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.

This ESGE Position Statement defines the expected value of artificial intelligence (AI) for the diagnosis and management of gastrointestinal neoplasia within the framework of the performance measures already defined by ESGE. This is based on the clinical relevance of the expected task and the preliminary evidence regarding artificial intelligence in artificial or clinical settings. Main recommendations: (1) For acceptance of AI in assessment of completeness of upper GI endoscopy, the adequate level of mucosal inspection with AI should be comparable to that assessed by experienced endoscopists. (2) For acceptance of AI in assessment of completeness of upper GI endoscopy, automated recognition and photodocumentation of relevant anatomical landmarks should be obtained in ≥90% of the procedures. (3) For acceptance of AI in the detection of Barrett’s high grade intraepithelial neoplasia or cancer, the AI-assisted detection rate for suspicious lesions for targeted biopsies should be comparable to that of experienced endoscopists with or without advanced imaging techniques. (4) For acceptance of AI in the management of Barrett’s neoplasia, AI-assisted selection of lesions amenable to endoscopic resection should be comparable to that of experienced endoscopists. (5) For acceptance of AI in the diagnosis of gastric precancerous conditions, AI-assisted diagnosis of atrophy and intestinal metaplasia should be comparable to that provided by the established biopsy protocol, including the estimation of extent, and consequent allocation to the correct endoscopic surveillance interval. (6) For acceptance of artificial intelligence for automated lesion detection in small-bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE), the performance of AI-assisted reading should be comparable to that of experienced endoscopists for lesion detection, without increasing but possibly reducing the reading time of the operator. (7) For acceptance of AI in the detection of colorectal polyps, the AI-assisted adenoma detection rate should be comparable to that of experienced endoscopists. (8) For acceptance of AI optical diagnosis (computer-aided diagnosis [CADx]) of diminutive polyps (≤5 mm), AI-assisted characterization should match performance standards for implementing resect-and-discard and diagnose-and-leave strategies. (9) For acceptance of AI in the management of polyps ≥ 6 mm, AI-assisted characterization should be comparable to that of experienced endoscopists in selecting lesions amenable to endoscopic resection.

Introduction In this study, we review long-term outcomes of gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection [ESD] in western setting in light of the latest Japanese indication criteria, and examine predictors of outcomes and complications. Methods Data was collected on consecutive patients referred for gastric ESD in four participating centres from 2009 to 2021. Retrospective analysis of data with logistic regression and survival analysis was performed. Results A total of 415 patients were included. Mean age was 71.7 years, 56.4% were males. Absolute indication criteria [2018 guidelines] were fulfilled in 75.3% of patients. Median follow-up was 52 months. Post-resection histology was adenocarcinoma, HGD and LGD in 49.9%, 22.7% and 17.1% respectively. Perforation, early bleeding and delayed bleeding occurred in 2.4%, 4.3% and 3.4% respectively. En-bloc, R0 and recurrence on first endoscopic follow-up were 94.7%, 83.4% and 2.7% respectively. Relative indication [2018 Guidelines] for ESD was associated with R1 outcome [P-value 0.002]. Distal location [P-value 0.002] and increased procedure time [P-value 0.04] were significantly associated with bleeding risk, whereas scarring [P-value 0.009] and increased procedure duration [P-value 0.003] were associated with perforation. Recurrence-free survival at 2 years and 5 years was 94% and 83% respectively. Conclusion This is the largest multicenter western cohort suggesting gastric ESD is safe and effective in the western setting. A quarter of our patients fell outside of the new absolute indications for ESD, suggesting that western practice involves more advanced lesions. We identified the predictors of adverse outcomes in western practice. This should inform future practice and research.

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.

Background A high rate of neoplasia, both high grade dysplasia (HGD) and esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) has been reported in Barrett’s esophagus at index endoscopy, but precise rates of post-endoscopy Barrett’s neoplasia (PEBN) are unknown. Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed examining electronic databases (inception to October 2021) for studies reporting PEBN. Consistent with the definitions of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer proposed by the World Endoscopy Organization, we defined neoplasia (HGD/EAC) detected at index endoscopy and/or within 6 months of a negative index endoscopy as “prevalent” neoplasia, that detected after 6 months of a negative index endoscopy and prior to next surveillance interval (i. e. 3 years) as PEBN or “interval” neoplasia, and that detected after 36 months from a negative index endoscopy as “incident” neoplasia. The pooled incidence rates and proportions relative to total neoplasia were analyzed. Results 11 studies (n = 59 795; 61 % men; mean [SD] age 62.3 [3.3] years) met the inclusion criteria. The pooled incidence rates were: prevalent neoplasia 4.5 % (95 %CI 2.2 %–8.9 %) at baseline and an additional 0.3 % (0.1 %–0.7 %) within the first 6 months, PEBN 0.52 % (0.46 %–0.58 %), and incident neoplasia 1.4 % (0.9 %–2.1 %). At 3 years from the index endoscopy, PEBN accounted for 3 % of total Barrett’s neoplasia, while prevalent neoplasia accounted for 97 %. Conclusion Neoplasia detected at or within 6 months of index endoscopy accounts for most cases of Barrett’s neoplasia (> 90 %). PEBN accounts for ~3 % of cases and can be used for validation in future. This highlights the importance of a high quality index endoscopy in Barrett’s esophagus and the need to establish quality benchmarks to measure endoscopists’ performance.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Current guidelines recommend endoscopic resection of visible and endoscopically resectable colorectal colitis-associated neoplasia (CAN) in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). However, patients with high-risk CAN (HR-CAN) are often not amenable to conventional resection techniques, and a consensus approach for the endoscopic management of these lesions is presently lacking. This Delphi study aims to reach consensus among experts on the endoscopic management of these lesions. METHODS: A 3-round modified Delphi process was conducted to reach consensus among worldwide IBD and/or endoscopy experts (n = 18) from 3 continents. Consensus was considered if ≥75% agreed or disagreed. Quality of evidence was assessed by the criteria of the Cochrane Collaboration group. RESULTS: Consensus was reached on all statements (n = 14). Experts agreed on a definition for CAN and HR-CAN. Consensus was reached on the examination of the colon with enhanced endoscopic imaging before resection, the endoscopic resectability of an HR-CAN lesion, and endoscopic assessment and standard report of CAN lesions. In addition, experts agreed on type of resections of HR-CAN (< 20 mm, >20 mm, with or without good lifting), endoscopic success (technical success and outcomes), histologic assessment, and follow-up in HR-CAN. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first step in developing international consensus-based recommendations for endoscopic management of CAN and HR-CAN. Although the quality of available evidence was considered low, consensus was reached on several aspects of the management of CAN and HR-CAN. The present work and proposed standardization might benefit future studies. ispartof: GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY vol:97 issue:4 ispartof: location:United States status: published

Background A significant proportion of upper gastrointestinal cancers (UGICs) remain undetected during esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). We investigated the characteristics and risk factors of UGICs missed during endoscopy. Methods In this nationwide registry-based study, we analyzed two large Polish datasets (National Health Fund and National Cancer Registry) to identify individuals who underwent EGD and were subsequently diagnosed with UGIC. Cancers diagnosed Results We included 4 105 399 patients (mean age 56.0 years [SD 17.4]; 57.5 % female) who underwent 5 877 674 EGDs in 2012–2018. Within this cohort, 33 241 UGICs were diagnosed, of which 1993 (6.0 %) were missed. Within esophageal neoplasms, adenocarcinomas were more frequently missed than squamous cell cancers (6.1 % vs. 4.2 %), with a relative risk of 1.4 (95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.1–1.8, P = 0.01). Most gastric cancers were adenocarcinomas, of which 5.7 % were classified as missed. Overall, a higher proportion of missed UGICs than prevalent cancers presented at an advanced stage (42.2 % vs. 36.2 %, P Conclusions Among UGICs, esophageal adenocarcinomas were missed most frequently. Missed cancers occur more frequently within the primary care sector and are found more often in women and individuals with multiple comorbidities.

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.).

In the era of populational screening programs for colorectal cancer, evaluation of their quality and efficacy becomes an important issue. One of the main criteria taken into account when assessing the quality of a screening program is related to the risk of colorectal cancer developing in the period between the screening colonoscopy and the control examination. The objective of this article consists in presenting the results of the doctoral research carried out by dr. Paulina Wieszcza, a beneficient of the Polpharma Scientific Foundation scholarship. The objective of the doctoral dissertation was to investigate and discuss the relationship between the definition of risk groups as well as the quality of the study and the risk of colorectal cancer developing after the screening colonoscopy. The risk of colorectal cancer developing following adenomas being removed during the screening colonoscopy procedure was assessed using data obtained from the Colorectal Cancer Screening Program and the National Cancer Registry databases. The quality of the study was assessed on the basis of literature evidence regarding the adenoma detection rates (ADR). A total of 236.089 patients were included in colorectal cancer risk analyses, with at least one adenoma being detected in a screening study in 17.7% of cases. Over the follow-up period (median of 7 years, maximum duration of 14 years), colorectal cancer was detected in 439 patients. It was demonstrated that when the high-risk group was defined as patients presenting with adenomas ≥ 20 mm in diameter or high grade dysplasia rather than patients with ≥ 3 adenomas or adenomas ≥10 mm in diameter with high grade dysplasia or villous component (current definition), the number of patients requiring intensive surveillance can be reduced by 74% without any impact on the risk in the low-risk group. The literature review revealed a total of three studies which clearly showed that the risk of colorectal cancer significantly decreased with the increase in the endoscopist’s ADR. Restricting the high-risk group to patients with adenomas ≥ 20 mm in diameter or high-grade dysplasia facilitates optimized care being delivered to patients with a significantly increased risk of colorectal cancer. Scientific evidence is available for the important role of endoscopist’s ADR as the key parameter of the quality of colonoscopic examination.

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) presents a short list of performance measures for colonoscopy in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients. Current performance measures for colonoscopy mainly focus on detecting (pre)malignant lesions. However, these performance measures are not relevant for all colonoscopy indications in IBD patients. Therefore, our aim was to provide endoscopy services across Europe and other interested countries with a tool for quality monitoring and improvement in IBD colonoscopy. Eight key performance measures and one minor performance measure were recommended for measurement and evaluation in daily endoscopy practice.

Risk factors of cervical cancer (CC) development are well investigated, however, those influencing the risk of a potential false negative cytology preceding diagnosis of an invasive CC are not. We have aimed to explore these factors according to the data from Organised Cervical Cancer Screening Programme (OCCSP) in Poland. A total of 2.36 million of Pap tests sampled in 2010–2012 within OCCSP were merged with the Polish National Cancer Registry to identify CC cases after abnormal cytology and after normal cytology within 3 years of screening. Of 1460 invasive CCs, 1025 were preceded by abnormal and 399 by normal cytology result. Multivariate logistic analysis indicated that the presence of microorganisms in the Pap (OR = 2.18, 95% CI 1.65–2.87), evaluation by smaller (below 9000 slides processed per year) laboratories (OR = 1.60, 95% CI 1.22–2.09) and non‐squamous histology of cancer increased the odds for a potential false negative result (OR = 3.39, 95% CI 2.37–4.85 for adenocarcinoma, OR = 1.99, 95% CI 1.11–3.55 for other types of carcinoma), whereas cervical ectropion, other macroscopic changes on the cervix and smoking decrease the odds for a potential false negative Pap test result preceding CC (OR = 0.61, 95% CI 0.45–0.82, OR = 0.41, 95% CI 0.25–0.67, OR = 0.60, 95% CI 0.46–0.78, respectively). Proper triage of women with microscopic signs of microorganisms in the Pap smear should be reconsidered and cytology should be assessed in laboratories processing over 9000 slides annually to decrease the odds for negative Pap test result in 2 years before CC diagnosis. Information on macroscopic changes on the cervix provided to cytomorphologist may reduce the risk of a potential false negative cytology result., Although aetiology of cervical cancer is well established, risk factors for missing advanced cervical neoplasia in screening vary. In our study, on over 2.36 million of Pap tests higher risk of a potential false negative smear was associated with a low laboratory workload, and thus, we propose a minimum benchmark. Additional risk factors of a negative cytology result before cervical cancer diagnosis were presence of microorganisms in the smear and non‐squamous histology of cancer. Ectropion, other macroscopic changes of the cervix and smoking decreased the risk.

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.

Introduction. So far, cancer burden has mainly been connected with the age structure of a given population and changes in risk factor exposure combined with lifestyle. Nowadays, available data indicates that the SARS-CoV-2 virus may be a new strong agent impacting the number of cancer deaths in the future. Material and methods. In our study we analyzed changes in cancer screening as well as participation in a fast path of oncological diagnosis and treatment – before and during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in Poland – taking into consideration breast, colorectal and cervical cancer. Results. We investigated substantial changes connected with the pandemic. In the case of cancer screening – despite the end of lockdown – population coverage and participation percentages are still lower than before the pandemic. Discussion. Similar results were observed in different studies, e.g. in the United Kingdom similar declines are evident as well as a simultaneous prognosis of an increase in cancer death numbers. Conclusions. Immediate health policy actions are needed in order to reverse unfavorable trends in cancer screening, treatment and ultimately in the number of cancer deaths in Poland.

Main recommendations1. ESGE/ESGAR recommend computed tomographic colonography (CTC) as the radiological examination of choice for the diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. ESGE/ESGAR do not recommend barium enema in this setting. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.2. ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC, preferably the same or next day, if colonoscopy is incomplete. The timing depends on an interdisciplinary decision including endoscopic and radiological factors. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. ESGE/ESGAR suggests that, in centers with expertise in and availability of colon capsule endoscopy (CCE), CCE preferably the same or the next day may be considered if colonoscopy is incomplete. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.3. When colonoscopy is contraindicated or not possible, ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an acceptable and equally sensitive alternative for patients with alarm symptoms. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. Because of lack of direct evidence, ESGE/ESGAR do not recommend CCE in this situation. Very low quality evidence. ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an acceptable alternative to colonoscopy for patients with non-alarm symptoms. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. In centers with availability, ESGE/ESGAR suggests that CCE may be considered in patients with non-alarm symptoms. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.4. Where there is no organized fecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based population colorectal screening program, ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an option for colorectal cancer screening, providing the screenee is adequately informed about test characteristics, benefits, and risks, and depending on local service- and patient-related factors. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. ESGE/ESGAR do not suggest CCE as a first-line screening test for colorectal cancer. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.5. ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC in the case of a positive fecal occult blood test (FOBT) or FIT with incomplete or unfeasible colonoscopy, within organized population screening programs. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. ESGE/ESGAR also suggest the use of CCE in this setting based on availability. Weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence.6. ESGE/ESGAR suggest CTC with intravenous contrast medium injection for surveillance after curative-intent resection of colorectal cancer only in patients in whom colonoscopy is contraindicated or unfeasible. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. There is insufficient evidence to recommend CCE in this setting. Very low quality evidence.7. ESGE/ESGAR suggest CTC in patients with high risk polyps undergoing surveillance after polypectomy only when colonoscopy is unfeasible. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. There is insufficient evidence to recommend CCE in post-polypectomy surveillance. Very low quality evidence.8. ESGE/ESGAR recommend against CTC in patients with acute colonic inflammation and in those who have recently undergone colorectal surgery, pending a multidisciplinary evaluation. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 9. ESGE/ESGAR recommend referral for endoscopic polypectomy in patients with at least one polyp >= 6 mm detected at CTC or CCE. Follow-up CTC may be clinically considered for 6-9-mm CTC-detected lesions if patients do not undergo polypectomy because of patient choice, comorbidity, and/or low risk profile for advanced neoplasia. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.Source and scopeThis is an update of the 2014-15 Guideline of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and the European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR). It addresses the clinical indications for the use of imaging alternatives to standard colonoscopy. A targeted literature search was performed to evaluate the evidence supporting the use of computed tomographic colonography (CTC) or colon capsule endoscopy (CCE). The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system was adopted to define the strength of recommendations and the quality of evidence.

Current guidelines recommend a 10-year interval between screening colonoscopies, but evidence is limited.To assess the long-term risk for colorectal cancer (CRC) and death from CRC after a high- and low-quality single negative screening colonoscopy.Observational study.Polish Colonoscopy Screening Program.Average-risk individuals aged 50 to 66 years who had a single negative colonoscopy (no neoplastic findings).Standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) and standardized mortality ratios (SMRs) of CRC after high- and low-quality single negative screening colonoscopy. High-quality colonoscopy included a complete examination, with adequate bowel preparation, performed by endoscopists with an adenoma detection rate of 20% or greater.Among 165 887 individuals followed for up to 17.4 years, CRC incidence (0.28 [95% CI, 0.25 to 0.30]) and mortality (0.19 [CI, 0.16 to 0.21]) were 72% and 81% lower, respectively, than in the general population. High-quality examination resulted in 2-fold lower CRC incidence (SIR, 0.16 [CI, 0.13 to 0.20]) and mortality (SMR, 0.10 [CI, 0.06 to 0.14]) than low-quality examination (SIR, 0.32 [CI, 0.29 to 0.35]; SMR, 0.22 [CI, 0.18 to 0.25]). In multivariable analysis, the hazard ratios for CRC incidence after high-quality versus low-quality colonoscopy were 0.55 (CI, 0.35 to 0.86) for 0 to 5 years, 0.54 (CI, 0.38 to 0.77) for 5.1 to 10 years, and 0.46 (CI, 0.25 to 0.86) for 10 to 17.4 years. Only after high-quality colonoscopy did the SIR and SMR for 10.1 to 17.4 years of follow-up not differ compared with earlier observation periods.The general population was used as the comparison group.A single negative screening colonoscopy was associated with reduced CRC incidence and mortality for up to 17.4 years. Only high-quality colonoscopy yielded profound and stable reductions in CRC incidence and mortality throughout the entire follow-up.Polish Ministry of Health.

In Poland, cervical cancer incidence and mortality still remain considerably higher than in Western European countries or North America. Recent data indicate decreasing trends in women younger than 60 years and stable trends in older women. In this article, we identified obstacles in primary and secondary prevention of cervical cancer in Poland. We analysed local legislation, management structure and organization of cervical cancer prevention in Poland and reviewed solutions available and implemented in other European countries. The main weaknesses include: (i) very low coverage of organized screening; concurrent unregistered opportunistic screening with unknown coverage and high test consumption (ii) suboptimal quality assurance in organized screening and no external quality assurance in opportunistic screening (iii) very low coverage of human papillomavirus vaccination that is not centrally reimbursed (iv) absence of pilot evaluation of (a) interventions that may improve population coverage and (b) performance of new preventive strategies. The proposed solutions are multifaceted and involve: (i) legislative and organizational regulation of cervical cancer screening aimed at comprehensive registration of procedures, data access and quality assurance (ii) pilot testing and implementation of new ways to increase coverage of cervical cancer screening, in particular among older women (iii) pilot evaluation with possible introduction of human papillomavirus-based screening and (iv) inclusion of human papillomavirus vaccination into the reimbursed national immunization program.

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.

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

The proportion of colonoscopies with at least one adenoma (adenoma detection rate [ADR]) is inversely associated with colorectal cancer (CRC) risk and death. The aim of this study was to examine whether such associations exist for colonoscopy quality measures other than ADR.We used data from the Polish Colorectal Cancer Screening Program collected in 2000-2011. For all endoscopists who performed ≥100 colonoscopies we calculated detection rates of adenomas (ADR), polyps (PDR), and advanced adenomas (≥10 mm/villous component/high-grade dysplasia [AADR]); and number of adenomas per colonoscopy (APC) and per colonoscopy with ≥1 adenoma (APPC). We followed patients until CRC diagnosed before recommended surveillance, death, or December 31, 2019. We estimated hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using Cox proportional-hazard models. We used Harrell's C statistic to compare the predictive power of the quality measures.Data on 173,287 patients (median age, 56 years; 37.8% male) and 262 endoscopists were used. During a median follow-up of 10 years and 1,490,683 person-years, we identified 395 CRCs. All quality measures were significantly associated with CRC risk and death. The relative reductions in CRC risk were as follows: for ADR ≥24.9% (reference12.1%; HR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.25-0.66), PDR ≥42.7% (reference19.9%; HR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.24-0.51), AADR ≥9.1% (reference4.1%; HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.49-0.96), APC ≥0.37 (reference0.15; HR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.21-0.58), and APPC ≥1.54 (reference1.19; HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.35-0.83). AADR was the only quality measure with significantly lower predictive power than ADR (Harrell's C, 59.7 vs 63.4; P = .001). Similar relative reductions were observed for CRC death.This large observational study confirmed the inverse association between ADR and CRC risk and death. The PDR and APC quality measures appear to be comparable with ADR.

Artificial intelligence (AI) tools increase detection of precancerous polyps during colonoscopy and might contribute to long-term colorectal cancer prevention. The aim of the study was to investigate the incremental effect of the implementation of AI detection tools in screening colonoscopy on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality, and the cost-effectiveness of such tools.We conducted Markov model microsimulation of using colonoscopy with and without AI for colorectal cancer screening for individuals at average risk (no personal or family history of colorectal cancer, adenomas, inflammatory bowel disease, or hereditary colorectal cancer syndrome). We ran the microsimulation in a hypothetical cohort of 100 000 individuals in the USA aged 50-100 years. The primary analysis investigated screening colonoscopy with versus without AI every 10 years starting at age 50 years and finishing at age 80 years, with follow-up until age 100 years, assuming 60% screening population uptake. In secondary analyses, we modelled once-in-life screening colonoscopy at age 65 years in adults aged 50-79 years at average risk for colorectal cancer. Post-polypectomy surveillance followed the simplified current guideline. Costs of AI tools and cost for downstream treatment of screening detected disease were estimated with 3% annual discount rates. The main outcome measures included the incremental effect of AI-assisted colonoscopy versus standard (no-AI) colonoscopy on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality, and cost-effectiveness of screening projected for the average risk screening US population.In the primary analyses, compared with no screening, the relative reduction of colorectal cancer incidence with screening colonoscopy without AI tools was 44·2% and with screening colonoscopy with AI tools was 48·9% (4·8% incremental gain). Compared with no screening, the relative reduction in colorectal cancer mortality with screening colonoscopy with no AI was 48·7% and with screening colonoscopy with AI was 52·3% (3·6% incremental gain). AI detection tools decreased the discounted costs per screened individual from $3400 to $3343 (a saving of $57 per individual). Results were similar in the secondary analyses modelling once-in-life colonoscopy. At the US population level, the implementation of AI detection during screening colonoscopy resulted in yearly additional prevention of 7194 colorectal cancer cases and 2089 related deaths, and a yearly saving of US$290 million.Our findings suggest that implementation of AI detection tools in screening colonoscopy is a cost-saving strategy to further prevent colorectal cancer incidence and mortality.European Commission and Japan Society of Promotion of Science.

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: Obesity is a known risk factor of colorectal cancer (CRC). However, precise interconnections between excessive body fat and CRC are still vague. Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess whether stage of CRC detected in overweight and obese individuals differs from individuals with normal body mass index (BMI). A secondary aim of this study was to elucidate whether overweight and obesity influence the overall survival in CRC. METHODS: This study was a cross-sectional analysis of 163,129 individuals who underwent screening colonoscopy performed on data from a prospectively maintained database of the Polish Colonoscopy Screening Program. RESULTS: Overweight and obese individuals present with a less advanced CRC in screening setting (p = 0.014). This trend is the most pronounced in males (p = 0.001). Univariable and multivariable analyses revealed that obesity was a negative predictor of detection of advanced CRC with odds ratio 0.72 (95% confidence interval 0.52–1.00; p = 0.047). Furthermore, overweight and obesity were not statistically significant predictors of risk of death (p = 0.614 and p = 0.446, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Obese screenees present with a less advanced disease in comparison to non-obese. Moreover, survival stratified by clinical stage seems to not be influenced by BMI category. Therefore, a higher proportion of early diagnosed cancers can potentially create a survival benefit in this group.

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) together with the United European Gastroenterology (UEG) recently developed a short list of performance measures for small-bowel endoscopy (i.e. small-bowel capsule endoscopy and device-assisted enteroscopy) with the final goal of providing endoscopy services across Europe with a tool for quality improvement. Six key performance measures both for small-bowel capsule endoscopy and for device-assisted enteroscopy were selected for inclusion, with the intention being that practice at both a service and endoscopist level should be evaluated against them. Other performance measures were considered to be less relevant, based on an assessment of their overall importance, scientific acceptability, and feasibility. Unlike lower and upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, for which performance measures had already been identified, this is the first time small-bowel endoscopy quality measures have been proposed. ispartof: UNITED EUROPEAN GASTROENTEROLOGY JOURNAL vol:7 issue:5 pages:614-641 ispartof: location:England status: published

Background and Aims Inflammatory bowel disease is associated with an increased risk of colorectal cancer, with estimates ranging 2–18%, depending on the duration of colitis. The management of neoplasia in colitis remains controversial. Current guidelines recommend endoscopic resection if the lesion is clearly visible with distinct margins. Colectomy is recommended if complete endoscopic resection is not guaranteed. We aimed to assess the outcomes of all neoplastic endoscopic resections in inflammatory bowel disease. Methods This was a multicentre retrospective cohort study of 119 lesions of visible dysplasia in 93 patients, resected endoscopically in inflammatory bowel disease. Results A total of 6/65 [9.2%] lesions 20 mm in size were treated by EMR vs 35/51 [68.6%] by ESD. Almost all patients [97%] without fibrosis were treated by EMR, and patients with fibrosis were treated by ESD [87%], p < 0.001. In all, 49/78 [63%] lesions treated by EMR were resected en-bloc and 27/41 [65.9%] of the ESD/KAR [knife-assisted resection] cases were resected en-bloc, compared with 15/41 [36.6%] resected piecemeal. Seven recurrences occurred in the cohort. Seven complications occurred in the cohort; six were managed endoscopically and one patient with a delayed perforation underwent surgery. Conclusions Larger lesions with fibrosis are best treated by ESD, whereas smaller lesions without fibrosis are best managed by EMR. Both EMR and ESD are feasible in the management of endoscopic resections in colitis.

Background and study aims European guidelines (ESGE) recommend measuring patient experience and 30-day complication rate after colonoscopy. We compared digital and paper-based feedback on patients’ experience and 30-day complications after screening colonoscopy. Patients and methods Screenees attending for primary screening colonoscopies in two centers from September 2015 to December 2016 were randomized (1:1) to an intervention arm (choice of feedback method) or control arm (routine paper-based feedback). Participants in the intervention arm could choose preferred feedback method (paper-based, automated telephone or online survey) and were contacted by automated telephone 30 days after colonoscopy to assess complications. Control group participants self-reported complications. Primary and secondary endpoints were response rates to feedback and complications questionnaire, respectively. Results There were 1,281 and 1,260 participants in the intervention and control arms, respectively. There was no significant difference in response rate between study groups (64.8 % vs 61.5 %; P = 0.08). Free choice of feedback improved response for participants identified as poor responders: younger than 60 years (60.8 % vs 54.7 %; P = 0.031), male (64.0 % vs 58.6 %; P = 0.045) and in small non-public center (56.2 % vs 42.5 %; P = 0.043).In the intervention arm, 1,168 participants (91.2 %) answered the phone call concerning complications. A total of 79 participants (6.2 %) reported complications, of which two (0.2 %) were verified by telephone as clinically relevant. No complications were self-reported in the control group. Conclusion The overall response rate was not significantly improved with digital feedback, yet the technology yielded significant improvement in participants defined as poor responders. Our study demonstrated feasibility and efficacy of digital patient feedback about complications after colonoscopy.

Background The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of low-volume vs. standard-volume bowel preparation on participation in screening colonoscopy, bowel preparation quality, and lesion detection rates. Methods This was a multicenter, randomized, health services study within the population-based primary colonoscopy screening program in Poland. Individuals aged 55 – 62 years were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to bowel preparation with a low-volume (0.3 L sodium picosulfate with magnesium citrate) or standard-volume (4 L polyethylene glycol) regimen and then invited to participate in screening colonoscopy. The primary outcome measure was the rate of participation in screening colonoscopy. Compliance with the assigned bowel preparation, bowel preparation quality, and lesion detection rates were also evaluated. Results A total of 13 621 individuals were randomized and 13 497 were analyzed (6752 in the low-volume group and 6745 in the standard-volume group). The participation rate (16.6 % vs. 15.5 %; P = 0.08) and compliance rate (93.3 % vs. 94.1 %; P = 0.39) did not differ significantly between the groups. In the low-volume group, fewer participants had adequate bowel preparation compared with the standard-volume group (whole colon 79.0 % vs. 86.4 %, P Conclusion When compared with a standard-volume bowel preparation with polyethylene glycol, low-volume bowel preparation with sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate did not improve participation rate or lesion detection rates, and negatively affected bowel preparation quality.

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.

Introduction Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a serious health problem, and various screening programs to reduce CRC have been introduced worldwide. However, the cost‑effectiveness of a program based on once‑in‑a‑lifetime colonoscopy in Poland is unknown. Objectives The main aim of this study was to assess the cost‑effectiveness of Polish Colonoscopy Screening Platform (PCSP), the colonoscopy screening program in Poland. Patients and methods A Markov model was constructed to compare the strategy of colonoscopy screening as compared with no screening in 100 000 subjects. The model was based on data collected from the nationwide Polish CRC screening program whenever possible. The incremental cost‑effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated and compared with the willingness‑to‑pay thresholds. A sensitivity analysis was also performed using the Monte Carlo simulation. Results Colonoscopy screening within PCSP resulted in a 18.9% reduction in CRC incidence and 19.8% reduction in CRC mortality. The strategy allowed a gain of 2317 life‑years saved (1959 after discount‑ ing). The cost of colonoscopy screening per participant examined was estimated at 267.70 USD (95% CI, 263.08-272.32 USD). The ICER was less than 6500 USD, which was much lower than the accepted willingness‑to‑pay thresholds, indicating that the screening was cost‑effective. Conclusions Colonoscopy screening within the PCSP is cost‑effective and may have a substantial impact on the Polish society due to life‑years saved. The results have good informative value not only for health policy makers and medical practitioners, but also for health technology assessment.

Background: Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) is an emerging technique in the treatment of Zenker&rsquo, s diverticulum (ZD). This study aimed to analyze the feasibility of Zenker&rsquo, s POEM (Z-POEM) in a multicenter setting and assess its performance using a validated Kothari-Haber Scoring System newly developed for symptom measurement in ZD. Materials and methods: This was a multicenter retrospective study involving three Polish tertiary referral endoscopic units. The data of consecutive patients with symptomatic ZD treated with Z-POEM in Poland between May 2019 and August 2020 were retrieved and analyzed. Primary outcome measures were technical success and clinical success rate (&lt, 3 points in Kothari-Haber Score at 2&ndash, 3 months follow-up). Secondary outcome measures included procedures&rsquo, duration, length of hospital stay, and adverse events. Results: 22 patients with symptomatic ZD were included. The mean age was 67.6 (&plusmn, 10.7) years, and 14 (63.6%) were male. All but two patients were treatment na&iuml, ve. The average size of the ZD was 30 mm (IQR, 24&ndash, 40 mm). Technical success was achieved in all patients (100%), whereas clinical success was 90.9%. The average Kothari-Haber Score was 6.35 before treatment and has dropped to 0.65 after the treatment (p &lt, 0.0001). The mean procedure time was 48.8 (&plusmn, 19.3) minutes, and the median length of hospital stay was 2 days (IQR, 2&ndash, 3). Three patients (13.6%) had post-procedural emphysema, of which two were mild and self-resolving (9.1%), and one was moderate (4.5%) and complicated with laryngeal edema and prolonged intubation. Conclusions: This feasibility study suggests that Z-POEM is a highly effective and safe treatment for ZD, particularly among treatment-na&iuml, ve patients. Comparative studies with other treatment modalities over longer follow-up are warranted.

Primary colonoscopy and fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) are considered first-tier tests for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Although colonoscopy is considered the most efficacious test, FIT might achieve higher participation rates. It is uncertain what the best strategy is for offering population-wide CRC screening.This was a multicenter randomized health services study performed within the framework of the Polish Colonoscopy Screening Program between January 2019 and March 2020 on screening-naïve individuals. Eligible candidates were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to participate in 1 of 3 competing invitation strategies: control (invitation to screening colonoscopy only); sequential (invitation to primary colonoscopy and invitation for FIT for initial nonresponders); or choice (invitation offering a choice of colonoscopy or FIT). The primary outcome was participation in CRC screening within 18 weeks after enrollment into the study. The secondary outcome was diagnostic yield for advanced neoplasia.Overall, 12,485 individuals were randomized into the 3 study groups. The participation rate in the control group (17.5%) was significantly lower compared with the sequential (25.8%) and choice strategy (26.5%) groups (P.001 for both comparisons). The colonoscopy rates for participants with positive FITs were 70.0% for the sequential group and 73.3% for the choice group, despite active call-recall efforts. In the intention-to-screen analysis, advanced neoplasia detection rates were comparable among the control (1.1%), sequential (1.0%), and choice groups (1.1%).Offering a combination of FIT and colonoscopy as a sequential or active choice strategy increases participation in CRC screening. Increased participation in strategies with FIT do not translate into higher detection of advanced neoplasia. ClinicalTrials.gov, Number NCT03790475.