Search

Background and study aims: Endoscopic optical diagnosis can potentially replace histopathological evaluation of small colorectal lesions. The aim of this study was to evaluate diagnostic performance of WavSTAT, a novel system for automatic optical diagnosis based on laser-induced autofluorescence spectroscopy. Patients and methods: Consecutive patients who were scheduled for colonoscopy were included in the study. Each detected lesion with a size of ⩽9mm was differentiated using high resolution endoscopy (HRE) by the endoscopist, who then reported this as a low or high confidence call. Thereafter, all lesions were analyzed using Wav- STAT. Histopathology was used as the reference standard. The primary outcome measures were the accuracy of WavSTAT to differentiate between adenomatous and nonadenomatous lesions, and the accuracy of an algorithm combining HRE (lesions differentiated with high confidence) and WavSTAT (all remaining lesions). The secondary outcome measure was the accuracy of on-site recommended surveillance intervals. Results: At total of 87 patients with 207 small colorectal lesions were evaluated. Accuracy and negative predictive value of WavSTAT were 74.4% and 73.5 %, respectively. The corresponding figures for the algorithm were 79.2% and 73.9 %, respectively. Accuracy of on-site recommended surveillance interval was 73.7% for WavSTAT alone and 77.2% for the algorithm of HRE and WavSTAT. Conclusions: Both accuracy of WavSTAT alone and the algorithm combining HRE with WavSTAT proved to be insufficient for the in vivo differentiation of small colorectal lesions, and do not fulfill American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy performance thresholds for assessment of diminutive lesions. Future studies should assess whether combining WavSTAT with more advanced imaging techniques could result in a higher accuracy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background:  Recognition of submucosal invasive colorectal cancer (T1 CRC) is difficult, with sensitivities of 35 %-60 % in Western countries. We evaluated the real-life effects of training in the OPTICAL model, a recently developed structured and validated prediction model, in Dutch community hospitals., Methods:  In this prospective multicenter study (OPTICAL II), 383 endoscopists from 40 hospitals were invited to follow an e-learning program on the OPTICAL model, to increase sensitivity in detecting T1 CRC in nonpedunculated polyps. Real-life recognition of T1 CRC was then evaluated in 25 hospitals. Endoscopic and pathologic reports of T1 CRCs detected during the next year were collected retrospectively, with endoscopists unaware of this evaluation. Sensitivity for T1 CRC recognition, R0 resection rate, and treatment modality were compared for trained vs. untrained endoscopists., Results:  1 year after e-learning, 528 nonpedunculated T1 CRCs were recorded for endoscopies performed by 251 endoscopists (118 [47 %] trained). Median T1 CRC size was 20 mm. Lesions were mainly located in the distal colorectum (66 %). Trained endoscopists recognized T1 CRCs more frequently than untrained endoscopists (sensitivity 74 % vs. 62 %; mixed model analysis odds ratio [OR] 2.90, 95 %CI 1.54-5.45). R0 resection rate was higher for T1 CRCs detected by trained endoscopists (69 % vs. 56 %; OR 1.73, 95 %CI 1.03-2.91)., Conclusion:  Training in optical recognition of T1 CRCs in community hospitals was associated with increased recognition of T1 CRCs, leading to higher en bloc and R0 resection rates. This may be an important step toward more organ-preserving strategies., Competing Interests: The authors declare that P. Siersema received grants or speaker's fees from Pentax Japan, The E-Nose Company The Netherlands, Microtech China, Lucid Diagnostics USA, Magentiq Eye Israel, Norgine UK/The Netherlands, and Motus GI USA; A. Masclee received research grants from the Dutch Cancer Society (KWF) and the Dutch Organization for Health Research and Innovation (ZonMW); L. Moons acts as a consultant for Boston Scientific. The other authors declare that no conflicts of interest exist., (The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).)

Background: The incidence of T1 colorectal cancer (CRC) has increased with the implementation of CRC screening programs. It is unknown whether the outcomes and risk models for T1 CRC based on non-screen-detected patients can be extrapolated to screen-detected T1 CRC. This study aimed to compare the stage distribution and oncologic outcomes of T1 CRC patients within and outside the screening program., Methods: Data from T1 CRC patients diagnosed between 2014 and 2017 were collected from 12 hospitals in the Netherlands. The presence of lymph node metastasis (LNM) at diagnosis was compared between screen-detected and non-screen-detected patients using multivariable logistic regression. Cox proportional hazard regression was used to analyze differences in the time to recurrence (TTR), metastasis-free survival (MFS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and overall survival. Additionally, the performance of conventional risk factors for LNM was evaluated across the groups., Results: 1803 patients were included (1114 [62%] screen-detected), with median follow-up of 51 months (interquartile range 30). The proportion of LNM did not significantly differ between screen- and non-screen-detected patients (12.6% vs. 8.9%; odds ratio 1.41; 95%CI 0.89-2.23); a prediction model for LNM performed equally in both groups. The 3- and 5-year TTR, MFS, and CSS were similar for patients within and outside the screening program. However, overall survival was significantly longer in screen-detected T1 CRC patients (adjusted hazard ratio 0.51; 95%CI 0.38-0.68)., Conclusions: Screen-detected and non-screen-detected T1 CRCs have similar stage distributions and oncologic outcomes and can therefore be treated equally. However, screen-detected T1 CRC patients exhibit a lower rate of non-CRC-related mortality, resulting in longer overall survival., Competing Interests: M. Koopman has an advisory role for Eisai, Nordic Farma, Merck-Serono, Pierre Fabre, and Servier and has received institutional grants from Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, Personal Genome Diagnostics (PGDx), Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sirtex, and Servier. G.R. Vink has received institutional grants from BMS, Merck, Servier, Personal Genome, Diagnostics, Bayer, Sirtex, Pierre Fabre, Lilly, and Delfi Diagnostics. F.P. Vleggaar is a consultant for Boston Scientific. L.M.G. Moons is a consultant for Boston Scientific. L. van der Schee, K.J.C. Haasnoot, S.G. Elias, K.M. Gijsbers, Y.A. Alderlieste, Y. Backes, A.-M. van Berkel, F. Boersma, F. ter Borg, E.C.H. Breekveldt, K. Kessels, I. Lansdorp-Vogelaar, M.E. van Leerdam, G. Rasschaert, R.-M. Schreuder, R.W.M. Schrauwen, T.C.J. Seerden, M.B.W.M. Spanier, J.S. Terhaar Sive Droste, E. Toes-Zoutendijk, J.B. Tuynman, W.H. de Vos tot Nederveen Cappel, and M.M. Laclé declare that they have no conflict of interest., (The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).)

Objective: Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is the preferred treatment for non-invasive large (≥20 mm) non-pedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs) but is associated with an early recurrence rate of up to 30%. We evaluated whether standardised EMR training could reduce recurrence rates in Dutch community hospitals., Design: In this multicentre cluster randomised trial, 59 endoscopists from 30 hospitals were randomly assigned to the intervention group (e-learning and 2-day training including hands-on session) or control group. From April 2019 to August 2021, all consecutive EMR-treated LNPCPs were included. Primary endpoint was recurrence rate after 6 months., Results: A total of 1412 LNPCPs were included; 699 in the intervention group and 713 in the control group (median size 30 mm vs 30 mm, 45% vs 52% size, morphology, site and access (SMSA) score IV, 64% vs 64% proximal location). Recurrence rates were lower in the intervention group compared with controls (13% vs 25%, OR 0.43; 95% CI 0.23 to 0.78; p=0.005) with similar complication rates (8% vs 9%, OR 0.93; 95% CI 0.64 to 1.36; p=0.720). Recurrences were more often unifocal in the intervention group (92% vs 76%; p=0.006). In sensitivity analysis, the benefit of the intervention on recurrence rate was only observed in the 20-40 mm LNPCPs (5% vs 20% in 20-29 mm, p=0.001; 10% vs 21% in 30-39 mm, p=0.013) but less evident in ≥40 mm LNPCPs (24% vs 31%; p=0.151). In a post hoc analysis, the training effect was maintained in the study group, while in the control group the recurrence rate remained high., Conclusion: A compact standardised EMR training for LNPCPs significantly reduced recurrences in community hospitals. This strongly argues for a national dedicated training programme for endoscopists performing EMR of ≥20 mm LNPCPs. Interestingly, in sensitivity analysis, this benefit was limited for LNPCPs ≥40 mm., Trial Registration Number: NTR7477., Competing Interests: Competing interests: PDS received grants or speaker fees from Pentax Japan, The eNose Company Netherlands, Microtech China, Lucid Diagnostics USA, Magentiq Eye Israel, Norgine UK/Netherlands and Motus GI USA. FV acts as a consultant for Boston Scientific. MP has received speaker fees from Norgine Iberia (2018–2023), Casen Recordati (2016–2019), Olympus (2018, 2022), Jansen (2018), Medtronic (2022) and Fujifilm (2022); a consultancy fee from GI Supply (2019) and Fujifilm Europe (2022); and research funding from Fujifilm (2019–2021), Casen Recordati (2020), Ziuz (2021) and 3-DMatrix (2021). Her department has received loan material from Fujifilm (2017–ongoing) and a consultancy service with Olympus (2022–ongoing). She is a board member of ESGE and AEG and has received a fee from Thieme as an Endoscopy coeditor (2015–2021). She has shared actions of MiWendo. MJB received research support for ethics-approved studies from Boston Scientific, Cook Medical and Olympus Medical. AAMM received research grants from the Dutch Cancer Society (KWF) and the Dutch Organization for Health Research and Innovation (ZonMW). LMGM acts as a consultant for Boston Scientific., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)