ChatGPT4 outperforms endoscopists for determination of post-colonoscopy re-screening and surveillance recommendations.

BACKGROUND: Large language models (LLM) including ChatGPT4 improve access to artificial intelligence, but their impact on the clinical practice of gastroenterology is undefined. In this study, we aim to compare the accuracy, concordance and reliability of ChatGPT4 colonoscopy recommendations for colorectal cancer re-screening and surveillance to contemporary guidelines and real-world gastroenterology practice. METHODS: History of present illness, colonoscopy data and pathology reports from patients undergoing procedures at two large academic centers were entered into ChatGPT4 and it was queried for next recommended colonoscopy follow-up interval. Using McNemar's test and inter-rater reliability, we compared the recommendations made by ChatGPT4 with the actual surveillance interval provided in the endoscopist's procedure report (gastroenterology practice) and the appropriate USMSTF guidance. The latter was generated for each case by an expert panel using the clinical information and guideline documents as reference. RESULTS: Text input of de-identified data into ChatGPT4 from 505 consecutive patients undergoing colonoscopy between January 1st and April 30th, 2023 elicited a successful follow-up recommendation in 99.2% of the queries. ChatGPT4 recommendations were in closer agreement with the USMSTF Panel (85.7%) than gastroenterology practice recommendations with the USMSTF Panel (75.4%) (P<.001). Of the 14.3% discordant recommendations between ChatGPT4 and USMSTF Panel, recommendations were for later screening in 26 (5.1%) and earlier screening in 44 (8.7%) cases. The inter-rater reliability was good for ChatGPT4 vs. USMSTF Panel (Fleiss κ: 0.786, CI95%: 0.734-0.838, P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Initial real-world results suggest that ChatGPT4 can accurately define routine colonoscopy screening intervals based on verbatim input of clinical data. LLM have potential for clinical applications, but further training is needed for broad use.

Artificial intelligence for gastric cancer in endoscopy: From diagnostic reasoning to market.

Recognition of gastric conditions during endoscopy exams, including gastric cancer, usually requires specialized training and a long learning curve. Besides that, the interobserver variability is frequently high due to the different morphological characteristics of the lesions and grades of mucosal inflammation. In this sense, artificial intelligence tools based on deep learning models have been developed to support physicians to detect, classify, and predict gastric lesions more efficiently. Even though a growing number of studies exists in the literature, there are multiple challenges to bring a model to practice in this field, such as the need for more robust validation studies and regulatory hurdles. Therefore, the aim of this review is to provide a comprehensive assessment of the current use of artificial intelligence applied to endoscopic imaging to evaluate gastric precancerous and cancerous lesions and the barriers to widespread implementation of this technology in clinical routine.

Increasing Antibiotic-Resistant Infections With Inpatient Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangioscopies (ERCP) Is Associated With Higher Mortality in the United States: A Cross-sectional Cohort Study.

GOALS: This study aims to investigate associated mortality with inpatient endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with and without resistant infections. The co-primary objective compares frequencies of inpatient ERCP with resistant infections to overall hospitalizations with resistant infections. BACKGROUND: The risks of inpatient antibiotic-resistant organisms are known, but the associated mortality for inpatient ERCP is unknown. We aim to use a national database of hospitalizations and procedures to understand trends and mortality for patients with antibiotic-resistant infections during inpatient ERCP. STUDY: The largest publicly available all-payer inpatient database in the United States (National Inpatient Sample) was used to identify hospitalizations associated with ERCPs and antibiotic-resistant infections for MRSA, VRE, ESBL, and MDRO. National estimates were generated, frequencies were compared across years, and multivariate regression for mortality was performed. RESULTS: From 2017 to 2020, national weighted estimates of 835,540 inpatient ERCPs were generated, and 11,440 ERCPs had coincident resistant infections. Overall resistant infection, MRSA, VRE, and MDRO identified at the same hospitalization of inpatient ERCPs were associated with higher mortality (OR CI(95%): Overall: 2.2(1.77-2.88), MRSA: 1.90 (1.34-2.69), VRE: 3.53 (2.16-5.76), and MDRO: 2.52 (1.39-4.55)). While overall hospitalizations with resistant infections have been decreasing annually, there has been a yearly increase in admissions requiring ERCPs with simultaneous resistant infections ( P =0.001-0.013), as well as infections with VRE, ESBL, and MDRO ( P =0.001-0.016). Required Research Practices for Studies Using the NIS scoring was 0, or the most optimal. CONCLUSIONS: Inpatient ERCPs have increasing coincident resistant infections and are associated with higher mortality. These rising infections during ERCP highlight the importance of endoscopy suite protocols and endoscopic infection control devices.

A machine learning-based choledocholithiasis prediction tool to improve ERCP decision making: a proof-of-concept study.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies demonstrated limited accuracy of existing guidelines for predicting choledocholithiasis, leading to overutilization of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). More accurate stratification may improve patient selection for ERCP and allow use of lower-risk modalities. METHODS: A machine learning model was developed using patient information from two published cohort studies that evaluated performance of guidelines in predicting choledocholithiasis. Prediction models were developed using the gradient boosting model (GBM) machine learning method. GBM performance was evaluated using 10-fold cross-validation and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Important predictors of choledocholithiasis were identified based on relative importance in the GBM. RESULTS: 1378 patients (mean age 43.3 years; 61.2% female) were included in the GBM and 59.4% had choledocholithiasis. Eight variables were identified as predictors of choledocholithiasis. The GBM had accuracy of 71.5% (SD 2.5%) (AUC 0.79 [SD 0.06]) and performed better than the 2019 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) guidelines (accuracy 62.4% [SD 2.6%]; AUC 0.63 [SD 0.03]) and European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guidelines (accuracy 62.8% [SD 2.6%]; AUC 0.67 [SD 0.02]). The GBM correctly categorized 22% of patients directed to unnecessary ERCP by ASGE guidelines, and appropriately recommended as the next management step 48% of ERCPs incorrectly rejected by ESGE guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: A machine learning-based tool was created, providing real-time, personalized, objective probability of choledocholithiasis and ERCP recommendations. This more accurately directed ERCP use than existing ASGE and ESGE guidelines, and has the potential to reduce morbidity associated with ERCP or missed choledocholithiasis.

Upfront endoscopic necrosectomy or step-up endoscopic approach for infected necrotising pancreatitis (DESTIN): a single-blinded, multicentre, randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Although the preferred management approach for patients with infected necrotising pancreatitis is endoscopic transluminal stenting followed by endoscopic necrosectomy as step-up treatment if there is no clinical improvement, the optimal timing of necrosectomy is unclear. Therefore, we aimed to compare outcomes between performing upfront necrosectomy at the index intervention versus as a step-up measure in patients with infected necrotising pancreatitis. METHODS: This single-blinded, multicentre, randomised trial (DESTIN) was done at six tertiary care hospitals (five hospitals in the USA and one hospital in India). We enrolled patients (aged ≥18 years) with confirmed or suspected infected necrotising pancreatitis with a necrosis extent of at least 33% who were amenable to endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage. By use of computer-generated permuted block randomisation (block size four), eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either upfront endoscopic necrosectomy or endoscopic step-up treatment. Endoscopists were not masked to treatment allocation, but participants, research coordinators, and the statistician were. Lumen-apposing metal stents (20 mm diameter; 10 mm saddle length) were used for drainage in both groups. In the upfront group, direct necrosectomy was performed immediately after stenting in the same treatment session. In the step-up group, direct necrosectomy or additional drainage was done at a subsequent treatment session if there was no clinical improvement (resolution of any criteria of systemic inflammatory response syndrome or sepsis or one or more organ failure and at least a 25% percentage decrease in necrotic collection size) 72 h after stenting. The primary outcome was the number of reinterventions per patient to achieve treatment success from index intervention to 6 months' follow-up, which was defined as symptom relief in conjunction with disease resolution on CT. Reinterventions included any endoscopic or radiological procedures performed for necrosectomy or additional drainage after the index intervention, excluding the follow-up procedure at 4 weeks for stent removal. All endpoints and safety were analysed by intention-to-treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05043415 and NCT04113499, and recruitment and follow-up have been completed. FINDINGS: Between Nov 27, 2019, and Oct 26, 2022, 183 patients were assessed for eligibility and 70 patients (24 [34%] women and 46 [66%] men) were randomly assigned to receive upfront necrosectomy (n=37) or step-up treatment (n=33) and included in the intention-to-treat population. At the time of index intervention, seven (10%) of 70 patients had organ failure and 64 (91%) patients had walled-off necrosis. The median number of reinterventions was significantly lower for upfront necrosectomy (1 [IQR 0 to 1] than for the step-up approach (2 [1 to 4], difference -1 [95% CI -2 to 0]; p=0·0027). Mortality did not differ between groups (zero patients in the upfront necrosectomy group vs two [6%] in the step-up group, difference -6·1 percentage points [95% CI -16·5 to 4·5]; p=0·22), nor did overall disease-related adverse events (12 [32%] patients in the upfront necrosectomy group vs 16 [48%] patients in the step-up group, difference -16·1 percentage points [-37·4 to 7·0]; p=0·17), nor procedure-related adverse events (four [11%] patients in the upfront necrosectomy group vs eight [24%] patients in the step-up group, difference -13·4 percentage points [-30·8 to 5·0]; p=0·14). INTERPRETATION: In stabilised patients with infected necrotising pancreatitis and fully encapsulated collections, an approach incorporating upfront necrosectomy at the index intervention rather than as a step-up measure could safely reduce the number of reinterventions required to achieve treatment success. FUNDING: None.

A Preliminary Controlled Trial of Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Fiducial Markers to Guide Pancreas Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is routinely used for fiducial marker placement (FMP) to guide stereotactic radiation of pancreatic tumors, but EUS-FMP explicitly to guide surgery has not been studied in a prospective, controlled manner. Multipurpose EUS systems have been developed that facilitate simultaneous EUS-FMP at the time of biopsy. We aimed to evaluate the feasibility of EUS-FMP to guide pancreatic resection. METHODS: In this prospective trial, we enrolled patients with resectable pancreas masses undergoing tissue sampling and placed preloaded fiducials immediately after biopsy. Intraprocedure confirmation of carcinoma, neuroendocrine, and nonlymphomatous neoplasia by rapid on-site evaluation and lesion size <4 cm was required. The main outcomes were the feasibility and ease of preoperative placement and intraoperative detection of the markers using predefined Likert scales. RESULTS: In 20 patients, EUS-FMP was successful before planned surgery and placement was technically straightforward (Likert Scale: 9.1 ± 1.3; range: 1, most challenging to 10, most facile). Intraoperative detection was feasible and improved when compared with a pre-established comparator of 5 representing an equivalent lesion without a marker (Likert Scale: 7.8 ± 2.2; range: 1, most difficult to 10, most facile; P = 0.011). The mean tumor size on EUS was 1.7 ± 0.9 (range: 0.5 to 3.6) cm. CONCLUSION: EUS-FMP is feasible and safe for resectable pancreatic tumors before surgery and may assist in perioperative detection. Preloaded fiducials may be considered for placement at the time of initial referral for EUS-fine needle biopsy.

Female patients delay seeking medical care with alcohol-associated acute pancreatitis.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Alcohol consumption is increasing in women, who more frequently report abdominal symptoms compared to men. We aimed to examine differences in presentation of acute pancreatitis [AP] in male and female patients hospitalized with alcohol-associated AP. METHODS: We analyzed 138 patients enrolled in an ongoing case-crossover study of alcohol-associated AP conducted across 5 medical centers in the U.S. Patients meeting the Revised Atlanta Classification of AP and who scored 3 or higher on the AUDIT-C instrument were invited to participate in the study and were interviewed while hospitalized with AP. Sex differences in the timing and type of pancreas-associated pain, alcohol consumption, clinical presentation, and quality of life were examined by Chi-squared tests, Wilcoxon rank sum tests and t-tests. RESULTS: Female patients reported significantly longer interval from onset of pain to deciding to seek medical attention (median 40 h, interquartile range [IQR] 14, 74) as compared to males (14 h, IQR 4, 50; p = 0.005). While male patients were more likely to have been admitted to the intensive care unit [ICU] (21%) as compared to female patients (7%; p = 0.04), the incidence of SIRS or severe AP did not differ by sex. Quality of life measures as reported through the PROMIS-29 instrument were equally suboptimal in both sexes. Anxiety disorders were diagnosed more frequently among females (61%) than in males (41%, p = 0.009). CONCLUSION: In a large case series of alcohol-associated AP, we found that female patients delayed seeking medical care compared to males. However, there were no differences in the type, location and intensity of abdominal pain.

American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on endoscopic submucosal dissection for the management of early esophageal and gastric cancers: methodology and review of evidence.

This document from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) provides a full description of the methodology used in the review of the evidence used to inform the final guidance outlined in the accompanying Summary and Recommendations document regarding the role of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in the management of early esophageal and gastric cancers. This guideline used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework and specifically addresses the role of ESD versus EMR and/or surgery, where applicable, for the management of early esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), and gastric adenocarcinoma (GAC) and their corresponding precursor lesions. For ESCC, the ASGE suggests ESD over EMR for patients with early-stage, well-differentiated, nonulcerated cancer >15 mm, whereas in patients with similar lesions ≤15 mm, the ASGE suggests either ESD or EMR. The ASGE suggests against surgery for such patients with ESCC, whenever possible. For EAC, the ASGE suggests ESD over EMR for patients with early-stage, well-differentiated, nonulcerated cancer >20 mm, whereas in patients with similar lesions measuring ≤20 mm, the ASGE suggests either ESD or EMR. For GAC, the ASGE suggests ESD over EMR for patients with early-stage, well or moderately differentiated, nonulcerated intestinal type cancer measuring 20 to 30 mm, whereas for patients with similar lesions <20 mm, the ASGE suggests either ESD or EMR. The ASGE suggests against surgery for patients with such lesions measuring ≤30 mm, whereas for lesions that are poorly differentiated, regardless of size, the ASGE suggests surgical evaluation over endosic approaches.

American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on endoscopic submucosal dissection for the management of early esophageal and gastric cancers: summary and recommendations.

This clinical practice guideline from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) provides an evidence-based summary and recommendations regarding the role of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in the management of early esophageal and gastric cancers. It is accompanied by the document subtitled "Methodology and Review of Evidence," which provides a detailed account of the methodology used for the evidence review. This guideline was developed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework and specifically addresses the role of ESD versus EMR and/or surgery, where applicable, for the management of early esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), and gastric adenocarcinoma (GAC) and their corresponding precursor lesions. For ESCC, the ASGE suggests ESD over EMR for patients with early-stage, well-differentiated, nonulcerated cancer >15 mm, whereas in patients with similar lesions ≤15 mm, the ASGE suggests either ESD or EMR. The ASGE suggests against surgery for such patients with ESCC, whenever possible. For EAC, the ASGE suggests ESD over EMR for patients with early-stage, well-differentiated, nonulcerated cancer >20 mm, whereas in patients with similar lesions measuring ≤20 mm, the ASGE suggests either ESD or EMR. For GAC, the ASGE suggests ESD over EMR for patients with early-stage, well- or moderately differentiated, nonulcerated intestinal type cancer measuring 20 to 30 mm, whereas for patients with similar lesions <20 mm, the ASGE suggests either ESD or EMR. The ASGE suggests against surgery for patients with such lesions measuring ≤30 mm, whereas for lesions that are poorly differentiated, regardless of size, we suggest surgical evaluation over endoscopic approaches.

American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on the role of endoscopy in the diagnosis of malignancy in biliary strictures of undetermined etiology: summary and recommendations.

This clinical practice guideline from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy provides an evidence-based approach for the diagnosis of malignancy in patients with biliary strictures of undetermined etiology. This document was developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework and addresses the role of fluoroscopic-guided biopsy sampling, brush cytology, cholangioscopy, and EUS in the diagnosis of malignancy in patients with biliary strictures. In the endoscopic workup of these patients, we suggest the use of fluoroscopic-guided biopsy sampling in addition to brush cytology over brush cytology alone, especially for hilar strictures. We suggest the use of cholangioscopic and EUS-guided biopsy sampling especially for patients who undergo nondiagnostic sampling, cholangioscopic biopsy sampling for nondistal strictures and EUS-guided biopsy sampling distal strictures or those with suspected spread to surrounding lymph nodes and other structures.

American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on role of endoscopy in the diagnosis of malignancy in biliary strictures of undetermined etiology: methodology and review of evidence.

Biliary strictures of undetermined etiology pose a diagnostic challenge for endoscopists. Despite advances in technology, diagnosing malignancy in biliary strictures often requires multiple procedures. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework was used to rigorously review and synthesize the available literature on strategies used to diagnose undetermined biliary strictures. Using a systematic review and meta-analysis of each diagnostic modality, including fluoroscopic-guided biopsy sampling, brush cytology, cholangioscopy, and EUS-guided FNA or fine-needle biopsy sampling, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Standards of Practice Committee provides this guideline on modalities used to diagnose biliary strictures of undetermined etiology. This document summarizes the methods used in the GRADE analysis to make recommendations, whereas the accompanying article subtitled "Summary and Recommendations" contains a concise summary of our findings and final recommendations.

American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on role of endoscopy in the diagnosis of malignancy in biliary strictures of undetermined etiology: methodology and review of evidence

Biliary strictures of undetermined etiology pose a diagnostic challenge for endoscopists. Despite advances in technology, diagnosing malignancy in biliary strictures often requires multiple procedures. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework was used to rigorously review and synthesize the available literature on strategies used to diagnose undetermined biliary strictures. Using a systematic review and meta-analysis of each diagnostic modality, including fluoroscopic-guided biopsy sampling, brush cytology, cholangioscopy, and EUS-guided FNA or fine-needle biopsy sampling, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Standards of Practice Committee provides this guideline on modalities used to diagnose biliary strictures of undetermined etiology. This document summarizes the methods used in the GRADE analysis to make recommendations, whereas the accompanying article subtitled "Summary and Recommendations" contains a concise summary of our findings and final recommendations.

American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on the role of ergonomics for prevention of endoscopy-related injury: summary and recommendations.

This clinical practice guideline from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy provides an evidence-based approach to strategies to prevent endoscopy-related injury (ERI) in GI endoscopists. It is accompanied by the article subtitled "Methodology and Review of Evidence," which provides a detailed account of the methodology used for the evidence review. This document was developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. The guideline estimates the rates, sites, and predictors of ERI. Additionally, it addresses the role of ergonomics training, microbreaks and macrobreaks, monitor and table positions, antifatigue mats, and use of ancillary devices in decreasing the risk of ERI. We recommend formal ergonomics education and neutral posture during the performance of endoscopy, achieved through adjustable monitor and optimal procedure table position, to reduce the risk of ERI. We suggest taking microbreaks and scheduled macrobreaks and using antifatigue mats during procedures to prevent ERI. We suggest the use of ancillary devices in those with risk factors predisposing them to ERI.

Consensus guidelines for the perioperative management of patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography.

Deep sedation without tracheal intubation (monitored anaesthesia care) and general anaesthesia with tracheal intubation are commonly used anaesthesia techniques for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). There are distinct pathophysiological differences between monitored anaesthesia care and general anaesthesia that need to be considered depending on the nature and severity of the patient's underlying disease, comorbidities, and procedural risks. An international group of expert anaesthesiologists and gastroenterologists created clinically relevant questions regarding the merits and risks of monitored anaesthesia care vs general anaesthesia in specific clinical scenarios for planning optimal anaesthetic approaches for ERCP. Using a modified Delphi approach, the group created practical recommendations for anaesthesiologists, with the aim of reducing the incidence of perioperative adverse outcomes while maximising healthcare resource utilisation. In the majority of clinical scenarios analysed, our expert recommendations favour monitored anaesthesia care over general anaesthesia. Patients with increased risk of pulmonary aspiration and those undergoing prolonged procedures of high complexity were thought to benefit from general anaesthesia with tracheal intubation. Patient age and ASA physical status were not considered to be factors for choosing between monitored anaesthesia care and general anaesthesia. Monitored anaesthesia care is the favoured anaesthesia plan for ERCP. An individual risk-benefit analysis that takes into account provider and institutional experience, patient comorbidities, and procedural risks is also needed.