Standardised training for endoscopic mucosal resection of large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps to reduce recurrence (*STAR-LNPCP study): a multicentre cluster randomised trial.

OBJECTIVE: Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is the preferred treatment for non-invasive large (≥20 mm) non-pedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs) but is associated with an early recurrence rate of up to 30%. We evaluated whether standardised EMR training could reduce recurrence rates in Dutch community hospitals. DESIGN: In this multicentre cluster randomised trial, 59 endoscopists from 30 hospitals were randomly assigned to the intervention group (e-learning and 2-day training including hands-on session) or control group. From April 2019 to August 2021, all consecutive EMR-treated LNPCPs were included. Primary endpoint was recurrence rate after 6 months. RESULTS: A total of 1412 LNPCPs were included; 699 in the intervention group and 713 in the control group (median size 30 mm vs 30 mm, 45% vs 52% size, morphology, site and access (SMSA) score IV, 64% vs 64% proximal location). Recurrence rates were lower in the intervention group compared with controls (13% vs 25%, OR 0.43; 95% CI 0.23 to 0.78; p=0.005) with similar complication rates (8% vs 9%, OR 0.93; 95% CI 0.64 to 1.36; p=0.720). Recurrences were more often unifocal in the intervention group (92% vs 76%; p=0.006). In sensitivity analysis, the benefit of the intervention on recurrence rate was only observed in the 20-40 mm LNPCPs (5% vs 20% in 20-29 mm, p=0.001; 10% vs 21% in 30-39 mm, p=0.013) but less evident in ≥40 mm LNPCPs (24% vs 31%; p=0.151). In a post hoc analysis, the training effect was maintained in the study group, while in the control group the recurrence rate remained high. CONCLUSION: A compact standardised EMR training for LNPCPs significantly reduced recurrences in community hospitals. This strongly argues for a national dedicated training programme for endoscopists performing EMR of ≥20 mm LNPCPs. Interestingly, in sensitivity analysis, this benefit was limited for LNPCPs ≥40 mm. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR7477.

Development of Desmoid Tumors After Ileorectal Anastomosis Versus Ileal Pouch-Anal Anastomosis in Familial Adenomatous Polyposis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Desmoid tumors (DT) are an important cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP). DT development might be related to the type and approach of colectomy. We aimed to compare DT development after colectomy with ileorectal anastomosis (IRA) and proctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA). METHODS: We performed an international historical cohort study in patients with FAP who underwent IRA or IPAA between 1961 and 2020. The primary outcome was the incidence of abdominal DT (either mesenteric, retroperitoneal, or abdominal wall). Patients with a DT diagnosis before or at colectomy were excluded. Time to DT was considered censored at an eventual secondary proctectomy after IRA. We used multivariable Cox regression modelling to adjust for potential confounders. RESULTS: We analyzed data from 852 patients: 514 after IRA and 338 after IPAA (median follow-up, 21 and 16 years, respectively). DTs were diagnosed in 64 IRA patients (12%) and 66 IPAA patients (20%). The cumulative DT incidence at 5 and 10 years was 7.5% and 9.3% after open IRA and 4.7% and 10.9% after laparoscopic IRA. These estimates were 13.6% and 15.4% after open IPAA and 8.4% and 10.0% after laparoscopic IPAA. The postoperative risk was significantly higher after IPAA (P < .01) in multivariable analysis, whereas approach did not significantly influence the risk. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of developing an abdominal DT was found to be significantly higher after IPAA than after IRA. Postoperative DT risk should be taken into account when choosing between IRA and IPAA in FAP.

Adenoma detection rate and tolerability of 2 ultra-low-volume bowel preparations in screening: a noninferiority randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The adenoma detection rate (ADR), recognized as a surrogate marker for colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality reduction, is closely linked to the efficacy of bowel cleansing. However, there is a dearth of evidence examining the impact on ADR when using 2 distinct very-low-dose bowel cleansing products. This study sought to compare ADR in an immunochemical fecal occult blood test (iFOBT)-based organized screening program by using 1 L of polyethylene glycol plus ascorbate (1L-PEGA) versus sodium picosulfate with magnesium citrate (SPMC), both administered in a split-dose regimen. METHODS: We conducted a comparative, parallel, randomized, noninferiority, and low-intervention clinical trial targeting individuals from a population CRC screening program aged 50 to 69 years with a positive iFOBT result scheduled for a workup colonoscopy in the morning. Participants were randomized to either 1L-PEGA or SPMC for bowel cleansing. The main outcome was ADR, whereas secondary outcomes were bowel preparation quality, safety, tolerability, and satisfaction. RESULTS: A total of 1002 subjects, 501 were included in each group. There were no differences between groups with respect to pooled ADR (SPMC, 56.5% [95% CI, 52.1-60.8]; 1L-PEGA, 53.7% [95% CI, 49.3-58.0]; relative risk, .95 [95% CI, .85-1.06]); therefore, SPMC demonstrated noninferiority in ADR compared with 1L-PEGA (difference, 2.8%; 2-sided 95% lower confidence limit, -3.4). In addition, there were no significant differences in mean lesions regardless of size and location between arms. Bowel preparation favored 1L-PEGA (96.2% vs 89.2%, P < .001), whereas SPMC exhibited significantly higher safety and tolerability, as shown by fewer nonserious treatment-emergent adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: SPMC emerged as a noninferior laxative compared with 1L-PEGA concerning ADR. Despite the superior bowel preparation quality associated with 1L-PEGA, the safety, tolerability, and overall satisfaction of participants were higher with SPMC. (Clinical trial registration number: EudraCT: 2019-003186-18.).

Establishment of standards for the referral of large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps: an international expert consensus using a modified Delphi process.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Resection of colorectal polyps has been shown to decrease the incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer. Large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps are often referred to expert centers for endoscopic resection, which requires relevant information to be conveyed to the therapeutic endoscopist to allow for triage and planning of resection technique. The primary objective of this study was to establish minimum expected standards for the referral of large nonpedunculated colonic polyps for potential endoscopic resection. METHODS: A Delphi method was used to establish consensus on minimum expected standards for the referral of large colorectal polyps among a panel of international endoscopy experts. The expert panel was recruited through purposive sampling, and 3 rounds of surveys were conducted to achieve consensus. Quantitative and qualitative data were analyzed for each round. RESULTS: A total of 24 international experts from diverse continents participated in the Delphi study, resulting in consensus on 19 statements related to the referral of large colorectal polyps. The identified factors, including patient demographic characteristics, relevant medications, lesion factors, photodocumentation, and the presence of a tattoo, were deemed important for conveying the necessary information to therapeutic endoscopists. The mean scores for the statements, which were scored on a scale of 1 to 10, ranged from 7.04 to 9.29, with high percentages of experts considering most statements as a very high priority. Subgroup analysis according to continent revealed some variations in consensus rates among experts from different regions. CONCLUSIONS: The identified consensus statements can aid in improving the triage and planning of resection techniques for large colorectal polyps, ultimately contributing to the reduction of colorectal cancer incidence and mortality.

Linked-color imaging versus high definition white-light endoscopy for evaluation of post-polypectomy scars of nonpedunculated lesions: LCI-Scar study.

BACKGROUND: Detection and treatment of recurrence after piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection of nonpedunculated colorectal polyps are crucial for avoidance of post-colonoscopy cancer. Linked-color imaging (LCI) has demonstrated improved polyp detection but has never been assessed for evaluation of post-polypectomy scars. Our aim was to compare sensitivity and negative predictive value (NPV) between LCI and white-light endoscopy (WLE) for detection of post-polypectomy recurrence. METHODS: Patients undergoing surveillance colonoscopy after resection of lesions ≥15 mm were included in this prospective, single-center, randomized, crossover study. Each post-polypectomy scar underwent two examinations, one with LCI and the other with WLE, performed by two blinded endoscopists. Blue-light imaging (BLI) was then applied. A diagnosis of recurrence with a level of confidence was made for each modality and histopathology was the gold standard. RESULTS: 129 patients with 173 scars were included. Baseline patient, lesion, and procedural characteristics were similar in both arms. Recurrence was detected in 56/173 (32.4%), with 27/56 (48.2%) adenomas and 29/56 (51.8%) serrated lesions. LCI had greater sensitivity (96.4% [95%CI 87.8%-99.5%]) versus WLE (89.3% [95%CI 78.1%-95.9%]) and greater NPV (98.1% [95%CI 93.4%-99.8%] versus 94.6% [95%CI 88.7%-98.0%]). Paired concordance between modalities was 96.0%. In discordant cases, LCI identified four true-positive cases not detected by WLE and reclassified one false-positive of WLE. WLE reclassified two false positives of LCI without any increase in recurrence detection. CONCLUSIONS: LCI was highly accurate and had greater ability than WLE to rule out recurrence on post-polypectomy scars after resection of large polyps.

Training in basic gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates (ESGENA) Position Statement.

This ESGE Position Statement provides structured and evidence-based guidance on the essential requirements and processes involved in training in basic gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic procedures. The document outlines definitions; competencies required, and means to their assessment and maintenance; the structure and requirements of training programs; patient safety and medicolegal issues. 1: ESGE and ESGENA define basic endoscopic procedures as those procedures that are commonly indicated, generally accessible, and expected to be mastered (technically and cognitively) by the end of any core training program in gastrointestinal endoscopy. 2: ESGE and ESGENA consider the following as basic endoscopic procedures: diagnostic upper and lower GI endoscopy, as well as a limited range of interventions such as: tissue acquisition via cold biopsy forceps, polypectomy for lesions ≤ 10 mm, hemostasis techniques, enteral feeding tube placement, foreign body retrieval, dilation of simple esophageal strictures, and India ink tattooing of lesion location. 3: ESGE and ESGENA recommend that training in GI endoscopy should be subject to stringent formal requirements that ensure all ESGE key performance indicators (KPIs) are met. 4: Training in basic endoscopic procedures is a complex process and includes the development and acquisition of cognitive, technical/motor, and integrative skills. Therefore, ESGE and ESGENA recommend the use of validated tools to track the development of skills and assess competence. 5: ESGE and ESGENA recommend incorporating a multimodal approach to evaluating competence in basic GI endoscopic procedures, including procedural thresholds and the measurement and documentation of established ESGE KPIs. 7: ESGE and ESGENA recommend the continuous monitoring of ESGE KPIs during GI endoscopy training to ensure the trainee's maintenance of competence. 9: ESGE and ESGENA recommend that GI endoscopy training units fulfil the ESGE KPIs for endoscopy units and, furthermore, be capable of providing the dedicated personnel, infrastructure, and sufficient case volume required for successful training within a structured training program. 10: ESGE and ESGENA recommend that trainers in basic GI endoscopic procedures should be endoscopists with formal educational training in the teaching of endoscopy, which allows them to successfully and safely teach trainees.

Diversity, equity, and inclusion in gastrointestinal endoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Position Statement.

1: The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) adheres to the overarching principles of equality of opportunity, fair treatment, nondiscrimination, and diversity of health care professionals. 2: ESGE strongly supports the creation of collaborations within and between national and international endoscopy societies to disseminate the principles of diversity, equality, and inclusion (DEI) in the field of gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy. 3: ESGE aims to reflect the diversity of its membership in all its scientific and educational activities. 4: ESGE supports the fostering of collaborative work settings that empower all members of the endoscopy team to reach their full potential. 5: ESGE supports international and national endoscopy societies in promoting equitable access to high quality endoscopy training. 6: ESGE recommends the implementation of ergonomic principles in endoscopy units to prevent injuries and to provide adapted workplace conditions for personnel with disabilities and/or special needs. 7: ESGE recommends comprehensive mentorship, that includes diverse backgrounds, and equitable sponsorship for professional development, training, and academic excellence. 8: ESGE recommends that endoscopists actively identify, discuss, and attempt to accommodate reasonable patient preferences and expectations regarding endoscopy procedures. 9: ESGE advocates for educational and awareness campaigns targeting both health care professionals and patients, as well as the adoption of cost-effective health care strategies to address disparities and enhance equity in endoscopy care. 10: ESGE is committed to increasing support for underrepresented scholars and minorities pursuing research in endoscopy. 11: ESGE identifies mentorship and sponsorship as factors that may mitigate the barriers to academic careers for underrepresented endoscopy scholars. 12: ESGE recognizes the need to increase awareness of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in the field of endoscopy and supports publications on these topics.

Gender authorship in major American and European gastroenterology journals: the gap is still unfilled.

BACKGROUND: The gender gap in the authorship of scientific research may affect career advancement. Our aim was to assess the potential gender gap in gastrointestinal (GI) journals. METHODS: A systematic review was performed of the GI literature and ongoing research in the period 2020-2022. A total 10 GI journals and ongoing research on clinicaltrials.gov were selected for review. The gender gap in first and senior authorship was evaluated for each article and ongoing research project. Associations between the gender gap and possible predictors were measured and results are presented as odds ratios (ORs) with 95%CI. RESULTS: The number of first female authors (FFAs) and senior female authors (SFAs) in published articles were 1408/4207 (33.5%) and 911/4207 (21.7%), respectively. There were 781/2654 (29.4%) female principal investigators (PI)s for the ongoing research. On comparison of non-endoscopic vs. endoscopic topics, the latter were associated with the gender gap (hepatology, OR 2.15 [95%CI 1.83-2.55]; inflammatory bowel disease, OR 2.12 [95%CI 1.60-2.45]; upper and lower GI, OR 1.31 [95%CI 1.18-1.73]); as well as the type of article (original article vs. editorial, OR 1.92 [95%CI 1.58-2.33]). The type of research was also associated with the gender gap (clinical vs. preclinical studies, OR 0.88 [95%CI 0.66-0.91]). CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrated a correlation between the gender gap and the design and topic of the research. Future strategies for improving equity in career development in GI endoscopy should focus on closing the gender gap in equity of authorship.

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.

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

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

International consensus on the management of large (≥20 mm) colorectal laterally spreading tumors: World Endoscopy Organization Delphi study.

OBJECTIVES: There have been significant advances in the management of large (≥20 mm) laterally spreading tumors (LSTs) or nonpedunculated colorectal polyps; however, there is a lack of clear consensus on the management of these lesions with significant geographic variability especially between Eastern and Western paradigms. We aimed to provide an international consensus to better guide management and attempt to homogenize practices. METHODS: Two experts in interventional endoscopy spearheaded an evidence-based Delphi study on behalf of the World Endoscopy Organization Colorectal Cancer Screening Committee. A steering committee comprising six members devised 51 statements, and 43 experts from 18 countries on six continents participated in a three-round voting process. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations tool was used to assess evidence quality and recommendation strength. Consensus was defined as ≥80% agreement (strongly agree or agree) on a 5-point Likert scale. RESULTS: Forty-two statements reached consensus after three rounds of voting. Recommendations included: three statements on training and competency; 10 statements on preresection evaluation, including optical diagnosis, classification, and staging of LSTs; 14 statements on endoscopic resection indications and technique, including statements on en bloc and piecemeal resection decision-making; seven statements on postresection evaluation; and eight statements on postresection care. CONCLUSIONS: An international expert consensus based on the current available evidence has been developed to guide the evaluation, resection, and follow-up of LSTs. This may provide guiding principles for the global management of these lesions and standardize current practices.

Management of colorectal cancer screening backlog due to the COVID-19 pandemic: A retrospective analysis of the use of a colorectal cancer screening clinical-decision support tool in Argentina.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic created a backlog in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and surveillance colonoscopies. The real impact in Argentina is not fully known. GOAL: To estimate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on CRC prevention by comparing the number of CRC screening and surveillance consults in a clinical decision support-tool used in Argentina before, during and after pandemic lockdown. METHODS: We analyzed data from May 2019 to December 2021 from CaPtyVa, a clinical decision support tool for CRC screening and surveillance. Queries were divided in pre-pandemic (May 2019 to March 2020), lockdown (April 2020 to December 2020), and post-lockdown (January 2021 to December 2021). The number of CRC monthly screening and surveillance visits were compared among the three periods and stratified according to CRC risk. RESULTS: Overall, 27,563 consults were analyzed of which 9035 were screening and 18,528 were surveillance. Pre-pandemic, the median number of screening consults was 346 per month (IQR25-75 280-410). There was a decrease to 156 (80-210)/month (p<0.005) during lockdown that partially recovered during post-lockdown to 230 (170-290)/month (p=0.05). Pre-pandemic, the median number of surveillance consults was 716 (560-880)/month. They decreased to 354 (190-470)/month during lockdown (p<.05) and unlike screening, completely recovered during post-lockdown to 581 (450-790)/month. CONCLUSIONS: There was a >50% decrease in the number of CRC screening and surveillance consults registered in CaPtyVa during lockdown in Argentina. Post-lockdown, surveillance consults recovered to pre-pandemic levels, but screening consults remained at 66% of pre-pandemic levels. This has implications for delays in CRC diagnoses and patient outcomes.

Underwater versus conventional EMR of large nonpedunculated colorectal lesions: a multicenter randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Underwater EMR (UEMR) is an alternative procedure to conventional EMR (CEMR) to treat large, nonpedunculated colorectal lesions (LNPCLs). In this multicenter, randomized controlled clinical trial, we aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of UEMR versus CEMR on LNPCLs. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, randomized controlled clinical trial from February 2018 to February 2020 in 11 hospitals in Spain. A total of 298 patients (311 lesions) were randomized to the UEMR (n = 149) and CEMR (n = 162) groups. The main outcome was the lesion recurrence rate in at least 1 follow-up colonoscopy. Secondary outcomes included technical aspects, en bloc resection rate, R0 resection rates, and adverse events, among others. RESULTS: There were no differences in the overall recurrence rate (9.5% UEMR vs 11.7% CEMR; absolute risk difference, -2.2%; 95% CI, -9.4 to 4.9). However, considering polyp sizes between 20 and 30 mm, the recurrence rate was lower for UEMR (3.4% UEMR vs 13.1% CEMR; absolute risk difference, -9.7%; 95% CI, -19.4 to 0). The R0 resection showed the same tendency, with significant differences favoring UEMR only for polyps between 20 and 30 mm. Overall, UEMR was faster and easier to perform than CEMR. Importantly, the techniques were equally safe. CONCLUSIONS: UEMR is a valid alternative to CEMR for treating LNPCLs and could be considered the first option of treatment for lesions between 20 and 30 mm due to its higher en bloc and R0 resection rates. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03567746.).

High quality colonoscopy: using textbook process as a composite quality measure.

BACKGROUND : High quality colonoscopy is fundamental to good patient outcomes. "Textbook outcome" has proven to be a feasible multidimensional measure for quality assurance between surgical centers. In this study, we sought to establish the "textbook process" (TP) as a new composite measure for the optimal colonoscopy process and assessed how frequently TP was attained in clinical practice and the variation in TP between endoscopists. METHODS : To reach consensus on the definition of TP, international expert endoscopists completed a modified Delphi consensus process. The achievement of TP was then applied to clinical practice. Prospectively collected data in two endoscopy services were retrospectively evaluated. Data on colonoscopies performed for symptoms or surveillance between 1 January 2018 and 1 August 2021 were analyzed. RESULTS : The Delphi consensus process was completed by 20 of 27 invited experts (74.1 %). TP was defined as a colonoscopy fulfilling the following items: explicit colonoscopy indication; successful cecal intubation; adequate bowel preparation; adequate withdrawal time; acceptable patient comfort score; provision of post-polypectomy surveillance recommendations in line with guidelines; and the absence of the use of reversal agents, early adverse events, readmission, and mortality. In the two endoscopy services studied, TP was achieved in 5962/8227 colonoscopies (72.5 %). Of 48 endoscopists performing colonoscopy, attainment of TP varied significantly, ranging per endoscopist from 41.0 % to 89.1 %. CONCLUSION : This study proposes a new composite measure for colonoscopy, namely "textbook process." TP gives a comprehensive summary of performance and demonstrates significant variation between endoscopists, illustrating the potential benefit of TP as a measure in future quality assessment programs.

Underwater cap-suction pseudopolyp formation for endoscopic mucosal resection: a simple technique for treating flat, appendiceal orifice or ileocecal valve colorectal lesions.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to evaluate the safety and technical success of an easy-to-use technique that applies underwater cap suction pseudopolyp formation to facilitate the resection of flat lesions or those at the appendiceal orifice or ileocecal valve. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed a register of consecutive cap suction underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (CAP-UEMR) procedures performed at two centers between September 2020 and December 2021. Procedures were performed using a cone-shaped cap, extending 7 mm from the endoscope tip, to suction the lesion while submerged underwater, followed by underwater snare resection. Our primary end point was technical success, defined as macroscopic complete resection. RESULTS: We treated 83 lesions (median size 20 mm; interquartile range [IQR] 15-30 mm) with CAP-UEMR: 64 depressed or flat lesions (18 previously manipulated, 9 with difficult access), 11 from the appendix, and 8 from the ileocecal valve. Technical success was 100 %. There were seven intraprocedural bleedings and two delayed bleedings, all managed endoscopically. No perforations or other complications occurred. Among the 64 lesions with follow-up colonoscopy, only one recurrence was detected, which was treated endoscopically. CONCLUSIONS: CAP-UEMR was a safe and effective technique for removing nonpolypoid colorectal lesions, including those arising from the appendiceal orifice or ileocecal valve.

Informed consent for endoscopic procedures: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Position Statement.

All endoscopic procedures are invasive and carry risk. Accordingly, all endoscopists should involve the patient in the decision-making process about the most appropriate endoscopic procedure for that individual, in keeping with a patient's right to self-determination and autonomy. Recognition of this has led to detailed guidelines on informed consent for endoscopy in some countries, but in many no such guidance exists; this may lead to variations in care and exposure to risk of litigation. In this document, the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) sets out a series of statements that cover best practice in informed consent for endoscopy. These statements should be seen as a minimum standard of practice, but practitioners must be aware of and adhere to the law in their own country. 1: Patients should give informed consent for all gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures for which they have capacity to do so. 2: The healthcare professional seeking consent for an endoscopic procedure should ensure that the patient has the capacity to consent to that procedure. 3: For patients who lack capacity, healthcare personnel should at all times try to engage with people close to the patient, such as family, friends, or caregivers, to achieve consensus on the appropriateness of performing the procedure. 4: Where a patient lacks capacity to provide informed consent, the best interest decision should be clearly documented in the medical record. This should include information about the capacity assessment, reason(s) that the decision cannot be delayed for capacity recovery (or if recovery is not expected), who has been consulted, and where relevant the form of authority for the decision. 5: There should be a systematic and transparent disclosure of the expected benefits and harms that may reasonably affect patient choice on whether or not to undergo any diagnostic or interventional endoscopic procedure. Information about possible alternatives, as well as the consequences of doing nothing, should also be provided when relevant. 6: The information provided on the benefit and harms of an endoscopic procedure should be adapted to the procedure and patient-specific risk factors, and the preferences of the patient should be central to the consent process. 7: The consent discussion should be undertaken by an individual who is familiar with the procedure and its risks, and is able to discuss these in the context of the individual patient. 8: Patients should confirm consent to an endoscopic procedure in a private, unrushed, and non-coercive environment. 9: If a patient requests that an endoscopic procedure be discontinued, the procedure should be paused and the patient's capacity for decision making assessed. If a competent patient continues to object to the procedure, or if a conclusive determination of capacity is not feasible, the examination should be terminated as soon as it is safe to do so. 10: Informed consent should be sufficiently detailed to cover all findings that can be reasonably anticipated during an endoscopic examination. The scope of this consent should not be expanded, nor a patient's implicit consent for additional interventions assumed, unless failure to proceed with such interventions would result in immediate and predictable harm to the patient.

Histopathological effects of electrosurgical interventions in an in vivo porcine model of colonic endoscopic mucosal resection.

OBJECTIVE: Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) in the colon has been widely adopted, but there is limited data on the histopathological effects of the differing electrosurgical currents (ESCs) used. We used an in vivo porcine model to compare the tissue effects of ESCs for snare resection and adjuvant margin ablation techniques. DESIGN: Standardised EMR was performed by a single endoscopist in 12 pigs. Two intersecting 15 mm snare resections were performed. Resections were randomised 1:1 using either a microprocessor-controlled current (MCC) or low-power coagulating current (LPCC). The lateral margins of each defect were treated with either argon plasma coagulation (APC) or snare tip soft coagulation (STSC). Colons were surgically removed at 72 hours. Two specialist pathologists blinded to the intervention assessed the specimens. RESULTS: 88 defects were analysed (median 7 per pig, median defect size 29×17 mm). For snare ESC effects, 156 tissue sections were assessed. LPCC was comparable to MCC for deep involvement of the colon wall. For margin ablation, 172 tissue sections were assessed. APC was comparable to STSC for deep involvement of the colon wall. Islands of preserved mucosa at the coagulated margin were more likely with APC compared with STSC (16% vs 5%, p=0.010). CONCLUSION: For snare resection, MCC and LPCC did not produce significantly different tissue effects. The submucosal injectate may protect the underlying tissue, and technique may more strongly dictate the depth and extent of final injury. For margin ablation, APC was less uniform and complete compared with STSC.

Linked Colour imaging for the detection of polyps in patients with Lynch syndrome: a multicentre, parallel randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Despite regular colonoscopy surveillance, colorectal cancers still occur in patients with Lynch syndrome. Thus, detection of all relevant precancerous lesions remains very important. The present study investigates Linked Colour imaging (LCI), an image-enhancing technique, as compared with high-definition white light endoscopy (HD-WLE) for the detection of polyps in this patient group. DESIGN: This prospective, randomised controlled trial was performed by 22 experienced endoscopists from eight centres in six countries. Consecutive Lynch syndrome patients ≥18 years undergoing surveillance colonoscopy were randomised (1:1) and stratified by centre for inspection with either LCI or HD-WLE. Primary outcome was the polyp detection rate (PDR). RESULTS: Between January 2018 and March 2020, 357 patients were randomised and 332 patients analysed (160 LCI, 172 HD-WLE; 6 excluded due to incomplete colonoscopies and 19 due to insufficient bowel cleanliness). No significant difference was observed in PDR with LCI (44.4%; 95% CI 36.5% to 52.4%) compared with HD-WLE (36.0%; 95% CI 28.9% to 43.7%) (p=0.12). Of the secondary outcome parameters, more adenomas were found on a patient (adenoma detection rate 36.3%; vs 25.6%; p=0.04) and a colonoscopy basis (mean adenomas per colonoscopy 0.65 vs 0.42; p=0.04). The median withdrawal time was not statistically different between LCI and HD-WLE (12 vs 11 min; p=0.16). CONCLUSION: LCI did not improve the PDR compared with HD-WLE in patients with Lynch syndrome undergoing surveillance. The relevance of findings more adenomas by LCI has to be examined further. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03344289.

A Liquid Biopsy Assay for Noninvasive Identification of Lymph Node Metastases in T1 Colorectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: We recently reported use of tissue-based transcriptomic biomarkers (microRNA [miRNA] or messenger RNA [mRNA]) for identification of lymph node metastasis (LNM) in patients with invasive submucosal colorectal cancers (T1 CRC). In this study, we translated our tissue-based biomarkers into a blood-based liquid biopsy assay for noninvasive detection of LNM in patients with high-risk T1 CRC. METHODS: We analyzed 330 specimens from patients with high-risk T1 CRC, which included 188 serum samples from 2 clinical cohorts-a training cohort (N = 46) and a validation cohort (N = 142)-and matched formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded samples (N = 142). We performed quantitative reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction, followed by logistic regression analysis, to develop an integrated transcriptomic panel and establish a risk-stratification model combined with clinical risk factors. RESULTS: We used comprehensive expression profiling of a training cohort of LNM-positive and LMN-negative serum specimens to identify an optimized transcriptomic panel of 4 miRNAs (miR-181b, miR-193b, miR-195, and miR-411) and 5 mRNAs (AMT, forkhead box A1 [FOXA1], polymeric immunoglobulin receptor [PIGR], matrix metalloproteinase 1 [MMP1], and matrix metalloproteinase 9 [MMP9]), which robustly identified patients with LNM (area under the curve [AUC], 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.72-0.94). We validated panel performance in an independent validation cohort (AUC, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.74-0.88). Our risk-stratification model was more accurate than the panel and an independent predictor for identification of LNM (AUC, 0.90; univariate: odds ratio [OR], 37.17; 95% CI, 4.48-308.35; P < .001; multivariate: OR, 17.28; 95% CI, 1.82-164.07; P = .013). The model limited potential overtreatment to only 18% of all patients, which is dramatically superior to pathologic features that are currently used (92%). CONCLUSIONS: A novel risk-stratification model for noninvasive identification of T1 CRC has the potential to avoid unnecessary operations for patients classified as high-risk by conventional risk-classification criteria.

Familial component of early-onset colorectal cancer: opportunity for prevention.

BACKGROUND: Individuals with a non-syndromic family history of colorectal cancer are known to have an increased risk. There is an opportunity to prevent early-onset colorectal cancer (age less than 50 years) (EOCRC) in this population. The aim was to explore the proportion of EOCRC that is preventable due to family history of colorectal cancer. METHODS: This was a retrospective multicentre European study of patients with non-hereditary EOCRC. The impact of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), U.S. Multi-Society Task Force (USMSTF), and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines on prevention and early diagnosis was compared. Colorectal cancer was defined as potentially preventable if surveillance colonoscopy would have been performed at least 5 years before the age of diagnosis of colorectal cancer, and diagnosed early if colonoscopy was undertaken between 1 and 4 years before the diagnosis. RESULTS: Some 903 patients with EOCRC were included. Criteria for familial colorectal cancer risk in ESGE, USMSTF, and NCCN guidelines were met in 6.3, 9.4, and 30.4 per cent of patients respectively. Based on ESGE, USMSTF, and NCCN guidelines, colorectal cancer could potentially have been prevented in 41, 55, and 30.3 per cent of patients, and diagnosed earlier in 11, 14, and 21.1 per cent respectively. In ESGE guidelines, if surveillance had started 10 years before the youngest relative, there would be a significant increase in prevention (41 versus 55 per cent; P = 0.010). CONCLUSION: ESGE, USMSTF, and NCCN criteria for familial colorectal cancer were met in 6.3, 9.4, and 30.4 per cent of patients with EOCRC respectively. In these patients, early detection and/or prevention could be achieved in 52, 70, and 51.4 per cent respectively. Early and accurate identification of familial colorectal cancer risk and increase in the uptake of early colonoscopy are key to decreasing familial EOCRC.