Accuracy of endoscopic staging and targeted biopsies for routine gastric intestinal metaplasia and gastric atrophy evaluation study protocol of a prospective, cohort study: the estimate study

Introduction Patients with chronic atrophic gastritis (CAG) and intestinal metaplasia (IM) are at risk of developing gastric adenocarcinoma. Their diagnosis and management currently rely on histopathological guidance after random endoscopic biopsy sampling (Sydney biopsy strategy). This approach has significant flaws such as under-diagnosis, poor reproducibility and poor correlation between endoscopy and histology. This prospective, international multicentre study aims to establish whether endoscopyled risk stratification accurately and reproducibly predicts CAG and IM extent and disease stage. Methods and analysis Patients with CAG and/or IM on standard white light endoscopy (WLE) will be prospectively identified and invited to undergo a second endoscopy performed by an expert endoscopist using enhanced endoscopic imaging techniques with virtual chromoendoscopy. Extent of CAG/IM will be endoscopically staged with enhanced imaging and compared with standard WLE. Histopathological risk stratification through targeted biopsies will be compared with endoscopic disease staging and to random biopsy staging on WLE as a reference. At least 234 patients are required to show a 10% difference in sensitivity and accuracy between enhanced imaging endoscopy-led staging and the current biopsy-led staging protocol of gastric atrophy with a power (beta) of 80% and a 0.05 probability of a type I error (alpha). Ethics and dissemination The study was approved by the respective Institutional Review Boards (Netherlands: MEC2018-078; UK: 19/LO/0089). The findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at scientific meetings

Interval post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer following a negative colonoscopy in a fecal immunochemical test-based screening program

Background In the Dutch colorectal (CRC) screening program, fecal immunochemical test (FIT)-positive individuals are referred for colonoscopy. If no relevant findings are detected at colonoscopy, individuals are reinvited for FIT screening after 10 years. We aimed to assess CRC risk after a negative colonoscopy in FIT-positive individuals. Methods In this cross-sectional cohort study, data were extracted from the Dutch national screening information system. Participants with a positive FIT followed by a negative colonoscopy between 2014 and 2018 were included. A negative colonoscopy was defined as a colonoscopy during which no more than one nonvillous, nonproximal adenoma &lt; 10mm or serrated polyp &lt; 10mm was found. The main outcome was interval post-colonoscopy CRC (iPCCRC) risk. iPCCRC risk was reviewed against the risk of interval CRC after a negative FIT (FIT IC) with a 2-year screening interval. Results 35 052 FIT-positive participants had a negative colonoscopy and 24 iPCCRCs were diagnosed, resulting in an iPCCRC risk of 6.85 (95%CI 4.60-10.19) per 10 000 individuals after a median follow-up of 1.4 years. After 2.5 years of follow-up, age-adjusted iPCCRC risk was approximately equal to FIT IC risk at 2 years. Conclusion Risk of iPCCRC within a FIT-based CRC screening program was low during the first years after colonoscopy but, after 2.5 years, was the same as the risk in FITnegative individuals at 2 years, when they are reinvited for screening. Colonoscopy quality may therefore require further improvement and FIT screening interval may need to be reduced after negative colonoscopy.</p

Imaging alternatives to colonoscopy: CT colonography and colon capsule. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) Guideline – Update 2020

1. ESGE/ESGAR recommend computed tomographic colonography (CTC) as the radiological examination of choice for the diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. ESGE/ESGAR do not recommend barium enema in this setting. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 2. ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC, preferably the same or next day, if colonoscopy is incomplete. The timing depends on an interdisciplinary decision including endoscopic and radiological factors. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. ESGE/ESGAR suggests that, in centers with expertise in and availability of colon capsule endoscopy (CCE), CCE preferably the same or the next day may be considered if colonoscopy is incomplete. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 3. When colonoscopy is contraindicated or not possible, ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an acceptable and equally sensitive alternative for patients with alarm symptoms. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. Because of lack of direct evidence, ESGE/ESGAR do not recommend CCE in this situation. Very low quality evidence. ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an acceptable alternative to colonoscopy for patients with non-alarm symptoms. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. In centers with availability, ESGE/ESGAR suggests that CCE may be considered in patients with non-alarm symptoms. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 4. Where there is no organized fecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based population colorectal screening program, ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an option for colorectal cancer screening, providing the screenee is adequately informed about test characteristics, benefits, and risks, and depending on local service- and patient-related factors. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. ESGE/ESGAR do not suggest CCE as a first-line screening test for colorectal cancer. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 5. ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC in the case of a positive fecal occult blood test (FOBT) or FIT with incomplete or unfeasible colonoscopy, within organized population screening programs. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. ESGE/ESGAR also suggest the use of CCE in this setting based on availability. Weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 6. ESGE/ESGAR suggest CTC with intravenous contrast medium injection for surveillance after curative-intent resection of colorectal cancer only in patients in whom colonoscopy is contraindicated or unfeasible. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. There is insufficient evidence to recommend CCE in this setting. Very low quality evidence. 7. ESGE/ESGAR suggest CTC in patients with high risk polyps undergoing surveillance after polypectomy only when colonoscopy is unfeasible. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. There is insufficient evidence to recommend CCE in post-polypectomy surveillance. Very low quality evidence. 8. ESGE/ESGAR recommend against CTC in patients with acute colonic inflammation and in those who have recently undergone colorectal surgery, pending a multidisciplinary evaluation. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 9. ESGE/ESGAR recommend referral for endoscopic polypectomy in patients with at least one polyp ≥6 mm detected at CTC or CCE. Follow-up CTC may be clinically considered for 6–9-mm CTC-detected lesions if patients do not undergo polypectomy because of patient choice, comorbidity, and/or low risk profile for advanced neoplasia. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.Source and scop

Early diagnosis is associated with improved clinical outcomes in benign esophageal perforation: an individual patient data meta-analysis

Background: Time of diagnosis (TOD) of benign esophageal perforation is regarded as an important risk factor for clinical outcome, although convincing evidence is lacking. The aim of this study is to assess whether time between onset of perforation and diagnosis is associated with clinical outcome in patients with iatrogenic esophageal perforation (IEP) and Boerhaave's syndrome (BS).Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane library through June 2018 to identify studies. Authors were invited to share individual patient data and a meta-analysis was performed (PROSPERO: CRD42018093473). Patients were subdivided in early (≤ 24 h) and late (> 24 h) TOD and compared with mixed effects multivariable analysis while adjusting age, gender, location of perforation, initial treatment and center. Primary outcome was overall mortality. Secondary outcomes were length of hospital stay, re-interventions and ICU admission.Results: Our meta-analysis included IPD of 25 studies including 576 patients with IEP and 384 with BS. In IEP, early TOD was not associated with overall mortality (8% vs. 13%, OR 2.1, 95% CI 0.8-5.1), but was associated with a 23% decrease in ICU admissions (46% vs. 69%, OR 3.0, 95% CI 1.2-7.2), a 22% decrease in re-interventions (23% vs. 45%, OR 2.8, 95% CI 1.2-6.7) and a 36% decrease in length of hospital stay (14 vs. 22 days, p Conclusions: This individual patient data meta-analysis confirms the general opinion that an early (≤ 24 h) compared to a late diagnosis (> 24 h) in benign esophageal perforations, particularly in IEP, is associated with improved clinical outcome.</p

<i>Polyketide synthase positive Escherichia</i> <i>coli </i>one-time measurement in stool is not informative of colorectal cancer risk in a screening setting

Environmental factors like the pathogenicity island polyketide synthase positive (pks+) Escherichia coli (E. coli) could have potential for risk stratification in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. The association between pks+ E. coli measured in fecal immunochemical test (FIT) samples and the detection of advanced neoplasia (AN) at colonoscopy was investigated. Biobanked FIT samples were analyzed for both presence of E. coli and pks+ E. coli and correlated with colonoscopy findings; 5020 CRC screening participants were included. Controls were participants in which no relevant lesion was detected because of FIT-negative results (cut-off ≥15 μg Hb/g feces), a negative colonoscopy, or a colonoscopy during which only a nonadvanced polyp was detected. Cases were participants with AN [CRC, advanced adenoma (AA), or advanced serrated polyp (ASP)]. Existing DNA isolation and quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) procedures were used for the detection of E. coli and pks+ E. coli in stool. A total of 4542 (90.2%) individuals were E. coli positive, and 1322 (26.2%) were pks+ E. coli positive. The prevalence of E. coli in FIT samples from individuals with AN was 92.9% compared to 89.7% in FIT samples of controls (p = 0.010). The prevalence of pks+ E. coli in FIT samples from individuals with AN (28.6%) and controls (25.9%) was not significantly different (p = 0.13). The prevalences of pks+ E. coli in FIT samples from individuals with CRC, AA, or ASP were 29.6%, 28.3%, and 32.1%, respectively. In conclusion, the prevalence of pks+ E. coli in a screening population was 26.2% and did not differ significantly between individuals with AN and controls. These findings disqualify the straightforward option of using a snapshot measurement of pks+ E. coli in FIT samples as a stratification biomarker for CRC risk.</p

Biopsy sampling in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy - a survey from ten tertiary referral centres across Europe

BACKGROUND: Guidelines give robust recommendations on which biopsies should be taken when there is endoscopic suggestion of gastric inflammation. Adherence to these guidelines often seems arbitrary. This study aimed to give an overview on current practice in tertiary referral centres across Europe. METHODS: Data was collected at ten tertiary referral centres. Demographic data, the indication for each procedure, endoscopic findings and the number and sampling site of biopsies were recorded. Findings were compared between centres and factors influencing the decision to take biopsies explored. RESULTS: Biopsies were taken in 56.6% of 9425 procedures, with significant variation between centres (p&lt;0.001). Gastric biopsies were taken in 43.8% of all procedures. Sampling location varied with the procedure indication (p&lt;0.001) without consistent pattern across the centres. Fewer biopsies were taken in centres which routinely applied the updated Sydney classification for gastritis assessment (46.0%), compared to centres where this was done only upon request (75.3%, p&lt;0.001). This was the same for centres stratifying patients according to the OLGA system (51.8% vs 73.0%, p&lt;0.001). More biopsies were taken in centres following the MAPS guidelines on stomach surveillance (68.1% vs 37.1%, p&lt;0.001). Biopsy sampling was more likely in younger patients in 8 centres (p&lt;0.05), but this was not true for the whole cohort (p=0.537). The percentage of procedures with biopsies correlated directly with additional costs charged in case of biopsies (r=0.709, p=0.022). CONCLUSION: Adherence to guideline recommendations for biopsy sampling at gastroscopy was inconsistent across the participating centres. Our data suggest that instead centre-specific policies are applied.</p