Benign esophageal strictures are commonly encountered in clinical practice. The principal etiologies of benign esophageal strictures include long term acid reflux, caustic injuries, eosinophilic ...esophagitis, anastomotic strictures or endoscopic therapy. Dysphagia is most prominently present in esophageal strictures along with a variety of other symptoms which depend on the stricture etiology. Benign esophageal strictures can be categorized into two groups: simple or complex depending on their structure. Most strictures can be treated successfully with endoscopic dilation by bougies or balloons dilators. In some cases, treatment is more challenging, involving a higher risk of the patient developing recurrent or refractory strictures. To improve symptoms in these patients, other endoscopic treatments such as steroid injection, incisional therapy and stent placement should be considered. In this manuscript, we provide a comprehensive review of the main treatment options currently available to manage recurrent benign esophageal strictures.
One-fourth of colorectal neoplasias are missed during screening colonoscopies; these can develop into colorectal cancer (CRC). Deep learning systems allow for real-time computer-aided detection ...(CADe) of polyps with high accuracy. We performed a multicenter, randomized trial to assess the safety and efficacy of a CADe system in detection of colorectal neoplasias during real-time colonoscopy.
We analyzed data from 685 subjects (61.32 ± 10.2 years old; 337 men) undergoing screening colonoscopies for CRC, post-polypectomy surveillance, or workup due to positive results from a fecal immunochemical test or signs or symptoms of CRC, at 3 centers in Italy from September through November 2019. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to groups who underwent high-definition colonoscopies with the CADe system or without (controls). The CADe system included an artificial intelligence–based medical device (GI-Genius, Medtronic) trained to process colonoscopy images and superimpose them, in real time, on the endoscopy display a green box over suspected lesions. A minimum withdrawal time of 6 minutes was required. Lesions were collected and histopathology findings were used as the reference standard. The primary outcome was adenoma detection rate (ADR, the percentage of patients with at least 1 histologically proven adenoma or carcinoma). Secondary outcomes were adenomas detected per colonoscopy, non-neoplastic resection rate, and withdrawal time.
The ADR was significantly higher in the CADe group (54.8%) than in the control group (40.4%) (relative risk RR, 1.30; 95% confidence interval CI, 1.14–1.45). Adenomas detected per colonoscopy were significantly higher in the CADe group (mean, 1.07 ±1.54) than in the control group (mean 0.71 ± 1.20) (incidence rate ratio, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.15–1.86). Adenomas 5 mm or smaller were detected in a significantly higher proportion of subjects in the CADe group (33.7%) than in the control group (26.5%; RR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.01–1.52), as were adenomas of 6 to 9 mm (detected in 10.6% of subjects in the CADe group vs 5.8% in the control group; RR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.09–2.86), regardless of morphology or location. There was no significant difference between groups in withdrawal time (417 ± 101 seconds for the CADe group vs 435 ± 149 for controls; P = .1) or proportion of subjects with resection of non-neoplastic lesions (26.0% in the CADe group vs 28.7% of controls; RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.90–1.12).
In a multicenter, randomized trial, we found that including CADe in real-time colonoscopy significantly increases ADR and adenomas detected per colonoscopy without increasing withdrawal time. ClinicalTrials.gov no: 04079478
Display omitted
One-fourth of colorectal neoplasia are missed at screening colonoscopy, representing the main cause of interval colorectal cancer. Deep learning systems with real-time computer-aided polyp detection ...(CADe) showed high accuracy in artificial settings, and preliminary randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reported favorable outcomes in the clinical setting. The aim of this meta-analysis was to summarize available RCTs on the performance of CADe systems in colorectal neoplasia detection.
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central databases until March 2020 for RCTs reporting diagnostic accuracy of CADe systems in the detection of colorectal neoplasia. The primary outcome was pooled adenoma detection rate (ADR), and secondary outcomes were adenoma per colonoscopy (APC) according to size, morphology, and location; advanced APC; polyp detection rate; polyps per colonoscopy; and sessile serrated lesions per colonoscopy. We calculated risk ratios (RRs), performed subgroup and sensitivity analyses, and assessed heterogeneity and publication bias.
Overall, 5 randomized controlled trials (4354 patients) were included in the final analysis. Pooled ADR was significantly higher in the CADe group than in the control group (791/2163 36.6% vs 558/2191 25.2%; RR, 1.44; 95% confidence interval CI, 1.27-1.62; P < .01; I2 = 42%). APC was also higher in the CADe group compared with control (1249/2163 .58 vs 779/2191 .36; RR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.53-1.89; P < .01; I2 = 33%). APC was higher for ≤5-mm (RR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.48-1.84), 6- to 9-mm (RR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.19-1.75), and ≥10-mm adenomas (RR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.04-2.06) and for proximal (RR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.34-1.88), distal (RR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.50-1.88), flat (RR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.47-2.15), and polypoid morphology (RR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.40-1.68). Regarding histology, CADe resulted in a higher sessile serrated lesion per colonoscopy (RR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.14-2.02), whereas a nonsignificant trend for advanced ADR was found (RR, 1.35; 95% CI, .74-2.47; P = .33; I2 = 69%). Level of evidence for RCTs was graded as moderate.
According to available evidence, the incorporation of artificial intelligence as aid for detection of colorectal neoplasia results in a significant increase in the detection of colorectal neoplasia, and such effect is independent from main adenoma characteristics.
Display omitted
Abstract
Current practices for the management of Barrett’s esophagus (BE) vary across Europe, as several national European guidelines exist. This Position Statement from the European Society of ...Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) is an attempt to homogenize recommendations and, hence, patient management according to the best scientific evidence and other considerations (e.g. health policy). A Working Group developed consensus statements, using the existing national guidelines as a starting point and considering new evidence in the literature. The Position Statement wishes to contribute to a more cost-effective approach to the care of patients with BE by reducing the number of surveillance endoscopies for patients with a low risk of malignant progression and centralizing care in expert centers for those with high progression rates.
Main statements
MS1
The diagnosis of BE is made if the distal esophagus is lined with columnar epithelium with a minimum length of 1 cm (tongues or circular) containing specialized intestinal metaplasia at histopathological examination.
MS2
The ESGE recommends varying surveillance intervals for different BE lengths. For patients with an irregular Z-line/columnar-lined esophagus of < 1 cm, no routine biopsies or endoscopic surveillance is advised. For BE ≥ 1 cm and < 3 cm, BE surveillance should be repeated every 5 years. For BE ≥ 3 cm and < 10 cm, the interval for endoscopic surveillance should be 3 years. Patients with BE with a maximum extent ≥ 10 cm should be referred to a BE expert center for surveillance endoscopies. Patients with limited life expectancy and advanced age should be discharged from endoscopic surveillance.
MS3
The diagnosis of any degree of dysplasia (including “indefinite for dysplasia”) in BE requires confirmation by an expert gastrointestinal pathologist.
MS4
Patients with visible lesions in BE diagnosed as dysplasia or early cancer should be referred to a BE expert center. All visible abnormalities, regardless of the degree of dysplasia, should be removed by means of endoscopic resection techniques in order to obtain optimal histopathological staging
MS5
All patients with a BE ≥ 10 cm, a confirmed diagnosis of low grade dysplasia, high grade dysplasia (HGD), or early cancer should be referred to a BE expert center for surveillance and/or treatment. BE expert centers should meet the following criteria: annual case load of ≥10 new patients undergoing endoscopic treatment for HGD or early carcinoma per BE expert endoscopist; endoscopic and histological care provided by endoscopists and pathologists who have followed additional training; at least 30 supervised endoscopic resection and 30 endoscopic ablation procedures to acquire competence in technical skills, management pathways, and complications; multidisciplinary meetings with gastroenterologists, surgeons, oncologists, and pathologists to discuss patients with Barrett’s neoplasia; access to experienced esophageal surgery; and all BE patients registered prospectively in a database.
An endoscopist with a 50% miss rate of colorectal neoplasia would have the same adenoma detection rate as an endoscopist with no miss rate when a 2-fold gradient of disease prevalence is present. ......it is mandatory to assure a balance in disease prevalence between the intervention and the control when validating any colonoscopy innovation. To incorporate the criticism by the authors on the excessively artificial setting of the controlled trials, new modalities for incorporating randomization in real-life scenarios (e.g., randomized health services studies (3)) should be explored. Design of the polish colonoscopy screening program: A randomized health services study.
A randomized trial compared peroral endoscopic myotomy with laparoscopic Heller’s myotomy plus Dor’s fundoplication in patients with symptomatic idiopathic achalasia. POEM was noninferior to LHM in ...controlling symptoms of achalasia at 2 years. Symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux were more common in the POEM group.
Use of artificial intelligence may increase detection of colorectal neoplasia at colonoscopy by improving lesion recognition (CADe) and reduce pathology costs by improving optical diagnosis (CADx).
A ...multicenter library of ≥ 200 000 images from 1572 polyps was used to train a combined CADe/CADx system. System testing was performed on two independent image sets (CADe: 446 with polyps, 234 without; CADx: 267) from 234 polyps, which were also evaluated by six endoscopists (three experts, three non-experts).
CADe showed sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 92.9 %, 90.6 %, and 91.7 %, respectively. Experts showed significantly higher accuracy and specificity, and similar sensitivity, while non-experts + CADe showed comparable sensitivity but lower specificity and accuracy than CADe and experts. CADx showed sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 85.0 %, 79.4 %, and 83.6 %, respectively. Experts showed comparable performance, whereas non-experts + CADx showed comparable accuracy but lower specificity than CADx and experts.
The high accuracy shown by CADe and CADx was similar to that of experts, supporting further evaluation in a clinical setting. When using CAD, non-experts achieved a similar performance to experts, with suboptimal specificity.
Evidence is limited on the comparative diagnostic performance of newer end-cutting fine-needle biopsy (FNB) needles for tissue sampling of pancreatic masses. We performed a systematic review with ...network meta-analysis to compare the diagnostic accuracy of available FNB needles for sampling of solid pancreatic lesions.
A systematic literature review (Medline and Cochrane Database) was conducted for studies evaluating the accuracy of newer FNB needles in adults undergoing EUS-guided sampling of solid pancreatic masses. The primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy. Secondary outcomes were sample adequacy, diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, and adverse event rate. We performed pairwise and network meta-analyses and appraised the quality of evidence using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology.
Overall, 16 RCTs (1934 patients) were identified. On network meta-analysis, Franseen needles (Acquire; Boston Scientific, Marlborough, Mass, USA) significantly outperformed reverse-bevel needles (risk ratio RR, 1.21 95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.05-1.40 for accuracy and 1.31 95% CI, 1.05-1.22 for adequacy) and FNA needles (RR, 1.21 95% CI, 1.01-1.25 for accuracy and 1.07 95% CI, 1.02-1.13 for adequacy). Likewise, the Fork-tip needle (SharkCore; Medtronic, Dublin, Ireland) was significantly superior to the reverse-bevel needle (RR, 1.17 95% CI, 1.03-1.33 for accuracy and 1.09 95% CI, 1.02-1.16 for adequacy) and to the FNA needle (RR, 1.09 95% CI, 1.01-1.19 for accuracy and 1.03 95% CI, 1.01-1.07 for adequacy). Other comparisons did not achieve statistical significance. As a consequence, Franseen (surface under the cumulative ranking score, .89 for accuracy and .94 for adequacy) and Fork-tip needles (surface under the cumulative ranking score, .76 for accuracy and .73 for adequacy) ranked as the 2 highest-performing FNB needles. When considering different needle sizes, 25-gauge Franseen and 25-gauge Fork-tip needles were not superior to 22-gauge reverse-bevel needles (RR, 1.18 95% CI, .96-1.46 and 1.04 95% CI, .62-1.52). None of the tested needles was significantly superior to the other FNB devices or to FNA needles when rapid onsite cytologic evaluation was available.
Franseen and Fork-tip needles, particularly 22-gauge size, showed the highest performance for tissue sampling of pancreatic masses, with low confidence in estimates.
Display omitted
PDF
