Search

Background and Aims: Dye-based chromoendoscopy (DBC) could be effective in increasing the adenoma detection rate (ADR) in patients undergoing colonoscopy, but the technique is time-consuming and its uptake is limited. We aimed to assess the effect of DBC on ADR based on available randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Methods: Four databases were searched up to April 2022 for RCTs comparing DBC with conventional colonoscopy (CC) in terms of ADR, advanced ADR, and sessile serrated adenoma detection rate as well as the mean adenomas per patient and non-neoplastic lesions. Relative risk (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes were calculated using random-effect models. The I2 test was used for quantifying heterogeneity. Risk of bias was evaluated with the Cochrane tool. Results: Overall, 10 RCTs (5334 patients) were included. Indication for colonoscopy was screening or surveillance (3 studies) and mixed (7 studies). Pooled ADR was higher in the DBC group versus the CC group (95% CI, 48.1% [41.4%-54.8%] vs 39.3% [33.5%-46.4%]; RR, 1.20 [1.11-1.29]), with low heterogeneity (I2 = 29%). This effect was consistent for advanced ADR (RR, 1.21 [1.03-1.42]; I2 = .0%), sessile serrated adenomas (6.1% vs 3.5%; RR, 1.68 [1.15-2.47]; I2 = 9.8%), and mean adenomas per patient (MD, .24 [.17-.31]) overall and in the right-sided colon (MD, .28 [.14-.43]). A subgroup analysis considering only trials using high-definition white-light endoscopy reduced the heterogeneity while still showing a significant increase in adenoma detection with DBC: 51.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 47.1%-56.1%) and 59.1% (95% CI, 54.7-63.3%), RR = 1.14 (95% CI, 1.06-1.23), P = .0004, I2 = .0%, P = .50. Conclusions: Meta-analysis of RCTs showed that DBC increases key quality parameters in colonoscopy, supporting its use in everyday clinical practice.

Background and study aims Data from Japanese series show that surface morphology of laterally spreading tumors (LST) in the colon identifies lesions with different incidence and pattern of submucosal invasion. Such data from western countries are scarce. We compared clinical and histological features of LST in a western country and an eastern country, with special interest on mucosal invasiveness of LST, and investigated the effect of clinical factors on invasiveness in both countries. Patients and methods Patients with LST lesions ≥20 mm were included from a multicenter prospective registry in Spain and from a retrospective registry from the National Cancer Center Hospital East, Japan. The primary outcome was the presence of submucosal invasion in LST. The secondary outcome was the presence of high-risk histology, defined as high-grade dysplasia or submucosal invasion. Results We evaluated 1102 patients in Spain and 663 in Japan. Morphological and histological characteristics differed. The prevalence of submucosal invasion in Japan was six-fold the prevalence in Spain (Prevalence Ratio PR = 5.66; 95%CI: 3.96, 8.08), and the prevalence of high-risk histology was 1.5 higher (PR = 1.44; 95%CI: 1.31, 1.58). Compared to the granular homogeneous type and adjusted by clinical features, granular mixed, flat elevated, and pseudo-depressed types were associated with higher odds of submucosal invasion in Japan, whereas only the pseudo-depressed type showed higher risk in Spain. Regarding high-risk histology, both granular mixed and pseudo-depressed were associated with higher odds in Japan, compared with only the granular mixed type in Spain. Conclusion This study reveals differences in location, morphology and invasiveness of LST in an eastern and a western cohort.

Colonoscopy is the gold standard for colorectal cancer (CRC) prevention. The main quality indicator of colonoscopy is the adenoma detection rate, which is inversely associated with the risk of interval CRC and the risk of death from this neoplasia. In the setting of CRC prevention, diagnostic colonoscopy has undergone a remarkable evolution in the past 20 years. Hand in hand with the implementation of CRC prevention programs and technological advances, we are now able to identify tiny and subtle neoplastic lesions and predict their histology with great efficiency. In this article, we briefly review the endoscopy technologies that can be used to improve the detection and characterization of colorectal polyps.

Patients with multiple or large adenomas are considered to be high-risk for metachronous colorectal cancer.Evaluate the risks of detecting colorectal cancer, advanced adenoma, and advanced serrated polyps at 1-year surveillance colonoscopy in patients with5 adenomas or adenomas20 mm.Descriptive, retrospective, multicentric, cohort study. We calculated the absolute risk of developing colorectal cancer, advanced adenomas, and advanced serrated polyps at the 1-year surveillance colonoscopy. Potential risk factors for advanced neoplasia at follow-up were evaluated with univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses.This study included data from a multicenter cohort colorectal cancer screening program, conducted from January 2014 to December 2015, based on fecal immunochemical tests in Spain.We included 2119 participants with at least 1 adenoma ≥20 mm or ≥5 adenomas of any size.We calculated the absolute risk of developing colorectal cancer, advanced adenomas, and advanced serrated polyps at the 1-year surveillance colonoscopy. Potential risk factors for advanced neoplasia at follow-up were evaluated with univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses.At 1 year, participants displayed 6 colorectal cancers (0.3%), 228 advanced adenomas (10.5%), and 58 advanced serrated polyps (2.7%). The adjusted analysis identified 2 factors associated with advanced neoplasia:5 adenomas (odds ratio 1.53; 95% CI: 1.15-2.03; p = 0.004) and polyps in a proximal location (OR 1.52; 95% CI: 1.15-2.02; p = 0.004).First, the sample size was relatively small compared to other studies with similar aims. Another limitation was the lack of a comparison group, which could have provided more practical results in terms of surveillance recommendations.The colorectal cancer detection rate at a 1-year colonoscopy surveillance was low among patients classified at high risk of advanced neoplasia. The risk factors for advanced neoplasia were ≥5 adenomas and proximal polyps at baseline. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B820 .ANTECEDENTES:Los pacientes con adenomas múltiples o grandes se consideran de alto riesgo para desarrollar cáncer colorrectal metacrónico.OBJETIVO:Evaluar los riesgos de detectar cáncer colorrectal, adenoma avanzado y pólipos serrados avanzados en la colonoscopia de seguimiento al año, en pacientes con un número mayor o igual a 5 adenomas o adenomas de 20 mm o más.DISEÑO:Estudio descriptivo, retrospectivo, multicéntrico, de cohortes. Calculamos el riesgo absoluto de desarrollar cáncer colorrectal, adenomas avanzados y pólipos serrados avanzados en la colonoscopia de vigilancia al año. Los factores de riesgo potenciales para el desarrollo de una neoplasia avanzada en el seguimiento, fueron evaluados mediante un análisis de regresión logística univariable y multivariable.AJUSTES:Este estudio incluyó datos de un programa de cribado de cáncer colorrectal de cohorte multicéntrico, realizado entre enero de 2014 y diciembre de 2015, con base en pruebas inmunoquímicas de materia fecal, en España.PACIENTES:Incluimos 2119 participantes con al menos un adenoma ≥20 mm o con cinco o más adenomas de cualquier tamaño.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Calculamos el riesgo absoluto de desarrollar cáncer colorrectal, adenomas avanzados y pólipos serrados avanzados en la colonoscopia de vigilancia al año. Los potenciales factores de riesgo para desarrollar una neoplasia avanzada en el seguimiento, se evaluaron mediante un análisis de regresión logística univariable y multivariable.RESULTADOS:Al año se encontraron en los pacientes participantes, 6 cánceres colorrectales (0,3%), 228 adenomas avanzados (10,5%) y 58 pólipos serrados avanzados (2,7%). Mediante el análisis ajustado se identificaron dos factores asociados con el desarrollo de neoplasia avanzada: un número igual o mayor a 5 adenomas (razón de probabilidades 1,53; IC del 95%: 1,15-2,03; p = 0,004) y la presencia de pólipos en una ubicación proximal (razón de probabilidades 1,52; IC del 95%: 1,15-2,02; p = 0,004).LIMITACIONES:Primero, el tamaño de la muestra fue relativamente pequeño en comparación con otros estudios con objetivos similares. Otra limitación fue la falta de un grupo comparativo, que podría haber proporcionado resultados más prácticos, en términos de recomendaciones de vigilancia.CONCLUSIÓNES:La tasa de detección de cáncer colorrectal mediante una colonoscopia de vigilancia al año, fue baja entre los pacientes clasificados como de alto riesgo de neoplasia avanzada. Los factores de riesgo para desarrollar una neoplasia avanzada fueron; un número igual o mayor a 5 adenomas y la presencia de pólipos proximales en la colonoscopia inicial de base. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B820 . ( Traducción-Eduardo Londoño-Schimmer ).

Background Current guidelines recommend genetic counseling and intensive colonoscopy surveillance for patients with ≥ 10 colorectal adenomas based on scarce data. We investigated the prevalence of this condition in a fecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based colorectal (CRC) screening program, and the incidence of metachronous lesions during follow-up. Methods We retrospectively included all FIT-positive participants with ≥ 10 adenomas at index colonoscopy between 2010 and 2018. Surveillance colonoscopies were collected until 2019. Patients with inherited syndromes, serrated polyposis syndrome, total colectomy, or lacking surveillance data were excluded. The cumulative incidence of CRC and advanced neoplasia were analyzed by Kaplan–Meier analysis. Risk factors for metachronous advanced neoplasia were investigated by multivariable logistic regression analysis. Results 215 of 9582 participants (2.2 %) had ≥ 10 adenomas. Germline genetic testing was performed in 92 % of patients with ≥ 20 adenomas, identifying two inherited syndromes (3.3 %). The 3-year cumulative incidence of CRC and advanced neoplasia were 1 % and 16 %, respectively. In 39 patients (24.2 %), no polyps were found on first surveillance colonoscopy. The presence of an advanced adenoma was independently associated with a higher risk of advanced neoplasia at first surveillance colonoscopy (odds ratio 3.91, 95 %CI 1.12–13.62; P = 0.03). Beyond the first surveillance colonoscopy, the risk of metachronous advanced neoplasia was lower. Conclusions The prevalence of ≥ 10 adenomas in a FIT-based CRC screening program was 2.2 %; a small proportion of inherited syndromes were detected, even amongst those with ≥ 20 adenomas. A low rate of post-colonoscopy CRC was observed and the risk of advanced neoplasia beyond the first surveillance colonoscopy tended to progressively decrease throughout successive follow-ups.

ObjectiveEndoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) in the colon has been widely adopted, but there is limited data on the histopathological effects of the differing electrosurgical currents (ESCs) used. We used an in vivo porcine model to compare the tissue effects of ESCs for snare resection and adjuvant margin ablation techniques.DesignStandardised EMR was performed by a single endoscopist in 12 pigs. Two intersecting 15 mm snare resections were performed. Resections were randomised 1:1 using either a microprocessor-controlled current (MCC) or low-power coagulating current (LPCC). The lateral margins of each defect were treated with either argon plasma coagulation (APC) or snare tip soft coagulation (STSC). Colons were surgically removed at 72 hours. Two specialist pathologists blinded to the intervention assessed the specimens.Results88 defects were analysed (median 7 per pig, median defect size 29×17 mm). For snare ESC effects, 156 tissue sections were assessed. LPCC was comparable to MCC for deep involvement of the colon wall. For margin ablation, 172 tissue sections were assessed. APC was comparable to STSC for deep involvement of the colon wall. Islands of preserved mucosa at the coagulated margin were more likely with APC compared with STSC (16% vs 5%, p=0.010).ConclusionFor snare resection, MCC and LPCC did not produce significantly different tissue effects. The submucosal injectate may protect the underlying tissue, and technique may more strongly dictate the depth and extent of final injury. For margin ablation, APC was less uniform and complete compared with STSC.

INTRODUCTION: The additional diagnostic value of dye-based chromoendosocpy (CE) for surveillance of patients with Lynch syndrome is subject of debate.METHODS: To clarify this debate, we performed an individual patient data meta-analysis of randomized studies that compared CE with WLE for the detection of adenomas in patients with Lynch syndrome.RESULTS: Three randomized studies comprising 533 patients were included. The adenoma detection rate was 74/265 (28%) in patients randomized to WLE compared with 83/266 (31%) in patients randomized to CE (odds ratio 1.17; 95% confidence interval 0.81-1.70).DISCUSSION: Based on low-quality evidence, CE showed no apparent increase in adenoma detection compared to WLE during surveillance of patients with Lynch syndrome.

ObjectiveDespite regular colonoscopy surveillance, colorectal cancers still occur in patients with Lynch syndrome. Thus, detection of all relevant precancerous lesions remains very important. The present study investigates Linked Colour imaging (LCI), an image-enhancing technique, as compared with high-definition white light endoscopy (HD-WLE) for the detection of polyps in this patient group.DesignThis prospective, randomised controlled trial was performed by 22 experienced endoscopists from eight centres in six countries. Consecutive Lynch syndrome patients ≥18 years undergoing surveillance colonoscopy were randomised (1:1) and stratified by centre for inspection with either LCI or HD-WLE. Primary outcome was the polyp detection rate (PDR).ResultsBetween January 2018 and March 2020, 357 patients were randomised and 332 patients analysed (160 LCI, 172 HD-WLE; 6 excluded due to incomplete colonoscopies and 19 due to insufficient bowel cleanliness). No significant difference was observed in PDR with LCI (44.4%; 95% CI 36.5% to 52.4%) compared with HD-WLE (36.0%; 95% CI 28.9% to 43.7%) (p=0.12). Of the secondary outcome parameters, more adenomas were found on a patient (adenoma detection rate 36.3%; vs 25.6%; p=0.04) and a colonoscopy basis (mean adenomas per colonoscopy 0.65 vs 0.42; p=0.04). The median withdrawal time was not statistically different between LCI and HD-WLE (12 vs 11 min; p=0.16).ConclusionLCI did not improve the PDR compared with HD-WLE in patients with Lynch syndrome undergoing surveillance. The relevance of findings more adenomas by LCI has to be examined further.Trial registration numberNCT03344289.

Colonoscopy has already demonstrated to reduce colorectal cancer risk and mortality by detection and resection of precursor lesions. However, its role for preventing colorectal cancer still has limitations. Image enhancement techniques have been developed to improve the diagnostic yield of colonoscopy and to optimize the management and surveillance of colorectal lesions. We aimed to review basic concepts, benefits, limitations, and practical applications of image enhancement techniques in colorectal cancer average and high-risk population, according to the current evidence and experience.

ObjectiveLarge (≥20 mm) sessile serrated lesions (L-SSL) are premalignant lesions that require endoscopic removal. Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is the existing standard of care but carries some risk of adverse events including clinically significant post-EMR bleeding and deep mural injury (DMI). The respective risk-effectiveness ratio of piecemeal cold snare polypectomy (p-CSP) in L-SSL management is not fully known.DesignConsecutive patients referred for L-SSL management were treated by p-CSP from April 2016 to January 2020 or by conventional EMR in the preceding period between July 2008 and March 2016 at four Australian tertiary centres. Surveillance colonoscopies were conducted at 6 months (SC1) and 18 months (SC2). Outcomes on technical success, adverse events and recurrence were documented prospectively and then compared retrospectively between the subsequent time periods.ResultsA total of 562 L-SSL in 474 patients were evaluated of which 156 L-SSL in 121 patients were treated by p-CSP and 406 L-SSL in 353 patients by EMR. Technical success was equal in both periods (100.0% (n=156) vs 99.0% (n=402)). No adverse events occurred in p-CSP, whereas delayed bleeding and DMI were encountered in 5.1% (n=18) and 3.4% (n=12) of L-SSL treated by EMR, respectively. Recurrence rates following p-CSP were similar to EMR at 4.3% (n=4) versus 4.6% (n=14) and 2.0% (n=1) versus 1.2% (n=3) for surveillance colonoscopy (SC)1 and SC2, respectively.ConclusionsIn a historical comparison on the endoscopic management of L-SSL, p-CSP is technically equally efficacious to EMR but virtually eliminates the risk of delayed bleeding and perforation. p-CSP should therefore be considered as the new standard of care for L-SSL treatment.

Background Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) and CT colonography (CTC) are minimally invasive techniques for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Our objective is to compare CCE and CTC for the identification of patients with colorectal neoplasia among participants in a CRC screening programme with positive faecal immunochemical test (FIT). Primary outcome was to compare the performance of CCE and CTC in detecting patients with neoplastic lesions. Methods The VICOCA study is a prospective, single-centre, randomised trial conducted from March 2014 to May 2016; 662 individuals were invited and 349 were randomised to CCE or CTC before colonoscopy. Endoscopists were blinded to the results of CCE and CTC. Results Three hundred forty-nine individuals were included: 173 in the CCE group and 176 in the CTC group. Two hundred ninety individuals agreed to participate: 147 in the CCE group and 143 in the CTC group. In the intention-to-screen analysis, sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive values for the identification of individuals with colorectal neoplasia were 98.1%, 76.6%, 93.7% and 92.0% in the CCE group and 64.9%, 95.7%, 96.8% and 57.7% in the CTC group. In terms of detecting significant neoplastic lesions, the sensitivity of CCE and CTC was 96.1% and 79.3%, respectively. Detection rate for advanced colorectal neoplasm was higher in the CCE group than in the CTC group (100% and 93.1%, respectively; RR = 1.07; p = 0.08). Both CCE and CTC identified all patients with cancer. CCE detected more patients with any lesion than CTC (98.6% and 81.0%, respectively; RR = 1.22; p = 0.002). Conclusion Although both techniques seem to be similar in detecting patients with advanced colorectal neoplasms, CCE is more sensitive for the detection of any neoplastic lesion. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02081742. Registered: September 16, 2013.

Main RecommendationsThe 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 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).

Resumen La prevencion del cancer colorrectal (CCR) en pacientes con enfermedad inflamatoria intestinal (EII) incluye el conjunto de medidas que tienen como objetivo el control de la actividad inflamatoria del colon a largo plazo, la quimioprevencion y la adhesion adecuada por clinicos y pacientes a los programas de cribado y vigilancia endoscopica (VE) recomendados por consenso por las guias de practica clinica (GPC) actualizadas. La displasia o neoplasia intraepitelial es la lesion precursora del CCR en la EII. En la mayoria de los casos, las lesiones displasicas son visibles mediante la endoscopia. Para optimizar su deteccion y diagnostico se recomienda el uso rutinario de la pancromoendoscopia (CrE) de tincion o de la CrE virtual con toma de biopsias dirigidas/reseccion dirigidas. La reseccion completa de las lesiones displasicas se asocia a un buen pronostico, lo que permite mantener el seguimiento endoscopico de los pacientes mediante protocolos consensuados. La colectomia esta indicada ante la imposibilidad de reseccion completa mediante polipectomia y/o tecnicas de endoscopia avanzada o en presencia de criterios de invasividad neoplasica. En la presente publicacion resumimos las recomendaciones de la GPC de la Asociacion Espanola de Gastroenterologia (AEG) y la Sociedad Espanola de Medicina Familiar y Comunitaria (SemFYC) 2018 y por el Grupo Espanol de Trabajo en Enfermedad de Crohn y Colitis ulcerosa (GETECCU) 2019.

The World Health Organization (WHO) recently updated the diagnostic criteria for serrated polyposis syndrome (SPS). One of the three previous diagnostic criteria (criterion II 2010) is now abandoned: ≥ 1 serrated polyp (SP) proximal to the sigmoid in a first-degree relative (FDR) of a patient with SPS. Individuals fulfilling this abandoned criterion now receive the same surveillance recommendations as all FDRs of patients with SPS. We aimed to compare the incidence of advanced neoplasia (AN) in FDRs with vs. without fulfillment of the abandoned criterion II 2010. We retrospectively recruited FDRs of patients with SPS who underwent a colonoscopy, and stratified them according to fulfilment of criterion II 2010 at baseline. Our primary and secondary outcomes were AN incidence during surveillance and at baseline, respectively. We included 224 FDRs of patients with SPS, of whom 36 (16%) fulfilled criterion II 2010 at baseline. One hundred and five underwent surveillance after baseline. Criterion II 2010-positive FDRs were at increased risk of AN, both during surveillance (hazard ratio 8.94, 95% CI 2.15–37.1, p =.003) as well as at baseline (adjusted odds-ratio 9.30, 95% CI 3.7–23.3, p 2010 for SPS diagnosis were at increased risk of AN at baseline and during surveillance in this small, retrospective cohort study. Our results should be interpreted with caution but suggest that adherence to surveillance recommendations for all FDRs of patients with SPS is important, especially for those that would have fulfilled the now abandoned criterion II 2010.

Resumen El cancer colorrectal constituye un problema de salud importante. Se ha demostrado una mejoria de la supervivencia mediante la realizacion de colonoscopias de cribado y la extirpacion de sus lesiones precursoras, los polipos. Sin embargo, la colonoscopia no es infalible y se han propuesto multiples estrategias dirigidas a mejorar la calidad de la misma. En esta revision se describen los sistemas endoscopicos de que disponemos para mejorar la deteccion y caracterizacion de los polipos, las diferentes clasificaciones utilizadas para la prediccion histologica y las indicaciones actuales de las tecnicas de diagnostico endoscopico avanzado.

Background and aimsSerrated polyposis syndrome (SPS) is associated with an increased risk of colorectal cancer (CRC). International guidelines recommend surveillance intervals of 1–2 years. However, yearly surveillance likely leads to overtreatment for many. We prospectively assessed a surveillance protocol aiming to safely reduce the burden of colonoscopies.MethodsBetween 2013 and 2018, we enrolled SPS patients from nine Dutch and Spanish hospitals. Patients were surveilled using a protocol appointing either a 1-year or 2-year interval after each surveillance colonoscopy, based on polyp burden. Primary endpoint was the 5-year cumulative incidence of CRC and advanced neoplasia (AN) during surveillance.ResultsWe followed 271 SPS patients for a median of 3.6 years. During surveillance, two patients developed CRC (cumulative 5-year incidence 1.3%[95% CI 0% to 3.2%]). The 5-year AN incidence was 44% (95% CI 37% to 52%), and was lower for patients with SPS type III (26%) than for patients diagnosed with type I (53%) or type I and III (59%, pConclusionRisk stratification substantially reduced colonoscopy burden while achieving CRC incidence similar to previous studies. AN incidence is considerable in SPS patients, but extension of surveillance intervals was not associated with increased AN in those identified as low-risk by the protocol. We identified SPS type III patients as low-risk group that might benefit from even less frequent surveillance.Trial registration numberThe study was registered on http://www.trialregister.nl; trial-ID NTR4609.

Colorectal cancer is a major health problem. An improvement to its survival has been demonstrated by performing colonoscopy screenings and removing its precursor lesions: polyps. However, colonoscopy is not infallible and multiple strategies have been proposed aimed at improving the quality thereof. This report describes the endoscopic systems available to improve the detection and characterization of polyps, the different classifications for histological prediction and the current indications of advanced endoscopic diagnostic techniques.

Background The “diagnose-and-leave-in” policy has been established to reduce the risks and costs related to unnecessary polypectomies in the average-risk population. In individuals with Lynch syndrome, owing to accelerated carcinogenesis, the general recommendation is to remove all polyps, irrespective of size, location, and appearance. We evaluated the feasibility and safety of the diagnose-and-leave-in strategy in individuals with Lynch syndrome. Methods We performed a post hoc analysis based on per-polyp data from a randomized, clinical trial conducted by 24 dedicated colonoscopists at 14 academic centers, in which 256 patients with confirmed Lynch syndrome underwent surveillance colonoscopy from July 2016 to January 2018. In vivo optical diagnosis with confidence level for all detected lesions was obtained before polypectomy using virtual chromoendoscopy alone or with dye-based chromoendoscopy. Primary outcome was the negative predictive value (NPV) for neoplasia of high-confidence optical diagnosis among diminutive (≤ 5 mm) rectosigmoid lesions. Histology was the reference standard. Results Of 147 rectosigmoid lesions, 128 were diminutive. In 103 of the 128 lesions (81 %), the optical diagnostic confidence was high and showed an NPV of 96.0 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 88.9 %–98.6 %) and accuracy of 89.3 % (95 %CI 81.9 %–93.9 %). By following the diagnose-and-leave-in policy, we would have avoided 59 % (75/128) of polypectomies at the expense of two diminutive low grade dysplastic adenomas and one diminutive sessile serrated lesion that would have been left in situ. Conclusion In patients with Lynch syndrome, the diagnose-and-leave-in strategy for diminutive rectosigmoid polyps would be feasible and safe.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Colonoscopy reduces colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality in Lynch syndrome (LS) carriers. However, a high incidence of postcolonoscopy CRC (PCCRC) has been reported. Colonoscopy is highly dependent on endoscopist skill and is subject to quality variability. We aimed to evaluate the impact of key colonoscopy quality indicators on adenoma detection and prevention of PCCRC in LS. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter study focused on LS carriers without previous CRC undergoing colonoscopy surveillance (n = 893). Incident colorectal neoplasia during surveillance and quality indicators of all colonoscopies were analyzed. We performed an emulated target trial comparing the results from the first and second surveillance colonoscopies to assess the effect of colonoscopy quality indicators on adenoma detection and PCCRC incidence. Risk analyses were conducted using a multivariable logistic regression model. RESULTS: The 10-year cumulative incidence of adenoma and PCCRC was 60.6% (95% CI, 55.5%-65.2%) and 7.9% (95% CI, 5.2%-10.6%), respectively. Adequate bowel preparation (odds ratio [OR], 2.07; 95% CI, 1.06-4.3), complete colonoscopies (20% vs 0%; P = .01), and panchromoendoscopy use (OR, 2.14; 95% CI, 1.15-3.95) were associated with significant improvement in adenoma detection. PCCRC risk was significantly lower when colonoscopies were performed during a time interval of less than every 3 years (OR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.14-0.97). We observed a consistent but not significant reduction in PCCRC risk for a previous complete examination (OR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.03-1.28), adequate bowel preparation (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.17-3.24), or previous use of high-definition colonoscopy (OR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.02-2.33). CONCLUSIONS: Complete colonoscopies with adequate bowel preparation and chromoendoscopy use are associated with improved adenoma detection, while surveillance intervals of less than 3 years are associated with a reduction of PCCRC incidence. In LS, high-quality colonoscopy surveillance is of utmost importance for CRC prevention.

Serrated polyps are important colorectal cancer precursors and are most commonly located in the proximal colon, where post-polypectomy bleeding rates are higher. There is limited clinical trial evidence to guide best practices for resection of large serrated polyps (LSPs).In a multicenter trial, patients with large (≥20 mm) non-pedunculated polyps undergoing endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) were randomized to clipping of the resection base or no clipping. This analysis is stratified by histologic subtype of study polyp(s), categorized as serrated [sessile serrated lesions (SSLs) or hyperplastic polyps (HPs)] or adenomatous, comparing clip vs control groups. The primary outcome was severe post-procedure bleeding within 30 days of colonoscopy.A total of 179 participants with 199 LSPs (191 SSLs and 8 HPs) and 730 participants with 771 adenomatous polyps were included in the study. Overall, 5 patients with LSPs (2.8%) experienced post-procedure bleeding compared with 42 (5.8%) of those with adenomas. There was no difference in post-procedure bleeding rates between patients in the clip vs control group among those with LSPs (2.3% vs 3.3%, respectively, difference 1.0%; P = NS). However, among those with adenomatous polyps, clipping was associated with a lower risk of post-procedure bleeding (3.9% vs 7.6%, difference 3.7%; P = .03) and overall serious adverse events (5.5% vs 10.6%, difference 5.1%; P = .01).The post-procedure bleeding risk for LSPs removed via EMR is low, and there is no discernable benefit of prophylactic clipping of the resection base in this group. This study indicates that the benefit of endoscopic clipping following EMR may be specific for2 cm adenomatous polyps located in the proximal colon.gov, Number: NCT01936948.

Main RecommendationsESGE recommends that individuals with hereditary gastrointestinal polyposis syndromes should be surveilled in dedicated units that provide monitoring of compliance and endoscopic performance measures. Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence, level of agreement 90 %.ESGE recommends performing esophagogastroduodenoscopy, small-bowel examination, and/or colonoscopy earlier than the planned surveillance procedure if a patient is symptomatic. Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence, level of agreement 100 %.

Background and study aims Serrated polyposis syndrome (SPS) is a condition with high risk for colorectal cancer. The Endocuff device has been shown to increase adenoma detection in the general and screening population. We aimed to ascertain whether Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy increases detection of serrated lesions in comparison with standard colonoscopy during the surveillance of patients with SPS. Methods In a multicenter randomized controlled study, patients who met SPS criteria I and/or III under surveillance (previous resection of all serrated lesions ≥ 4 mm) were consecutively randomly allocated 1:1 to Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy or standard colonoscopy, performed by expert endoscopists. The main outcome was the mean number of serrated lesions detected per patient. Results 122 patients (standard colonoscopy n = 60; Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy n = 62; 59 % men; mean age 60.6 (standard deviation [SD] 7.5) were included at 4 centers. Baseline variables (demographic data, SPS phenotype, colorectal cancer [CRC] history, cumulative polyps, and follow-up), cecal intubation rate, and withdrawal time were similar between groups. There was no statistically significant difference between Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy and standard colonoscopy for the mean number of serrated lesions detected per patient: 5.8 (95 % confidence interval [95 %CI] 4.4 – 7.2) and 5.0 (3.9 – 6.1), respectively (P = 0.36). There were also no differences between Endocuff-assisted and standard colonoscopy for detection of sessile serrated lesions (mean number per patient 2.5 [1.3 – 3.6] vs. 2.0 [1.1 – 3.0], P = 0.54) and adenomas (0.9 [0.5 – 1.3] vs. 0.5 [0.3 – 0.7], P = 0.12). Conclusion Use of Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy did not significantly increase the number of serrated lesion detected per patient during surveillance of SPS.

Resumen Introduccion y objetivo La sensibilidad de los programas de cribado de cancer colorrectal determina su efectividad y esta directamente relacionada con el cancer de intervalo ( C I). Este estudio describe la frecuencia y las caracteristicas de los CI del Programa de la ciudad de Barcelona y analiza su relacion con el valor cuantitativo del test de cribado previo (FIT). Material y metodos Se incluyen los CI tras FIT negativo de las primeras dos rondas del Programa (2010-2013); periodo de observacion hasta julio de 2017. La fuente de informacion de los CI es su notificacion por profesionales y pacientes y el cruce de bases de datos hospitalarias y CMBD. Resultados La sensibilidad del Programa es del 82%. Los CI se diagnostican mas en colon proximal y recto y en estadios avanzados que los canceres de cribado, y presentan valores FIT mas elevados que el conjunto de personas con FIT negativo. Conclusiones La sensibilidad obtenida es aceptable y comparable a la de otros programas. El valor cuantitativo del FIT en personas con test negativo deberia incluirse en las estrategias de personalizacion del cribado para reducir el riesgo de CI.

There is limited scientific evidence available to stratify the risk of developing metachronous colorectal cancer after resection of colonic polyps and to determine surveillance intervals and is mostly based on observational studies. However, while awaiting further evidence, the criteria of endoscopic follow-up needs to be unified in our setting. Therefore, the Spanish Association of Gastroenterology, the Spanish Society of Family and Community Medicine, the Spanish Society of Digestive Endoscopy, and the Colorectal Cancer Screening Group of the Spanish Society of Epidemiology, have written this consensus document, which is included in chapter 10 of the "Clinical Practice Guideline for Diagnosis and Prevention of Colorectal Cancer. 2018 Update". Important developments will also be presented as regards the previous edition published in 2009. First of all, situations that require and do not require endoscopic surveillance are established, and the need of endoscopic surveillance of individuals who do not present a special risk of metachronous colon cancer is eliminated. Secondly, endoscopic surveillance recommendations are established in individuals with serrated polyps. Finally, unlike the previous edition, endoscopic surveillance recommendations are given in patients operated on for colorectal cancer. At the same time, it represents an advance on the European guideline for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening, since it eliminates the division between intermediate risk group and high risk group, which means the elimination of a considerable proportion of colonoscopies of early surveillance. Finally, clear recommendations are given on the absence of need for follow-up in the low risk group, for which the European guidelines maintained some ambiguity.

Main RecommendationsESGE recommends that individuals with Lynch syndrome should be followed in dedicated units that practice monitoring of compliance and endoscopic performance measures.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence, level of agreement 100 %.ESGE recommends starting colonoscopy surveillance at the age of 25 years for MLH1 and MSH2 mutation carriers and at the age of 35 years for MSH6 and PMS2 mutation carriers.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence, level of agreement 100 %. ESGE recommends the routine use of high-definition endoscopy systems in individuals with Lynch syndrome. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence, level of agreement 100 %. ESGE suggests the use of chromoendoscopy may be of benefit in individuals with Lynch syndrome undergoing colonoscopy; however routine use must be balanced against costs, training, and practical considerations.Weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence, level of agreement 89 %.ESGE recommends definition of familial risk of colorectal cancer as the presence of at least two first-degree relatives with colorectal cancer or at least one first-degree relative with colorectal cancer before the age of 50 years.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence, level of agreement 92 %.ESGE recommends colonoscopy surveillance in first-degree relatives of colorectal cancer patients in families that fulfill the definition of familial risk of colorectal cancer.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence, level of agreement 100 %.

ObjectiveThe incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) declines among subjects aged 50 years and above. An opposite trend appears among younger adults. In Europe, data on CRC incidence among younger adults are lacking. We therefore aimed to analyse European trends in CRC incidence and mortality in subjects younger than 50 years.DesignData on age-related CRC incidence and mortality between 1990 and 2016 were retrieved from national and regional cancer registries. Trends were analysed by Joinpoint regression and expressed as annual percent change.ResultsWe retrieved data on 143.7 million people aged 20–49 years from 20 European countries. Of them, 187 918 (0.13%) were diagnosed with CRC. On average, CRC incidence increased with 7.9% per year among subjects aged 20–29 years from 2004 to 2016. The increase in the age group of 30–39 years was 4.9% per year from 2005 to 2016, the increase in the age group of 40–49 years was 1.6% per year from 2004 to 2016. This increase started earliest in subjects aged 20–29 years, and 10–20 years later in those aged 30–39 and 40–49 years. This is consistent with an age-cohort phenomenon. Although in most European countries the CRC incidence had risen, some heterogeneity was found between countries. CRC mortality did not significantly change among the youngest adults, but decreased with 1.1%per year between 1990 and 2016 and 2.4% per year between 1990 and 2009 among those aged 30–39 years and 40–49 years, respectively.ConclusionCRC incidence rises among young adults in Europe. The cause for this trend needs to be elucidated. Clinicians should be aware of this trend. If the trend continues, screening guidelines may need to be reconsidered.

Lynch syndrome is the most common inherited cause of colorectal (lifetime risk up to 70%) and endometrial cancer. The diagnosis of Lynch syndrome facilitates preventive measures aimed at reducing the incidence and mortality of cancer. Colonoscopic surveillance for colorectal cancer, aspirin, and prophylactic hysterectomy and bilateral salpo-oopherectomy for endometrial and/or ovarian cancer have demonstrated to effectively reduce cancer mortality in this population. However, the lifetime risk of each cancer in people with Lynch syndrome is gene-specific and may be modified by environmental factors. Furthermore, the benefits of surveillance strategies need to be balanced against the risk of over-diagnosis and be supported by evidence of improved outcomes from cancer diagnosis in surveillance. Therefore, people with Lynch syndrome may benefit from a personalized management approach.