Main Recommendations
The following recommendations for post-polypectomy colonoscopic surveillance apply to all patients who had one or more polyps that were completely removed during a high quality ...baseline colonoscopy.
1
ESGE recommends that patients with complete removal of 1 – 4 < 10 mm adenomas with low grade dysplasia, irrespective of villous components, or any serrated polyp < 10 mm without dysplasia, do not require endoscopic surveillance and should be returned to screening.
Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.
If organized screening is not available, repetition of colonoscopy 10 years after the index procedure is recommended. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.
2
ESGE recommends surveillance colonoscopy after 3 years for patients with complete removal of at least 1 adenoma ≥ 10 mm or with high grade dysplasia, or ≥ 5 adenomas, or any serrated polyp ≥ 10 mm or with dysplasia.
Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.
3
ESGE recommends a 3 – 6-month early repeat colonoscopy following piecemeal endoscopic resection of polyps ≥ 20 mm.
Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.
A first surveillance colonoscopy 12 months after the repeat colonoscopy is recommended to detect late recurrence.
Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.
4
If no polyps requiring surveillance are detected at the first surveillance colonoscopy, ESGE suggests to perform a second surveillance colonoscopy after 5 years.
Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.
After that, if no polyps requiring surveillance are detected, patients can be returned to screening.
5
ESGE suggests that, if polyps requiring surveillance are detected at first or subsequent surveillance examinations, surveillance colonoscopy may be performed at 3 years.
Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.
A flowchart showing the recommended surveillance intervals is provided (Fig. 1).
Background and Aims Diminutive (1-5 mm) and small (6-9 mm) polyps comprise 90% of detected lesions during colonoscopy and rarely contain advanced histology or colorectal cancer (CRC). Routine removal ...of these lesions results in a significant burden to colonoscopy programs. At the same time, the risk for progression of these polyps to CRC is unclear. We performed a systematic review to explore the natural history of diminutive and small colorectal polyps. Methods We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE for studies investigating the natural history of colorectal polyps. Studies were considered eligible when they assessed patients with 1- to 9-mm polyps that were not treated with polypectomy and that underwent follow-up. We excluded studies in patients with inflammatory bowel disease, polyposis syndromes, and previously diagnosed CRC. We independently extracted study characteristics and evaluated CRC and advanced adenoma (size ≥ 10 mm, containing high-grade dysplasia or villous features) as outcome parameters. Results Of 8775 retrieved studies, 9 studies with 721 patients were included that prospectively evaluated the evolution of 1- to 9-mm polyps. In 7 studies the average duration of observation was 2 to 3 years. There was only 1 study in which 1 small polyp might have progressed to cancer. Of 1034 adenomas sized 1 to 9 mm in those studies, 6% progressed to advanced adenomas over time. Conclusions Based on this systematic review, it appears that some 1- to 9-mm adenomas progress to advanced adenomas within 2 to 3 years. No information on long-term CRC transition rates was found. Defining the biologic significance of these polyps is needed to balance between benefits and harm of polypectomy. (PROSPERO database registration number: CRD42016036577.)
Main Recommendations
1
ESGE suggests that high definition endoscopy, and dye or virtual chromoendoscopy, as well as add-on devices, can be used in average risk patients to increase the endoscopist’s ...adenoma detection rate. However, their routine use must be balanced against costs and practical considerations.
Weak recommendation, high quality evidence.
2
ESGE recommends the routine use of high definition systems in individuals with Lynch syndrome.
Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.
3
ESGE recommends the routine use, with targeted biopsies, of dye-based pancolonic chromoendoscopy or virtual chromoendoscopy for neoplasia surveillance in patients with long-standing colitis.
Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.
4
ESGE suggests that virtual chromoendoscopy and dye-based chromoendoscopy can be used, under strictly controlled conditions, for real-time optical diagnosis of diminutive (≤ 5 mm) colorectal polyps and can replace histopathological diagnosis. The optical diagnosis has to be reported using validated scales, must be adequately photodocumented, and can be performed only by experienced endoscopists who are adequately trained, as defined in the ESGE curriculum, and audited.
Weak recommendation, high quality evidence.
5
ESGE recommends the use of high definition white-light endoscopy in combination with (virtual) chromoendoscopy to predict the presence and depth of any submucosal invasion in nonpedunculated colorectal polyps prior to any treatment.
Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.
6
ESGE recommends the use of virtual or dye-based chromoendoscopy in addition to white-light endoscopy for the detection of residual neoplasia at a piecemeal polypectomy scar site.
Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.
7
ESGE suggests the possible incorporation of computer-aided diagnosis (detection and characterization of lesions) to colonoscopy, if acceptable and reproducible accuracy for colorectal neoplasia is demonstrated in high quality multicenter in vivo clinical studies. Possible significant risks with implementation, specifically endoscopist deskilling and over-reliance on artificial intelligence, unrepresentative training datasets, and hacking, need to be considered.
Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.
Summary Background Novel endoscopic technologies could allow optical diagnosis and resection of colonic polyps without histopathological testing. Our aim was to establish the sensitivity, ...specificity, and real-time negative predictive value of three types of narrowed spectrum endoscopy (narrow-band imaging NBI, image-enhanced endoscopy i-scan, and Fujinon intelligent chromoendoscopy FICE), confocal laser endomicroscopy (CLE), and autofluorescence imaging for differentiation between neoplastic and non-neoplastic colonic lesions. Methods We identified relevant studies through a search of Medline, Embase, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library. Clinical trials and observational studies were eligible for inclusion when the diagnostic performance of NBI, i-scan, FICE, autofluorescence imaging, or CLE had been assessed for differentiation, with histopathology as the reference standard, and for which a 2 × 2 contingency table of lesion diagnosis could be constructed. We did a random-effects bivariate meta-analysis using a non-linear mixed model approach to calculate summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity, and plotted estimates in a summary receiver-operating characteristic curve. Findings We included 91 studies in our analysis: 56 were of NBI, ten of i-scan, 14 of FICE, 11 of CLE, and 11 of autofluorescence imaging (more than one of the investigated modalities assessed in eight studies). For NBI, overall sensitivity was 91·0% (95% CI 88·6–93·0), specificity 85·6% (81·3–89·0), and real-time negative predictive value 82·5% (75·4–87·9). For i-scan, overall sensitivity was 89·3% (83·3–93·3), specificity 88·2% (80·3–93·2), and real-time negative predictive value 86·5% (78·0–92·1). For FICE, overall sensitivity was 91·8% (87·1–94·9), specificity 83·5% (77·2–88·3), and real-time negative predictive value 83·7% (77·5–88·4). For autofluorescence imaging, overall sensitivity was 86·7% (79·5–91·6), specificity 65·9% (50·9–78·2), and real-time negative predictive value 81·5% (54·0–94·3). For CLE, overall sensitivity was 93·3% (88·4–96·2), specificity 89·9% (81·8–94·6), and real-time negative predictive value 94·8% (86·6–98·1). Interpretation All endoscopic imaging techniques other than autofluorescence imaging could be used by appropriately trained endoscopists to make a reliable optical diagnosis for colonic lesions in daily practice. Further research should be focused on whether training could help to improve negative predictive values. Funding None.
Main Recommendations
ESGE recommends that individuals with hereditary gastrointestinal polyposis syndromes should be surveilled in dedicated units that provide monitoring of compliance and endoscopic ...performance measures.
Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence, level of agreement 90 %.
ESGE recommends performing esophagogastroduodenoscopy, small-bowel examination, and/or colonoscopy earlier than the planned surveillance procedure if a patient is symptomatic.
Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence, level of agreement 100 %.
Background Sessile serrated adenomas/polyps (SSAs/Ps) are premalignant lesions susceptible to being easily overlooked by endoscopists. A detailed description of the endoscopic appearance of SSAs/Ps ...might help endoscopists to recognize these lesions to improve the effectiveness of colonoscopy. Objective To identify various endoscopic features of SSAs/Ps using high-resolution white-light endoscopy (HR-WLE) and narrow-band imaging (NBI). Design Retrospective image evaluation study. Setting Single tertiary referral center. Patients Forty-5 patients with serrated polyposis syndrome undergoing surveillance colonoscopies. Intervention HR-WLE and NBI images of 150 polyps (50 SSAs/Ps, 50 hyperplastic polyps HPs, and 50 adenomas) were systematically assessed by 5 experts using various endoscopic descriptors. Main Outcome Measurements The prevalence of specific endoscopic features observed in SSAs/Ps versus HPs. Results Multivariate analysis demonstrated that indistinct borders (OR, 3.11; 95% CI, 1.57-6.15) and a cloud-like surface (OR, 2.65; 95% CI, 1.21-5.78) were associated with SSA/P histology on HR-WLE. On NBI, a cloud-like surface (OR, 4.91; 95% CI, 2.42-9.97), indistinct borders (OR, 2.38; 95% CI, 1.14-4.96), irregular shape (OR, 3.17; 95% CI, 1.59-6.29), and dark spots inside the crypts (OR, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.02-4.11) were found to be endoscopic predictors of SSA/P histology. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of NBI for differentiating serrated polyps containing either none or all 4 endoscopic SSA/P features were, respectively, 89%, 96%, and 93%. Limitations Retrospective, image evaluation analysis. Conclusions The current study demonstrates that SSAs/Ps possess several specific endoscopic features compared with HPs. Recognition of these characteristics might assist endoscopists in the differentiation of these lesions and could possibly facilitate endoscopic detection of these rather subtle lesions.
Background and aim:
This technical review is an official statement of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE). It addresses the utilization of advanced endoscopic imaging in ...gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy.
Methods:
This technical review is based on a systematic literature search to evaluate the evidence supporting the use of advanced endoscopic imaging throughout the GI tract. Technologies considered include narrowed-spectrum endoscopy (narrow band imaging NBI; flexible spectral imaging color enhancement FICE; i-Scan digital contrast I-SCAN), autofluorescence imaging (AFI), and confocal laser endomicroscopy (CLE). The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system was adopted to define the strength of recommendation and the quality of evidence.
Main recommendations:
1.
We suggest advanced endoscopic imaging technologies improve mucosal visualization and enhance fine structural and microvascular detail. Expert endoscopic diagnosis may be improved by advanced imaging, but as yet in community-based practice no technology has been shown consistently to be diagnostically superior to current practice with high definition white light. (Low quality evidence.)
2.
We recommend the use of validated classification systems to support the use of optical diagnosis with advanced endoscopic imaging in the upper and lower GI tracts (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence).
3.
We suggest that training improves performance in the use of advanced endoscopic imaging techniques and that it is a prerequisite for use in clinical practice. A learning curve exists and training alone does not guarantee sustained high performances in clinical practice. (Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.)
Conclusion:
Advanced endoscopic imaging can improve mucosal visualization and endoscopic diagnosis; however it requires training and the use of validated classification systems.
Summary of statements
In Europe at present, but also in 2040, 1 in 3 cancer-related deaths are expected to be caused by digestive cancers. Endoscopic technologies enable diagnosis, with relatively ...low invasiveness, of precancerous conditions and early cancers, thereby improving patient survival. Overall, endoscopy capacity must be adjusted to facilitate both effective screening programs and rigorous control of the quality assurance and surveillance systems required.
1
For average-risk populations, ESGE recommends the implementation of organized population-based screening programs
for colorectal cancer
, based on fecal immunochemical testing (FIT), targeting individuals, irrespective of gender, aged between 50 and 75 years. Depending on local factors, namely the adherence of the target population and availability of endoscopy services, primary screening by colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy may also be recommendable.
2
In high-risk populations, endoscopic screening
for gastric cancer
should be considered for individuals aged more than 40 years. Its use in countries/regions with intermediate risk may be considered on the basis of local settings and availability of endoscopic resources.
3
For esophageal and pancreatic cancer, endoscopic screening may be considered only in high-risk individuals:
–
For squamous cell carcinoma
, in those with a personal history of head/neck cancer, achalasia, or previous caustic injury;
–
For Barrett’s esophagus (BE)-associated adenocarcinoma
, in those with long-standing gastroesophageal reflux disease symptoms (i. e., > 5 years) and multiple risk factors (age ≥ 50 years, white race, male sex, obesity, first-degree relative with BE or esophageal adenocarcinoma EAC).
–
For pancreatic cancer screening
, endoscopic ultrasound may be used in selected high-risk patients such as those with a strong family history and/or genetic susceptibility.
Colon cancer is a clinically diverse disease. This heterogeneity makes it difficult to determine which patients will benefit most from adjuvant therapy and impedes the development of new targeted ...agents. More insight into the biological diversity of colon cancers, especially in relation to clinical features, is therefore needed. We demonstrate, using an unsupervised classification strategy involving over 1,100 individuals with colon cancer, that three main molecularly distinct subtypes can be recognized. Two subtypes have been previously identified and are well characterized (chromosomal-instable and microsatellite-instable cancers). The third subtype is largely microsatellite stable and contains relatively more CpG island methylator phenotype-positive carcinomas but cannot be identified on the basis of characteristic mutations. We provide evidence that this subtype relates to sessile-serrated adenomas, which show highly similar gene expression profiles, including upregulation of genes involved in matrix remodeling and epithelial-mesenchymal transition. The identification of this subtype is crucial, as it has a very unfavorable prognosis and, moreover, is refractory to epidermal growth factor receptor-targeted therapy.
PDF
