Search

Background and aimsEndoscopic treatment of recurrent/residual colonic lesions on scars is a challenging procedure. In this setting, endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is considered the first choice, despite a significant rate of complications. Endoscopic full-thickness resection (eFTR) has been shown to be well-tolerated and effective for these lesions. The aim of this study is to conduct a comparison of outcomes for resection of such lesions between ESD and eFTR in an Italian and a Japanese referral center.MethodsFrom January 2018 to July 2020, we retrospectively enrolled patients with residual/recurrent colonic lesions, 20 treated by eFTR in Italy and 43 treated by ESD in Japan. The primary outcome was to compare the two techniques in terms of en-bloc and R0-resection rates, whereas complications, time of procedure, and outcomes at 3-month follow-up were evaluated as secondary outcomes.ResultsR0 resection rate was not significantly different between the two groups [18/20 (90%) and 41/43 (95%); P= 0.66]. En-bloc resection was 100% in both groups. No significant difference was found in the procedure time (54 min vs. 61 min; P= 0.9). There was a higher perforation rate in the ESD group [11/43 (26%) vs. 0/20 (0%); P= 0.01]. At the 3-month follow-up, two lesions relapsed in the eFTR cohort and none in the ESD cohort (P= 0.1).ConclusioneFTR is a safer, as effective and equally time-consuming technique compared with ESD for the treatment of residual/recurrent colonic lesions on scars and could become an alternative therapeutic option for such lesions.

This study tested the hypothesis that bowel preparation with mannitol should not affect the colonic concentration of H2 and CH4. Therefore, the SATISFACTION study, an international, multicenter, randomized, parallel-group phase II–III study investigated this issue. The phase II dose-finding part of the study evaluated H2, CH4, and O2 concentrations in 179 patients randomized to treatment with 50 g, 100 g, or 150 g mannitol. Phase III of the study compared the presence of intestinal gases in 680 patients randomized (1:1) to receive mannitol 100 g in single dose or a standard split-dose 2 L polyethylene glycol (PEG)-Asc preparation (2 L PEG-Asc). Phase II results showed that mannitol did not influence the concentration of intestinal gases. During phase III, no patient in either group had H2 or CH4 concentrations above the critical thresholds. In patients with H2 and/or CH4 levels above detectable concentrations, the mean values were below the risk thresholds by at least one order of magnitude. The results also highlighted the effectiveness of standard washing and insufflation maneuvers in removing residual intestinal gases. In conclusion, bowel cleansing with mannitol was safe as the concentrations of H2 and CH4 were the same as those found in patients prepared with 2 L PEG-Asc. In both groups, the concentrations of gases were influenced more by the degree of cleansing achieved and the insufflation and washing maneuvers performed than by the preparation used for bowel cleansing. The trial protocol was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04759885) and with EudraCT (eudract_number: 2019-002856-18).

IntroductionColorectal cancer (CRC) is a major health issue, being responsible for nearly 10% of all cancer-related deaths. Since CRC is often an asymptomatic or paucisymptomatic disease until it reaches advanced stages, screening is crucial for the diagnosis of preneoplastic lesions or early CRC.Areas coveredThe aim of this review is to summarize the literature evidence on currently available CRC screening tools, with their pros and cons, focusing on the level of accuracy reached by each test over time. We also provide an overview of novel technologies and scientific advances that are currently being investigated and that in the future may represent real game-changers in the field of CRC screening.Expert opinionWe suggest that best screening modalities are annual or biennial FIT and colonoscopy every 10 years. We believe that the introduction of artificial intelligence (AI)-tools in the CRC screening field could lead to a significant improvement of the screening efficacy in reducing CRC incidence and mortality in the future. More resources should be put into implementing CRC programs and support research project to further increase the accuracy of CRC screening tests and strategies.

Widespread adoption of optical diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia is prevented by suboptimal endoscopist performance and lack of standardized training and competence evaluation. We aimed to assess diagnostic accuracy of endoscopists in optical diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia in the framework of artificial intelligence (AI) validation studies. Literature searches of databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus) up to April 2022 were performed to identify articles evaluating accuracy of individual endoscopists in performing optical diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia within studies validating AI against a histologically verified ground-truth. The main outcomes were endoscopists' pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value (PPV/NPV), positive and negative likelihood ratio (LR) and area under the curve (AUC for sROC) for predicting adenomas versus non-adenomas. Six studies with 67 endoscopists and 2085 (IQR: 115–243,5) patients were evaluated. Pooled sensitivity and specificity for adenomatous histology was respectively 84.5% (95% CI 80.3%–88%) and 83% (95% CI 79.6%–85.9%), corresponding to a PPV, NPV, LR+, LR− of 89.5% (95% CI 87.1%–91.5%), 75.7% (95% CI 70.1%–80.7%), 5 (95% CI 3.9%–6.2%) and 0.19 (95% CI 0.14%–0.25%). The AUC was 0.82 (CI 0.76–0.90). Expert endoscopists showed a higher sensitivity than non-experts (90.5%, [95% CI 87.6%–92.7%] vs. 75.5%, [95% CI 66.5%–82.7%], p < 0.001), and Eastern endoscopists showed a higher sensitivity than Western (85%, [95% CI 80.5%–88.6%] vs. 75.8%, [95% CI 70.2%–80.6%]). Quality was graded high for 3 studies and low for 3 studies. We show that human accuracy for diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia in the setting of AI studies is suboptimal. Educational interventions could benefit by AI validation settings which seem a feasible framework for competence assessment.

The European Colonoscopy Quality Investigation (ECQI) Group aims to raise awareness for improvement in colonoscopy standards across Europe. We analyzed data collected on a sample of procedures conducted across Europe to evaluate the achievement of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) mean withdrawal time (WT) target. We also investigated factors associated with WT, in the hope of establishing areas that could lead to a quality improvement. Methods: 6445 form completions from 12 countries between 2 June 2016 and 30 April 2018 were considered for this analysis. We performed an exploratory analysis looking at WT according to the ESGE definition. Stepwise multivariable logistic regression analysis was conducted to determine the most influential associated factors after adjusting for the other pre-specified variables. Results: In 1150 qualifying colonoscopies, the mean WT was 7.8 min. Stepwise analysis, including 587 procedures where all inputs were known, found that the variables most associated with mean WT were a previous total colonoscopy in the last five years (p = 0.0011) and the time of day the colonoscopy was performed (p = 0.0192). The main factor associated with a WT < 6 min was the time of day that a colonoscopy was performed. Use of sedation was the main factor associated with a higher propor-tion of WT > 10 min, along with a previous colonoscopy. Conclusions: On average, the sample of European practice captured by the ECQI survey met the minimum standard set by the ESGE. How-ever, there was variation and potential for improvement.

Design: Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) followed by surgery is the standard of care for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). Several studies have shown a correlation between a longer interval between the end of nCRT and surgery (surgical interval -SI) and an increased pathological complete response (pCR) rate, with a maximum obtained between 10 and 13 weeks. The primary endpoint of this multicenter, 2-arm randomised trial is to investigate SI lengthening, evaluating the difference in terms of complete response (CR) and Tumor Regression Grade (TRG)1 rate in the two arms. Secondly, the impact of SI lengthening on survival outcomes and quality of life (QoL) will be investigated. Methods: Intermediate-risk LARC patients undergoing nCRT will be prospectively included in the study. nCRT will be administered with a total dose of 55 Gy in 25 fractions on Gross Tumor Volume (GTV) plus the corresponding mesorectum of 45 Gy in 25 fractions on the whole pelvis. Chemotherapy with oral capecitabine will be administered continuously. The patients achieving a clinical major or complete response assessed at clinical-instrumental re-evaluation at 7-8 weeks after treatment completion, will be randomized into two groups, to undergo surgery or local excision at 9-11 weeks (control arm) or at 13-16 weeks (experimental arm). Pathological response will be assessed on the surgical specimen using the AJCC TNM v.7 and the TRG according to Mandard. Patients will be followed up to evaluate toxicity and QoL. The promoter center of the trial will conduct the randomization process through an automated procedure to prevent any possible bias. For sample size calculation, using CR difference of 20% as endpoint, 74 patients per arm will be enrolled. Conclusions: The results of this study may prospectively provide a new time frame for the clinical re-evaluation for complete/major responders patients in order to increase the CR rate to nCRT. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0

Background: The European Colonoscopy Quality Investigation (ECQI) Group aims to raise awareness for improvement in colonoscopy standards across Europe. We analysed data collected on a sample of procedures conducted across Europe to evaluate the achievement of the polyp detection rate (PDR) target. We also investigated factors associated with PDR, in the hope of establishing areas that could lead to a quality improvement. Methods: 6445 form completions from 12 countries between 2 June 2016 and 30 April 2018 were considered for this analysis. We performed an exploratory analysislooking at PDR according to European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) definition. Stepwise multivariable logistic regression analysis was conducted to determine the most influential associated factors after adjusting for the other pre-specified variables. Results: In our sample therewere 3365 screening and diagnostic procedures performed in those over 50 years. The PDR was 40.5%, which is comparable with the ESGE minimum standard of 40%. The variables found to be associated with PDR were in descending order: Use of high-definition equipment, body mass index (BMI), patient gender, age group, and the reason for the procedure. Use of HD equipment was associated with a significant increase in the reporting of flat lesions (14.3% vs. 5.7%, p < 0.0001) and protruded lesions (34.7% vs. 25.4%, p < 0.0001). Conclusions: On average, the sample of European practice captured by the ECQI survey meets the minimum PDR standard set by the ESGE. Our findings support the ESGE recommendation for routine use of HD colonoscopy.

Background Endoscopic mucosal resection and submucosal dissection (ESD) are treatments of choice for superficial neoplastic colorectal lesions. Only a few studies have compared these techniques. Aim To compare the efficacy and safety of endoscopic piecemeal mucosal resection (EPMR), ESD and hybrid-endoscopic submucosal dissection (H-ESD) of large colorectal lesions in a Western endoscopic center. Methods This is a retrospective analysis on a prospective medical database of consecutive colorectal superficial lesions larger than 20 mm, resected by EPMR, ESD or H-ESD collected from 2015 to 2019. Results Two hundred twenty-nine colorectal lesions were included. All lesions were completely endoscopically resected, 65.9% by EPMR, 19.7% by ESD and 14.4% by H-ESD. Endoscopic control after the index procedure was available for 86.5% patients. Among these patients, 80% had a second follow-up colonoscopy. The overall recurrence rate was 13.2, 0 and 6.1% for EPMR, ESD and H-ESD respectively, with a significant difference between EPMR and ESD. All recurrences were endoscopically treated during follow-up procedures. Risk of complications was not significantly different between the three groups. Conclusions EPMR, ESD and H-ESD are effective and safe procedures. Recurrence rate in EPMR was higher but can be managed endoscopically with high success rates. EPMR is faster and technically simpler so should be considered a potential first-line therapy for colorectal superficial neoplastic lesions.

Background and study aims The European Colonoscopy Quality Investigation (ECQI) Group comprises expert colonoscopists and investigators with the aim of raising colonoscopy standards. We assessed the levels of monitoring and achievement of European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) performance measures (PMs) across Europe using responses to the ECQI questionnaires.Methods The questionnaire comprises three forms: institution and practitioner questionnaires are completed once; a procedure questionnaire is completed on multiple occasions for individual total colonoscopies. ESGE PMs were approximated as closely as possible from the data collected via the procedure questionnaire. Procedure data could provide rate of adequate bowel preparation, cecal intubation rate ( CIR), withdrawal time, polyp detection rate (PDR), and tattooing resection sites.Results We evaluated ECQI questionnaire data collected between June 2016 and April 2018, comprising 91 practitioner and 52 institution questionnaires. A total of 6445 completed procedure forms were received. Institution and practitioner responses indicate that routine recording of PMs is not widespread: adenoma detection rate (ADR) is routinely recorded in 29% of institutions and by 34% of practitioners; PDR by 42% and 47 %, CIR by 62% and 64%, bowel preparation quality by 56% and 76 %, respectively.Procedure data showed a rate of adequate bowel preparation of 84.2%, CIR 73.4%, PDR 40.5 %, mean withdrawal time 7.8 minutes and 12.2% of procedures with possible removal of a non-pedunculated lesion >= 20mm reporting tattooing.Conclusions Our findings clearly show areas in need of quality improvement and the importance of promoting quality monitoring throughout the colonoscopy procedure.

Background and study aims The need for hospital beds during the COVID-19 pandemic almost overwhelmed the health care systems all over the world. Therefore, elective non-life-saving procedures were postponed. We decided to perform all colorectal endoscopic mucosal dissections (ESDs) for challenging lesions as outpatient procedures, organizing an ad hoc path to management of any delayed post-procedural complications. The aim of the present study was to retrospectively evaluate the feasibility and safety of outpatient ESD for colorectal tumors. Patients and methods From March 2020 to May 2020, outpatient colorectal ESDs were performed for 15 challenging lesions. We retrospectively investigated feasibility and safety of the procedures, rates of en bloc resection, and complications rates. Results The mean age of the patients was 66.5 years and 40% of the them were on antiplatelet/anticoagulation therapy. Median size of removed lesions was 45mm (range 32-77) and 38mm (range 24 to 55) Five patients (33%) had rectal tumors extending to the dentate line and four (26.6%) were recurrences on a scar of previous endoscopic or surgical local resections. All complications, such as bleeding or visible microperforation, were managed endoscopically and no delayed perforations occurred. One patient had fever (37.5 degrees C), while three patients complained of anal pain after ESD for a rectal tumor that extended to the dentate line (RTDL); all patients were managed conservatively. Conclusion Outpatient colorectal ESD is feasible and safe for challenging lesions. It reduces costs of hospitalization but direct access to the endoscopy service to manage potential post-ESD complications should always be guaranteed.

Background: Despite the comparable results between ESD and gastrectomy reported in multiple Asiatic studies, limited data are currently present on the long-term efficacy of ESD for EGC in Western countries. The aim of this study was to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of the endoscopic submucosal dissection and surgery for non-diffuse early gastric cancer treatment in a Western cohort of patients. Methods: All patients with a diagnosis of intestinal type EGC located in the middle and lower third of the stomach from 2005 to 2015 were enrolled in the study. All patients completed a 5-year follow-up. Patients were divided according to the procedure performed (ESD/subtotal gastrectomy). The two groups were matched for age, gender, ASA score, tumor dimension, and grade of infiltration (mucosa/submucosa). Results: After matching, 84 patients (42 per group) were included in the analysis. Peri-procedural morbidity rate was 7.1% and no difference was observed between the two groups (4.8% vs 9.5% for ESD and STG groups, respectively; p = 0.3). Similar results in terms of 5-year OS and DFS were observed for ESD and STG (77.7% vs 71.8% ; p = 0.78 and 74.9% vs 72% ; p = 0.7, respectively). At the multivariate analysis, ASA3 score was recognized as the only negative predictor factor for the 5-year OS (OR 6.2; 95% CI 2.2–16.8; p < 0.001). Regarding the DFS, both ASA3 score (OR 4.4; 95% CI 1.7–10.9; p < 0.001) and submucosal infiltration(OR 5.1; 95% CI 1.2–22.4 ; p = 0.02) were identified as independent risk factors for a worse outcome. Conclusions: Our results confirm the safety and feasibility ESD for EGC treatment in a Western setting. In addition, this is one of the few reports showing comparable results both in terms of short- and long-term outcomes between ESD and surgery for intestinal type ECG treatment in Western countries.