The prospective validation of a scoring system to assess mucosal cleanliness during EGD.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Cleanliness of the mucosa of the upper GI (UGI) tract is critical for performing a high-quality EGD. The aim of this study was to validate a recently developed UGI cleanliness scale (the Polprep: Effective Assessment of Cleanliness in Esophagogastroduodenoscopy [PEACE] system) in the detection of clinically significant lesions (CSLs) in the UGI tract. METHODS: Patients who underwent a complete diagnostic EGD were prospectively enrolled from August 2021 to October 2022. The UGI tract (esophagus, stomach, and duodenum) cleanliness was scored from 0 to 3 for each segment. The primary outcomes were the detection of CSLs and PEACE scores. RESULTS: Of 995 patients enrolled from 5 centers, adequate cleanliness (AQ; all scores ≥2) was found in 929 patients. In multivariate regression analysis, AQ was associated with the number of diagnosed CSLs (odds ratio [OR], 1.78; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06-3.01; P = .03). Other factors related to CSL detection were duration of EGD (OR, 1.29, 95% CI, 1.23-1.35, P < .001), male sex (OR, 1.33, 95% CI, 1.04-1.71; P = .025), and EGD indication (dyspepsia, alarm symptoms, gastritis surveillance, other indications vs GERD) (OR, 0.43 [95% CI, 0.31-0.6, P < .001], OR, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.28-0.67, P < .001], OR, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.25-0.76; P = .004], and OR, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.31-0.62; P < .001], respectively). Twenty-seven patients were diagnosed with UGI neoplasia, all in patients with adequate cleanliness of the UGI tract. CONCLUSIONS: Adequate cleanliness of the UGI tract as assessed with the PEACE system was associated with a significantly higher detection rate of CSLs during EGD. The relationship of this scale with UGI neoplasia detection warrants further investigation.

Curriculum for training in endoscopic mucosal resection in the colon: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Position Statement.

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is the standard of care for the complete removal of large (≥ 10 mm) nonpedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs). Increased detection of LNPCPs owing to screening colonoscopy, plus high observed rates of incomplete resection and need for surgery call for a standardized approach to training in EMR. 1 : Trainees in EMR should have achieved basic competence in diagnostic colonoscopy, < 10-mm polypectomy, pedunculated polypectomy, and common methods of gastrointestinal endoscopic hemostasis. The role of formal training courses is emphasized. Training may then commence in vivo under the direct supervision of a trainer. 2 : Endoscopy units training endoscopists in EMR should have specific processes in place to support and facilitate training. 3: A trained EMR practitioner should have mastered theoretical knowledge including how to assess an LNPCP for risk of submucosal invasion, how to interpret the potential difficulty of a particular EMR procedure, how to decide whether to remove a particular LNPCP en bloc or piecemeal, whether the risks of electrosurgical energy can be avoided for a particular LNPCP, the different devices required for EMR, management of adverse events, and interpretation of reports provided by histopathologists. 4: Trained EMR practitioners should be familiar with the patient consent process for EMR. 5: The development of endoscopic non-technical skills (ENTS) and team interaction are important for trainees in EMR. 6: Differences in recommended technique exist between EMR performed with and without electrosurgical energy. Common to both is a standardized technique based upon dynamic injection, controlled and precise snare placement, safety checks prior to the application of tissue transection (cold snare) or electrosurgical energy (hot snare), and interpretation of the post-EMR resection defect. 7: A trained EMR practitioner must be able to manage adverse events associated with EMR including intraprocedural bleeding and perforation, and post-procedural bleeding. Delayed perforation should be avoided by correct interpretation of the post-EMR defect and treatment of deep mural injury. 8: A trained EMR practitioner must be able to communicate EMR procedural findings to patients and provide them with a plan in case of adverse events after discharge and a follow-up plan. 9: A trained EMR practitioner must be able to detect and interrogate a post-endoscopic resection scar for residual or recurrent adenoma and apply treatment if necessary. 10: Prior to independent practice, a minimum of 30 EMR procedures should be performed, culminating in a trainer-guided assessment of competency using a validated assessment tool, taking account of procedural difficulty (e. g. using the SMSA polyp score). 11: Trained practitioners should log their key performance indicators (KPIs) of polypectomy during independent practice. A guide for target KPIs is provided in this document.

Narrow-band imaging vs Lugol chromoendoscopy in screening for esophageal squamous cell neoplasia: a randomized trial.

INTRODUCTION: To date, there is no established optimal method for endoscopic detection of esophageal squamous cell neoplasia in high­risk individuals. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to compare the performance of narrow­band imaging (NBI) and Lugol chromoendoscopy in screening for esophageal neoplasia among patients with a history of treatment for head and neck squamous cell cancer (HNSCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We randomly assigned 300 patients who had completed curative treatment for HNSCC at least 1 year prior to the inclusion to undergo either NBI or Lugol endoscopy (2:1 ratio). Following white­light examination of the esophagus, the assigned imaging study was performed, and biopsies were taken from any suspicious lesions identified using NBI or Lugol chromoendoscopy. The primary end point was positive predictive value (PPV) of the biopsied lesion for a diagnosis of esophageal neoplasia (high­grade intraepithelial neoplasia [HG­IEN] or invasive esophageal squamous cell carcinoma [ESCC]). The secondary end points included the number of biopsied lesions, duration of esophagus examination, and endoscopy tolerance. RESULTS: In 294 patients included in the final analysis (NBI, n = 204; Lugol chromoendoscopy, n = 90), we diagnosed 3 ESCCs (1.02%) and 2 HG­IENs (0.68%). The PPV of NBI and Lugol chromoendoscopy in per­lesion analysis was 7.69% (95% CI, 0.94%-25.1%) and 8.11% (95% CI, 1.7%-21.9%), respectively (P >0.99). NBI outperformed Lugol chromoendoscopy in terms of the rate of patients requiring biopsy (12.75% vs 41.11%; P = 0.003), duration of esophagus examination (3.5 min vs 5.15 min; P <0.001), and endoscopy tolerance assessed on the visual analog scale (25 mm vs 36.5 mm; P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: With a PPV comparable to that of Lugol chromoendoscopy, but a lower number of biopsies required, shorter examination time, and better patient tolerance, NBI could be considered the primary screening method for ESCC in patients with HNSCC.

Comparison of Quality Measures for Detection of Neoplasia at Screening Colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The proportion of colonoscopies with at least one adenoma (adenoma detection rate [ADR]) is inversely associated with colorectal cancer (CRC) risk and death. The aim of this study was to examine whether such associations exist for colonoscopy quality measures other than ADR. METHODS: We used data from the Polish Colorectal Cancer Screening Program collected in 2000-2011. For all endoscopists who performed ≥100 colonoscopies we calculated detection rates of adenomas (ADR), polyps (PDR), and advanced adenomas (≥10 mm/villous component/high-grade dysplasia [AADR]); and number of adenomas per colonoscopy (APC) and per colonoscopy with ≥1 adenoma (APPC). We followed patients until CRC diagnosed before recommended surveillance, death, or December 31, 2019. We estimated hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using Cox proportional-hazard models. We used Harrell's C statistic to compare the predictive power of the quality measures. RESULTS: Data on 173,287 patients (median age, 56 years; 37.8% male) and 262 endoscopists were used. During a median follow-up of 10 years and 1,490,683 person-years, we identified 395 CRCs. All quality measures were significantly associated with CRC risk and death. The relative reductions in CRC risk were as follows: for ADR ≥24.9% (reference <12.1%; HR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.25-0.66), PDR ≥42.7% (reference <19.9%; HR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.24-0.51), AADR ≥9.1% (reference <4.1%; HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.49-0.96), APC ≥0.37 (reference <0.15; HR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.21-0.58), and APPC ≥1.54 (reference <1.19; HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.35-0.83). AADR was the only quality measure with significantly lower predictive power than ADR (Harrell's C, 59.7 vs 63.4; P = .001). Similar relative reductions were observed for CRC death. CONCLUSIONS: This large observational study confirmed the inverse association between ADR and CRC risk and death. The PDR and APC quality measures appear to be comparable with ADR.

Rates of repeated colonoscopies to clean the colon from low-risk and high-risk adenomas: results from the EPoS trials.

OBJECTIVE: High-quality colonoscopy (adequate bowel preparation, whole-colon visualisation and removal of all neoplastic polyps) is a prerequisite to start polyp surveillance, and is ideally achieved in one colonoscopy. In a large multinational polyp surveillance trial, we aimed to investigate clinical practice variation in number of colonoscopies needed to enrol patients with low-risk and high-risk adenomas in polyp surveillance. DESIGN: We retrieved data of all patients with low-risk adenomas (one or two tubular adenomas <10 mm with low-grade dysplasia) and high-risk adenomas (3-10 adenomas, ≥1 adenoma ≥10 mm, high-grade dysplasia or villous components) in the European Polyp Surveillance trials fulfilling certain logistic and methodologic criteria. We analysed variations in number of colonoscopies needed to achieve high-quality colonoscopy and enter polyp surveillance by endoscopy centre, and by endoscopists who enrolled ≥30 patients. RESULTS: The study comprised 15 581 patients from 38 endoscopy centres in five European countries; 6794 patients had low-risk and 8787 had high-risk adenomas. 961 patients (6.2%, 95% CI 5.8% to 6.6%) underwent two or more colonoscopies before surveillance began; 101 (1.5%, 95% CI 1.2% to 1.8%) in the low-risk group and 860 (9.8%, 95% CI 9.2% to 10.4%) in the high-risk group. Main reasons were poor bowel preparation (21.3%) or incomplete colonoscopy/polypectomy (14.4%) or planned second procedure (27.8%). Need of repeat colonoscopy varied between study centres ranging from 0% to 11.8% in low-risk adenoma patients and from 0% to 63.9% in high-risk adenoma patients. On the second colonoscopy, the two most common reasons for a repeat (third) colonoscopy were piecemeal resection (26.5%) and unspecified reason (23.9%). CONCLUSION: There is considerable practice variation in the number of colonoscopies performed to achieve complete polyp removal, indicating need for targeted quality improvement to reduce patient burden. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02319928.

Effect of Colonoscopy Screening on Risks of Colorectal Cancer and Related Death.

BACKGROUND: Although colonoscopy is widely used as a screening test to detect colorectal cancer, its effect on the risks of colorectal cancer and related death is unclear. METHODS: We performed a pragmatic, randomized trial involving presumptively healthy men and women 55 to 64 years of age drawn from population registries in Poland, Norway, Sweden, and the Netherlands between 2009 and 2014. The participants were randomly assigned in a 1:2 ratio either to receive an invitation to undergo a single screening colonoscopy (the invited group) or to receive no invitation or screening (the usual-care group). The primary end points were the risks of colorectal cancer and related death, and the secondary end point was death from any cause. RESULTS: Follow-up data were available for 84,585 participants in Poland, Norway, and Sweden - 28,220 in the invited group, 11,843 of whom (42.0%) underwent screening, and 56,365 in the usual-care group. A total of 15 participants had major bleeding after polyp removal. No perforations or screening-related deaths occurred within 30 days after colonoscopy. During a median follow-up of 10 years, 259 cases of colorectal cancer were diagnosed in the invited group as compared with 622 cases in the usual-care group. In intention-to-screen analyses, the risk of colorectal cancer at 10 years was 0.98% in the invited group and 1.20% in the usual-care group, a risk reduction of 18% (risk ratio, 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.70 to 0.93). The risk of death from colorectal cancer was 0.28% in the invited group and 0.31% in the usual-care group (risk ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.64 to 1.16). The number needed to invite to undergo screening to prevent one case of colorectal cancer was 455 (95% CI, 270 to 1429). The risk of death from any cause was 11.03% in the invited group and 11.04% in the usual-care group (risk ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.04). CONCLUSIONS: In this randomized trial, the risk of colorectal cancer at 10 years was lower among participants who were invited to undergo screening colonoscopy than among those who were assigned to no screening. (Funded by the Research Council of Norway and others; NordICC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00883792.).

Performance measures for colonoscopy in inflammatory bowel disease patients: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Quality Improvement Initiative.

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) presents a short list of performance measures for colonoscopy in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients. Current performance measures for colonoscopy mainly focus on detecting (pre)malignant lesions. However, these performance measures are not relevant for all colonoscopy indications in IBD patients. Therefore, our aim was to provide endoscopy services across Europe and other interested countries with a tool for quality monitoring and improvement in IBD colonoscopy. Eight key performance measures and one minor performance measure were recommended for measurement and evaluation in daily endoscopy practice.

Complete polyp resection with cold snare versus hot snare polypectomy for polyps of 4-9 mm: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic screening with polypectomy reduces the incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC). Incomplete polyp removal may attenuate the effect of screening. This randomized trial compared cold snare polypectomy (CSP) with hot snare polypectomy (HSP) in terms of complete polyp resection. METHODS: We included patients ≥ 40 years of age at eight hospitals in four countries who had at least one non-pedunculated polyp of 4-9 mm detected at colonoscopy. Patients were randomized 1:1 to CSP or HSP. Biopsies from the resection margins were obtained systematically after polypectomy in both groups. We hypothesized that CSP would be non-inferior to HSP, with a non-inferiority margin of 5 %. Logistic regression models were fitted to identify the factors explaining incomplete resection. RESULTS: 425 patients, with 601 polyps, randomized to either CSP or HSP were included in the analysis. Of 318 polyps removed by CSP and 283 polyps removed by HSP, 34 (10.7 %) and 21 (7.4 %) were incompletely resected, respectively, with an adjusted risk difference of 3.2 % (95 %CI -1.4 % to 7.8 %). There was no difference between the groups in terms of post-polypectomy bleeding, perforation, or abdominal pain. Independent risk factors for incomplete removal were serrated histology (odds ratio [OR] 3.96; 95 %CI 1.63 to 9.66) and hyperplastic histology (OR 2.52; 95 %CI 1.30 to 4.86) in adjusted analyses. CONCLUSION: In this randomized trial, non-inferiority for CSP could not be demonstrated. Polyps with serrated histology are more prone to incomplete resection compared with adenomas. CSP can be used safely for small polyps in routine colonoscopy practice.

The Colon Endoscopic Bubble Scale (CEBuS): a two-phase evaluation study.

BACKGROUND: To date, no scale has been validated to assess bubbles associated with bowel preparation. This study aimed to develop and assess the reliability of a novel scale - the Colon Endoscopic Bubble Scale (CEBuS). METHODS: This was a multicenter, prospective, observational study with two online evaluation phases of 45 randomly distributed still colonoscopy images (15 per scale grade). Observers assessed images twice, 2 weeks apart, using CEBuS (CEBuS-0 - no or minimal bubbles, covering < 5 % of the surface; CEBuS-1 - bubbles covering 5 %-50 %; CEBuS-2 - bubbles covering > 50 %) and reporting the clinical action (do nothing; wash with water; wash with simethicone). RESULTS: CEBuS provided high levels of agreement both in evaluation Phase 1 (4 experts) and Phase 2 (6 experts and 13 non-experts), with almost perfect intraobserver reliability: kappa 0.82 (95 % confidence interval 0.75-0.88) and 0.86 (0.85-0.88); interobserver agreement - intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) 0.83 (0.73-0.89) and 0.90 (0.86-0.94). Previous endoscopic experience had no influence on agreement among experts vs. non-experts: kappa 0.86 (0.80-0.91) vs. 0.87 (0.84-0.89) and ICC 0.91 (0.87-0.94) vs. 0.90 (0.86-0.94), respectively. Interobserver agreement on clinical action was ICC 0.63 (0.43-0.78) in Phase 1 and 0.77 (0.68-0.84) in Phase 2. Absolute agreement on clinical action per scale grade was 85 % (82-88) for CEBuS-0, 21 % (16-26) for CEBuS-1, and 74 % (70-78) for CEBuS-2. CONCLUSION: CEBuS proved to be a reliable instrument to standardize the evaluation of colonic bubbles during colonoscopy. Assessment in daily practice is warranted.

Estimation of overdiagnosis in colorectal cancer screening with sigmoidoscopy and faecal occult blood testing: comparison of simulation models.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate overdiagnosis of colorectal cancer (CRC) for screening with sigmoidoscopy and faecal occult blood testing (FOBT). DESIGN: Simulation study using data from randomised trials. SETTING: Primary screening, UK, Norway PARTICIPANTS: 152 850 individuals from the Nottingham trial and 98 678 individuals from the Norwegian Colorectal Cancer Prevention (NORCCAP) trial. INTERVENTION: CRC screening. OUTCOME MEASURE: We estimated overdiagnosis using long-term data from two randomised trials: the Nottingham trial comparing FOBT screening every other year to no-screening, and the NORCCAP trial comparing once-only sigmoidoscopy screening to no-screening. To estimate the natural growth of adenomas to CRC, we used the following microsimulation models: (i) the Microsimulation Screening Analysis; (ii) the CRC Simulated Population model for Incidence and Natural history; (iii) the Simulation Model of Colorectal Cancer; (iv) a model derived by the German Cancer Research Center. We defined overdiagnosed cancers as the difference between the observed number of CRCs in the no-screening arm and the expected number of cancers in screening arm (sum of observed and prevented by adenoma removal). The amount of overdiagnosis is defined as the number of overdiagnosed cancers over the number of cancers observed in the no-screening arm. RESULTS: Overdiagnosis estimates were highly dependent on model assumptions. For FOBT screening with 2354 cancers observed in control arm, four out of five models predicted overdiagnosis, range 2.0% (2400 cancers expected in screening) to 7.6% (2533 cancers expected in screening). For sigmoidoscopy screening with 452 cancers observed in control arm, all models predicted overdiagnosis, range 25.2% (566 cancers expected in screening) to 128.1% (1031 cancers expected in screening). CONCLUSIONS: The amount of overdiagnosis estimated based on the microsimulation models varied substantially. Microsimulation models may not give reliable estimates of the preventive effect of adenoma removal, and should be used with caution to inform guidelines.