Endoscopic management of patients with familial adenomatous polyposis after prophylactic colectomy or restorative proctocolectomy - systematic review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: Patients with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) develop early colorectal adenomas and if left untreated, progression to cancer is an inevitable event. Prophylactic surgery does not prevent further development of cancer in the rectal remnant, rectal cuff in patients with ileal pouch anal anastomosis (IPAA) and even on the ileal mucosa of the pouch body. The aim of this review is to assess long-term rates of cancer and adenoma development in patients with FAP after prophylactic surgery and to summarise current recommendations for endoscopic management and surveillance of these patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic literature search of studies from January 1946 through to June 2023 was conducted using the PRISMA checklist. The electronic database PubMed was searched. RESULTS: Fifty-four papers involving 5010 patients were reviewed. Cancer rate in the rectal remnant was 8.8-16.7% in the western population and 37% in the eastern population. The cumulative risk of cancer 30 years after surgery was 24%. Mortality due to cancer in the rectal remnant is 1.1-11.1% with a 5-year survival rate of 55%. The adenoma rate after primary IPAA was 9.4-85% with a cumulative risk of 85% 20 years after surgery and a cumulative risk of 12% for advanced adenomas 10 years after surgery. Cumulative risk for adenomas after ileorectal anastomosis (IRA) was 85% after 5 and 100% after 10 years. Adenomas developed more frequently after stapled (33.9-57%) compared to hand-sewn (0-33%) anastomosis. We identified reports of 45 cancers in patients after IPAA of which 30 were in the pouch body and 15 in the rectal cuff or at the anastomosis. CONCLUSIONS: There was a significant incidence of cancer and adenomas in the rectal remnant and ileal pouch of FAP patients during the long-term follow-up. Regular endoscopic surveillance is recommended, not only in IRA patients, but also in pouch patients after proctocolectomy.

Colorectal polypectomy and endoscopic mucosal resection: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline - Update 2024.

1: ESGE recommends cold snare polypectomy (CSP), to include a clear margin of normal tissue (1-2 mm) surrounding the polyp, for the removal of diminutive polyps (≤ 5 mm).Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 2: ESGE recommends against the use of cold biopsy forceps excision because of its high rate of incomplete resection.Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. 3: ESGE recommends CSP, to include a clear margin of normal tissue (1-2 mm) surrounding the polyp, for the removal of small polyps (6-9 mm).Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 4: ESGE recommends hot snare polypectomy for the removal of nonpedunculated adenomatous polyps of 10-19 mm in size.Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 5: ESGE recommends conventional (diathermy-based) endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for large (≥ 20 mm) nonpedunculated adenomatous polyps (LNPCPs).Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 6: ESGE suggests that underwater EMR can be considered an alternative to conventional hot EMR for the treatment of adenomatous LNPCPs.Weak recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. 7: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) may also be suggested as an alternative for removal of LNPCPs of ≥ 20 mm in selected cases and in high-volume centers.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 8: ESGE recommends that, after piecemeal EMR of LNPCPs by hot snare, the resection margins should be treated by thermal ablation using snare-tip soft coagulation to prevent adenoma recurrence.Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 9: ESGE recommends (piecemeal) cold snare polypectomy or cold EMR for SSLs of all sizes without suspected dysplasia.Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. 10: ESGE recommends prophylactic endoscopic clip closure of the mucosal defect after EMR of LNPCPs in the right colon to reduce to reduce the risk of delayed bleeding.Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 11: ESGE recommends that en bloc resection techniques, such as en bloc EMR, ESD, endoscopic intermuscular dissection, endoscopic full-thickness resection, or surgery should be the techniques of choice in cases with suspected superficial invasive carcinoma, which otherwise cannot be removed en bloc by standard polypectomy or EMR.Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence.

Effect of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic on colorectal cancer diagnosis and prognosis.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Our aim was to determine the impact of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic on the diagnosis and prognosis of colorectal cancer (CRC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This prospective cohort study included individuals diagnosed with CRC between March 13, 2019 and June 20, 2021 across 21 Spanish hospitals. Two time periods were compared: prepandemic (from March 13, 2019 to March 13, 2020) and pandemic (from March 14, 2020 to June 20, 2021, lockdown period and 1 year after lockdown). RESULTS: We observed a 46.9% decrease in the number of CRC diagnoses (95% confidence interval (CI): 45.1%-48.7%) during the lockdown and 29.7% decrease (95% CI: 28.1%-31.4%) in the year after the lockdown. The proportion of patients diagnosed at stage I significantly decreased during the pandemic (21.7% vs. 19.0%; p = 0.025). Centers that applied universal preprocedure SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing experienced a higher reduction in the number of colonoscopies performed during the pandemic post-lockdown (34.0% reduction; 95% CI: 33.6%-34.4% vs. 13.7; 95% CI: 13.4%-13.9%) and in the number of CRCs diagnosed (34.1% reduction; 95% CI: 31.4%-36.8% vs. 26.7%; 95% CI: 24.6%-28.8%). Curative treatment was received by 87.5% of patients diagnosed with rectal cancer prepandemic and 80.7% of patients during the pandemic post-lockdown period (p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a decrease in the number of diagnosed CRC cases and in the proportion of stage I CRC. The reduction in the number of colonoscopies and CRC diagnoses was higher in centers that applied universal SARS-CoV-2 PCR screening before colonoscopy. In addition, the COVID-19 pandemic has affected curative treatment of rectal cancers.

Establishment of Standards for the Referral of Large Non-Pedunculated Colorectal Polyps: An International Expert Consensus Using a Modified Delphi Process.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Resection of colorectal polyps has been shown to decrease the incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer. Large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps are often referred to expert centres for endoscopic resection, which requires relevant information to be conveyed to the therapeutic endoscopist to allow for triage and planning of resection technique. The primary objective of our study was to establish minimum expected standards for the referral of LNPCP for potential ER. METHODS: A Delphi methodology was employed to establish consensus on minimum expected standards for the referral of large colorectal polyps among a panel of international endoscopy experts. The expert panel was recruited through purposive sampling, and three rounds of surveys were conducted to achieve consensus, with quantitative and qualitative data analysed for each round. RESULTS: A total of 24 international experts from diverse continents participated in the Delphi study, resulting in consensus on 19 statements related to the referral of large colorectal polyps. The identified factors, including patient demographics, relevant medications, lesion factors, photodocumentation and the presence of a tattoo, were deemed important for conveying the necessary information to therapeutic endoscopists. The mean scores for the statements ranged from 7.04 to 9.29 out of 10, with high percentages of experts considering most statements as a very high priority. Subgroup analysis by continent revealed some variations in consensus rates among experts from different regions. CONCLUSION: The identified consensus statements can aid in improving the triage and planning of resection techniques for large colorectal polyps, ultimately contributing to the reduction of colorectal cancer incidence and mortality.

Gender authorship in major American and European gastroenterology journals: the gap is still unfilled.

BACKGROUND: The gender gap in the authorship of scientific research may affect career advancement. Our aim was to assess the potential gender gap in gastrointestinal (GI) journals. METHODS: A systematic review was performed of the GI literature and ongoing research in the period 2020-2022. A total 10 GI journals and ongoing research on clinicaltrials.gov were selected for review. The gender gap in first and senior authorship was evaluated for each article and ongoing research project. Associations between the gender gap and possible predictors were measured and results are presented as odds ratios (ORs) with 95%CI. RESULTS: The number of first female authors (FFAs) and senior female authors (SFAs) in published articles were 1408/4207 (33.5%) and 911/4207 (21.7%), respectively. There were 781/2654 (29.4%) female principal investigators (PI)s for the ongoing research. On comparison of non-endoscopic vs. endoscopic topics, the latter were associated with the gender gap (hepatology, OR 2.15 [95%CI 1.83-2.55]; inflammatory bowel disease, OR 2.12 [95%CI 1.60-2.45]; upper and lower GI, OR 1.31 [95%CI 1.18-1.73]); as well as the type of article (original article vs. editorial, OR 1.92 [95%CI 1.58-2.33]). The type of research was also associated with the gender gap (clinical vs. preclinical studies, OR 0.88 [95%CI 0.66-0.91]). CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrated a correlation between the gender gap and the design and topic of the research. Future strategies for improving equity in career development in GI endoscopy should focus on closing the gender gap in equity of authorship.

Management of colorectal cancer screening backlog due to the COVID-19 pandemic: A retrospective analysis of the use of a colorectal cancer screening clinical-decision support tool in Argentina

Background The COVID-19 pandemic created a backlog in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and surveillance colonoscopies. The real impact in Argentina is not fully known. Goal To estimate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on CRC prevention by comparing the number of CRC screening and surveillance consults in a clinical decision support-tool used in Argentina before, during and after pandemic lockdown. Methods We analyzed data from May 2019 to December 2021 from CaPtyVa, a clinical decision support tool for CRC screening and surveillance. Queries were divided in pre-pandemic (May 2019 to March 2020), lockdown (April 2020 to December 2020), and post-lockdown (January 2021 to December 2021). The number of CRC monthly screening and surveillance visits were compared among the three periods and stratified according to CRC risk. Results Overall, 27,563 consults were analyzed of which 9035 were screening and 18,528 were surveillance. Pre-pandemic, the median number of screening consults was 346 per month (IQR25–75 280–410). There was a decrease to 156 (80–210)/month (p < 0.005) during lockdown that partially recovered during post-lockdown to 230 (170–290)/month (p = 0.05). Pre-pandemic, the median number of surveillance consults was 716 (560–880)/month. They decreased to 354 (190–470)/month during lockdown (p < .05) and unlike screening, completely recovered during post-lockdown to 581 (450–790)/month. Conclusions There was a >50% decrease in the number of CRC screening and surveillance consults registered in CaPtyVa during lockdown in Argentina. Post-lockdown, surveillance consults recovered to pre-pandemic levels, but screening consults remained at 66% of pre-pandemic levels. This has implications for delays in CRC diagnoses and patient outcomes (AU)

Antecedentes La pandemia de COVID-19 provocó atraso en las colonoscopias de detección y vigilancia del cáncer colorrectal (CCR). Objetivo Estimar el impacto de la pandemia de COVID-19 en la prevención del CCR comparando el número de consultas de pesquisa y vigilancia del CCR en una herramienta digital de apoyo a la decisión clínica utilizada en Argentina antes, durante y después del confinamiento. Métodos Analizamos datos entre mayo 2019 a diciembre 2021 de CaPtyVa, una herramienta digital de apoyo a la toma de decisiones clínicas para la pesquisa y vigilancia del CCR. Las consultas se dividieron en prepandemia (mayo 2019- marzo 2020), confinamiento (abril 2020- diciembre 2020) y post-confinamiento (enero 2021-diciembre 2021). El número de visitas mensuales de pesquisa y vigilancia de CCR se comparó entre períodos y se estratificó según riesgo de CCR. Resultados Prepandemia, la mediana de consultas de detección fue 346 mes (IQR25-75 280-410). Hubo una disminución a 156 (80-210)/mes (p<0,005) durante el confinamiento que ascendió a 230 (170-290)/mes (p=0,05) en el post-confinamiento. Prepandemia, la mediana de consultas de vigilancia fue 716 (560-880)/mes. Disminuyeron a 354 (190-470)/mes durante el confinamiento (p<0,05) y se recuperaron por completo durante el post-confinamiento. Conclusiones Hubo una disminución >50% en el número de consultas de detección y vigilancia de CCR registradas en CaPtyVa durante el confinamiento en Argentina. Post-confinamiento, las consultas de vigilancia se recuperaron a niveles prepandemia, pero las consultas de detección se mantuvieron en el 66 % de niveles históricos. Esto tendría implicaciones en los diagnósticos y pronósticos de CCR (AU)

Standardised training for endoscopic mucosal resection of large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps to reduce recurrence (*STAR-LNPCP study): a multicentre cluster randomised trial.

OBJECTIVE: Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is the preferred treatment for non-invasive large (≥20 mm) non-pedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs) but is associated with an early recurrence rate of up to 30%. We evaluated whether standardised EMR training could reduce recurrence rates in Dutch community hospitals. DESIGN: In this multicentre cluster randomised trial, 59 endoscopists from 30 hospitals were randomly assigned to the intervention group (e-learning and 2-day training including hands-on session) or control group. From April 2019 to August 2021, all consecutive EMR-treated LNPCPs were included. Primary endpoint was recurrence rate after 6 months. RESULTS: A total of 1412 LNPCPs were included; 699 in the intervention group and 713 in the control group (median size 30 mm vs 30 mm, 45% vs 52% size, morphology, site and access (SMSA) score IV, 64% vs 64% proximal location). Recurrence rates were lower in the intervention group compared with controls (13% vs 25%, OR 0.43; 95% CI 0.23 to 0.78; p=0.005) with similar complication rates (8% vs 9%, OR 0.93; 95% CI 0.64 to 1.36; p=0.720). Recurrences were more often unifocal in the intervention group (92% vs 76%; p=0.006). In sensitivity analysis, the benefit of the intervention on recurrence rate was only observed in the 20-40 mm LNPCPs (5% vs 20% in 20-29 mm, p=0.001; 10% vs 21% in 30-39 mm, p=0.013) but less evident in ≥40 mm LNPCPs (24% vs 31%; p=0.151). In a post hoc analysis, the training effect was maintained in the study group, while in the control group the recurrence rate remained high. CONCLUSION: A compact standardised EMR training for LNPCPs significantly reduced recurrences in community hospitals. This strongly argues for a national dedicated training programme for endoscopists performing EMR of ≥20 mm LNPCPs. Interestingly, in sensitivity analysis, this benefit was limited for LNPCPs ≥40 mm. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR7477.

Management of colorectal cancer screening backlog due to the COVID-19 pandemic: A retrospective analysis of the use of a colorectal cancer screening clinical-decision support tool in Argentina.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic created a backlog in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and surveillance colonoscopies. The real impact in Argentina is not fully known. GOAL: To estimate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on CRC prevention by comparing the number of CRC screening and surveillance consults in a clinical decision support-tool used in Argentina before, during and after pandemic lockdown. METHODS: We analyzed data from May 2019 to December 2021 from CaPtyVa, a clinical decision support tool for CRC screening and surveillance. Queries were divided in pre-pandemic (May 2019 to March 2020), lockdown (April 2020 to December 2020), and post-lockdown (January 2021 to December 2021). The number of CRC monthly screening and surveillance visits were compared among the three periods and stratified according to CRC risk. RESULTS: Overall, 27,563 consults were analyzed of which 9035 were screening and 18,528 were surveillance. Pre-pandemic, the median number of screening consults was 346 per month (IQR25-75 280-410). There was a decrease to 156 (80-210)/month (p<0.005) during lockdown that partially recovered during post-lockdown to 230 (170-290)/month (p=0.05). Pre-pandemic, the median number of surveillance consults was 716 (560-880)/month. They decreased to 354 (190-470)/month during lockdown (p<.05) and unlike screening, completely recovered during post-lockdown to 581 (450-790)/month. CONCLUSIONS: There was a >50% decrease in the number of CRC screening and surveillance consults registered in CaPtyVa during lockdown in Argentina. Post-lockdown, surveillance consults recovered to pre-pandemic levels, but screening consults remained at 66% of pre-pandemic levels. This has implications for delays in CRC diagnoses and patient outcomes.

Training in basic gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates (ESGENA) Position Statement.

This ESGE Position Statement provides structured and evidence-based guidance on the essential requirements and processes involved in training in basic gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic procedures. The document outlines definitions; competencies required, and means to their assessment and maintenance; the structure and requirements of training programs; patient safety and medicolegal issues. 1: ESGE and ESGENA define basic endoscopic procedures as those procedures that are commonly indicated, generally accessible, and expected to be mastered (technically and cognitively) by the end of any core training program in gastrointestinal endoscopy. 2: ESGE and ESGENA consider the following as basic endoscopic procedures: diagnostic upper and lower GI endoscopy, as well as a limited range of interventions such as: tissue acquisition via cold biopsy forceps, polypectomy for lesions ≤ 10 mm, hemostasis techniques, enteral feeding tube placement, foreign body retrieval, dilation of simple esophageal strictures, and India ink tattooing of lesion location. 3: ESGE and ESGENA recommend that training in GI endoscopy should be subject to stringent formal requirements that ensure all ESGE key performance indicators (KPIs) are met. 4: Training in basic endoscopic procedures is a complex process and includes the development and acquisition of cognitive, technical/motor, and integrative skills. Therefore, ESGE and ESGENA recommend the use of validated tools to track the development of skills and assess competence. 5: ESGE and ESGENA recommend incorporating a multimodal approach to evaluating competence in basic GI endoscopic procedures, including procedural thresholds and the measurement and documentation of established ESGE KPIs. 7: ESGE and ESGENA recommend the continuous monitoring of ESGE KPIs during GI endoscopy training to ensure the trainee's maintenance of competence. 9: ESGE and ESGENA recommend that GI endoscopy training units fulfil the ESGE KPIs for endoscopy units and, furthermore, be capable of providing the dedicated personnel, infrastructure, and sufficient case volume required for successful training within a structured training program. 10: ESGE and ESGENA recommend that trainers in basic GI endoscopic procedures should be endoscopists with formal educational training in the teaching of endoscopy, which allows them to successfully and safely teach trainees.

Linked-color imaging versus high definition white-light endoscopy for evaluation of post-polypectomy scars of nonpedunculated lesions: LCI-Scar study.

BACKGROUND: Detection and treatment of recurrence after piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection of nonpedunculated colorectal polyps are crucial for avoidance of post-colonoscopy cancer. Linked-color imaging (LCI) has demonstrated improved polyp detection but has never been assessed for evaluation of post-polypectomy scars. Our aim was to compare sensitivity and negative predictive value (NPV) between LCI and white-light endoscopy (WLE) for detection of post-polypectomy recurrence. METHODS: Patients undergoing surveillance colonoscopy after resection of lesions ≥15 mm were included in this prospective, single-center, randomized, crossover study. Each post-polypectomy scar underwent two examinations, one with LCI and the other with WLE, performed by two blinded endoscopists. Blue-light imaging (BLI) was then applied. A diagnosis of recurrence with a level of confidence was made for each modality and histopathology was the gold standard. RESULTS: 129 patients with 173 scars were included. Baseline patient, lesion, and procedural characteristics were similar in both arms. Recurrence was detected in 56/173 (32.4%), with 27/56 (48.2%) adenomas and 29/56 (51.8%) serrated lesions. LCI had greater sensitivity (96.4% [95%CI 87.8%-99.5%]) versus WLE (89.3% [95%CI 78.1%-95.9%]) and greater NPV (98.1% [95%CI 93.4%-99.8%] versus 94.6% [95%CI 88.7%-98.0%]). Paired concordance between modalities was 96.0%. In discordant cases, LCI identified four true-positive cases not detected by WLE and reclassified one false-positive of WLE. WLE reclassified two false positives of LCI without any increase in recurrence detection. CONCLUSIONS: LCI was highly accurate and had greater ability than WLE to rule out recurrence on post-polypectomy scars after resection of large polyps.

Lymph Node Molecular Analysis with OSNA Enables the Identification of pT1 CRC Patients at Risk of Recurrence: A Multicentre Study.

Early-stage colorectal carcinoma (CRC)-pT1-is a therapeutic challenge and presents some histological features related to lymph node metastasis (LNM). A significant proportion of pT1 CRCs are treated surgically, resulting in a non-negligible surgical-associated mortality rate of 1.5-2%. Among these cases, approximately 6-16% exhibit LNM, but the impact on survival is unclear. Therefore, there is an unmet need to establish an objective and reliable lymph node (LN) staging method to optimise the therapeutic management of pT1 CRC patients and to avoid overtreating or undertreating them. In this multicentre study, 89 patients with pT1 CRC were included. All histological features associated with LNM were evaluated. LNs were assessed using two methods, One-Step Nucleic Acid Amplification (OSNA) and the conventional FFPE plus haematoxylin and eosin (H&E) staining. OSNA is an RT-PCR-based method for amplifying CK19 mRNA. Our aim was to assess the performance of OSNA and H&E in evaluating LNs to identify patients at risk of recurrence and to optimise their clinical management. We observed an 80.9% concordance in LN assessment using the two methods. In 9% of cases, LNs were found to be positive using H&E, and in 24.7% of cases, LNs were found to be positive using OSNA. The OSNA results are provided as the total tumour load (TTL), defined as the total tumour burden present in all the LNs of a surgical specimen. In CRC, a TTL ≥ 6000 CK19 m-RNA copies/µL is associated with poor prognosis. Three patients had TTL > 6000 copies/µL, which was associated with higher tumour budding. The discrepancies observed between the OSNA and H&E results were mostly attributed to tumour allocation bias. We concluded that LN assessment with OSNA enables the identification of pT1 CRC patients at some risk of recurrence and helps to optimise their clinical management.

Cold snare polypectomy for duodenal adenomas in familial adenomatous polyposis: a prospective international cohort study.

Background and study aims In patients with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP), endoscopic resection of duodenal adenomas is commonly performed to prevent cancer and prevent or defer duodenal surgery. However, based on studies using different resection techniques, adverse events (AEs) of polypectomy in the duodenum can be significant. We hypothesized that cold snare polypectomy (CSP) is a safe technique for duodenal adenomas in FAP and evaluated its outcomes in our centers. Patients and methods We performed a prospective international cohort study including FAP patients who underwent CSP for one or more superficial non-ampullary duodenal adenomas of any size between 2020 and 2022. At that time, this technique was common practice in our centers for superficial duodenal adenomas. The primary outcome was the occurrence of intraprocedural and post-procedural AEs. Results In total, 133 CSPs were performed in 39 patients with FAP (1-18 per session). Median adenoma size was 10 mm (interquartile range 8-15 mm), ranging from 5 to 40 mm; 27 adenomas were ≥20 mm (20%). Of the 133 polypectomies, 109 (82%) were performed after submucosal injection. Sixty-one adenomas (46%) were resected en bloc and 72 (54%) piecemeal. Macroscopic radical resection was achieved for 129 polypectomies (97%). Deep mural injury type II occurred in three polyps (2%) with no delayed perforation after prophylactic clipping. There were no clinically significant bleeds, perforations or other post-procedural AEs. Histopathology showed low-grade dysplasia in all 133 adenomas. Conclusions CSP for (multiple) superficial non-ampullary duodenal adenomas in FAP seems feasible and safe. Long-term prospective research is needed to evaluate whether protocolized duodenal polypectomies prevent cancer and surgery.

pT1 colorectal cancer: A treatment dilemma.

The implementation of population screening programs for colorectal cancer (CRC) has led to a considerable increase in the prevalence pT1-CRC originating on polyps amenable by local treatments. However, a high proportion of patients are referred for unnecessary oncological surgeries without a clear benefit in terms of survival. Selecting the appropriate endoscopic resection technique in the moment of diagnosis becomes crucial to provide the best treatment alternative to each individual polyp and patient. For this, it is imperative to increase the optical diagnostic skill for differentiating pT1-CRCs and decide the appropriate initial therapy. En bloc resection is crucial to obtain an adequate histological specimen that might allow organ preserving therapeutic management. In this review, we address key challenges in T1 CRC management, explore the efficacy and safety of the available diagnostic and therapeutic approaches, and shed light on upcoming advances in the field.

Role of Artificial Intelligence in Colonoscopy Detection of Advanced Neoplasias : A Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: The role of computer-aided detection in identifying advanced colorectal neoplasia is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the contribution of computer-aided detection to colonoscopic detection of advanced colorectal neoplasias as well as adenomas, serrated polyps, and nonpolypoid and right-sided lesions. DESIGN: Multicenter, parallel, randomized controlled trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04673136). SETTING: Spanish colorectal cancer screening program. PARTICIPANTS: 3213 persons with a positive fecal immunochemical test. INTERVENTION: Enrollees were randomly assigned to colonoscopy with or without computer-aided detection. MEASUREMENTS: Advanced colorectal neoplasia was defined as advanced adenoma and/or advanced serrated polyp. RESULTS: The 2 comparison groups showed no significant difference in advanced colorectal neoplasia detection rate (34.8% with intervention vs. 34.6% for controls; adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 1.01 [95% CI, 0.92 to 1.10]) or the mean number of advanced colorectal neoplasias detected per colonoscopy (0.54 [SD, 0.95] with intervention vs. 0.52 [SD, 0.95] for controls; adjusted rate ratio, 1.04 [99.9% CI, 0.88 to 1.22]). Adenoma detection rate also did not differ (64.2% with intervention vs. 62.0% for controls; aRR, 1.06 [99.9% CI, 0.91 to 1.23]). Computer-aided detection increased the mean number of nonpolypoid lesions (0.56 [SD, 1.25] vs. 0.47 [SD, 1.18] for controls; adjusted rate ratio, 1.19 [99.9% CI, 1.01 to 1.41]), proximal adenomas (0.94 [SD, 1.62] vs. 0.81 [SD, 1.52] for controls; adjusted rate ratio, 1.17 [99.9% CI, 1.03 to 1.33]), and lesions of 5 mm or smaller (polyps in general and adenomas and serrated lesions in particular) detected per colonoscopy. LIMITATIONS: The high adenoma detection rate in the control group may limit the generalizability of the findings to endoscopists with low detection rates. CONCLUSION: Computer-aided detection did not improve colonoscopic identification of advanced colorectal neoplasias. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Medtronic.

Informed consent for endoscopic procedures: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Position Statement.

All endoscopic procedures are invasive and carry risk. Accordingly, all endoscopists should involve the patient in the decision-making process about the most appropriate endoscopic procedure for that individual, in keeping with a patient's right to self-determination and autonomy. Recognition of this has led to detailed guidelines on informed consent for endoscopy in some countries, but in many no such guidance exists; this may lead to variations in care and exposure to risk of litigation. In this document, the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) sets out a series of statements that cover best practice in informed consent for endoscopy. These statements should be seen as a minimum standard of practice, but practitioners must be aware of and adhere to the law in their own country. 1: Patients should give informed consent for all gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures for which they have capacity to do so. 2: The healthcare professional seeking consent for an endoscopic procedure should ensure that the patient has the capacity to consent to that procedure. 3: For patients who lack capacity, healthcare personnel should at all times try to engage with people close to the patient, such as family, friends, or caregivers, to achieve consensus on the appropriateness of performing the procedure. 4: Where a patient lacks capacity to provide informed consent, the best interest decision should be clearly documented in the medical record. This should include information about the capacity assessment, reason(s) that the decision cannot be delayed for capacity recovery (or if recovery is not expected), who has been consulted, and where relevant the form of authority for the decision. 5: There should be a systematic and transparent disclosure of the expected benefits and harms that may reasonably affect patient choice on whether or not to undergo any diagnostic or interventional endoscopic procedure. Information about possible alternatives, as well as the consequences of doing nothing, should also be provided when relevant. 6: The information provided on the benefit and harms of an endoscopic procedure should be adapted to the procedure and patient-specific risk factors, and the preferences of the patient should be central to the consent process. 7: The consent discussion should be undertaken by an individual who is familiar with the procedure and its risks, and is able to discuss these in the context of the individual patient. 8: Patients should confirm consent to an endoscopic procedure in a private, unrushed, and non-coercive environment. 9: If a patient requests that an endoscopic procedure be discontinued, the procedure should be paused and the patient's capacity for decision making assessed. If a competent patient continues to object to the procedure, or if a conclusive determination of capacity is not feasible, the examination should be terminated as soon as it is safe to do so. 10: Informed consent should be sufficiently detailed to cover all findings that can be reasonably anticipated during an endoscopic examination. The scope of this consent should not be expanded, nor a patient's implicit consent for additional interventions assumed, unless failure to proceed with such interventions would result in immediate and predictable harm to the patient.

Dilemmas in the Clinical Management of pT1 Colorectal Cancer.

Implementation of population-based colorectal cancer screening programs has led to increases in the incidence of pT1 colorectal cancer. These incipient invasive cancers have a very good prognosis and can be treated locally, but more than half of these cases are treated with surgery due to the presence of histological high-risk criteria. These high-risk criteria are suboptimal, with no consensus among clinical guidelines, heterogeneity in definitions and assessment, and poor concordance in evaluation, and recent evidence suggests that some of these criteria considered high risk might not necessarily affect individual prognosis. Current criteria classify most patients as high risk with an indication for additional surgery, but only 2-10.5% have lymph node metastasis, and the residual tumor is present in less than 20%, leading to overtreatment. Patients with pT1 colorectal cancer have excellent disease-free survival, and recent evidence indicates that the type of treatment, whether endoscopic or surgical, does not significantly impact prognosis. As a result, the protective role of surgery is questionable. Moreover, surgery is a more aggressive treatment option, with the potential for higher morbidity and mortality rates. This article presents a comprehensive review of recent evidence on the clinical management of pT1 colorectal cancer. The review analyzes the limitations of histological evaluation, the prognostic implications of histological risk status and the treatment performed, the adverse effects associated with both endoscopic and surgical treatments, and new advances in endoscopic treatment.

Underwater cap-suction pseudopolyp formation for endoscopic mucosal resection: a simple technique for treating flat, appendiceal orifice or ileocecal valve colorectal lesions.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to evaluate the safety and technical success of an easy-to-use technique that applies underwater cap suction pseudopolyp formation to facilitate the resection of flat lesions or those at the appendiceal orifice or ileocecal valve. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed a register of consecutive cap suction underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (CAP-UEMR) procedures performed at two centers between September 2020 and December 2021. Procedures were performed using a cone-shaped cap, extending 7 mm from the endoscope tip, to suction the lesion while submerged underwater, followed by underwater snare resection. Our primary end point was technical success, defined as macroscopic complete resection. RESULTS: We treated 83 lesions (median size 20 mm; interquartile range [IQR] 15-30 mm) with CAP-UEMR: 64 depressed or flat lesions (18 previously manipulated, 9 with difficult access), 11 from the appendix, and 8 from the ileocecal valve. Technical success was 100 %. There were seven intraprocedural bleedings and two delayed bleedings, all managed endoscopically. No perforations or other complications occurred. Among the 64 lesions with follow-up colonoscopy, only one recurrence was detected, which was treated endoscopically. CONCLUSIONS: CAP-UEMR was a safe and effective technique for removing nonpolypoid colorectal lesions, including those arising from the appendiceal orifice or ileocecal valve.