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 and Aims: Serrated polyps (SPs) are precursors to 15% to 20% of colorectal cancers (CRCs). However, there are uncertainties regarding which SPs require surveillance and at what intervals, with recommendations adapted from those for adenomas in the absence of solid evidence. Our aim was to assess which SP risk characteristics relate to a higher risk of metachronous CRC or advanced polyps., Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane for cohort studies, case-control studies, and clinical trials from inception to December 31, 2023, of CRC or advanced polyps (advanced adenoma [AA] or advanced SP) incidence at surveillance stratified by baseline SP size, dysplasia, location, and multiplicity. We defined advanced SPs as those ≥10 mm or with dysplasia. CRC and advanced polyp incidence per 1000 person-years were estimated. We performed a meta-analysis by calculating pooled relative risks (RRs) using a random-effects model., Results: A total of 5903 studies were reviewed, and 14 were included with 493,949 patients (mean age, 59.5 years; 55% men). The mean follow-up was 4.9 years. CRC incidence per 1000 person-years was 2.09 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.29-2.90) for advanced SPs, 1.52 (95% CI, 0.78-2.25) for SPs of ≥10 mm, 5.86 (95% CI, 2.16-9.56) for SPs with dysplasia, 1.18 (95% CI, 0.77-1.60) for proximal SPs, 0.52 (95% CI, 0.08-1.12) for ≥3 SPs, 0.50 (95% CI, 0.35-0.66) for nonadvanced SPs, and 0.44 (95% CI, 0.41-0.46) for normal colonoscopy findings. Metachronous CRC risk was higher in advanced SPs versus nonadvanced SPs (RR, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.11-3.04) and versus normal colonoscopy findings (RR, 2.92; 95% CI, 2.26-3.77), in SPs of ≥10 mm versus <10 mm (RR, 2.61; 95% CI, 1.43-4.77) and versus normal colonoscopy findings (RR: 3.52; 95% CI, 2.17-5.69); and in SPs with dysplasia versus normal colonoscopy findings (RR: 2.71; 95% CI, 2.00-3.67). No increase in CRC or advanced polyp risk was found in patients with proximal versus distal SPs, nor in ≥3 SPs versus 1 or 2 SPs., Conclusions: CRC risk is significantly higher in patients with baseline advanced SPs after 4.9 years of follow-up, with risk magnitudes similar to those described for AA, supporting the current recommendation for 3-year surveillance in patients with advanced SPs., Competing Interests: Disclosure The following authors disclosed financial relationships: U. Ladabaum: Advisor for UniversalDx, Lean Medical, Vivante, and Kohler Ventures; consultant for Medtronic, Clinical Genomics, Guardant Health, Freenome and CheckCap. C. Hassan: Consultant for ERBE, Fujifilm, Odin, and Olympus; R. Jover: Advisor for MSD, Norgine, Alpha.Sigma, and GI Supply. All other authors disclosed no financial relationships., (Copyright © 2024 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Colorectal cancer is one of the most common forms of cancer in Norway, and typically develops from colorectal polyps. For benign colorectal polyps, endoscopic removal is recommended to avoid unnecessary surgery. This study identifies the extent of surgical treatment of benign polyps in the period 1 January 2008-31 December 2021., Material and Method: We obtained statistics from the Norwegian Patient Registry on the surgical resection of benign colorectal polyps, number of colonoscopies performed and number of patients with the diagnostic code for benign polyp in the study period. Population size from Statistics Norway was used to calculate annual incidences of the procedure., Results: The number of patients with benign polyps increased from 211 per 100 000 population to 444 per 100 000 during the study period. The number of colonoscopies increased from 9.4 per 1 000 population to 16.7 per 1 000. The number of surgical resections of benign colorectal polyps per year increased from 4.2 per 100 000 population to 6.3 per 100 000. The total number of unique patients with benign polyps in the period was 215 736, of which 2.1 % received surgical treatment, with the figures varying from 2.0 % in 2008 to 1.6 % in 2021., Interpretation: Our results show that surgical treatment of benign polyps is still widespread in Norway. This impacts on patient safety and health economics. We propose the establishment of multidisciplinary teams and enhanced endoscopic competence in Norwegian health trusts.

Background & Aims: Because post-polypectomy surveillance uses a growing proportion of colonoscopy capacity, more targeted surveillance is warranted. We therefore compared surveillance burden and cancer detection using 3 different adenoma classification systems., Methods: In a case-cohort study among individuals who had adenomas removed between 1993 and 2007, we included 675 individuals with colorectal cancer (cases) diagnosed a median of 5.6 years after adenoma removal and 906 randomly selected individuals (subcohort). We compared colorectal cancer incidence among high- and low-risk individuals defined according to the traditional (high-risk: diameter ≥10 mm, high-grade dysplasia, villous growth pattern, or 3 or more adenomas), European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) 2020 (high-risk: diameter ≥10 mm, high-grade dysplasia, or 5 or more adenomas), and novel (high-risk: diameter ≥20 mm or high-grade dysplasia) classification systems. For the different classification systems, we calculated the number of individuals recommended frequent surveillance colonoscopy and estimated number of delayed cancer diagnoses., Results: Four hundred and thirty individuals with adenomas (52.7%) were high risk based on the traditional classification, 369 (45.2%) were high risk based on the ESGE 2020 classification, and 220 (27.0%) were high risk based on the novel classification. Using the traditional, ESGE 2020, and novel classifications, the colorectal cancer incidences per 100,000 person-years were 479, 552, and 690 among high-risk individuals, and 123, 124, and 179 among low-risk individuals, respectively. Compared with the traditional classification, the number of individuals who needed frequent surveillance was reduced by 13.9% and 44.2%, respectively, and 1 (3.4%) and 7 (24.1%) cancer diagnoses were delayed using the ESGE 2020 and novel classifications., Conclusions: Using the ESGE 2020 and novel risk classifications will substantially reduce resources needed for colonoscopy surveillance after adenoma removal., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Meticulous inspection of the mucosa during colonoscopy, represents a lengthier withdrawal time, but has been shown to increase adenoma detection rate (ADR). We investigated if artificial intelligence-aided speed monitoring can improve suboptimal withdrawal time., Methods: We evaluated the implementation of a computer-aided speed monitoring device during colonoscopy at a large academic endoscopy center. After informed consent, patients ≥18 years undergoing colonoscopy between 5 March and 29 April 2021 were examined without the use of the speedometer, and with the speedometer between 29 April and 30 June 2021. All colonoscopies were recorded, and withdrawal time was assessed based on the recordings in a blinded fashion. We compared mean withdrawal time, percentage of withdrawal time ≥6 min, and ADR with and without the speedometer., Results: One hundred sixty-six patients in each group were eligible for analyses. Mean withdrawal time was 9 min and 6.6 s (95% CI: 8 min and 34.8 s to 9 min and 39 s) without the use of the speedometer, and 9 min and 9 s (95% CI: 8 min and 45 s to 9 min and 33.6 s) with the speedometer; difference 2.3 s (95% CI: -42.3-37.7, p  = 0.91). The ADRs were 45.2% (95% CI: 37.6-52.8) without the speedometer as compared to 45.8% (95% CI: 38.2-53.4) with the speedometer ( p  = 0.91). The proportion of colonoscopies with withdrawal time ≥6 min without the speedometer was 85.5% (95% CI: 80.2-90.9) versus 86.7% (95% CI: 81.6-91.9) with the speedometer ( p  = 0.75)., Conclusions: Use of speed monitoring during withdrawal did not increase withdrawal time or ADR in colonoscopy., Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT04710251.

Objective: High-quality colonoscopy (adequate bowel preparation, whole-colon visualisation and removal of all neoplastic polyps) is a prerequisite to start polyp surveillance, and is ideally achieved in one colonoscopy. In a large multinational polyp surveillance trial, we aimed to investigate clinical practice variation in number of colonoscopies needed to enrol patients with low-risk and high-risk adenomas in polyp surveillance., Design: We retrieved data of all patients with low-risk adenomas (one or two tubular adenomas <10 mm with low-grade dysplasia) and high-risk adenomas (3-10 adenomas, ≥1 adenoma ≥10 mm, high-grade dysplasia or villous components) in the European Polyp Surveillance trials fulfilling certain logistic and methodologic criteria. We analysed variations in number of colonoscopies needed to achieve high-quality colonoscopy and enter polyp surveillance by endoscopy centre, and by endoscopists who enrolled ≥30 patients., Results: The study comprised 15 581 patients from 38 endoscopy centres in five European countries; 6794 patients had low-risk and 8787 had high-risk adenomas. 961 patients (6.2%, 95% CI 5.8% to 6.6%) underwent two or more colonoscopies before surveillance began; 101 (1.5%, 95% CI 1.2% to 1.8%) in the low-risk group and 860 (9.8%, 95% CI 9.2% to 10.4%) in the high-risk group. Main reasons were poor bowel preparation (21.3%) or incomplete colonoscopy/polypectomy (14.4%) or planned second procedure (27.8%). Need of repeat colonoscopy varied between study centres ranging from 0% to 11.8% in low-risk adenoma patients and from 0% to 63.9% in high-risk adenoma patients. On the second colonoscopy, the two most common reasons for a repeat (third) colonoscopy were piecemeal resection (26.5%) and unspecified reason (23.9%)., Conclusion: There is considerable practice variation in the number of colonoscopies performed to achieve complete polyp removal, indicating need for targeted quality improvement to reduce patient burden., Trial Registration Number: NCT02319928., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background and Aims: Artificial intelligence (AI) tools aimed at improving polyp detection have been shown to increase the adenoma detection rate during colonoscopy. However, it is unknown how increased polyp detection rates by AI affect the burden of patient surveillance after polyp removal., Methods: We conducted a pooled analysis of 9 randomized controlled trials (5 in China, 2 in Italy, 1 in Japan, and 1 in the United States) comparing colonoscopy with or without AI detection aids. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients recommended to undergo intensive surveillance (ie, 3-year interval). We analyzed intervals for AI and non-AI colonoscopies for the U.S. and European recommendations separately. We estimated proportions by calculating relative risks using the Mantel-Haenszel method., Results: A total of 5796 patients (51% male, mean 53 years of age) were included; 2894 underwent AI-assisted colonoscopy and 2902 non-AI colonoscopy. When following U.S. guidelines, the proportion of patients recommended intensive surveillance increased from 8.4% (95% CI, 7.4%-9.5%) in the non-AI group to 11.3% (95% CI, 10.2%-12.6%) in the AI group (absolute difference, 2.9% [95% CI, 1.4%-4.4%]; risk ratio, 1.35 [95% CI, 1.16-1.57]). When following European guidelines, it increased from 6.1% (95% CI, 5.3%-7.0%) to 7.4% (95% CI, 6.5%-8.4%) (absolute difference, 1.3% [95% CI, 0.01%-2.6%]; risk ratio, 1.22 [95% CI, 1.01-1.47])., Conclusions: The use of AI during colonoscopy increased the proportion of patients requiring intensive colonoscopy surveillance by approximately 35% in the United States and 20% in Europe (absolute increases of 2.9% and 1.3%, respectively). While this may contribute to improved cancer prevention, it significantly adds patient burden and healthcare costs., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background & Aims: Among the characteristics of high-risk adenomas (HRAs), some may predict a higher risk of metachronous advanced lesions. Our aim was to assess which HRA characteristics are associated with high risk of metachronous colorectal cancer (CRC) or advanced adenomas (AAs)., Methods: We systematically searched Pubmed, EMBASE, and Cochrane for cohort studies and clinical trials of CRC or AA incidence at surveillance stratified by baseline lesion size, histology, and multiplicity. We calculated pooled relative risks (RRs) using a random-effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed with the I 2 statistic., Results: Fifty-five studies were included, with 936,540 patients with mean follow-up 5.4 ± 2.9 years. CRC incidence per 1000 person-years was 2.6 (2.1-3.0) for adenomas ≥20 mm, 2.7 (2.2-3.2) for high-grade dysplasia (HGD), 2.0 (1.8-2.3) for villous component, 0.8 (0.1-1.4) for ≥5 adenomas, 1.0 (0.7-1.2) for ≥3 adenomas. Metachronous CRC risk was higher in adenomas ≥20 mm vs 10 to 19 mm (RR, 2.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.20-3.61), HGD vs low-grade dysplasia (RR, 2.89; 95% CI, 1.88-4.44), villous vs tubular (RR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.33-2.31). No significant differences in CRC risk were found in ≥3 adenomas vs 1 to 2 (RR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.84-1.83), nor in ≥5 adenomas vs 3 to 4 (RR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.30-2.11). Compared with normal colonoscopy, RR for CRC risk was 2.61 (95% CI, 2.06-3.32) for ≥10mm, 6.62 (95% CI, 4.60-9.52) for HGD, 3.58 (95% CI, 2.24-5.73) for villous component, and 2.03 (95% CI, 1.40-2.94) for ≥3 adenomas. Similar trends were seen for metachronous AAs., Conclusion: Metachronous CRC risk is highest in patients with baseline adenomas with ≥20 mm or HGD. Multiplicity does not seem to be associated with substantially higher CRC risk in the near term., (Copyright © 2023 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) for polyp detection is being introduced to colonoscopy, but there is uncertainty how this affects endoscopists' ability to detect polyps and neoplasms. We performed a video-based study to address whether AI improved the endoscopists' performance to detect polyps., Methods: We established a dataset of 200 colonoscopy videos (length 5 s; 100 without polyps and 100 with one polyp). About 33 early-career endoscopists (50-400 colonoscopies performed) from 10 European countries classified each video as either 'polyp present' or 'polyp not present'. The video assessment was performed twice with a four-week interval. The first assessment was performed without any AI tool, whereas the second was performed with an AI tool for polyp detection. The primary endpoint was early-career endoscopists' sensitivity to detect polyps. Gold standard for presence and histology of polyps were confirmed by two expert endoscopists and pathologists, respectively. McNemar's test was used for statistical significance., Results: There were 86 neoplastic and 14 non-neoplastic polyps (mean size 5.6 mm) in the 100 videos with polyps. Early-career endoscopists' sensitivity to detect polyps increased from 86.3% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 85.1-87.5%) to 91.7% (95%CI: 90.7-92.6%) with the AI aid ( p  < .0001). Their sensitivity to detect neoplastic polyps increased from 85.4% (95% CI: 84.0-86.7%) to 92.1% (95%CI: 91.1-93.1%) with the AI aid ( p  < .0001)., Conclusion: The polyp detection AI tool helped early-career endoscopists to increase their sensitivity to identify all polyps and neoplastic polyps during colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence using computer-aided diagnosis (CADx) in real time with images acquired during colonoscopy may help colonoscopists distinguish between neoplastic polyps requiring removal and nonneoplastic polyps not requiring removal. In this study, we tested whether CADx analyzed images helped in this decision-making process. METHODS: We performed a multicenter clinical study comparing a novel CADx-system that uses real-time ultra-magnifying polyp visualization during colonoscopy with standard visual inspection of small (≤5 mm in diameter) polyps in the sigmoid colon and the rectum for optical diagnosis of neoplastic histology. After committing to a diagnosis (i.e., neoplastic, uncertain, or nonneoplastic), all imaged polyps were removed. The primary end point was sensitivity for neoplastic polyps by CADx and visual inspection, compared with histopathology. Secondary end points were specificity and colonoscopist confidence level in unaided optical diagnosis. RESULTS: We assessed 1289 individuals for eligibility at colonoscopy centers in Norway, the United Kingdom, and Japan. We detected 892 eligible polyps in 518 patients and included them in analyses: 359 were neoplastic and 533 were nonneoplastic. Sensitivity for the diagnosis of neoplastic polyps with standard visual inspection was 88.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 84.3 to 91.5) compared with 90.4% (95% CI, 86.8 to 93.1) with CADx (P=0.33). Specificity was 83.1% (95% CI, 79.2 to 86.4) with standard visual inspection and 85.9% (95% CI, 82.3 to 88.8) with CADx. The proportion of polyp assessment with high confidence was 74.2% (95% CI, 70.9 to 77.3) with standard visual inspection versus 92.6% (95% CI, 90.6 to 94.3) with CADx. CONCLUSIONS: Real-time polyp assessment with CADx did not significantly increase the diagnostic sensitivity of neoplastic polyps during a colonoscopy compared with optical evaluation without CADx. (Funded by the Research Council of Norway [Norges Forskningsråd], the Norwegian Cancer Society [Kreftforeningen], and the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science; UMIN number, UMIN000035213.)

Endocytoscopy provides an in-vivo visualization of nuclei and micro-vessels at the cellular level in real-time, facilitating so-called "optical biopsy" or "virtual histology" of colorectal polyps/neoplasms. This functionality is enabled by 520-fold magnification power with endocytoscopy and recent breakthroughs in artificial intelligence (AI) allowing a great advance in endocytoscopic imaging; interpretation of images is now fully supported by AI tool which outputs predictions of polyp histopathology during colonoscopy. The advantage of the use of AI during optical biopsy can be appreciated especially by non-expert endoscopists who to increase performance. This paper provides an overview of the latest evidence on colorectal polyp characterization with endocytoscopy combined with AI and identify the barriers to its widespread implementation., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background:  Endoscopic screening with polypectomy has been shown to reduce colorectal cancer incidence in randomized trials. Incomplete polyp removal and subsequent development of post-colonoscopy cancers may attenuate the effect of screening. This study aimed to quantify the extent of incomplete polyp removal., Methods:  We included patients aged 50-75 years with nonpedunculated polyps ≥ 5 mm removed during colonoscopy at four hospitals in Norway. To evaluate completeness of polyp removal, biopsies from the resection margins were obtained after polypectomy. Logistic regression models were fitted to identify factors explaining incomplete resection., Results:  246 patients with 339 polyps underwent polypectomy between January 2015 and June 2017. A total of 12 polyps were excluded due to biopsy electrocautery damage, and 327 polyps in 246 patients (mean age 67 years [range 42-83]; 52 % male) were included in the analysis. Overall, 54 polyps (15.9 %) in 54 patients were incompletely resected. Histological diagnosis of the polyp (sessile serrated lesions vs. adenoma, odds ratio [OR] 10.9, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 3.9-30.1) and polyp location (proximal vs. distal colon, OR 2.8, 95 %CI 1.0-7.7) were independent risk factors for incomplete removal of polyps 5-19 mm. Board-certified endoscopists were not associated with lower rates of incomplete resection compared with trainees (14.0 % vs. 14.2 %), OR 1.0 (95 %CI 0.5-2.1)., Conclusion: Incomplete polyp resection was frequent after polypectomy in routine clinical practice. Serrated histology and proximal location were independent risk factors for incomplete resection. The performance of board-certified gastroenterologists was not superior to that of trainees., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

Background: Artificial intelligence (AI)-based polyp detection systems are used during colonoscopy with the aim of increasing lesion detection and improving colonoscopy quality., Patients and Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective trials to determine the value of AI-based polyp detection systems for detection of polyps and colorectal cancer. We performed systematic searches in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL. Independent reviewers screened studies and assessed eligibility, certainty of evidence, and risk of bias. We compared colonoscopy with and without AI by calculating relative and absolute risks and mean differences for detection of polyps, adenomas, and colorectal cancer., Results: Five randomized trials were eligible for analysis. Colonoscopy with AI increased adenoma detection rates (ADRs) and polyp detection rates (PDRs) compared to colonoscopy without AI (values given with 95 %CI). ADR with AI was 29.6 % (22.2 % - 37.0 %) versus 19.3 % (12.7 % - 25.9 %) without AI; relative risk (RR] 1.52 (1.31 - 1.77), with high certainty. PDR was 45.4 % (41.1 % - 49.8 %) with AI versus 30.6 % (26.5 % - 34.6 %) without AI; RR 1.48 (1.37 - 1.60), with high certainty. There was no difference in detection of advanced adenomas (mean advanced adenomas per colonoscopy 0.03 for each group, high certainty). Mean adenomas detected per colonoscopy was higher for small adenomas (≤ 5 mm) for AI versus non-AI (mean difference 0.15 [0.12 - 0.18]), but not for larger adenomas (> 5 - ≤ 10 mm, mean difference 0.03 [0.01 - 0.05]; > 10 mm, mean difference 0.01 [0.00 - 0.02]; high certainty). Data on cancer are unavailable., Conclusions: AI-based polyp detection systems during colonoscopy increase detection of small nonadvanced adenomas and polyps, but not of advanced adenomas., Competing Interests: M. Misawa and Y. Mori have each provided consultancy to and received an honorarium from Olympus. The remaining authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

Background and Aims: Colonoscopy surveillance after adenoma removal is an increasing burden in many countries. Surveillance recommendations consider characteristics of removed adenomas, but not colonoscopist performance. We investigated the impact of colonoscopist performance on colorectal cancer risk after adenoma removal., Methods: We compared colorectal cancer risk after removal of high-risk adenomas, low-risk adenomas, and after negative colonoscopy for all colonoscopies performed by colonoscopists with low vs high performance quality (adenoma detection rate <20% vs ≥20%) in the Polish screening program between 2000 and 2011, with follow-up until 2017. Findings were validated in the Austrian colonoscopy screening program., Results: A total of 173,288 Polish colonoscopies were included in the study. Of 262 colonoscopists, 160 (61.1%) were low performers, and 102 (38.9%) were high performers; 11.1% of individuals had low-risk and 6.6% had high-risk adenomas removed at screening; 82.2% had no adenomas. During 10 years of follow-up, 443 colorectal cancers were diagnosed. For low-risk adenoma individuals, colorectal cancer incidence was 0.55% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.40-0.75) with low-performing colonoscopists vs 0.22% (95% CI 0.14-0.34) with high-performing colonoscopists (hazard ratio [HR] 2.35; 95% CI 1.31-4.21; P = .004). For individuals with high-risk adenomas, colorectal cancer incidence was 1.14% (95% CI 0.87-1.48) with low-performing colonoscopists vs 0.43% (95% CI 0.27-0.69) with high-performing colonoscopists (HR 2.69; 95% CI 1.62-4.47; P < .001). After negative colonoscopy, colorectal cancer incidence was 0.30% (95% CI 0.27-0.34) for individuals examined by low-performing colonoscopists, vs 0.15% (95% CI 0.11-0.20) for high-performing (HR 2.10; 95% CI 1.52-2.91; P < .001). The observed trends were reproduced in the Austrian validation cohort., Conclusions: Our results suggest that endoscopist performance may be an important contributor in addition to polyp characteristics in determining colorectal cancer risk after colonoscopy screening., (Copyright © 2021 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Aims: Artificial intelligence (AI) is being implemented in colonoscopy practice, but no study has investigated whether AI is cost saving. We aimed to quantify the cost reduction using AI as an aid in the optical diagnosis of colorectal polyps., Methods: This study is an add-on analysis of a clinical trial that investigated the performance of AI for differentiating colorectal polyps (ie, neoplastic versus non-neoplastic). We included all patients with diminutive (≤5 mm) rectosigmoid polyps in the analyses. The average colonoscopy cost was compared for 2 scenarios: (1) a diagnose-and-leave strategy supported by the AI prediction (ie, diminutive rectosigmoid polyps were not removed when predicted as non-neoplastic), and (2) a resect-all-polyps strategy. Gross annual costs for colonoscopies were also calculated based on the number and reimbursement of colonoscopies conducted under public health insurances in 4 countries., Results: Overall, 207 patients with 250 diminutive rectosigmoid polyps (104 neoplastic, 144 non-neoplastic, and 2 indeterminate) were included. AI correctly differentiated neoplastic polyps with 93.3% sensitivity, 95.2% specificity, and 95.2% negative predictive value. Thus, 105 polyps were removed and 145 were left under the diagnose-and-leave strategy, which was estimated to reduce the average colonoscopy cost and the gross annual reimbursement for colonoscopies by 18.9% and US$149.2 million in Japan, 6.9% and US$12.3 million in England, 7.6% and US$1.1 million in Norway, and 10.9% and US$85.2 million in the United States, respectively, compared with the resect-all-polyps strategy., Conclusions: The use of AI to enable the diagnose-and-leave strategy results in substantial cost reductions for colonoscopy., (Copyright © 2020 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The following recommendations for post-polypectomy colonoscopic surveillance apply to all patients who had one or more polyps that were completely removed during a high quality baseline colonoscopy. 1: ESGE recommends that patients with complete removal of 1 - 4 < 10 mm adenomas with low grade dysplasia, irrespective of villous components, or any serrated polyp < 10 mm without dysplasia, do not require endoscopic surveillance and should be returned to screening.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.If organized screening is not available, repetition of colonoscopy 10 years after the index procedure is recommended.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 2: ESGE recommends surveillance colonoscopy after 3 years for patients with complete removal of at least 1 adenoma ≥ 10 mm or with high grade dysplasia, or ≥ 5 adenomas, or any serrated polyp ≥ 10 mm or with dysplasia. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 3: ESGE recommends a 3 - 6-month early repeat colonoscopy following piecemeal endoscopic resection of polyps ≥ 20 mm.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. A first surveillance colonoscopy 12 months after the repeat colonoscopy is recommended to detect late recurrence.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 4: If no polyps requiring surveillance are detected at the first surveillance colonoscopy, ESGE suggests to perform a second surveillance colonoscopy after 5 years. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.After that, if no polyps requiring surveillance are detected, patients can be returned to screening. 5: ESGE suggests that, if polyps requiring surveillance are detected at first or subsequent surveillance examinations, surveillance colonoscopy may be performed at 3 years. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.A flowchart showing the recommended surveillance intervals is provided (Fig. 1)., Competing Interests: M. Bretthauer’s department has received support and cooperation from the EndoBRAIN study from Olympus Europa SE (from 2019 ongoing). E. Dekker has received consultancy honoraria from Fujifilm, Olympus, Tillots, GI Supply, and CPP-FAP, and speakers’ fees from Olympus, Roche and GI Supply; she has endoscopic equipment on loan and receives a research grant from Fujifilm. L.M. Helsingen’s department has received support and cooperation from the EndoBRAIN study from Olympus Europa SE (from 2019 ongoing). J.E. van Hooft has received lecture fees from Medtronics (from 2014 to 2015 and 2019) and Cook Medical (2019), and consultancy fees from Boston Scientific (2014 – 2017); her department has received research grants from Cook Medical (2014 – 2019) and Abbott (2014 – 2017). M. Pellisé has received consultancy and speaker’s fees from Norgine Iberia (2015 – 2019), a consultancy fee from GI Supply (2019), speaker’s fees from Casen Recordati (2016 – 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 (from 2017 ongoing), a research grant from Olympus Europe (2005 – 2019), and loan material and a research grant from Fujifilm Europe (2020 – 2021); she is a Board member of ESGE and SEED; and receives a fee from Thieme as an Endoscopy Co-Editor. J. Regula has received sponsorship and lecture fees from Ipsen Pharma and Alfasigma (2017 – 2020). M. Rutter is a member of the British Society of Gastroenterology. G. Antonelli, A. Bleijenberg, S. Chaussade, M. Dinis-Ribeiro, J.-M. Dumonceau, M. Ferlitsch, A. Gimeno-Garcia, C. Hassan, R. Jover, M. Kalager, C. Pox, E. Quintero, and L. Ricciardello, and C. Senore have no competing interests., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

Introduction: Because individuals with serrated polyps and adenomas are at increased risk of developing new polyps and colorectal cancer (CRC), surveillance after resection is justified. After adenoma resection, most international guidelines are consistent, but recommendations for surveillance after serrated polyp resection vary. The United States Multi-Society Taskforce on CRC (US-MSTF) base surveillance intervals on serrated polyp subtype (traditional serrated adenoma, sessile serrated polyp, hyperplastic polyps), while the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guidelines do not take serrated polyp subtype into account. We evaluated the implications of this difference in a primary colonoscopy screening cohort., Methods: We included participants from a large colonoscopy screening trial. In a post-hoc simulation, assuming full protocol adherence, we determined the surveillance interval for each subject based on their polyp burden, using the most recent US-MSTF and ESGE guidelines., Results: We included 5323 participants, of whom 1228 had one or more serrated polyps. In 5201 of all participants (98 %; Cohen's kappa 0.90) and in 1106 of those with serrated polyps (90 %; Cohen's kappa 0.80), both guidelines recommended identical surveillance intervals. Recommendations for a 3-year surveillance interval were identical between the two guidelines. All 122 subjects with discordant recommendations would receive a follow-up colonoscopy after 10 years using ESGE guidance and after 5 years using US-MSTF guidance., Conclusion: Despite the different criteria used to determine surveillance after serrated polyp resection, most individuals are recommended identical colonoscopy surveillance intervals whether following the ESGE or US-MSTF guidelines. This suggests that surveillance recommendations do not need to consider the serrated polyp subtype., Competing Interests: None, (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

Colonoscopy is a widely performed procedure with procedural volumes increasing annually throughout the world. Many procedures are now performed as part of colorectal cancer screening programmes. Colonoscopy should be of high quality and measures of this quality should be evidence based. New UK key performance indicators and quality assurance standards have been developed by a working group with consensus agreement on each standard reached. This paper reviews the scientific basis for each of the quality measures published in the UK standards., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: None declared., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.)

Objective: To assess the efficacy and safety of endoscopic resection of large colorectal polyps., Design: Relevant publications were identified in MEDLINE/EMBASE/Cochrane Central Register for the period 1966-2014. Studies in which ≥20 mm colorectal neoplastic lesions were treated with endoscopic resection were included. Rates of postendoscopic resection surgery due to non-curative resection or adverse events, as well as the rates of complete endoscopic removal, invasive cancer, adverse events, recurrence and mortality, were extracted. Study quality was ascertained according to Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Forest plot was produced based on random effect models. I2 statistic was used to describe the variation across studies due to heterogeneity. Meta-regression analysis was also performed., Results: 50 studies including 6442 patients and 6779 large polyps were included in the analyses. Overall, 503 out of 6442 patients (pooled rate: 8%, 95% CI 7% to 10%, I2=78.6%) underwent surgery due to non-curative endoscopic resection, and 31/6442 (pooled rate: 1%, 95% CI 0.7% to 1.4%, I2=0%) to adverse events. Invasive cancer at histology, non-curative endoscopic resection, synchronous lesions and recurrence accounted for 58%, 28%, 2.2% and 5.9% of all the surgeries, respectively. Endoscopic perforation occurred in 96/6595 (1.5%, 95% CI 1.2% to 1.7%) polyps, while bleeding in 423/6474 (6.5%, 95% CI 5.9% to 7.1%). Overall, 5334 patients entered in surveillance, 502/5836 (8.6%, 95% CI 7.9% to 9.3%) being lost at follow-up. Endoscopic recurrence was detected in 735/5334 patients (13.8%, 95% CI 12.9% to 14.7%), being an invasive cancer in 14/5334 (0.3%, 95% CI 0.1% to 0.4%). Endoscopic treatment was successful in 664/735 cases (90.3%, 95% CI 88.2% to 92.5%). Mortality related with management of large polyps was reported in 5/6278 cases (0.08%, 95% CI 0.01% to 0.15%)., Conclusions: Endoscopic resection of large polyps appeared to be an extremely effective and safe intervention. However, an adequate endoscopic surveillance is necessary for its long-term efficacy., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/)

Objective: Although serrated polyps may be precursors of colorectal cancer (CRC), prospective data on the long-term CRC risk in individuals with serrated polyps are lacking., Design: In a population-based randomised trial, 12,955 individuals aged 50-64 years were screened with flexible sigmoidoscopy, while 78 220 individuals comprised the control arm. We used Cox models to estimate HRs with 95% CIs for CRC among individuals with ≥1 large serrated polyp (≥10 mm in diameter), compared with individuals with adenomas at screening, and to population controls, and multivariate logistic regression to assess polyp risk factors for CRC., Results: A total of 103 individuals had large serrated polyps, of which 81 were included in the analyses. Non-advanced adenomas were found in 1488 individuals, advanced adenomas in 701. Median follow-up was 10.9 years. Compared with the control arm, the HR for CRC was 2.5 (95% CI 0.8 to 7.8) in individuals with large serrated polyps, 2.0 (95% CI 1.3 to 2.9) in individuals with advanced adenomas and 0.6 (95% CI 0.4 to 1.1) in individuals with non-advanced adenomas. A large serrated polyp was an independent risk factor for CRC, adjusted for histology, size and multiplicity of concomitant adenomas (OR 3.3; 95% CI 1.3 to 8.6). Twenty-three large serrated polyps found at screening were left in situ for a median of 11.0 years. None developed into a malignant tumour., Conclusions: Individuals with large serrated polyps have an increased risk of CRC, comparable with individuals with advanced adenomas. However, this risk may not be related to malignant growth of the serrated polyp., Trial Registration Number: The Norwegian Colorectal Cancer Screening trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT00119912)., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)

This is an official guideline of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and the European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR). It addresses the clinical indications for the use of computed tomographic colonography (CTC). A targeted literature search was performed to evaluate the evidence supporting the use of CTC. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system was adopted to define the strength of recommendations and the quality of evidence. Main recommendations 1 ESGE/ESGAR recommend computed tomographic colonography (CTC) as the radiological examination of choice for the diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia. ESGE/ESGAR do not recommend barium enema in this setting (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). 2 ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC, preferably the same or next day, if colonoscopy is incomplete. Delay of CTC should be considered following endoscopic resection. In the case of obstructing colorectal cancer, preoperative contrast-enhanced CTC may also allow location or staging of malignant lesions (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). 3 When endoscopy is contraindicated or not possible, ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an acceptable and equally sensitive alternative for patients with symptoms suggestive of colorectal cancer (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). 4 ESGE/ESGAR recommend referral for endoscopic polypectomy in patients with at least one polyp  ≥  6  mm in diameter detected at CTC. CTC surveillance may be clinically considered if patients do not undergo polypectomy (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). 5 ESGE/ESGAR do not recommend CTC as a primary test for population screening or in individuals with a positive first-degree family history of colorectal cancer (CRC). However, it may be proposed as a CRC screening test on an individual basis providing the screenee is adequately informed about test characteristics, benefits, and risks (weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence)., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

Background and Study Aims: A withdrawal time of at least 6 min has been recommended as a quality indicator for colonoscopy. One drawback of many of the studies that have investigated withdrawal time and produced conflicting results has been their single-center design involving few endoscopists. Therefore, the validity of withdrawal time as a quality measure remains unclear. This study explores the value of individual withdrawal time in a nationwide analysis., Patients and Methods: This prospective cohort study comprised data from outpatient colonoscopies performed at 19 Norwegian centers from January to September 2009 and registered in the Norwegian Gastronet Quality Assurance (QA) program. The participating endoscopists were characterized by their median withdrawal time for visual colonoscopies (diagnostic colonoscopies without biopsy or therapy) and categorized into two visual withdrawal time (VWT) groups (< 6 min or ≥ 6 min) to analyze the predictive value of VWT for detection of one or more polyps ≥ 5 mm in diameter using multiple logistic regression models., Results: The study included 4429 consecutive colonoscopies performed by 67 endoscopists. The adjusted odds ratio for the detection of polyps ≥ 5 mm was 1.21 (95 %CI 0.94 - 1.56, P = 0.14) for endoscopists with a median VWT ≥ 6 min compared with endoscopists with a median VWT < 6 min., Conclusion: Withdrawal time using 6 min as the threshold is not a strong predictor of the likelihood of finding a polyp during colonoscopy and should not be used as a quality indicator., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

Background and Study Aim: Valid tissue sampling of colorectal adenomas is crucial for their management in terms of treatment and follow-up. The aim of this study was to assess the validity of a cold biopsy sample as representative for the whole polypectomy specimen, with regard to histopathological features., Patients and Methods: As part of the Norwegian Colorectal Cancer Prevention trial, 442 participants (60% men) who fulfilled the criterion of colonoscopic recovery of adenoma that had been biopsied at flexible sigmoidoscopy, had their adenomas subsequently removed by polypectomy (snare resection) at colonoscopy. Logistic regression analysis was used to determine which variables contributed to the histopathological discrepancy between cold biopsy and polypectomy specimens., Results: Among the 532 colorectal adenomas biopsied at flexible sigmoidoscopy and removed by colonoscopy, the assessment of intraepithelial neoplasia (dysplasia) status was changed in 51 adenomas (10%), and 38 (7%) of them had been underestimated at biopsy compared with polypectomy. Likewise, the assessment of villousness was changed in 45 adenomas (9%), being upgraded in 26 (6%) at polypectomy compared with biopsy. In a multivariate model, the diameter of neoplasia at polypectomy was positively associated with increased risk of the underestimation of intraepithelial neoplasia and/or villousness influencing a diagnosis of advanced colorectal neoplasia, when cold biopsy and polypectomy specimens were compared ( Ptrend=0.01). Among 56 cases of advanced neoplasia, 35 (63%) showed only low-grade intraepithelial neoplasia on biopsy., Conclusions: Biopsy-based diagnosis underestimated histopathological diagnosis in about 10% of colorectal adenomas detected by flexible sigmoidoscopy screening, but advanced neoplasia was underestimated in more than 60%. Efforts must be made to obtain polypectomy specimens to secure precise diagnosis.

Background: The Norwegian Colorectal Cancer Prevention study is an ongoing flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) screening trial for colorectal cancer. Twenty-one thousand average-risk individuals, aged 50-64 years, living in two separate areas in Norway were randomly drawn from the Population Registry and invited to once-only screening flexible sigmoidoscopy. Examinations were performed over 3 years, at 2 centres, by 8 different endoscopists, using the same type of equipment. The aim of the present study was to investigate possible differences between endoscopists in detecting individuals with polyps, adenomas and advanced lesions (adenomas with severe dysplasia and/or villous components and/or size larger than 9 mm and carcinoma) in flexible sigmoidoscopy screening., Methods: The present trial comprises data from 8822 individuals, aged 55-64 years, who have undergone a flexible sigmoidoscopy. In the study period, all lesions detected by the different endoscopists were registered. Tissue samples were taken from all lesions detected., Results: Detection rates varied significantly between endoscopists, ranging from 36.4% to 65.5% for individuals with any polyp, from 12.7% to 21.2% for any adenoma and from 2.9% to 5.0% for advanced lesions. In a multiple logistic regression model, the performing endoscopist was a strong independent predictor for detection of individuals with polyps (P < 0.001 ), adenomas (P < 0.001) and advanced lesions (P = 0.01)., Conclusion: Detection rates for colorectal lesions vary significantly between endoscopists in colorectal cancer screening. Establishing systems for monitoring performance in screening programmes is important. Supervised training and re-certification for endoscopists with poor performance should be considered.

Background: Randomized controlled trials of sufficient power testing the long-term effect of screening for colorectal neoplasia only exist for faecal occult blood testing (FOBT). There is indirect evidence that flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) may have a greater yield. The aim of this study was to determine the diagnostic yield of screening with FS or a combination of FS and FOBT in an average-risk population in an urban and combined urban and rural population in Norway., Methods: 20,780 men and women (1:1), aged 50-64 years, were invited for once-only screening (FS only or a combination of FS and FOBT (1:1)) by randomization from the population registry. A positive FS was defined as a finding of any neoplasia or any polyp > or = 10 mm. A positive FS or FOBT qualified for colonoscopy., Results: Overall attendance was 65%. Forty-one (0.3%) cases of CRC were detected. Any adenoma was found in 2208 (17%) participants and 545 (4.2%) had high-risk adenomas. There was no difference in diagnostic yield between the FS and the FS and FOBT group regarding CRC or high-risk adenoma. Work-up load comprised 2821 colonoscopies in 2524 (20%) screenees and 10% of screenees were recommended later colonoscopy surveillance. There were no severe complications at FS, but six perforations after therapeutic colonoscopy (1:336)., Conclusions: The present study bodes well for future management of a national screening programme, provided that follow-up results reflect adequate proof of a net benefit. It is highly questionable whether the addition of once-only FOBT to FS will contribute to this effect.