Search

Gastrointestinal endoscopy is largely dependent on medical devices. The European Union (EU) has recently introduced stricter rules and regulations for the approval of medical devices. This has consequences both for endoscopists and for patients. The new regulations increase the need for clinical trials and observational studies for new and current devices used in endoscopy to ensure clinical benefit and reduce patient harm. European endoscopy environments should facilitate industry-sponsored clinical trials and registry studies to meet the demand for robust data on endoscopic devices as required in the new legislation. The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) will play an active role in the establishment of the new system.The EU is establishing independent expert panels for device regulation in gastroenterology and hepatology, including endoscopy, that are charged with assessing the requirements for device testing. The ESGE encourages endoscopists with expertise in the technical and clinical performance of endoscopy devices to apply for expert panel membership. The ESGE has provided information for interested endoscopists on the ESGE website. Private European companies called “notified bodies” are entitled to conduct device approval for the EU. The ESGE will actively engage with these notified bodies for topics related to the new endoscopy device approval process to ensure continued access to high quality endoscopy devices for endoscopists in Europe.

The effectiveness of screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) by sex and age in randomized trials is uncertain.To evaluate the 15-year effect of sigmoidoscopy screening on CRC incidence and mortality.Pooled analysis of 4 large-scale randomized trials of sigmoidoscopy screening.Norway, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Italy.Women and men aged 55 to 64 years at enrollment.Sigmoidoscopy screening.Primary end points were cumulative incidence rate ratio (IRR) and mortality rate ratio (MRR) and rate differences after 15 years of follow-up comparing screening versus usual care in intention-to-treat analyses. Stratified analyses were done by sex, cancer site, and age at screening.Analyses comprised 274 952 persons (50.7% women), 137 493 in the screening and 137 459 in the usual care group. Screening attendance was 58% to 84%. After 15 years, the rate difference for CRC incidence was 0.51 cases (95% CI, 0.40 to 0.63 cases) per 100 persons and the IRR was 0.79 (CI, 0.75 to 0.83). The rate difference for CRC mortality was 0.13 deaths (CI, 0.07 to 0.19 deaths) per 100 persons, and the MRR was 0.80 (CI, 0.72 to 0.88). Women had less benefit from screening than men for CRC incidence (IRR for women, 0.84 [CI, 0.77 to 0.91]; IRR for men, 0.75 [CI, 0.70 to 0.81];Data from the U.K. trial were less granular because of privacy regulations.This pooled analysis of all large randomized trials of sigmoidoscopy screening demonstrates a significant and sustained effect of sigmoidoscopy on CRC incidence and mortality for 15 years.Health Fund of South-East Norway.

ObjectiveHigh-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.DesignWe retrieved data of all patients with low-risk adenomas (one or two tubular adenomas ResultsThe 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%).ConclusionThere 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 numberNCT02319928.

Background and study aims Artificial intelligence (AI) is set to impact several fields within gastroenterology. In gastrointestinal endoscopy, AI-based tools have translated into clinical practice faster than expected. We aimed to evaluate the status of research for AI in gastroenterology while predicting its future applications. Methods All studies registered on Clinicaltrials.gov up to November 2021 were analyzed. The studies included used AI in gastrointestinal endoscopy, inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), hepatology, and pancreatobiliary diseases. Data regarding the study field, methodology, endpoints, and publication status were retrieved, pooled, and analyzed to observe underlying temporal and geographical trends. Results Of the 103 study entries retrieved according to our inclusion/exclusion criteria, 76 (74 %) were based on AI application to gastrointestinal endoscopy, mainly for detection and characterization of colorectal neoplasia (52/103, 50 %). Image analysis was also more frequently reported than data analysis for pancreaticobiliary (six of 10 [60 %]), liver diseases (eight of nine [89 %]), and IBD (six of eight [75 %]). Overall, 48 of 103 study entries (47 %) were interventional and 55 (53 %) observational. In 2018, one of eight studies (12.5 %) were interventional, while in 2021, 21 of 34 (61.8 %) were interventional, with an inverse ratio between observational and interventional studies during the study period. The majority of the studies were planned as single-center (74 of 103 [72 %]) and more were in Asia (45 of 103 [44 %]) and Europe (44 of 103 [43 %]). Conclusions AI implementation in gastroenterology is dominated by computer-aided detection and characterization of colorectal neoplasia. The timeframe for translational research is characterized by a swift conversion of observational into interventional studies.

Supplementary Tables 1 and 2 from Biomarkers Related to One-Carbon Metabolism as Potential Risk Factors for Distal Colorectal Adenomas

Background: Efficient one-carbon metabolism, which requires adequate supply of methyl group donors and B-vitamins, may protect against colorectal carcinogenesis. However, plasma folate and vitamins B2 and B12 have inconsistently been associated with colorectal cancer risk, and there have been no previous studies relating plasma concentrations of methionine, choline, and betaine to this outcome.Methods: This study comprised 10,601 individuals, 50 to 64 years of age, participating in the Norwegian Colorectal Cancer Prevention (NORCCAP) screening study. Using logistic regression analyses, we crosssectionally investigated associations between distal colorectal adenoma occurrence–potential precursor lesions of colorectal carcinomas–and plasma concentrations of methyl group donors and B-vitamins, and polymorphisms of genes related to one-carbon metabolism.Results: Screening revealed 1,809 subjects (17.1%) with at least one adenoma. The occurrence of high-risk adenomas (observed in 421 subjects) was inversely associated with plasma concentrations of methionine (highest versus lowest quartile: odds ratio (OR) = 0.61; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.45–0.83), betaine: OR = 0.74; 95% CI = 0.54–1.02, the vitamin B2 form flavin-mononucleotide (FMN): OR = 0.65; 95% CI = 0.49–0.88, and the vitamin B6 form pyridoxal 5′-phosphate (PLP): OR = 0.69; 95% CI = 0.51–0.95, but not with folate, choline, vitamin B12 concentrations, or with the studied polymorphisms. High methionine concentration in combination with high vitamin B2 or B6 concentrations was associated with lower occurrence of high-risk adenomas compared with these factors individually.Conclusions: High plasma concentrations of methionine and betaine, and vitamins B2 and B6 may reduce risk of developing colorectal adenomas.Impact: In addition to B-vitamins, methyl group donors such as methionine and betaine may play a role in colorectal carcinogenesis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 20(8); 1726–35. ©2011 AACR.

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

Background Endoscopic screening with polypectomy reduces the incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC). Incomplete polyp removal may attenuate the effect of screening. This randomized trial compared cold snare polypectomy (CSP) with hot snare polypectomy (HSP) in terms of complete polyp resection. Methods We included patients ≥ 40 years of age at eight hospitals in four countries who had at least one non-pedunculated polyp of 4–9 mm detected at colonoscopy. Patients were randomized 1:1 to CSP or HSP. Biopsies from the resection margins were obtained systematically after polypectomy in both groups. We hypothesized that CSP would be non-inferior to HSP, with a non-inferiority margin of 5 %. Logistic regression models were fitted to identify the factors explaining incomplete resection. Results 425 patients, with 601 polyps, randomized to either CSP or HSP were included in the analysis. Of 318 polyps removed by CSP and 283 polyps removed by HSP, 34 (10.7 %) and 21 (7.4 %) were incompletely resected, respectively, with an adjusted risk difference of 3.2 % (95 %CI −1.4 % to 7.8 %). There was no difference between the groups in terms of post-polypectomy bleeding, perforation, or abdominal pain. Independent risk factors for incomplete removal were serrated histology (odds ratio [OR] 3.96; 95 %CI 1.63 to 9.66) and hyperplastic histology (OR 2.52; 95 %CI 1.30 to 4.86) in adjusted analyses. Conclusion In this randomized trial, non-inferiority for CSP could not be demonstrated. Polyps with serrated histology are more prone to incomplete resection compared with adenomas. CSP can be used safely for small polyps in routine colonoscopy practice.

Objectives: This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (prognosis). The objectives are as follows:. Primary objectives The primary objectives are to identify, describe, and appraise all prognostic models developed to predict colorectal cancer incidence or mortality in patients with IBD, at any time point after the clinical diagnosis of IBD, and if possible meta-analyse their predictive performances. Investigation of sources of heterogeneity between studies Sources of heterogeneity to be investigated comprise differences in the definition of colorectal dysplasia, colorectal cancer and IBD, the type of IBD investigated, study design, time point for prognostication after the clinical diagnosis of IBD, time horizon for outcome measurements, length of follow-up, and statistical analysis applied (Debray 2017).

Background Women and men with colorectal adenomas are at increased risk of colorectal cancer and colonoscopic surveillance is recommended. However, the long-term cancer risk remains unknown. Aims To investigate colorectal cancer incidence and mortality after adenoma removal in women and men METHODS: We identified all individuals who had adenomas removed in Norway from 1993 to 2007, with follow-up through 2018. We calculated standardized incidence ratios (SIR) and incidence-based mortality ratios (SMR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for colorectal cancer in women and men using the female and male population for comparison. We defined high-risk adenomas as ≥2 adenomas, villous component, or high-grade dysplasia. Results The cohort comprised 40 293 individuals. During median follow-up of 13.0 years, 1079 women (5.5%) and 866 men (4.2%) developed colorectal cancer; 328 women (1.7%) and 275 men (1.3%) died of colorectal cancer. Colorectal cancer incidence was more increased in women (SIR 1.64, 95% CI 1.54-1.74) than in men (SIR 1.12, 95% CI 1.05-1.19). Colorectal cancer mortality was increased in women (SMR 1.13, 95% CI 1.02-1.26) and reduced in men (SMR 0.79, 95% CI 0.71-0.89). Women with high-risk adenomas had an increased risk of colorectal cancer death (SMR 1.37, 95% CI 1.19-1.57); women with low-risk adenomas (SMR 0.90, 95% CI 0.76-1.07) and men with high-risk adenomas had a similar risk (SMR 0.89, 95% CI 0.76-1.04), while men with low-risk adenomas had reduced risk (SMR 0.70, 95% CI 0.59-0.84). Conclusions After adenoma removal, women had an increased risk of colorectal cancer death, while men had reduced risk, compared to the general female and male populations. Sex-specific surveillance recommendations after adenoma removal should be considered.

Women are at high risk for painful colonoscopy. Pain, but also sedation, are barriers to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening participation. In a randomised controlled trial, we compared on-demand with pre-colonoscopy opioid administration to control pain in women at CRC screening age. Women, aged 55–79 years, attending colonoscopy at two Norwegian endoscopy units were randomised 1:1:1 to (1) fentanyl on-demand, (2) fentanyl prior to colonoscopy, or (3) alfentanil on-demand. The primary endpoint was procedural pain reported by the patients on a validated four-point Likert scale and further dichotomized for the study into painful (moderate or severe pain) and non-painful (slight or no pain) colonoscopy. Secondary endpoints were: willingness to repeat colonoscopy, adverse events, cecal intubation time and rate, and post-procedure recovery time. Between June 2017 and May 2020, 183 patients were included in intention-to-treat analyses in the fentanyl on-demand group, 177 in the fentanyl prior to colonoscopy group, and 179 in the alfentanil on-demand group. Fewer women receiving fentanyl prior to colonoscopy reported a painful colonoscopy compared to those who were given fentanyl on-demand (25.2% vs. 44.1%, p < .001). There was no difference in the proportion of painful colonoscopies between fentanyl on-demand and alfentanil on-demand (44.1% vs. 39.5%, p = .40). No differences were observed for adverse events or any of the other secondary endpoints between the three groups. Fentanyl prior to colonoscopy provided better pain control than fentanyl or alfentanil on-demand. Fentanyl before colonoscopy should be recommended to all women at screening age. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 01538550). Norwegian Medicines Agency (16/16266-13). EU Clinical Trials Register (EUDRACTNR. 2016-005090-13)

Background: Although colonoscopy is widely used as a screening test to detect colorectal cancer, its effect on the risks of colorectal cancer and related death is unclear. Methods: We performed a pragmatic, randomized trial involving presumptively healthy men and women 55 to 64 years of age drawn from population registries in Poland, Norway, Sweden, and the Netherlands between 2009 and 2014. The participants were randomly assigned in a 1:2 ratio to either receive an invitation to undergo a single screening colonoscopy (the invited group) or to receive no invitation or screening (the usual-care group). The primary end points were the risks of colorectal cancer and related death, and the secondary end point was death from any cause. Results: Follow-up data were available for 84,585 participants in Poland, Norway, and Sweden - 28,220 in the invited group, 11,843 of whom (42.0%) underwent screening, and 56,365 in the usual-care group. A total of 15 participants had major bleeding after polyp removal. No perforations or screening-related deaths occurred within 30 days after colonoscopy. During a median follow-up of 10 years, 259 cases of colorectal cancer were diagnosed in the invited group as compared with 622 cases in the usual-care group. In intention-to-screen analyses, the risk of colorectal cancer at 10 years was 0.98% in the invited group and 1.20% in the usual-care group, a risk reduction of 18% (risk ratio, 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.70 to 0.93). The risk of death from colorectal cancer was 0.28% in the invited group and 0.31% in the usual-care group (risk ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.64 to 1.16). The number needed to invite to undergo screening to prevent one case of colorectal cancer was 455 (95% CI, 270 to 1429). The risk of death from any cause was 11.03% in the invited group and 11.04% in the usual-care group (risk ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.04). Conclusions: In this randomized trial, the risk of colorectal cancer at 10 years was lower among participants who were invited to undergo screening colonoscopy than among those who were assigned to no screening. (Funded by the Research Council of Norway and others; NordICC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00883792.).

Among the characteristics of high-risk adenomas (HRA), 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 (AA).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 (RR) using a random-effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed with the IFifty-five studies were included, with 936,540 patients. CRC incidence per 1,000 person-years was 2.6 (2.1-3.0) for adenomas ≥20mm, 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 ≥20mm vs 10-19mm (RR 2.08, 95%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 1-2 (RR 1.24, 95%CI 0.84-1.83), nor in ≥5 adenomas vs 3-4 (RR 0.79, 95%CI 0.30-2.11). Compared to 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, 2.03 (95%CI 1.40-2.94) for ≥3 adenomas. Similar trends were seen for metachronous AA.Metachronous CRC risk is highest in patients with baseline adenomas with ≥20mm or HGD. Multiplicity does not seem to be associated with substantially higher CRC risk.

Adenoma Detection Rate (ADR) is still the main surrogate outcome parameter of screening colonoscopy, but most of the studies included mixed indications and basic ADR is quite variable. We therefore looked at the control groups in randomized ADR trials using advanced imaging or mechanical methods to find out whether indications or other factors influence ADR levels.Patients in the control groups of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on ADR increase using various methods were collected based on a systematic review; this control group had to use high-definition (HD) white-light endoscopy performed between 2008 and 2021. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to pool ADR in control groups and its 95% confidence interval (CI) according to the following parameters: clinical (indication and demographic), study setting (tandem/parallel, N° centers, sample size), and technical (type of intervention, withdrawal time). Inter-study heterogeneity was reported with I-squared statistic. Multivariable mixed-effects meta-regression was performed for potentially relevant variables.25,304 patients from 80 studies in the respective control groups were included. ADR in control arms varied between 8.2% and 68.1% with a high degree of heterogeneity (I2 = 95.1%; random-effect pooled value: 37.5% [34.6‒40.5]). There was no difference in ADR levels between primary colonoscopy screening (12 RCTs, 15%), and mixed indications including screening/surveillance and diagnostic colonoscopy; however, FIT as an indication for colonoscopy was an independent predictor of ADR (OR: 1.6 [1.1‒2.4]). Other well-known parameters were confirmed by our analysis such as age (OR: 1.038 [1.004‒1.074]) and sex (male sex: OR: 1.02 [1.01‒1.03) as well withdrawal time (OR: 1.1 [1.0‒1.1). The type of intervention (imaging vs. mechanical) had no influence, but methodological factors did: more recent year of publication and smaller sample size were associated with higher ADR.A high level of variability was found in the level of ADR in the controls of RCTs. With regards to indications, only FIT-based colonoscopy studies influenced basic ADR, primary colonoscopy screening appeared to be similar to other indications. Standardization for variables related to clinical, methodological, and technical parameters is required to achieve generalizability and reproducibility.

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.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.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]).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.

ObjectiveTo estimate the risk of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL) and Hodgkin’s lymphoma (HL) in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).DesignWe undertook a two-country population cohort study with all patients diagnosed with IBD in Norway and Sweden from 1987 and 1993 through 2015 and 2016, respectively, and analysed the risk of NHL and HL. In Sweden, we also analysed prescriptions of thiopurines and anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-α therapy from 2005. We calculated standardised incidence ratios (SIRs) with 95% CIs using the general populations as reference.ResultsAmong 131 492 patients with IBD with a medium follow-up of 9.6 years, we identified 369 cases of NHL and 44 cases of HL. The SIR of NHL was 1.3 (95% CI 1.1 to 1.5) in ulcerative colitis and 1.4 (95% CI 1.2 to 1.7) in Crohn’s disease. We found no compelling heterogeneity in analyses stratified by patient characteristics. We found a similar pattern and magnitude of excess risks for HL. At 10 years, cumulative incidence was 0.26% (95% CI 0.23% to 0.30%) and 0.06% (95% CI 0.04% to 0.08%) for NHL and HL, respectively. Higher excess risks were found among patients with NHL with concomitant primary sclerosing cholangitis (SIR 3.4; 95% CI 2.1 to 5.2) and in those prescribed thiopurines alone (SIR 2.8; 95% CI 1.4 to 5.7) or with anti-TNF-α agents (SIR 5.7; 95% CI 2.7 to 11.9).ConclusionPatients with IBD have a statistically significant increased risk of malignant lymphomas compared with the general population, but the absolute risk remains low.

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).

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.

Background Patients who have undergone Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) are at increased risk of biliary disease necessitating endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). The most widely used approaches to perform ERCP after RYGB are laparoscopy-assisted ERCP (LA-ERCP) and balloon enteroscopy-assisted ERCP (BEA-ERCP). There are few studies comparing these procedures. We aimed to compare the performance, benefits, and harms of LA-ERCP and BEA-ERCP in RYGB patients. Methods We identified all RYGB patients who underwent ERCP at two tertiary care endoscopy centers in Oslo, Norway between May 2013 and December 2017. One center performed BEA-ERCP, the other LA-ERCP. Procedure success was defined as fulfillment of the therapeutic or diagnostic aim, according to the procedure description. Adverse events were classified according to the Clavien–Dindo grading system. Results During the study period, 40 BEA-ERCP and 39 LA-ERCP procedures were performed in 68 patients. Procedure success rate was 72.5 % for BEA-ERCP and 87.2 % for LA-ERCP (P = 0.14). Adverse events occurred in 18 % of BEA-ERCP and 28 % of LA-ERCP (P = 0.23). Serious adverse events (Clavien–Dindo grade ≥ 3b) occurred in 2.5 % of BEA-ERCP and 7.7 % of LA-ERCP procedures (P = 0.36). Concomitant cholecystectomy was performed in 25 of the 39 LA-ERCP procedures. The median procedure times for LA-ERCP performed with and without concomitant cholecystectomy were 201 minutes and 140 minutes, respectively, and for BEA-ERCP was 125 minutes. Conclusions In experienced hands, both LA-ERCP and BEA-ERCP have high success rates after RYGB. The choice of approach should be individualized according to patient characteristics and available physician competence.

Because of a lack of reliable preoperative prediction of lymph node involvement in early-stage T2 colorectal cancer (CRC), surgical resection is the current standard treatment. This leads to overtreatment because only 25% of T2 CRC patients turn out to have lymph node metastasis (LNM). We assessed a novel artificial intelligence (AI) system to predict LNM in T2 CRC to ascertain patients who can be safely treated with less-invasive endoscopic resection such as endoscopic full-thickness resection and do not need surgery.We included 511 consecutive patients who had surgical resection with T2 CRC from 2001 to 2016; 411 patients (2001-2014) were used as a training set for the random forest-based AI prediction tool, and 100 patients (2014-2016) were used to validate the AI tool performance. The AI algorithm included 8 clinicopathologic variables (patient age and sex, tumor size and location, lymphatic invasion, vascular invasion, histologic differentiation, and serum carcinoembryonic antigen level) and predicted the likelihood of LNM by receiver-operating characteristics using area under the curve (AUC) estimates.Rates of LNM in the training and validation datasets were 26% (106/411) and 28% (28/100), respectively. The AUC of the AI algorithm for the validation cohort was .93. With 96% sensitivity (95% confidence interval, 90%-99%), specificity was 88% (95% confidence interval, 80%-94%). In this case, 64% of patients could avoid surgery, whereas 1.6% of patients with LNM would lose a chance to receive surgery.Our proposed AI prediction model has a potential to reduce unnecessary surgery for patients with T2 CRC with very little risk. (Clinical trial registration number: UMIN 000038257.).

Climate change and the destruction of ecosystems by human activities are among the greatest challenges of the 21st century and require urgent action. Health care activities significantly contribute to the emission of greenhouse gases and waste production, with gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy being one of the largest contributors. This Position Statement aims to raise awareness of the ecological footprint of GI endoscopy and provides guidance to reduce its environmental impact. The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and the European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates (ESGENA) outline suggestions and recommendations for health care providers, patients, governments, and industry. Main statements 1 GI endoscopy is a resource-intensive activity with a significant yet poorly assessed environmental impact. 2 ESGE-ESGENA recommend adopting immediate actions to reduce the environmental impact of GI endoscopy. 3 ESGE-ESGENA recommend adherence to guidelines and implementation of audit strategies on the appropriateness of GI endoscopy to avoid the environmental impact of unnecessary procedures. 4 ESGE-ESGENA recommend the embedding of reduce, reuse, and recycle programs in the GI endoscopy unit. 5 ESGE-ESGENA suggest that there is an urgent need to reassess and reduce the environmental and economic impact of single-use GI endoscopic devices. 6 ESGE-ESGENA suggest against routine use of single-use GI endoscopes. However, their use could be considered in highly selected patients on a case-by-case basis. 7 ESGE-ESGENA recommend inclusion of sustainability in the training curricula of GI endoscopy and as a quality domain. 8 ESGE-ESGENA recommend conducting high quality research to quantify and minimize the environmental impact of GI endoscopy. 9 ESGE-ESGENA recommend that GI endoscopy companies assess, disclose, and audit the environmental impact of their value chain. 10 ESGE-ESGENA recommend that GI endoscopy should become a net-zero greenhouse gas emissions practice by 2050.

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

Background: During the first wave of the Covid-19 epidemic, a national lockdown was established in Norway, and inhabitants were asked to contact healthcare only if absolutely necessary. We investigated hospital admissions and mortality due to non-Covid-19 disease during the lockdown compared to previous years. Methods: We compared the number of emergency admissions and in-hospital fatality for diagnoses probably unaffected (acute myocardial infarction, acute abdominal conditions, cerebrovascular diseases) and affected by the lockdown (infections, injuries) in the South-Eastern Health Region of Norway during weeks 12–22, 2020, compared to the mean of the same period in the years 2017–2019. We also compared population mortality March–May 2020, to the mean of the same period in years 2017–2019. Results: A total of 280,043 emergency admissions were observed; 20,911 admissions probably unaffected, and 30,905 admissions probably affected by the lockdown. Admissions due to diagnoses probably unaffected was reduced by 12% (95% confidence interval (CI) 9–15%), compared to 2017–2019. Admissions for diagnoses probably affected was reduced by 30% (95% CI 28–32%). There was a 34% reduction in in-hospital fatality due to acute myocardial infarction (95% CI 4–56%), 19% due to infections (95% CI 1–33%), and no change for the other diagnoses, compared to 2017–2019. The risk of in-hospital mortality to total mortality was lower for acute myocardial infarction (relative risk 0.85, 95% CI 0.73–0.99) and injuries (relative risk 0.83, 95% CI 0.70–0.98). Conclusions: Even though fewer patients were admitted to hospital, there was no increase in in-hospital fatality or population mortality, indicating that those who were most in need still received adequate care.

Contains fulltext : 252148.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access)

Digestive cancer; Screening; Europe Cáncer digestivo; Cribado; Europa Càncer digestiu; Cribratge; Europa

Introduction: In colorectal cancer (CRC) surveillance, adenoma characteristics such as size, number of adenomas, dysplasia, and villous components, are used as indicators for risk of developing metachronous cancer and guide the surveillance interval. The current risk groups (e.g., advanced adenomas) cannot optimally distinguish high risk from low risk, which may result in suboptimal surveillance strategies. Specific DNA copy number aberrations are associated with risk of colorectal adenoma-to-carcinoma progression, but these aberrations are present in only a subset of advanced adenomas. Therefore, we hypothesize that specific DNA copy number aberrations may better predict the risk of CRC than advanced adenoma. Aim: To evaluate whether a molecularly-defined high-risk adenoma is a better risk factor for CRC than the presently used advanced adenoma. Materials and methods: DNA copy number profiles were determined, by means of low-coverage whole genome sequencing, on a series of 529 adenomas, selected from a Norwegian adenoma cohort. We retrieved detailed information on adenoma characteristics and whether adenoma patients were subsequently diagnosed with CRC or not. By univariate and multivariate regression analysis we estimated the odds ratio for association between the development of CRC and baseline presence of advanced adenoma versus presence of a molecularly-defined high-risk adenoma, respectively. Results: Molecular high-risk features were observed in 85/267 (32%) of advanced adenomas and in 27/262 (10%) of non-advanced adenomas. The odds ratio for developing metachronous CRC was 3.58 (p=2.84E-8) and 1.90 (p=0.012), when an advanced adenoma or molecular high-risk adenoma was detected at the baseline colonoscopy, respectively. In the multivariate regression analysis only advanced adenoma was as a significant risk factor for CRC. Conclusion: Molecularly-defined high-risk adenomas are associated with an increased risk of CRC. However, the advanced adenoma is a stronger predictor for risk of CRC. Citation Format: Henriette C. Jodal, Eddymurphy U. Akwiwu, Leticia G. Leon, Margriet Lemmens, Pien Delis-van Diemen, Dagmar Klotz, Meike de Wit, Remond Fijneman, Monique van Leerdam, Evelien Dekker, Manon C. W. Spaander, Gerrit A. Meijer, Michael Bretthauer, Magnus Løberg, Veerle M. H. Coupé, Mette Kalager, Beatriz Carvalho. Molecular adenoma features to predict metachronous colorectal cancer risk: A nested-case control study [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference on Colorectal Cancer; 2022 Oct 1-4; Portland, OR. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(23 Suppl_1):Abstract nr A004.