Real-Time Increased Detection of Neoplastic Tissue in Barrett’s Esophagus with Probe-Based Confocal Laser Endomicroscopy: Final Results of an International Multicenter, Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND: Probe-based confocal laser endomicroscopy (pCLE) allows real-time detection of neoplastic Barrett's esophagus (BE) tissue. However, the accuracy of pCLE in real time has not yet been extensively evaluated. OBJECTIVE: To compare the sensitivity and specificity of pCLE in addition to high-definition white-light endoscopy (HD-WLE) with HD-WLE alone for the detection of high-grade dysplasia (HGD) and early carcinoma (EC) in BE. DESIGN: International, prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial. SETTING: Five tertiary referral centers. PATIENTS: A total of 101 consecutive BE patients presenting for surveillance or endoscopic treatment of HGD/EC. INTERVENTIONS: All patients were examined by HD-WLE, narrow-band imaging (NBI), and pCLE, and the findings were recorded before biopsy samples were obtained. The order of HD-WLE and NBI was randomized and performed by 2 independent, blinded endoscopists. All suspicious lesions on HD-WLE or NBI and 4-quadrant random locations were documented. These locations were examined by pCLE, and a presumptive diagnosis of benign or neoplastic (HGD/EC) tissue was made in real time. Finally, biopsies were taken from all locations and were reviewed by a central pathologist, blinded to endoscopic and pCLE data. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Diagnostic characteristics of pCLE. RESULTS: The sensitivity and specificity for HD-WLE were 34.2% and 92.7%, respectively, compared with 68.3% and 87.8%, respectively, for HD-WLE or pCLE (P = .002 and P < .001, respectively). The sensitivity and specificity for HD-WLE or NBI were 45.0% and 88.2%, respectively, compared with 75.8% and 84.2%, respectively, for HD-WLE, NBI, or pCLE (P = .01 and P = .02, respectively). Use of pCLE in conjunction with HD-WLE and NBI enabled the identification of 2 and 1 additional HGD/EC patients compared with HD-WLE and HD-WLE or NBI, respectively, resulting in detection of all HGD/EC patients, although not statistically significant. LIMITATIONS: Academic centers with enriched population. CONCLUSIONS: pCLE combined with HD-WLE significantly improved the ability to detect neoplasia in BE patients compared with HD-WLE. This may allow better informed decisions to be made for the management and subsequent treatment of BE patients. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT00795184.)

Endoscopic management of patients with high-risk colorectal colitis–associated neoplasia:a Delphi study

Background and Aims: Current guidelines recommend endoscopic resection of visible and endoscopically resectable colorectal colitis–associated neoplasia (CAN) in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). However, patients with high-risk CAN (HR-CAN) are often not amenable to conventional resection techniques, and a consensus approach for the endoscopic management of these lesions is presently lacking. This Delphi study aims to reach consensus among experts on the endoscopic management of these lesions. Methods: A 3-round modified Delphi process was conducted to reach consensus among worldwide IBD and/or endoscopy experts (n = 18) from 3 continents. Consensus was considered if ≥75% agreed or disagreed. Quality of evidence was assessed by the criteria of the Cochrane Collaboration group. Results: Consensus was reached on all statements (n = 14). Experts agreed on a definition for CAN and HR-CAN. Consensus was reached on the examination of the colon with enhanced endoscopic imaging before resection, the endoscopic resectability of an HR-CAN lesion, and endoscopic assessment and standard report of CAN lesions. In addition, experts agreed on type of resections of HR-CAN (20 mm, with or without good lifting), endoscopic success (technical success and outcomes), histologic assessment, and follow-up in HR-CAN. Conclusions: This is the first step in developing international consensus–based recommendations for endoscopic management of CAN and HR-CAN. Although the quality of available evidence was considered low, consensus was reached on several aspects of the management of CAN and HR-CAN. The present work and proposed standardization might benefit future studies

Second-generation colon capsule endoscopy compared with colonoscopy

Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) represents a noninvasive technology that allows visualization of the colon without requiring sedation and air insufflation. A second-generation colon capsule endoscopy system (PillCam Colon 2) (CCE-2) was developed to increase sensitivity for colorectal polyp detection compared with the first-generation system. OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility, accuracy, and safety of CCE-2 in a head-to-head comparison with colonoscopy. DESIGN AND SETTING: Prospective, multicenter trial including 8 European sites. PATIENTS: This study involved 117 patients (mean age 60 years). Data from 109 patients were analyzed. INTERVENTION: CCE-2 was prospectively compared with conventional colonoscopy as the criterion standard for the detection of colorectal polyps that are >/=6 mm or masses in a cohort of patients at average or increased risk of colorectal neoplasia. Colonoscopy was independently performed within 10 hours after capsule ingestion or on the next day. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: CCE-2 sensitivity and specificity for detecting patients with polyps >/=6 mm and >/=10 mm were assessed. Capsule-positive but colonoscopy-negative cases were counted as false positive. Capsule excretion rate, level of bowel preparation, and rate of adverse events also were assessed. RESULTS: Per-patient CCE-2 sensitivity for polyps >/=6 mm and >/=10 mm was 84% and 88%, with specificities of 64% and 95%, respectively. All 3 invasive carcinomas were detected by CCE-2. The capsule excretion rate was 88% within 10 hours. Overall colon cleanliness for CCE-2 was adequate in 81% of patients. LIMITATIONS: Not unblinding the CCE-2 results at colonoscopy; heterogenous patient population; nonconsecutive patients. CONCLUSION: In this European, multicenter study, CCE-2 appeared to have a high sensitivity for the detection of clinically relevant polypoid lesions, and it might be considered an adequate tool for colorectal imaging

Curriculum for optical diagnosis training in Europe: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Position Statement

This manuscript represents an official Position Statement of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) aiming to guide general gastroenterologists to develop and maintain skills in optical diagnosis during endoscopy. In general, this requires additional training beyond the core curriculum currently provided in each country. In this context, ESGE have developed a European core curriculum for optical diagnosis practice across Europe for high quality optical diagnosis training. 1:  ESGE suggests that every endoscopist should have achieved general competence in upper and/or lower gastrointestinal (UGI/LGI) endoscopy before commencing training in optical diagnosis of the UGI/LGI tract, meaning personal experience of at least 300 UGI and/or 300 LGI endoscopies and meeting the ESGE quality measures for UGI/LGI endoscopy. ESGE suggests that every endoscopist should be able and competent to perform UGI/LGI endoscopy with high definition white light combined with virtual and/or dye-based chromoendoscopy before commencing training in optical diagnosis. 2:  ESGE suggests competency in optical diagnosis can be learned by attending a validated optical diagnosis training course based on a validated classification, and self-learning with a minimum number of lesions. If no validated training course is available, optical diagnosis can only be learned by attending a non-validated onsite training course and self-learning with a minimum number of lesions. 3:  ESGE suggests endoscopists are competent in optical diagnosis after meeting the pre-adoption and learning criteria, and meeting competence thresholds by assessing a minimum number of lesions prospectively during real-time endoscopy. ESGE suggests ongoing in vivo practice by endoscopists to maintain competence in optical diagnosis. If a competent endoscopist does not perform in vivo optical diagnosis on a regular basis, ESGE suggests repeating the learning and competence phases to maintain competence.Key areas of interest were optical diagnosis training in Barrett's esophagus, esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, early gastric cancer, diminutive colorectal lesions, early colorectal cancer, and neoplasia in inflammatory bowel disease. Condition-specific recommendations are provided in the main document.status: publishe

Curriculum for optical diagnosis training in Europe: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Position Statement.

status: publishe

Curriculum for optical diagnosis training in Europe: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Position Statement

Main Recommendations This manuscript represents an official Position Statement of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) aiming to guide general gastroenterologists to develop and maintain skills in optical diagnosis during endoscopy. In general, this requires additional training beyond the core curriculum currently provided in each country. In this context, ESGE have developed a European core curriculum for optical diagnosis practice across Europe for high quality optical diagnosis training. 1 ESGE suggests that every endoscopist should have achieved general competence in upper and/or lower gastrointestinal (UGI/LGI) endoscopy before commencing training in optical diagnosis of the UGI/LGI tract, meaning personal experience of at least 300 UGI and/or 300 LGI endoscopies and meeting the ESGE quality measures for UGI/LGI endoscopy. ESGE suggests that every endoscopist should be able and competent to perform UGI/LGI endoscopy with high definition white light combined with virtual and/or dye-based chromoendoscopy before commencing training in optical diagnosis. 2 ESGE suggests competency in optical diagnosis can be learned by attending a validated optical diagnosis training course based on a validated classification, and self-learning with a minimum number of lesions. If no validated training course is available, optical diagnosis can only be learned by attending a non-validated onsite training course and self-learning with a minimum number of lesions. 3 ESGE suggests endoscopists are competent in optical diagnosis after meeting the pre-adoption and learning criteria, and meeting competence thresholds by assessing a minimum number of lesions prospectively during real-time endoscopy. ESGE suggests ongoing in vivo practice by endoscopists to maintain competence in optical diagnosis. If a competent endoscopist does not perform in vivo optical diagnosis on a regular basis, ESGE suggests repeating the learning and competence phases to maintain competence. Key areas of interest were optical diagnosis training in Barrett's esophagus, esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, early gastric cancer, diminutive colorectal lesions, early colorectal cancer, and neoplasia in inflammatory bowel disease. Condition-specific recommendations are provided in the main document

Erratum: Curriculum for optical diagnosis training in Europe: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Position Statement (Endoscopy (2020) 52 (899-923) DOI: 10.1055/a-1231-5123)

In the above-mentioned article, one sentence on page 912 (Optical diagnosis training for early gastric cancer, Part B) has been corrected. Correct is: The curriculum committee suggests, based on personal experience, that assessment of at least 20 gastric lesions prospectively in patients at high risk of gastric dysplasia/EGC is needed before competence should be assessed. This was corrected in the online version on September 23, 2020

Advanced imaging for detection and differentiation of colorectal neoplasia: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline - Update 2019

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.status: publishe