Quality performance measures in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy for lesion detection: Italian AIGO-SIED-SIGE joint position statement

Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) plays a crucial role in the management of gastroduodenal diseases by allowing a direct and accurate evaluation of the mucosa and the execution of several operative ma-neuvers. Despite a constant development of new imaging tools and operative devices, the widespread use of EGD has not resulted in a significant reduction of mortality for patients affected by esophageal/gastric cancer during the last three decades in Western countries.Evidence indicates that this disheartening scenario derives from a high variability of execution of EGD which determines its quality and diagnostic yield, delaying the diagnosis of neoplastic diseases. Based on this evidence, in recent years many scientific societies have produced different position pa-pers aimed at defining quality performance measures in EGD.Thus, the Italian Association of Gastroenterologists and Endoscopists, the Italian Society of Digestive Endoscopy and the Italian Society of Gastroenterology have produced this joint document based on the review of ASGE, ACG, BSG, ESGE and Asian Consensus EGD position papers with the aim of indicating the quality standards of EGD (pre-, intra-and post-procedure) focused on lesion detection to be adopted in the Italian context.(c) 2022 Editrice Gastroenterologica Italiana S.r.l. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved

Adenoma detection by Endocuff-assisted versus standard colonoscopy in an organized screening program: the "ItaVision" randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND: The Endocuff Vision device (Arc Medical Design Ltd., Leeds, UK) has been shown to increase mucosal exposure, and consequently adenoma detection rate (ADR), during colonoscopy. This nationwide multicenter study assessed possible benefits and harms of using Endocuff Vision in a fecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based screening program. METHODS: Patients undergoing colonoscopy after a FIT-positive test were randomized 1:1 to undergo Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy or standard colonoscopy, stratified by sex, age, and screening history. Primary outcome was ADR. Secondary outcomes were ADR stratified by endoscopists' ADR, advanced ADR (AADR), adenomas per colonoscopy (APC), withdrawal time, and adverse events. RESULTS: 1866 patients were enrolled across 13 centers. After exclusions, 1813 (mean age 60.1 years; male 53.8 %) were randomized (908 Endocuff Vision, 905 standard colonoscopy). ADR was significantly higher in the Endocuff Vision arm (47.8 % vs. 40.8 %; relative risk [RR] 1.17, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.06-1.30), with no differences between arms regarding size or morphology. When stratifying for endoscopists' ADR, only low detectors (ADR < 33.3 %) showed a statistically significant ADR increase (Endocuff Vision 41.1 % [95 %CI 35.7-46.7] vs. standard colonoscopy 26.0 % [95 %CI 21.3-31.4]). AADR (24.8 % vs. 20.5 %, RR 1.21, 95 %CI 1.02-1.43) and APC (0.94 vs. 0.77; P  = 0.001) were higher in the Endocuff Vision arm. Withdrawal time and adverse events were similar between arms. CONCLUSION: Endocuff Vision increased ADR in a FIT-based screening program by improvingexamination of the whole colonic mucosa. Utility was highest among endoscopists with a low ADR

Epidemiology, clinical features and diagnostic work-up of cystic neoplasms of the pancreas: Interim analysis of the prospective PANCY survey

INTRODUCTION: A prospective survey to evaluate the diagnostic workup of cystic pancreatic neoplasms (CPNs) according to the Italian guidelines. METHODS: An online data sheet was built. RESULTS: Fifteen of the 1385 patients (1.1%) had non cystic neoplastic lesions. Forty percent (518/1295) had at least one 1st degree relative affected by a solid tumor of the digestive and extra-digestive organs. Symptoms/signs associated with the cystic lesion were present in 24.5% of the patients. The cysts were localized in the head of the pancreas in 38.5% of patients. Of the 2370 examinations (1.7 examinations per patient) which were carried out for the diagnosis, magnetic resonance imaging was performed as a single test in 48.4% of patients and in combination with endoscopic ultrasound in 27% of the cases. Of the 1370 patients having CPNs, 89.9% had an intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN) (70.1% a branch duct IPMN, 6.2% a mixed type IPMN and 4.6% a main duct IPMN), 12.7% had a serous cystadenoma, 2.8% a mucinous cystadenoma, 1.5% a non-functioning cystic neuroendocrine neoplasm, 0.7% a solid-pseudopapillary cystic neoplasm, 0.3% a cystic adenocarcinoma, and 1.2% an undetermined cystic neoplasm. Seventy-eight (5.7%) patients were operated upon after the initial work-up. CONCLUSIONS: This prospective study offers a reliable real-life picture of the diagnostic work-up CPN