Screening and surveillance of oesophageal varices in patients with HCV-positive liver cirrhosis successfully treated by direct-acting antiviral agents.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: limited evidence is available to guide hepatologists regarding endoscopic surveillance of oesophageal varices (EV) in Hepatitis C Virus (HCV)-positive cirrhotic patients achieving a sustained virologic response. To address these issues, we conducted a long-term prospective study on 427 HCV-positive cirrhotic patients successfully treated by Direct Antiviral Agents (DAAs). METHODS: Patients were divided into two groups according to their baseline Baveno VI status: Group 1 (92, 21.5%, favourable Baveno VI status) and Group 2 (335, 78.5%, unfavourable Baveno VI status). Each patient underwent baseline endoscopy and was endoscopically monitored for a median follow-up of 65.2 months according to Baveno VI recommendations. RESULTS: About 4.3% of Group 1 patients showed baseline EV compared with 30.1% of Group 2 patients (p < .0001). No patients belonging to Group 1 without baseline EV developed EV at follow-up endoscopy compared with 6.5% in Group 2 patients (p = .02); 69/107 (64.5%) patients with baseline EV showed small varices. During the endoscopic follow-up, EV disappeared/improved in 36 (33.6%), were stable in 39 (36.4%) and worsened in 32 (29.9%) patients, all belonging to Group 2 (p = .001). Improvement in Baveno VI status was observed in 118/335 (35.2%, p < .0001) of Group 2 patients and among those without pre-therapy EV, none developed EV throughout the follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: HCV-positive cirrhotic patients cured by DAAs showing baseline favourable Baveno VI status and no worsening during follow-up can safely avoid endoscopic screening and surveillance. Patients having unfavourable Baveno VI status without baseline EV who improve their status may suspend further endoscopic surveillance.

Full-spectrum (FUSE) versus standard forward-viewing colonoscopy in an organised colorectal cancer screening programme.

OBJECTIVE: Miss rate of polyps has been shown to be substantially lower with full-spectrum endoscopy (FUSE) compared with standard forward-viewing (SFV) colonoscopy in a tandem study at per polyp analysis. However, there is uncertainty on whether FUSE is also associated with a higher detection rate of colorectal neoplasia, especially advanced lesions, in per patient analysis. METHODS: Consecutive subjects undergoing colonoscopy following a positive faecal immunochemical test (FIT) by experienced endoscopists and performed in the context of a regional colorectal cancer population-screening programme were randomised between colonoscopy with either FUSE or SFV colonoscopy in seven Italian centres. Randomisation was stratified by gender, age group and screening history. Primary outcomes included detection rates of advanced adenomas (A-ADR), adenomas (ADR) and sessile-serrated polyps (SSPDR). RESULTS: Of 741 eligible subjects, 658 were randomised to either FUSE (n=328) or SFV (n=330) colonoscopy and included in the analysis. Overall, 293/658 and 143/658 subjects had at least one adenoma (ADR 44.5%) and advanced adenoma (A-ADR 21.7%), respectively, while SSP was the most advanced lesion in 18 cases (SSPDR 2.7%). ADR and A-ADR were 43.6% and 19.5% in the FUSE arm, and 45.5% and 23.9% in the SFV arm, with no difference for both ADR (OR for FUSE: 0.96, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.14) and A-ADR (OR for FUSE: 0.82, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.09). No difference in SSPDR or multiplicity was detected between the two arms. In the per polyp analysis, the mean number of adenomas and proximal adenomas per patient was 0.81±1.25 and 0.47±0.93 in the FUSE arm, and 0.85±1.33 and 0.48±0.96 in the SFV colonoscopy arm (p=NS for both comparisons). CONCLUSIONS: No statistically significant difference in ADR and A-ADR between FUSE and SFV colonoscopy was detected in a per patient analysis in FIT-positive patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN10357435.