AGA Clinical Practice Update on Appropriate and Tailored Polypectomy: Expert Review.

DESCRIPTION: In this Clinical Practice Update (CPU), we provide guidance on the appropriate use of different polypectomy techniques. We focus on polyps <2 cm in size that are most commonly encountered by the practicing endoscopist, including use of classification systems to characterize polyps and various polypectomy methods. We review characteristics of polyps that require complex polypectomy techniques and provide guidance on which types of polyps require more advanced management by a therapeutic endoscopist or surgeon. This CPU does not provide a detailed review of complex polypectomy techniques, such as endoscopic submucosal dissection, which should only be performed by endoscopists with advanced training. METHODS: This expert review was commissioned and approved by the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute CPU Committee and the AGA Governing Board to provide timely guidance on a topic of high clinical importance to the AGA membership, and underwent internal peer review by the CPU Committee and external peer review through standard procedures of Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. These Best Practice Advice statements were drawn from a review of the published literature and from expert opinion. Because systematic reviews were not performed, these Best Practice Advice statements do not carry formal ratings regarding the quality of evidence or strength of the presented considerations. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: A structured visual assessment using high-definition white light and/or electronic chromoendoscopy and with photodocumentation should be conducted for all polyps found during routine colonoscopy. Closely inspect colorectal polyps for features of submucosally invasive cancer. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: Use cold snare polypectomy for polyps <10 mm in size. Cold forceps polypectomy can alternatively be used for 1- to 3-mm polyps where cold snare polypectomy is technically difficult. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: Do not use hot forceps polypectomy. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: Clinicians should be familiar with various techniques, such as cold and hot snare polypectomy and endoscopic mucosal resection, to ensure effective, safe, and optimal resection of intermediate-size polyps (10-19 mm). BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: Consider using lifting agents or underwater endoscopic mucosal resection for removal of sessile polyps 10-19 mm in size. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: Serrated polyps should be resected using cold resection techniques. Submucosal injection may be helpful for polyps >10 mm if margins cannot be well delineated. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: Use hot snare polypectomy to remove pedunculated lesions >10 mm in size. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: Do not routinely use clips to close resection sites for polyps <20 mm. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: Refer patients with polyps to endoscopic referral centers in the context of size ≥20 mm, challenging polypectomy location, or recurrent polyp at a prior polypectomy site. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 10: Tattoo lesions that may need future localization at endoscopy or surgery. Tattoos should be placed in a location that will not interfere with subsequent attempts at endoscopic resection. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 11: Refer patients with nonpedunculated polyps with clear evidence of submucosally invasive cancer for surgical evaluation. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 12: Understand the endoscopy suite's electrosurgical generator settings appropriate for polypectomy or postpolypectomy thermal techniques.

Prospective randomized pilot study of a novel patient-centered pathology report for colorectal polyps.

Objective: US patients have increased access to their medical records, yet the information is not always understandable. To improve patient understanding, we tested a patient-centered pathology report (PCPR) containing results for recent colon cancer screening or surveillance colonoscopy. Methods: A pilot randomized trial assessed the impact of addition of the PCPR to a standard pathology report on knowledge accuracy, decisional self-efficacy and control, and therapeutic alliance. Results: 55 participants were enrolled; 20 participants in the intervention group and 24 controls completed follow-up. There was no significant difference in polyp knowledge between groups at baseline or 30-days, with similar confidence in understanding their diagnoses, decisional self-efficacy, and therapeutic alliance. Most participants receiving a PCPR felt that it helped them understand their diagnosis better and should always be provided with the standard pathology report. Conclusion: Although patient attitudes toward the PCPR were positive, receiving it did not significantly improve knowledge accuracy or measures of self-efficacy. Further iterations should be explored to communicate key knowledge about colorectal polyp results. Innovation: A stakeholder-driven approach to PCPR development facilitated construction of a personalized document that has potential to increase patient's understanding for their results and needed follow-up.

Esophageal luminal temperature monitoring using a multi-sensor probe lowers the risk of esophageal injury in cryo and radiofrequency catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Esophageal luminal temperature monitoring is a commonly used strategy to reduce esophageal thermal injury in catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AFib). OBJECTIVES: We sought to compare the incidence of endoscopically detected esophageal lesions (EDEL) between two commonly used esophageal luminal temperature probes. METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing ablation with esophageal luminal temperature monitoring and upper endoscopy within 24 h after ablation were included. RESULTS: Four hundred forty-five patients (64 ± 10 years, 44% female) were included. Esophageal temperature monitoring was done with a single-sensor probe in 213 (48%) and multi-sensor probe in 232 (52%). Cryoballoon (CB) ablation was performed in 118 (27%) and radiofrequency (RF) ablation in 327 (73%) of patients. EDEL was present in 94 (22.9%) of which 85 were mild, 8 were moderate, and 1 was severe, and none progressed to atrial-esophageal fistula. The use of the multi-sensor probe during CB ablation was associated with a reduction in EDEL compared to single sensor (6.8% vs 24.3%; P = 0.016). Similarly, in the RF ablation group, EDEL was present in 19.5% of the multi-sensor group vs 32.8% in the single-sensor group (P = 0.001). Logistic regression showed that multi-sensor probe use was associated with reduction in EDEL with an odds ratio of 0.23 in CB ablation (P = 0.024) and 0.44 for RF ablation (P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Esophageal luminal temperature monitoring during AFib ablation using a multi-sensor probe was associated with a significant reduction in EDEL compared to a single-sensor probe.

Multi-pilot implementation experiences of patient-centered pathology reports: lessons learned for the advancement of patient-centered tools for cancer decision-making.

PURPOSE: New federal legislation in the United States grants patients expanded access to their medical records, making it critical that medical records information is understandable to patients. Provision of informational summaries significantly increase patient perceptions of patient-centered care and reduce feelings of uncertainty, yet their use for cancer pathology is limited. METHODS: Our team developed and piloted patient-centered versions of pathology reports (PCPRs) for four cancer organ sites: prostate, bladder, breast, and colorectal polyp. The objective of this analysis was to identify common barriers and facilitators to support dissemination of PCPRs in care delivery settings. We analyzed quantitative and qualitative data from pilot PCPR implementations, guided by the RE-AIM framework to explore constructs of reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance. RESULTS: We present two case studies of PCPR implementation - breast cancer and colorectal polyps-that showcase diverse workflows for pathology reporting. Cross-pilot learnings emphasize the potential for PCPRs to improve patient satisfaction, knowledge, quality of shared decision-making activities, yet several barriers to dissemination exist. CONCLUSION: While there is promise in expanding patient-centered cancer communication tools, more work is needed to expand the technological capacity for PCPRs and connect PCPRs to opportunities to reduce costs, improve quality, and reduce waste in care delivery systems.

AGA Clinical Practice Update on Management of Refractory Celiac Disease: Expert Review.

DESCRIPTION: The purpose of this expert review is to summarize the diagnosis and management of refractory celiac disease. It will review evaluation of patients with celiac disease who have persistent or recurrent symptoms, differential diagnosis, nutritional support, potential therapeutic options, and surveillance for complications of this condition. METHODS: This expert review was commissioned and approved by the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute Clinical Practice Updates Committee (CPUC) and the AGA Governing Board to provide timely guidance on a topic of high clinical importance to the AGA membership and underwent internal peer review by the CPUC and external peer review through standard procedures of Gastroenterology. These Best Practice Advice (BPA) statements were drawn from a review of the published literature and from expert opinion. Since systematic reviews were not performed, these BPA statements do not carry formal ratings of the quality of evidence or strength of the presented considerations. Best Practice Advice Statements BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: In patients believed to have celiac disease who have persistent or recurrent symptoms or signs, the initial diagnosis of celiac disease should be confirmed by review of prior diagnostic testing, including serologies, endoscopies, and histologic findings. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: In patients with confirmed celiac disease with persistent or recurrent symptoms or signs (nonresponsive celiac disease), ongoing gluten ingestion should be excluded as a cause of these symptoms with serologic testing, dietitian review, and detection of immunogenic peptides in stool or urine. Esophagogastroduodenoscopy with small bowel biopsies should be performed to look for villous atrophy. If villous atrophy persists or the initial diagnosis of celiac disease was not confirmed, consider other causes of villous atrophy, including common variable immunodeficiency, autoimmune enteropathy, tropical sprue, and medication-induced enteropathy. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: For patients with nonresponsive celiac disease, after exclusion of gluten ingestion, perform a systematic evaluation for other potential causes of symptoms, including functional bowel disorders, microscopic colitis, pancreatic insufficiency, inflammatory bowel disease, lactose or fructose intolerance, and small intestinal bacterial overgrowth. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: Use flow cytometry, immunohistochemistry, and T-cell receptor rearrangement studies to distinguish between subtypes of refractory celiac disease and to exclude enteropathy-associated T-cell lymphoma. Type 1 refractory celiac disease is characterized by a normal intraepithelial lymphocyte population and type 2 is defined by the presence of an aberrant, clonal intraepithelial lymphocyte population. Consultation with an expert hematopathologist is necessary to interpret these studies. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: Perform small bowel imaging with capsule endoscopy and computed tomography or magnetic resonance enterography to exclude enteropathy-associated T-cell lymphoma and ulcerative jejunoileitis at initial diagnosis of type 2 refractory celiac disease. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: Complete a detailed nutritional assessment with investigation of micronutrient and macronutrient deficiencies in patients diagnosed with refractory celiac disease. Check albumin as an independent prognostic factor. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: Correct deficiencies in macro- and micronutrients using oral supplements and/or enteral support. Consider parenteral nutrition for patients with severe malnutrition due to malabsorption. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: Corticosteroids, most commonly open-capsule budesonide or, if unavailable, prednisone, are the medication of choice and should be used as first-line therapy in either type 1 or type 2 refractory celiac disease. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: Patients with refractory celiac disease require regular follow-up by a multidisciplinary team, including gastroenterologists and dietitians, to assess clinical and histologic response to therapy. Identify local experts with expertise in celiac disease to assist with management. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 10: Patients with refractory celiac disease without response to steroids may benefit from referral to a center with expertise for management or evaluation for inclusion in clinical trials.

Patient navigation for hereditary colorectal cancer: Design of a randomized controlled trial to determine the effectiveness of pathways to genetic counseling.

BACKGROUND: Diagnosis of Lynch and other hereditary colorectal cancer (CRC) syndromes through germline genetic testing has important implications for treatment and risk-management, yet guideline-recommended genetic counseling referral and attendance is suboptimal. METHODS: Our team developed an adapted patient navigation program-Pathways to Genetic Counseling-to address multilevel barriers to genetic counseling referral and receipt. This paper describes the methods of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) testing Pathways to Genetic Counseling's effectiveness at increasing genetic counseling attendance in the University of Washington Medicine health system. We will identify CRC patients eligible for genetic counseling (diagnosed before age 50 or at any age with evidence of inherited mismatch repair deficiency) through a combination of structured electronic health record queries and manual chart review. Patients will be randomized 1:1 prior to consent and receive either care as usual (no contact) or be invited to participate in patient navigation. We will use chart review to compare rates of genetic counseling referral and attendance within six months of randomization, regardless of patients' engagement with navigation. We plan to identify and randomize 161 eligible CRC patients over a nine-month period beginning in late 2021. DISCUSSION: Our pragmatic RCT design will provide real-world data on the potential for patient navigation to address longstanding care gaps in preventive genomic medicine. If effective, we hope to pilot Pathways to Genetic Counseling in additional settings with a long-term goal of improving appropriate diagnosis of hereditary CRC syndromes and subsequent cascade screening of eligible family members.

Genomic and functional characterization of a mucosal symbiont involved in early-stage colorectal cancer.

Colorectal cancer is a major health concern worldwide. Growing evidence for the role of the gut microbiota in the initiation of CRC has sparked interest in approaches that target these microorganisms. However, little is known about the composition and role of the microbiota associated with precancerous polyps. Here, we found distinct microbial signatures between patients with and without polyps and between polyp subtypes using sequencing and culturing techniques. We found a correlation between Bacteroides fragilis recovered and the level of inflammatory cytokines in the mucosa adjacent to the polyp. Additional analysis revealed that B. fragilis from patients with polyps are bft-negative, activate NF-κB through Toll-like receptor 4, induce a pro-inflammatory response, and are enriched in genes associated with LPS biosynthesis. This study provides fundamental insight into the microbial microenvironment of the pre-neoplastic polyp by highlighting strain-specific genomic and proteomic differences, as well as more broad compositional differences in the microbiome.

AGA Clinical Practice Update on Management of Chronic Gastrointestinal Pain in Disorders of Gut-Brain Interaction: Expert Review.

DESCRIPTION: This expert review summarizes approaches to management of pain in disorders of gut-brain interaction. This review focuses specifically on approaches to pain that persist if first-line therapies aimed at addressing visceral causes of pain are unsuccessful. The roles of a therapeutic patient-provider relationship, nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic therapies, and avoidance of opioids are discussed. METHODS: This was not a formal systematic review but was based on a review of the literature to provide best practice advice statements. No formal rating of the quality of evidence or strength of recommendation was performed. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: Effective management of persistent pain in disorders of gut-brain interaction requires a collaborative, empathic, culturally sensitive, patient-provider relationship. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: Providers should master patient-friendly language about the pathogenesis of pain, leveraging advances in neuroscience and behavioral science. Providers also must understand the psychological contexts in which pain is perpetuated. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: Opioids should not be prescribed for chronic gastrointestinal pain because of a disorder of gut-brain interaction. If patients are referred on opioids, these medications should be prescribed responsibly, via multidisciplinary collaboration, until they can be discontinued. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: Nonpharmacologic therapies should be considered routinely as part of comprehensive pain management, and ideally brought up early on in care. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: Providers should optimize medical therapies that are known to modulate pain and be able to differentiate when gastrointestinal pain is triggered by visceral factors vs centrally mediated factors. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: Providers should familiarize themselves with a few effective neuromodulators, knowing the dosing, side effects, and targets of each and be able to explain to the patient why these drugs are used for the management of persistent pain.

Survey Finds Gender Disparities Impact Both Women Mentors and Mentees in Gastroenterology.

INTRODUCTION: Gastroenterologists at all levels of practice benefit from formal mentoring. Much of the current literature on mentoring in gastroenterology is based on expert opinion rather than data. In this study, we aimed to identify gender-related barriers to successful mentoring relationships from the mentor and mentee perspectives. METHODS: A voluntary, web-based survey was distributed to physicians at 20 academic institutions across the United States. Overall, 796 gastroenterology fellows and faculty received the survey link, with 334 physicians responding to the survey (42% response rate), of whom 299 (90%; 129 women and 170 men) completed mentorship questions and were included in analysis. RESULTS: Responses of women and men were compared. Compared with men, more women preferred a mentor of the same gender (38.6% women vs 4.2% men, P < 0.0001) but less often had one (45.5% vs 70.2%, P < 0.0001). Women also reported having more difficulty finding a mentor (44.4% vs 16.0%, P < 0.0001) and more often cited inability to identify a mentor of the same gender as a contributing factor (12.8% vs 0.9%, P = 0.0004). More women mentors felt comfortable advising women mentees about work-life balance (88.3% vs 63.8%, P = 0.0005). Nonetheless, fewer women considered themselves effective mentors (33.3% vs 52.6%, P = 0.03). More women reported feeling pressured to mentor because of their gender (39.5% vs 0.9% of men, P < 0.0001). Despite no gender differences, one-third of respondents reported negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on their ability to mentor and be mentored. DISCUSSION: Inequities exist in the experiences of women mentees and mentors in gastroenterology, which may affect career advancement and job satisfaction.

"Help me figure this out": Qualitative explorations of patient experiences with cancer pathology reports.

OBJECTIVE: For patients with a new cancer diagnosis, the pathology report is a critical tool to support diagnosis and decision-making, yet they are designed for providers, not patients. We sought to qualitatively explore patients' experiences receiving and interpreting pathology reports for breast and colorectal cancers. METHODS: We conducted four focus groups with patients (n = 23) who had received diagnostic or surgical pathology reports for breast cancer, colorectal cancer or polypectomy. Focus groups discussed patients' experiences with pathology reports and recommendations for improving the patient-centeredness of report design. Focus groups were transcribed and thematic analysis was used to explore patient perspectives. RESULTS: Participants described experiences with pathology reports that were fraught with confusion and variability. Three central themes were identified related to how 1) the experience receiving the pathology report, 2) the pathology report language, and 3) the format of pathology reports all influence patient understanding and ability to engage in treatment decision-making. CONCLUSION: Due to their complex medical language and challenging framing, traditional pathology reports can contribute to the confusion and uncertainty patients experience as they navigate a new cancer diagnosis.

Improving the impact of clinical documentation through patient-driven co-design: experiences with cancer pathology reports.

OBJECTIVE: With the unprecedented rise of patient access to clinical documentation through electronic health records, there is a need for health systems to understand best practices for redesigning clinical documentation to support patient needs. This study used an experience-based co-design approach to inform the redesign of cancer pathology reports to improve their patient-centeredness and impact on patient engagement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Multiple methods for data collection and stakeholder engagement were used, including Delphi prioritisation with breast and colorectal cancer experts (n=78) and focus groups with patients with cancer (n=23) in the Seattle area. Iterative rounds of consensus generation and reflection were used to elicit themes and design recommendations for the development of patient-centred pathology reports on cancer care. RESULTS: Although each cancer type had nuanced elements to consider, common design requirements emerged around two key themes: (1) clinical documentation language should be framed in a way that informs and engages patients, and (2) clinical documentation format should be leveraged to enhance readability and information flow. Study activities illuminated detailed recommendations to improve the patient-centeredness of pathology reports based on patients' and clinicians' lived experience. DISCUSSION: The design requirements that emerged from this study provide a framework that can guide the rapid development of patient-centred pathology reports for all cancer types. Even further, health systems can replicate these methods to guide experience-based co-design of clinical documentation for contexts beyond cancer care. CONCLUSION: This work offers practice-based learnings that can more effectively guide health systems in their clinical documentation redesign efforts.