Standardised training for endoscopic mucosal resection of large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps to reduce recurrence (*STAR-LNPCP study): a multicentre cluster randomised trial

ObjectiveEndoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is the preferred treatment for non-invasive large (>= 20 mm) non-pedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs) but is associated with an early recurrence rate of up to 30%. We evaluated whether standardised EMR training could reduce recurrence rates in Dutch community hospitals.DesignIn this multicentre cluster randomised trial, 59 endoscopists from 30 hospitals were randomly assigned to the intervention group (e-learning and 2-day training including hands-on session) or control group. From April 2019 to August 2021, all consecutive EMR-treated LNPCPs were included. Primary endpoint was recurrence rate after 6 months.ResultsA total of 1412 LNPCPs were included; 699 in the intervention group and 713 in the control group (median size 30 mm vs 30 mm, 45% vs 52% size, morphology, site and access (SMSA) score IV, 64% vs 64% proximal location). Recurrence rates were lower in the intervention group compared with controls (13% vs 25%, OR 0.43; 95% CI 0.23 to 0.78; p=0.005) with similar complication rates (8% vs 9%, OR 0.93; 95% CI 0.64 to 1.36; p=0.720). Recurrences were more often unifocal in the intervention group (92% vs 76%; p=0.006). In sensitivity analysis, the benefit of the intervention on recurrence rate was only observed in the 20-40 mm LNPCPs (5% vs 20% in 20-29 mm, p=0.001; 10% vs 21% in 30-39 mm, p=0.013) but less evident in >= 40 mm LNPCPs (24% vs 31%; p=0.151). In a post hoc analysis, the training effect was maintained in the study group, while in the control group the recurrence rate remained high.ConclusionA compact standardised EMR training for LNPCPs significantly reduced recurrences in community hospitals. This strongly argues for a national dedicated training programme for endoscopists performing EMR of >= 20 mm LNPCPs. Interestingly, in sensitivity analysis, this benefit was limited for LNPCPs >= 40 mm.Trial registration numberNTR7477.Cellular mechanisms in basic and clinical gastroenterology and hepatolog

Thermal ablation of mucosal defect margins to prevent local recurrence of large colorectal polyps: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and study aims  Endoscopic mucosal resection of large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps is characterized by a high risk of recurrence. Thermal ablation of the mucosal defect margins may reduce recurrence in these lesions, but a systematic overview of the current evidence is lacking. Methods  We searched PubMed, Embase and Cochrane until July 2021, for studies on thermal ablation of mucosal defect margins of large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps. Main goal of this meta-analysis was to identify pooled risk difference of recurrence between thermal ablation vs. no adjuvant treatment. Secondary goal was to identify pooled recurrence rate after snare tip soft coagulation (STSC) and argon plasma coagulation (APC). Results  Ten studies on thermal ablation of mucosal defect margins were included, with three studies on argon plasma coagulation, six studies on snare tip soft coagulation and one study comparing both treatment modalities, representing a total of 316 APC cases and 1598 STSC cases. Overall pooled risk difference of recurrence was –0.17 (95 % confidence interval [CI] –0.22 to –0.12) as compared to no adjuvant treatment. Pooled risk difference was –0.16 (95 % CI –0.19 to –0.14) for STSC and –0.26 (95 % CI –0.80 to 0.28) for APC. Pooled recurrence rate was 4 % (95 % CI 2 % to 8 %) for STSC and 9 % (95 % CI 4 % to 19 %) for APC. Conclusions  Thermal ablation of mucosal defect margins significantly reduces recurrence rate in large non-pedunculated colorectal lesions compared to no adjuvant treatment. While no evidence for superiority exists, STSC may be preferred over APC, because this method is the most evidence-based, and cost-effective modality

Examining the optimal cutoff values of HADS, PHQ-9 and GAD-7 as screening instruments for depression and anxiety in irritable bowel syndrome

Background Self-rating scales are frequently used to screen for anxiety and depression in patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). Different cutoff values are recommended in literature, and guidelines have suggested the use of other screening instruments over time. The aim of this study was to assess the correlation between the most commonly used psychological screening instruments for anxiety and depression in IBS and to compare custom cutoff scores for these instruments.Methods Irritable bowel syndrome patients (n = 192) completed several questionnaires including the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS, HADS-A and HADS-D subscale), Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) and Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7). Agreement at different cutoff points, for depressive and anxiety disorder, was assessed by use of the Gwet AC1 coefficient.Key Results Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS)-D and PHQ-9 scores, and HADS-A and GAD-7 scores showed high correlations (r(s) = 0.735 and r(s) = 0.805, respectively). For depressive disorder, a Gwet AC1 value of 0.829 was found when recommended cutoff points from literature were compared (PHQ-9 cutoff >= 10, HADS-D cutoff >= 8). For anxiety disorder, a Gwet AC1 value of 0.806 was found when recommended cutoff points from literature were compared (GAD-7 cutoff >= 10, HADS-A cutoff >= 8). Even higher agreements were found when higher HADS cutoff values were chosen, with impact on sensitivity and specificity.Conclusions & Inferences Custom cutoff values deem the HADS subscales (HADS-D and HADS-A) concordant to PHQ-9 and GAD-7 scores. The choice of a cutoff value has substantial impact on sensitivity/specificity and is dependent on patient population, setting, and the purpose of use

Metachronous neoplasms in patients with laterally spreading tumours during surveillance

BACKGROUND: Laterally spreading tumours represent a major challenge for endoscopic detection and resection. OBJECTIVE: To examine synchronous and metachronous neoplasms in patients with laterally spreading tumours. METHODS: We prospectively collected colonoscopy and histopathology data from patients who underwent colonoscopy in our centre at up to 6 years' follow‐up. Post‐resection surveillance outcomes between laterally spreading tumours, flat colorectal neoplasms 10 mm or greater, and large polypoid colorectal neoplasms, polypoid colorectal neoplasms 10 mm or greater, were compared. RESULTS: Between 2008 and 2012, 8120 patients underwent colonoscopy for symptoms (84.6%), screening (6.7%) or surveillance (8.7%). At baseline, 151 patients had adenomatous laterally spreading tumours and 566 patients had adenomatous large polypoid colorectal neoplasms. Laterally spreading tumour patients had more synchronous colorectal neoplasms than large polypoid colorectal neoplasm patients (mean 3.34 vs. 2.34, p < 0.001). Laterally spreading tumour patients significantly more often developed metachronous colorectal neoplasms (71.6% vs. 54.2%, p = 0.0498) and colorectal neoplasms with high grade dysplasia/submucosal invasion than large polypoid colorectal neoplasm patients (36.4% vs. 15.8%, p < 0.001). After correction for age and gender, laterally spreading tumour patients were more likely than large polypoid colorectal neoplasm patients to develop a colorectal neoplasm with high grade dysplasia or submucosal invasion (hazard ratio 2.9, 95% confidence interval 1.8–4.6). The risk of metachronous colorectal cancer was not significantly different in laterally spreading tumours compared to large polypoid colorectal neoplasm patients. CONCLUSION: Patients with laterally spreading tumours developed more metachronous colorectal neoplasms with high grade dysplasia/submucosal invasion than large polypoid colorectal neoplasm patients. Based on these findings endoscopic treatment and surveillance recommendations for patients with laterally spreading tumours should be optimised

Examining the optimal cutoff values of HADS, PHQ-9 and GAD-7 as screening instruments for depression and anxiety in irritable bowel syndrome

Background Self-rating scales are frequently used to screen for anxiety and depression in patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). Different cutoff values are recommended in literature, and guidelines have suggested the use of other screening instruments over time. The aim of this study was to assess the correlation between the most commonly used psychological screening instruments for anxiety and depression in IBS and to compare custom cutoff scores for these instruments.Methods Irritable bowel syndrome patients (n = 192) completed several questionnaires including the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS, HADS-A and HADS-D subscale), Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) and Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7). Agreement at different cutoff points, for depressive and anxiety disorder, was assessed by use of the Gwet AC1 coefficient.Key Results Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS)-D and PHQ-9 scores, and HADS-A and GAD-7 scores showed high correlations (r(s) = 0.735 and r(s) = 0.805, respectively). For depressive disorder, a Gwet AC1 value of 0.829 was found when recommended cutoff points from literature were compared (PHQ-9 cutoff >= 10, HADS-D cutoff >= 8). For anxiety disorder, a Gwet AC1 value of 0.806 was found when recommended cutoff points from literature were compared (GAD-7 cutoff >= 10, HADS-A cutoff >= 8). Even higher agreements were found when higher HADS cutoff values were chosen, with impact on sensitivity and specificity.Conclusions & Inferences Custom cutoff values deem the HADS subscales (HADS-D and HADS-A) concordant to PHQ-9 and GAD-7 scores. The choice of a cutoff value has substantial impact on sensitivity/specificity and is dependent on patient population, setting, and the purpose of use

Association of Chromosomal Instability, Microsatellite Instability and CPG Island Methylator Phenotype with Postcolonoscopy Colorectal Cancer in a Population Based Study

Stemcel biology/Regenerative medicine (incl. bloodtransfusion

G-EYE colonoscopy is superior to standard colonoscopy for increasing adenoma detection rate: an international randomized controlled trial (with videos)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is largely preventable with routine screening and surveillance colonoscopy; however, interval cancers arising from precancerous lesions missed by standard colonoscopy still occur. An increased adenoma detection rate (ADR) has been found to be inversely associated with interval cancers. The G-EYE device includes a reusable balloon integrated at the distal tip of a standard colonoscope, which flattens haustral folds, centralizes the colonoscope's optics, and reduces bowel slippage. The insufflated balloon also aims to enhance visualization of the colon during withdrawal, thereby increasing the ADR. METHODS: In this randomized, controlled, international, multicenter study (11 centers), patients (aged >/=50 years) referred to colonoscopy for screening, surveillance, or changes in bowel habits were randomized to undergo either balloon-assisted colonoscopy by using an insufflated balloon during withdrawal or standard high-definition colonoscopy. The primary endpoint was the ADR. RESULTS: One thousand patients were enrolled between May 2014 and September 2016 to undergo colonoscopy by experienced endoscopists; 803 were finally analyzed (standard colonoscopy n = 396; balloon-assisted colonoscopy n = 407). Baseline parameters were similar in both groups. Balloon-assisted colonoscopy provided a 48.0% ADR compared with 37.5% in the standard colonoscopy group (28% increase; P = .0027). Additionally, balloon-assisted colonoscopy provided for a significant increase in detection of advanced (P = .0033) flat adenomas (P < .0001) and sessile serrated adenomas/polyps (P = .0026). CONCLUSION: Balloon-assisted colonoscopy yielded a higher ADR and increased the detection of advanced, flat, and sessile serrated adenomas/polyps when compared with standard colonoscopy. Improved detection by the G-EYE device could impact the quality of CRC screening by reducing miss rates and consequently reducing interval cancer incidence. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT01917513.)