Search

Background: The potential of molecular markers in the removed polys as reliable predictors of metachronous lesions is still uncertain., Aim: Our aim was to evaluate the role of somatic mutations in KRAS in polyps of patients with high-risk adenomas to predict the risk of advanced polyps or colorectal cancer (CRC) within 3 years., Methods: A total of 518 patients were prospectively enrolled. The included patients had adenomas ≥10 mm, high-grade dysplasia, villous component or ≥3 more adenomas at baseline and were scheduled to undergo surveillance colonoscopy at 3 years ± 6 months. Somatic KRAS mutation was performed on 1189 polyps collected from these patients. At surveillance, advanced lesions were defined as adenomas with a size of ≥10 mm. High-grade dysplasia or villous component, serrated polyps ≥10 mm or with dysplasia or CRC., Results: At baseline, 81 patients (15.6%) had KRAS mutations in at least one polyp. Patients with KRAS mutated polyps had more frequent villous histological lesions and size ≥20 mm. In the multivariate analysis, adjusted for age and sex, only age (odds ratios [OR], 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02-1.09; p < 0.001), ≥5 adenomas (OR, 3.92; 95% CI, 1.96-7.82), and KRAS mutation (OR, 2.54; 95% CI, 1.48-4.34; p < 0.01) were independently associated with the development of advanced lesions at surveillance., Conclusions: Our results show that, in patients with high-risk adenomas, the presence of somatic mutations in KRAS is an independent risk factor for the development of advanced metachronous polyps., (© 2024 The Author(s). United European Gastroenterology Journal published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of United European Gastroenterology.)

Background: There is continued uncertainty regarding the risks of hepato-pancreato-biliary cancers in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) with or without concomitant primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC)., Objective: To give updated estimates on risk of hepato-pancreato-biliary cancers in patients with IBD, including pancreatic cancer, hepatocellular carcinoma, gall bladder cancer, and intra - and extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma., Methods: In a population-based cohort study, we included all patients diagnosed with IBD in Norway and Sweden from 1987 to 2016. The cohort comprised of 141,960 patients, identified through hospital databases and the National Patient Register. Participants were followed through linkage to national cancer, cause of death, and population registries. We calculated absolute risk and standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) of hepato-pancreato-biliary cancers by PSC and other clinical characteristics., Results: Of the 141,960 IBD patients, 3.2% were diagnosed with PSC. During a median follow-up of 10.0 years, we identified 443 biliary tract cancers (SIR 5.2, 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.8-5.7), 161 hepatocellular carcinomas (SIR 2.4, 95% CI 2.0-2.7) and 282 pancreatic cancers (SIR 1.3, 95% CI 1.2-1.5). The relative risks were considerably higher in PSC-IBD patients, with SIR of 140 (95% CI 123-159) for biliary tract, 38.6 (95% CI 29.2-50.0) for hepatocellular, and 9.0 (95% CI 6.3-12.6) for pancreatic cancer. The SIRs were still slightly increased in non-PSC-IBD patients, compared to the general population. For biliary tract cancer, the cumulative probability at 25 years was 15.6% in PSC-IBD patients, and 0.4% in non-PSC-IBD patients., Conclusions: The dramatically increased risks of hepato-pancreato-biliary cancers in PSC-IBD patients support periodic surveillance for these malignancies. While much lower, the excess relative risks in non-PSC-IBD patients were not trivial compared to non-IBD related risk factors., (© 2022 The Authors. United European Gastroenterology Journal published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of United European Gastroenterology.)

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) together with the United European Gastroenterology (UEG) recently developed a short list of performance measures for small-bowel endoscopy (i.e. small-bowel capsule endoscopy and device-assisted enteroscopy) with the final goal of providing endoscopy services across Europe with a tool for quality improvement. Six key performance measures both for small-bowel capsule endoscopy and for device-assisted enteroscopy were selected for inclusion, with the intention being that practice at both a service and endoscopist level should be evaluated against them. Other performance measures were considered to be less relevant, based on an assessment of their overall importance, scientific acceptability, and feasibility. Unlike lower and upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, for which performance measures had already been identified, this is the first time small-bowel endoscopy quality measures have been proposed.

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and United European Gastroenterology present a list of key performance measures for endoscopy services. We recommend that these performance measures be adopted by all endoscopy services across Europe. The measures include those related to the leadership, organization, and delivery of the service, as well as those associated with the patient journey. Each measure includes a recommendation for a minimum and target standard for endoscopy services to achieve. We recommend that all stakeholders in endoscopy take note of these ESGE endoscopy services performance measures to accelerate their adoption and implementation. Stakeholders include patients and their advocacy groups; service leaders; staff, including endoscopists; professional societies; payers; and regulators.

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and United European Gastroenterology present a short list of key performance measures for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). We recommend that endoscopy services across Europe adopt the following seven key and one minor performance measures for EUS and ERCP, for measurement and evaluation in daily practice at centre and endoscopist level: 1 Adequate antibiotic prophylaxis before ERCP (key performance measure, at least 90%); 2 antibiotic prophylaxis before EUS-guided puncture of cystic lesions (key performance measure, at least 95%); 3 bile duct cannulation rate (key performance measure, at least 90%); 4 tissue sampling during EUS (key performance measure, at least 85%); 5 appropriate stent placement in patients with biliary obstruction below the hilum (key performance measure, at least 95%); 6 bile duct stone extraction (key performance measure, at least 90%); 7 post-ERCP pancreatitis (key performance measure, less than 10%); and 8 adequate documentation of EUS landmarks (minor performance measure, at least 90%). This present list of quality performance measures for ERCP and EUS recommended by the ESGE should not be considered to be exhaustive; it might be extended in future to address further clinical and scientific issues.

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and United European Gastroenterology present a short list of key performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy. We recommend that endoscopy services across Europe adopt the following seven key performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy for measurement and evaluation in daily practice at a center and endoscopist level: 1 rate of adequate bowel preparation (minimum standard 90%); 2 cecal intubation rate (minimum standard 90%); 3 adenoma detection rate (minimum standard 25%); 4 appropriate polypectomy technique (minimum standard 80%); 5 complication rate (minimum standard not set); 6 patient experience (minimum standard not set); 7 appropriate post-polypectomy surveillance recommendations (minimum standard not set). Other identified performance measures have been listed as less relevant based on an assessment of their importance, scientific acceptability, feasibility, usability, and comparison to competing measures.

Background: Colonoscopes with gradual stiffness have recently been developed to enhance cecal intubation., Objective: We aimed to determine if the performance of gradual stiffness colonoscopes is noninferior to that of magnetic endoscopic imaging (MEI)-guided variable stiffness colonoscopes., Methods: Consecutive patients were randomized to screening colonoscopy with Fujifilm gradual stiffness or Olympus MEI-guided variable stiffness colonoscopes. The primary endpoint was cecal intubation rate (noninferiority limit 5%). Secondary endpoints included cecal intubation time. We estimated absolute risk differences with 95% confidence intervals (CIs)., Results: We enrolled 475 patients: 222 randomized to the gradual stiffness instrument, and 253 to the MEI-guided variable stiffness instrument. Cecal intubation rate was 91.7% in the gradual stiffness group versus 95.6% in the variable stiffness group. The adjusted absolute risk for cecal intubation failure was 4.3% higher in the gradual stiffness group than in the variable stiffness group (upper CI border 8.1%). Median cecal intubation time was 13 minutes in the gradual stiffness group and 10 minutes in the variable stiffness group ( p  < 0.001)., Conclusions: The study is inconclusive with regard to noninferiority because the 95% CI for the difference in cecal intubation rate between the groups crosses the noninferiority margin. (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01895504).

To develop standards for high quality of gastrointestinal endoscopy, the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) has established the ESGE Quality Improvement Committee. A prerequisite for quality assurance and improvement for all gastrointestinal endoscopy procedures is state-of-the-art integrated digital reporting systems for standardized documentation of the procedures. The current paper describes the ESGE's viewpoints on requirements for high-quality endoscopy reporting systems. The following recommendations are issued: Endoscopy reporting systems must be electronic.Endoscopy reporting systems should be integrated into hospital patient record systems.Endoscopy reporting systems should include patient identifiers to facilitate data linkage to other data sources.Endoscopy reporting systems shall restrict the use of free text entry to a minimum, and be based mainly on structured data entry.Separate entry of data for quality or research purposes is discouraged. Automatic data transfer for quality and research purposes must be facilitated.Double entry of data by the endoscopist or associate personnel is discouraged. Available data from outside sources (administrative or medical) must be made available automatically.Endoscopy reporting systems shall enable the inclusion of information on histopathology of detected lesions; patient's satisfaction; adverse events; surveillance recommendations.Endoscopy reporting systems must facilitate easy data retrieval at any time in a universally compatible format.Endoscopy reporting systems must include data fields for key performance indicators as defined by quality improvement committees.Endoscopy reporting systems must facilitate changes in indicators and data entry fields as required by professional organizations.

Background: There is considerable variation in the quality of colonoscopy performance. The Norwegian quality assurance programme Gastronet registers outpatient colonoscopies performed in Norwegian endoscopy centres. The aim of Gastronet is long-term improvement of endoscopist and centre performance by annual feedback of performance data., Objective: The objective of this article is to perform an analysis of trends of quality indicators for colonoscopy in Gastronet., Methods: This prospective cohort study included 73,522 outpatient colonoscopies from 73 endoscopists at 25 endoscopy centres from 2003 to 2012. We used multivariate logistic regression with adjustment for relevant variables to determine annual trends of three performance indicators: caecum intubation rate, pain during the procedure, and detection rate of polyps ≥5 mm., Results: The proportion of severely painful colonoscopies decreased from 14.8% to 9.2% (relative risk reduction of 38%; OR = 0.92 per year in Gastronet; 95% CI 0.86-1.00; p = 0.045). Caecal intubation (OR = 0.99; 95% CI 0.94-1.04; p = 0.6) and polyp detection (OR = 1.03; 95% CI 0.99-1.07; p = 0.15) remained unchanged during the study period., Conclusions: Pain at colonoscopy showed a significant decrease during years of Gastronet participation while caecal intubation and polyp detection remained unchanged - independent of the use of sedation and/or analgesics and level of endoscopist experience. This may be due to the Gastronet audit, but effects of improved endoscopy technology cannot be excluded.

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and United European Gastroenterology (UEG) have a vision to create a thriving community of endoscopy services across Europe, collaborating with each other to provide high quality, safe, accurate, patient-centered and accessible endoscopic care. Whilst the boundaries of what can be achieved by advanced endoscopy are continually expanding, we believe that one of the most fundamental steps to achieving our goal is to raise the quality of everyday endoscopy. The development of robust, consensus- and evidence-based key performance measures is the first step in this vision. ESGE and UEG have identified quality of endoscopy as a major priority. This paper explains the rationale behind the ESGE Quality Improvement Initiative and describes the processes that were followed. We recommend that all units develop mechanisms for audit and feedback of endoscopist and service performance using the ESGE performance measures that will be published in future issues of this journal over the next year. We urge all endoscopists and endoscopy services to prioritize quality and to ensure that these performance measures are implemented and monitored at a local level, so that we can provide the highest possible care for our patients.

Background: Colorectal cancer is the third most frequent cancer in the world. As the sojourn time for this cancer is several years and a good prognosis is associated with early stage diagnosis, screening has been implemented in a number of countries. Both screening with faecal occult blood test and flexible sigmoidoscopy have been shown to reduce mortality from colorectal cancer in randomised controlled trials. The comparative effectiveness of these tests on colorectal cancer mortality has, however, never been evaluated, and controversies exist over which test to choose., Objectives: To compare the effectiveness of screening for colorectal cancer with flexible sigmoidoscopy to faecal occult blood testing., Search Methods: We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE (November 16, 2012), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2012, Issue 11) and reference lists for eligible studies., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials comparing screening with flexible sigmoidoscopy or faecal occult blood testing to each other or to no screening. Only studies reporting mortality from colorectal cancer were included. Faecal occult blood testing had to be repeated (annually or biennially)., Data Collection and Analysis: Data retrieval and assessment of risk of bias were performed independently by two review authors. Standard meta-analyses using a random-effects model were conducted for flexible sigmoidoscopy and faecal occult blood testing (FOBT) separately and we calculated relative risks with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We used a Bayesian approach (a contrast-based network meta-analysis method) for indirect analyses and presented the results as posterior median relative risk with 95% credibility intervals. We assessed the quality of evidence using GRADE., Main Results: We identified nine studies comprising 338,467 individuals randomised to screening and 405,919 individuals to the control groups. Five studies compared flexible sigmoidoscopy to no screening and four studies compared repetitive guaiac-based FOBT (annually and biennially) to no screening. We did not consider that study risk of bias reduced our confidence in our results. We did not identify any studies comparing the two screening methods directly. When compared with no screening, colorectal cancer mortality was lower with flexible sigmoidoscopy (relative risk 0.72; 95% CI 0.65 to 0.79, high quality evidence) and FOBT (relative risk 0.86; 95% CI 0.80 to 0.92, high quality evidence). In the analyses based on indirect comparison of the two screening methods, the relative risk of dying from colorectal cancer was 0.85 (95% credibility interval 0.72 to 1.01, low quality evidence) for flexible sigmoidoscopy screening compared to FOBT. No complications occurred after the FOBT test itself, but 0.03% of participants suffered a major complication after follow-up. Among more than 60,000 flexible sigmoidoscopy screening procedures and almost 6000 work-up colonoscopies, a major complication was recorded in 0.08% of participants. Adverse event data should be interpreted with caution as the reporting of adverse effects was incomplete., Authors' Conclusions: There is high quality evidence that both flexible sigmoidoscopy and faecal occult blood testing reduce colorectal cancer mortality when applied as screening tools. There is low quality indirect evidence that screening with either approach reduces colorectal cancer deaths more than the other. Major complications associated with screening require validation from studies with more complete reporting of harms

Background: Due to few randomized trials, there is uncertainty about the long-time effect of endoscopic screening on colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality., Aim: To evaluate the long-term effect of endoscopic screening on CRC incidence and mortality, we performed a population-based randomized controlled trial in Norway., Materials and Methods: In 1983, 799 Norwegian men and women, age 50-59 years were drawn from the population registry and randomly assigned to flexible sigmoidoscopy screening (400 individuals), or no screening (399 individuals). Colonoscopy surveillance was offered after two and six years for all polyp-bearers in the screening group. In 1996, both groups were offered colonoscopy. Only individuals with advanced adenomas at colonoscopy in 1996 were recommended surveillance. All individuals were followed through Norwegian registries until 2008. Hazard ratios (HR) for CRC incidence, and CRC and overall mortality rates were calculated., Results: During 26 years of follow up (17,327 person-years), 26 colorectal cancers were observed: seven in the screening group and 19 in the control group (HR in screening group 0.40, 95% CI 0.17-0.95, p = 0.04). Eight individuals died of colorectal cancer; one in the screening group and seven in the control group (HR 0.16, 95% CI 0.02-1.28, p = 0.08)., Conclusions: This first randomized trial on the long-term effect of endoscopic screening shows reduced CRC incidence and mortality if screening is combined with rigorous surveillance for individuals with polyps. Colonoscopy screening without such surveillance may not be effective.