Search

This article discusses the feasibility, safety, and outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for early gastrointestinal neoplasia in the UK. The study collected data from 568 colorectal ESDs performed between August 2016 and August 2023 at six large tertiary referral centers. The results showed that ESD was technically successful in 97.7% of cases, with an en-bloc resection rate of 83.1%. Adverse events, such as perforation and bleeding, were managed endoscopically in most cases. The study also found that the majority of resected lesions were adenomatous neoplasia, with varying rates of dysplasia. The authors conclude that ESD is feasible, safe, and effective in the Western setting, but improvements are needed to optimize the R0 resection rate. [Extracted from the article]

Background: Device-assisted enteroscopy (DAE) has become a well-established diagnostic and therapeutic tool for the management of small-bowel pathology. We aimed to evaluate the performance measures for DAE across the UK against the quality benchmarks proposed by the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE)., Methods: We retrospectively collected data on patient demographics and DAE performance measures from electronic endoscopy records of consecutive patients who underwent DAE for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes across 12 enteroscopy centers in the UK between January 2017 and December 2022., Results: A total of 2005 DAE procedures were performed in 1663 patients (median age 60 years; 53% men). Almost all procedures (98.1%) were performed for appropriate indications. Double-balloon enteroscopy was used for most procedures (82.0%), followed by single-balloon enteroscopy (17.2%) and spiral enteroscopy (0.7%). The estimated depth of insertion was documented in 73.4% of procedures. The overall diagnostic yield was 70.0%. Therapeutic interventions were performed in 42.6% of procedures, with a success rate of 96.6%. Overall, 78.0% of detected lesions were marked with a tattoo. Patient comfort was significantly better with the use of deep sedation compared with conscious sedation (99.7% vs. 68.5%; P <0.001). Major adverse events occurred in only 0.6% of procedures., Conclusions: Performance measures for DAE in the UK meet the ESGE quality benchmarks, with high diagnostic and therapeutic yields, and a low incidence of major adverse events. However, there is room for improvement in optimizing sedation practices, standardizing the depth of insertion documentation, and adopting marking techniques to aid in the follow-up of detected lesions., Competing Interests: E.J. Despott has received educational and travel grants and speaker’s honoraria from Fujifilm, Aquilant, Diagmed, Laborie, and Medtronic (2007 to present); his department has received educational grants from Fujifilm, Pentax, Olympus, ERBE, Norgine, and Medtronic (2012 to present). The remaining authors declare that they have no conflict of interest., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

BACKGROUND : The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) has developed a core curriculum for high quality optical diagnosis training for practice across Europe. The development of easy-to-measure competence standards for optical diagnosis can optimize clinical decision-making in endoscopy. This manuscript represents an official Position Statement of the ESGE aiming to define simple, safe, and easy-to-measure competence standards for endoscopists and artificial intelligence systems performing optical diagnosis of diminutive colorectal polyps (1 - 5 mm). METHODS : A panel of European experts in optical diagnosis participated in a modified Delphi process to reach consensus on Simple Optical Diagnosis Accuracy (SODA) competence standards for implementation of the optical diagnosis strategy for diminutive colorectal polyps. In order to assess the clinical benefits and harms of implementing optical diagnosis with different competence standards, a systematic literature search was performed. This was complemented with the results from a recently performed simulation study that provides guidance for setting alternative competence standards for optical diagnosis. Proposed competence standards were based on literature search and simulation study results. Competence standards were accepted if at least 80 % agreement was reached after a maximum of three voting rounds. RECOMMENDATION 1:  In order to implement the leave-in-situ strategy for diminutive colorectal lesions (1-5 mm), it is clinically acceptable if, during real-time colonoscopy, at least 90 % sensitivity and 80 % specificity is achieved for high confidence endoscopic characterization of colorectal neoplasia of 1-5 mm in the rectosigmoid. Histopathology is used as the gold standard.Level of agreement 95 %. RECOMMENDATION 2:  In order to implement the resect-and-discard strategy for diminutive colorectal lesions (1-5 mm), it is clinically acceptable if, during real-time colonoscopy, at least 80 % sensitivity and 80 % specificity is achieved for high confidence endoscopic characterization of colorectal neoplasia of 1-5 mm. Histopathology is used as the gold standard.Level of agreement 100 %. CONCLUSION : The developed SODA competence standards define diagnostic performance thresholds in relation to clinical consequences, for training and for use when auditing the optical diagnosis of diminutive colorectal polyps., Competing Interests: R. Bisschops has received research support from Cook and Medtronic, and financial support for symposium organization from Cook, Boston Scientific, Olympus, and Erbe (2009–2109), and speakers’ fees from Boston Scientific and Medtronic (2009–2019). E. Coron has received speakerʼs fees from Fujifilm (2018–2020). E. Dekker has received speaker’s fees from Roche (2018), Norgine (2019), Olympus and GI Supply (both 2019 to 2020), and Fujifilm (2020), and has provided consultancy to Fujifilm (2018), CPP-FAP (2019), GI Supply (2019 to 2020), Olympus (2020 to present), PAION and Ambu (both 2021); she received a research grant from Fujifilm (2017 to 2020) and her department has equipment on loan from Fujifilm (2017 to present) and Olympus (2021). M. Dinis-Ribeiro receives an educational grant from Olympus (2020 to present) and a research grant from Fujifilm (2020 to present); he is co-editor in-chief of Endoscopy. J.E. East has provided consultancy to, and holds share options in, Satisfai Health (2020 to present). C. Hassan has received research support from Fujifilm (2017 to present); his department has received support from Sonoscape. M. Iacucci receives research support from Pentax (2011 to present), Olympus (2017 to present) and Fujifilm (2018 to present). Y. Mori receives consultancy and speaker’s fees from Olympus (2018 to present) and has an ownership interest in Cybernet System Corp. (2020 to present). H. Neumann has provided consultancy to Fujifilm, Sonoscope, and Boston Scientific (all 2019 to 2020). M. Pellisé has received consultancy and speaker’s fees from Norgine Iberia (2015 to 2020), a consultancy fee from GI Supply (2019), speaker’s fees from Casen Recordati (2016 to 2019), Olympus (2018), and Jansen (2018), and research funding from Fujifilm Spain (2019), Fujifilm Europe (2020), and Casen Recordati (2020); her department has received loan material from Fujifilm Spain (2017 to present), a research grant from Olympus Europe (2005 to 2019), and loan material and a research grant from Fujifilm Europe (2020 to 2021); she is a Board member of ESGE and SEED, and is a co-editor of Endoscopy (2015 to 2021). I. Puig has provided advisory services to Fujifilm (2020 to present) and has equipment on loan from Olympus and Fujifilm (both 2019 to present). B. Saunders receives research funding from Olympus (2019 to present). D.J. Tate received an educational grant from Olympus (2018 to 2019). G. Antonelli, M. Bustamante-Balén, G. Cortas, V.M.H. Coupé, D.E. Dobru, M.J.E. Greuter, Y. Hazewinkel, B.B.S.L. Houwen, R. Jover, R. Kuvaev, G. Longcroft-Wheaton, M.D. Rutter, and J.L.A. Vleugels declare that they have no conflict of interest., (European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. All rights reserved.)

Background: One of the aims of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) is to encourage high quality endoscopic research at a European level. In 2016, the ESGE research committee published a set of research priorities. As endoscopic research is flourishing, we aimed to review the literature and determine whether endoscopic research over the last 4 years had managed to address any of our previously published priorities., Methods: As the previously published priorities were grouped under seven different domains, a working party with at least two European experts was created for each domain to review all the priorities under that domain. A structured review form was developed to standardize the review process. The group conducted an extensive literature search relevant to each of the priorities and then graded the priorities into three categories: (1) no longer a priority (well-designed trial, incorporated in national/international guidelines or adopted in routine clinical practice); (2) remains a priority (i. e. the above criterion was not met); (3) redefine the existing priority (i. e. the priority was too vague with the research question not clearly defined)., Results: The previous ESGE research priorities document published in 2016 had 26 research priorities under seven domains. Our review of these priorities has resulted in seven priorities being removed from the list, one priority being partially removed, another seven being redefined to make them more precise, with eleven priorities remaining unchanged. This is a reflection of a rapid surge in endoscopic research, resulting in 27 % of research questions having already been answered and another 27 % requiring redefinition., Conclusions: Our extensive review process has led to the removal of seven research priorities from the previous (2016) list, leaving 19 research priorities that have been redefined to make them more precise and relevant for researchers and funding bodies to target., Competing Interests: A. Anderloni has provided consultancy for Boston Scientific (2016 to date), Olympus (2018 to present), and Medtronic (2018–2019). M. Barthet has received a research grant from Boston Scientific (2016 to present). P. Bhandari has received educational event support from Olympus, speaker’s fees and grants from Pentax, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and 3-D Matrix, and is on the advisory board and received a research grant from Fujifilm (all 2017 to present). M. Dinis-Ribeiro has provided consultancy for Medtronic (2020); he is co-Editor-in-Chief of Endoscopy. R. Haidry has received research funding from Medtronic (2013), Pentax (2013 to present), and Cook Endoscopy (2016 to present). H. Neumann has provided consultancy for Fujifilm, Sonoscope, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic (2019–2020). T. Ponchon has provided consultancy for Olympus, Boston Scientific, Norgine, and Ipsen (2020 to present); his department has received research funding from Olympus and Boston Scientific (2020 to present). A. Repici has received research grants and consultancy fees from Boston Scientific, Fujifilm, Medtronic, and Erbe. P.D. Siersema receives research support from Pentax, The eNose company, Norgine, Motus GI, and MicroTech; he is Editor-in-Chief of Endoscopy. C. Spada has provided consultancy for Medtronic, AlfaSigma, Norgine, Pentax, and Olympus (2016 to present). P.A. Testoni’s department has received meeting sponsorship and trials support from Pentax (2000 to present). E. Albeniz, G. Antonelli, L. Diogo, L. Fuccio, C. Hassan, G. Longcroft-Wheaton, P. Pimentel-Nunes, M. Pioche, and R. Sidhu declare that they have no conflict of interest., (European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. All rights reserved.)

Background: The aims of this study were to compare neoplasia detection rates for nontargeted biopsies (Seattle protocol) versus acetic acid-targeted biopsies (Portsmouth protocol) during Barrett's surveillance and to explore feasibility, patient/clinician experience, acceptance, and barriers/enablers to study participation and implementation of the acetic acid technique., Methods: This was a mixed-methods feasibility study including a pilot multicenter, randomized, crossover trial with qualitative interviews. Patients under Barrett's surveillance with no history of neoplasia were included. Patients underwent two endoscopies, one with each protocol, 8 weeks apart. Outcomes included recruitment and retention rates, neoplasia yield, and number of biopsies., Results: 200 patients were recruited from 6 centers, and 174 (87.0 %) underwent both procedures. Neoplasia prevalence was 4.7 % (9/192). High grade dysplasia and cancer were detected with both protocols. Five low grade dysplasias were detected (two with acetic acid, four with nontargeted biopsies; one lesion was detected with both techniques). A total of 2139 biopsies were taken in the nontargeted arm and 226 in the acetic acid arm. Both patients and clinicians found the acetic acid technique acceptable. Based on these data, a noninferiority, tandem, crossover trial would require an estimated 2828 patients., Conclusions: We demonstrated the feasibility of performing a crossover endoscopy trial in Barrett's surveillance. Low neoplasia yield makes this design necessary and qualitative results demonstrated patient and clinician acceptance. The reduced numbers of biopsies suggest that the acetic acid technique could result in cost savings, providing the lack of missed pathology can be proven in a fully powered definitive trial., Competing Interests: None, (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

Competing Interests: Disclosure The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.

1:  ESGE suggests that high definition endoscopy, and dye or virtual chromoendoscopy, as well as add-on devices, can be used in average risk patients to increase the endoscopist's adenoma detection rate. However, their routine use must be balanced against costs and practical considerations.Weak recommendation, high quality evidence. 2:  ESGE recommends the routine use of high definition systems in individuals with Lynch syndrome.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 3:  ESGE recommends the routine use, with targeted biopsies, of dye-based pancolonic chromoendoscopy or virtual chromoendoscopy for neoplasia surveillance in patients with long-standing colitis.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 4:  ESGE suggests that virtual chromoendoscopy and dye-based chromoendoscopy can be used, under strictly controlled conditions, for real-time optical diagnosis of diminutive (≤ 5 mm) colorectal polyps and can replace histopathological diagnosis. The optical diagnosis has to be reported using validated scales, must be adequately photodocumented, and can be performed only by experienced endoscopists who are adequately trained, as defined in the ESGE curriculum, and audited.Weak recommendation, high quality evidence. 5:  ESGE recommends the use of high definition white-light endoscopy in combination with (virtual) chromoendoscopy to predict the presence and depth of any submucosal invasion in nonpedunculated colorectal polyps prior to any treatment. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 6:  ESGE recommends the use of virtual or dye-based chromoendoscopy in addition to white-light endoscopy for the detection of residual neoplasia at a piecemeal polypectomy scar site. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 7:  ESGE suggests the possible incorporation of computer-aided diagnosis (detection and characterization of lesions) to colonoscopy, if acceptable and reproducible accuracy for colorectal neoplasia is demonstrated in high quality multicenter in vivo clinical studies. Possible significant risks with implementation, specifically endoscopist deskilling and over-reliance on artificial intelligence, unrepresentative training datasets, and hacking, need to be considered. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence., Competing Interests: R. Bisschops has provided consultancy to and received research grants and speaker’s fees from Pentax (2008 to present) and Fujifilm (2015 to present); his department has received research grants and equipment from Pentax and Fujifilm (2015 to present). E. Coron received speaker’s fees or congress invitations from Fujifilm (2016 – 2019), and speaker’s fees from Olympus (2016, 2017). J. East received a speaker’s fee from Falk (January 2018); he has served on a Clinical Advisory Board of Boston Scientific (March 2018 to March 2019). C. Hassan has received research support from Fujifilm (2017 to present); his department has received support from Sonoscape. J. E. van Hooft has received lecture fees from Medtronics (2014 – 2015) and Cook Medical (2019), and consultancy fees from Boston Scientific (2014 – 2017); her department has received research grants from Cook Medical (2014 – 2018) and Abbott (2014 – 2017). M. Iacucci has received a research grant and consultancy fee from Pentax (2013 – 2019), and a research grant from Fujifilm (2018 – 2019); her department has received a research grant from Olympus (2017 – 2019). M.F. Kaminski has received speaker’s, teaching, and consultancy fees from Olympus (2017 to present) and speaker’s and teaching fees, and a loan of equipment from Fujifilm (2019). H. Neumann has provided consultancy to Fujifilm, Pentax, Motus GI, Boston Scientific, and Cook (2012 to present). M. Pellisé has received speaker’s fees from Casen Recordati (2016 – 2019), Olympus (2018), and Jansen (2018), consultancy and speaker’s fees from Norgine Iberia (2015 – 2019), a consultancy fee from GI Apply (2019), and research funding from Fujifilm Spain (2019); her department has received material on loan from Fujifilm Spain (2017 to present) and research grants from Olympus Europe (2005 to present); she is a board member of ESGE and SEED (2016 to present). I. Puig’s department has received loans of equipment to conduct a study from Olympus Europe (2019 – 2021) and Fujifilm Europe (January 2019 – December 2019). Y. Mori has provided consultancy to and received a Speaker’s honorarium from Olympus (2017 – 2019). G. Antonelli, M. Bustamente Balén, G. Cortas, E. Dekker, Y. Hazewinkel, G. Longcroft-Wheaton, and N. Pilonis have no competing interests., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

Background and study aims  Up to 25 % colorectal adenomas are missed during colonoscopy. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the endocuff could improve polyp detection in an organized bowel cancer screening program (BCSP). Patients and methods  This parallel group, single-blinded, randomized controlled trial included patients with positive fecal occult blood test (FOBT) who were attending for BCSP colonoscopy. The primary outcome was the number of polyps per patient. Secondary outcomes included the number of adenomas per patient, adenoma and polyp detection rates, and withdrawal times. Results  A total of 534 BCSP patients were randomized to endocuff-assisted or standard colonoscopy. The mean age was 67 years and the male to female ratio was 1.8:1. We detected no significant difference in the number of polyps per patient (standard 1.8, endocuff 1.6; P  = 0.44), adenomas per patient (standard 1.4, endocuff 1.3; P  = 0.54), polyp detection rate (standard 69.8 %, endocuff 70.3 %; P  = 0.93), adenoma detection rate (standard 63.0 %, endocuff 60.9 %; P  = 0.85), advanced adenoma detection rate (standard 18.5 %, endocuff 16.9 %; P  = 0.81), and cancer detection rate (standard 5.7 %, endocuff 5.3 %; P  = 0.85). The mean withdrawal time was significantly shorter among patients in the endocuff group compared with the standard colonoscopy group (16.9 vs. 19.5 minutes; P  < 0.005). The endocuff had to be removed in 17/266 patients (6.4 %) because of inability to pass through the sigmoid colon. Conclusions This study did not find improved polyp or adenoma detection with endocuff-assisted colonoscopy in the FOBT-positive BCSP population. A shorter withdrawal time with endocuff may reflect improved views and stability provided by the endocuff.Trial registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02529007)., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None, (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

Background and study aims  Acetic acid chromoendoscopy (AAC) enhances the ability to correctly identify Barrett's neoplasia, and is increasingly used by both expert and nonexpert endoscopists. Despite its increasing use, there is no validated training strategy to achieve competence. The aims of our study were to develop a validated training tool in AAC-assisted lesion recognition, to assess endoscopists' baseline knowledge of AAC-assisted lesion recognition, and to evaluate the efficacy and impact of this training tool. Methods  A validated assessment of 40 images and 20 videos was developed. A total of 13 endoscopists with experience of Barrett's endoscopy but no formal training in AAC were recruited to the study. Participants underwent: baseline assessment 1, online training, assessment 2, interactive seminar, assessment 3. Results  Baseline assessment demonstrated a sensitivity of 83 % and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 83 %. The online training intervention significantly improved sensitivity to 95 % and NPV to 94 % ( P  < 0.01). Further improvement was seen after a 1-day interactive seminar including live cases, with sensitivity increasing to 98 % and NPV to 97 %. Conclusions  The data demonstrate the need for training in AAC-assisted lesion recognition as baseline performance, even by Barrett's experts, was poor. The online training and testing tool for AAC for Barrett's neoplasia was successfully developed and validated. The training intervention improved performance of endoscopists to meet ASGE PIVI standards. The training tool increases the endoscopist's degree of confidence in the use of AAC. The training tool also leads to shift in attitudes of endoscopists from Seattle protocol towards AAC-guided biopsy protocol for Barrett's surveillance., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

Background and aim: This technical review is an official statement of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE). It addresses the utilization of advanced endoscopic imaging in gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy. Methods: This technical review is based on a systematic literature search to evaluate the evidence supporting the use of advanced endoscopic imaging throughout the GI tract. Technologies considered include narrowed-spectrum endoscopy (narrow band imaging [NBI]; flexible spectral imaging color enhancement [FICE]; i-Scan digital contrast [I-SCAN]), autofluorescence imaging (AFI), and confocal laser endomicroscopy (CLE). The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system was adopted to define the strength of recommendation and the quality of evidence. Main recommendations: 1. We suggest advanced endoscopic imaging technologies improve mucosal visualization and enhance fine structural and microvascular detail. Expert endoscopic diagnosis may be improved by advanced imaging, but as yet in community-based practice no technology has been shown consistently to be diagnostically superior to current practice with high definition white light. (Low quality evidence.) 2. We recommend the use of validated classification systems to support the use of optical diagnosis with advanced endoscopic imaging in the upper and lower GI tracts (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). 3. We suggest that training improves performance in the use of advanced endoscopic imaging techniques and that it is a prerequisite for use in clinical practice. A learning curve exists and training alone does not guarantee sustained high performances in clinical practice. (Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.) Conclusion: Advanced endoscopic imaging can improve mucosal visualization and endoscopic diagnosis; however it requires training and the use of validated classification systems., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

Background and Study Aims: There have been significant advances in the management of complex colorectal polyps. Previous failed resection or polyp recurrence is associated with significant fibrosis, making endoscopic resection extremely challenging; the traditional approach to these lesions is surgery. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a novel, knife-assisted snare resection (KAR) technique in the resection of scarred colonic polyps., Patients and Methods: This was a prospective cohort study of patients, in whom the KAR technique was used to resect scarred colonic polyps > 2  cm in size. Patients had previously undergone endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and developed recurrence, or EMR had been attempted but was aborted as a result of technical difficulty., Results: A total of 42 patients underwent KAR of large (median 40  mm) scarred polyps. Surgery for benign disease was avoided in 38 of 41 patients (93 %). No life-threatening complications occurred. Recurrence was seen in six patients (16 %), five of whom underwent further endoscopic resection. The overall cure rate for KAR in complex scarred colonic polyps was 90 %., Conclusions: KAR of scarred colonic polyps by an expert endoscopist was an effective and safe technique with low recurrence rates., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

Main Recommendations: 1 ESGE suggests the routine use of high definition white-light endoscopy systems for detecting colorectal neoplasia in average risk populations (weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence). 2 ESGE recommends the routine use of high definition systems and pancolonic conventional or virtual (narrow band imaging [NBI], i-SCAN) chromoendoscopy in patients with known or suspected Lynch syndrome (strong recommendation, low quality evidence). 2b ESGE recommends the routine use of high definition systems and pancolonic conventional or virtual (NBI) chromoendoscopy in patients with known or suspected serrated polyposis syndrome (strong recommendation, low quality evidence). 3 ESGE recommends the routine use of 0.1 % methylene blue or 0.1 % - 0.5 % indigo carmine pancolonic chromoendoscopy with targeted biopsies for neoplasia surveillance in patients with long-standing colitis. In appropriately trained hands, in the situation of quiescent disease activity and adequate bowel preparation, nontargeted, four-quadrant biopsies can be abandoned (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). 4 ESGE suggests that virtual chromoendoscopy (NBI, FICE, i-SCAN) and conventional chromoendoscopy can be used, under strictly controlled conditions, for real-time optical diagnosis of diminutive (≤ 5 mm) colorectal polyps to replace histopathological diagnosis. The optical diagnosis has to be reported using validated scales, must be adequately photodocumented, and can be performed only by experienced endoscopists who are adequately trained and audited (weak recommendation, high quality evidence). 5 ESGE suggests the use of conventional or virtual (NBI) magnified chromoendoscopy to predict the risk of invasive cancer and deep submucosal invasion in lesions such as those with a depressed component (0-IIc according to the Paris classification) or nongranular or mixed-type laterally spreading tumors (weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence)., Conclusion: Advanced imaging techniques will need to be applied in specific patient groups in routine clinical practice and to be taught in endoscopic training programs., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)