annual IBD conference over time. METHODS: AIBD program brochures from 2014 to 2020 were reviewed by two providers to evaluate speaker demographic information including gender, race, topic of discussion, institutional affiliation, and, for those trained in gastroenterology, years post-fellowship. In addition, the proportion of all-male panels was calculated. As a comparator, the proportion of female speakers and all-male panels was then compared to a control conference run by the same CME organization (Personalized Therapies in Thoracic Oncology). RESULTS: The percentage of female speakers of any specialty at AIBD increased from 25% in 2016 to 39% in 2020. Female adult gastroenterologist speakers increased from 12% in 2015 to 27% in 2020. The percentage of all gastroenterologists that are female in the US is 19%. All-male panels also decreased from an average of 47% in 2014-2017, to 11% in 2018-2020. As a comparator, 47% of speakers at the control conference were female and there were no all-male panels in 2020. For race, in any given year an average of 13% of speakers were Asian, 5% Hispanic/Latinx, and 1% Black. This remained static over time. The percentage of Asian, Hispanic/Latinx, and Black gastroenterologists in the US is 29%, 5%, and 6%, respectively. Average years of experience of speakers at AIBD appeared relatively static, with a mean of 15 years since fellowship training per speaker. CONCLUSION: From 2014-2020, the proportion of female speakers at AIBD has increased to over one third in main programming. There remains room for improvement, particularly in increasing the racial and ethnic diversity of speakers and inviting more gastroenterologists in the early stages of their careers.

Endoscopic management of superficial nonampullary duodenal tumors: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline.

1: ESGE recommends that all duodenal adenomas should be considered for endoscopic resection as progression to invasive carcinoma is highly likely.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 2: ESGE recommends performance of a colonoscopy, if that has not yet been done, in cases of duodenal adenoma.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 3: ESGE recommends the use of the cap-assisted method when the location of the minor and/or major papilla and their relationship to a duodenal adenoma is not clearly established during forward-viewing endoscopy.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 4: ESGE recommends the routine use of a side-viewing endoscope when a laterally spreading adenoma with extension to the minor and/or major papilla is suspected.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 5: ESGE suggests cold snare polypectomy for small (< 6 mm in size) nonmalignant duodenal adenomas.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 6: ESGE recommends endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) as the first-line endoscopic resection technique for nonmalignant large nonampullary duodenal adenomas.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 7: ESGE recommends that endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for duodenal adenomas is an effective resection technique only in expert hands.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 8: ESGE recommends using techniques that minimize adverse events such as immediate or delayed bleeding or perforation. These may include piecemeal resection, defect closure techniques, noncontact hemostasis, and other emerging techniques, and these should be considered on a case-by-case basis.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 9: ESGE recommends endoscopic surveillance 3 months after the index treatment. In cases of no recurrence, a further follow-up endoscopy should be done 1 year later. Thereafter, surveillance intervals should be adapted to the lesion site, en bloc resection status, and initial histological result. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.

Endoscopic management of ampullary tumors: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline.

1: ESGE recommends against diagnostic/therapeutic papillectomy when adenoma is not proven.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 2: ESGE recommends endoscopic ultrasound and abdominal magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) for staging of ampullary tumors.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 3: ESGE recommends endoscopic papillectomy in patients with ampullary adenoma without intraductal extension, because of good results regarding outcome (technical and clinical success, morbidity, and recurrence).Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 4: ESGE recommends en bloc resection of ampullary adenomas up to 20-30 mm in diameter to achieve R0 resection, for optimizing the complete resection rate, providing optimal histopathology, and reduction of the recurrence rate after endoscopic papillectomy.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 5: ESGE suggests considering surgical treatment of ampullary adenomas when endoscopic resection is not feasible for technical reasons (e. g. diverticulum, size > 4 cm), and in the case of intraductal involvement (of > 20 mm). Surveillance thereafter is still mandatory.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 6: ESGE recommends direct snare resection without submucosal injection for endoscopic papillectomy.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 7: ESGE recommends prophylactic pancreatic duct stenting to reduce the risk of pancreatitis after endoscopic papillectomy.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 8: ESGE recommends long-term monitoring of patients after endoscopic papillectomy or surgical ampullectomy, based on duodenoscopy with biopsies of the scar and of any abnormal area, within the first 3 months, at 6 and 12 months, and thereafter yearly for at least 5 years.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.

Drainage of pancreatic fluid collections using a lumen-apposing metal stent with an electrocautery-enhanced delivery system.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Our aim was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a lumen-apposing metal stent with an electrocautery-enhanced delivery system (EDS-LAMS) for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided drainage of pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) in regular clinical practice. METHODS: A retrospective and subsequent prospective analysis was undertaken of all patients who underwent EUS-guided drainage of their PFCs using the EDS-LAMS at 17 tertiary therapeutic endoscopy centers. RESULTS: Two hundred eight cases of EDS-LAMS deployment were attempted in 202 patients (mean age 52.9 years) at time of evaluation. Ninety-seven patients had pancreatic pseudocysts (PPs), 75 walled-off pancreatic necrosis (WOPN), 10 acute peripancreatic fluid collections (APFCs), 6 acute necrotic collections (ANCs), and 14 postoperative collections (POCs). Procedural technical success was achieved in 202/208 cases (97.1%). Maldeployment occurred in 7/208 cases (3.4%). Clinical success was achieved in 142/160 (88.8%) patients (PP 90%, WOPN 85.2%, APFC 100%, ANC 75%, POC 100%). Delayed adverse events included stent migration in 15/202 (7.4%), stent occlusion and infection in 16/202 (7.9%), major bleeding in 4/202 (2%), and buried EDS-LAMS in 2/202 (1%). PFC recurrence occurred in 13/142 (9.2%) patients; 9/202 (4.5%) required surgical or radiological intervention for PFC management after EDS-LAMS insertion. CONCLUSIONS: This large international multicenter study evaluating the EDS-LAMS for drainage of PFCs in routine clinical practice suggests that the EDS-LAMS are safe and effective for drainage of all types of PFCs; however, further endoscopic therapy is often required for WOPN. Major bleeding was a rare complication in our cohort.

Validation of Australian and Victorian guidelines for colonoscopy triage.

BACKGROUND: Managing the growing demand for colonoscopies is challenging. AIMS: To assess the diagnostic performance of National and Victorian colonoscopy triage guidelines and potential redistribution of triage categories. METHODS: This is a diagnostic validation study comparing colonoscopy triage guidelines against a reference colonoscopy dataset. Participants were a reference dataset of 2378 colonoscopies from 1 October 2014 to 30 June 2016. Comparison with triage categorisation determined using National Cancer Council Australia guidelines; Victorian triage guidelines; Optimal Cancer Care Pathways recommendations. Main outcome measures were as follows: (i) proportion of colonoscopies assigned to each triage category; (ii) detection rate (proportion of cancers assigned to triage Category 1); and (iii) conversion rate (proportion of triage Category 1 colonoscopies that diagnose a cancer). RESULTS: After adjusting for data absent in referrals, the National and Victorian guidelines reduced the proportion of Category 1 colonoscopies compared with the reference triage (National 76.3% vs 58.6%; 95% CI for difference 15.0-20.3%, P < 0.0001. Victorian 76.3% vs 66.3%; 95% CI for difference 7.4-12.6%, P < 0.0001). Victorian guidelines were associated with the highest detection rate (91.4%) and a conversion rate of 5.4% although the number of cancers limited the power to detect significant differences on these metrics. There was a higher proportion of unclassifiable colonoscopies using the National guidelines than the Victorian ones due to their focus on symptomatic indications. CONCLUSIONS: The Victorian guidelines could reduce the proportion of Category 1 colonoscopies by 10% without reducing conversion or detection rates. This would require improvements in the quality of referrals and ordering faecal occult blood tests in 6% of symptomatic patients.