The DICA Endoscopic Classification for Diverticular Disease of the Colon Shows a Significant Interobserver Agreement among Community Endoscopists: an International Study

Background & Aims: The Diverticular Inflammation and Complication Assessment (DICA) endoscopic classification of diverticulosis and diverticular disease (DD) is currently available. It scores severity of the disease as DICA 1, DICA 2 and DICA 3. Our aim was to assess the agreement on this classification in an international endoscopists community setting. Methods: A total of 96 doctors (82.9% endoscopists) independently scored a set of DD endoscopic videos. The percentages of overall agreement on DICA score and a free-marginal multirater kappa (kappa) coefficient were reported as statistical measures of interrater agreement. Results: Overall agreement in using DICA was 91.8% with a free-marginal kappa of 88% (95% CI 80-95). The overall agreement levels were: DICA 1, 85.2%; DICA 2, 96.5%; DICA 3, 99.5%. The free marginal. was: DICA 1 = 0.753, DICA 2 = 0.958, DICA 3 = 0.919. The agreement about the main endoscopic items was 83.4% (k 67%) for diverticular extension, 62.6% (k 65%) for number of diverticula for each district, 86.8% (k 82%) for presence of inflammation, and 98.5 (k 98%) for presence of complications. Conclusions: The overall interrater agreement in this study ranges from good to very good. DICA score is a simple and reproducible endoscopic scoring system for diverticulosis and DD

International Consensus on Diverticulosis and Diverticular Disease. Statements from the 3rd International Symposium on Diverticular Disease

The statements produced by the Chairmen and Speakers of the 3rd International Symposium on Diverticular Disease, held in Madrid on April 11th-13th 2019, are reported. Topics such as current and evolving concepts on the pathogenesis, the course of the disease, the news in diagnosing, hot topics in medical and surgical treatments, and finally, critical issues on the disease were reviewed by the Chairmen who proposed 39 statements graded according to level of evidence and strength of recommendation. Each topic was explored focusing on the more relevant clinical questions. The vote was conducted on a 6-point scale and consensus was defined a priori as 67% agreement of the participants. The voting group consisted of 124 physicians from 18 countries, and agreement with all statements was provided. Comments were added explaining some controversial areas

What’s New in Diagnosing Diverticular Disease

In this session different issues for the diagnosis of diverticular disease (DD) were considered including “Biomarkers”, “Computer tomography”, “Ultrasonography in detecting acute diverticulitis”, “Endoscopy” and “The DICA classification: a new predictive tool in managing diverticular disease”. Most patients affected by DD suffer from recurrent attacks of abdominal pain without evidence of an active inflammatory process, causing a difficult differential diagnosis with other intestinal conditions. Several biomarkers, serological, fecal, urinary and genetic were considered, but recent studies confirmed that only CRP and fecal calprotectin are matching with the criteria for an ideal biomarker for DD. Colonoscopy still remains the gold standard for the diagnosis of DD, playing a key role in many clinical settings, such as colonic diverticular bleeding, or to differentiate inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and segmental colitis associated with diverticulosis (SCAD); Moreover, in 2015 has been developed the DICA (Diverticular Inflammation and Complication Assessment) endoscopic classification that considers 10 different parameters, each one with a score, and the sum of items scores represents the severity of the disease; in this way the endoscopic exam would be able to predict the outcome of DD for each patient. On the other hand, computer tomography (CT) is the gold standard for acute diverticulitis (AD) with an excellent sensitivity and specificity; recently, metanalysis of prospective studies have shown that intestinal ultrasonography (IUS) and CT have the same sensitivity for the diagnosis of an AD and the advantage is that IUS is less expensive, non-invasive and easily accessible