Citations

Abstract: Background Artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted colonoscopy reduces costs in colorectal cancer screening, but its incremental value relative to non-AI resect-and-discard (RD) strategies for diminutive polyps (≤ 5 mm) remain unclear. We aimed to compare the clinical, economic, and environmental outcomes of AI-assisted and non-AI RD strategies with standard of care (SoC). Methods In our Markov model simulating 6 million individuals aged ≥45 years undergoing screening colonoscopy, 4 strategies were evaluated: SoC, non-AI RD, CADe-assisted RD (CADe-RD), and CADe+CADx-assisted RD (CADe+CADx-RD). The primary outcome was total quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), with secondary outcomes including cost and carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions. Results Non-AI RD achieved the lowest total cost ($36.6B) and carbon emissions (0.90 million kg CO₂), while yielding the highest QALYs (51.37 million), although differences in QALYs across strategies were small (<0.01%). CADe-RD and CADe+CADx-RD remained cost-saving relative to SoC ($36.9B and $37.4B vs $37.8B, respectively) but were associated with higher costs than non-AI RD. CADe modestly increased adenoma detection without improving QALYs, while the addition of CADx increased costs and emissions and resulted in slightly lower QALYs. Sensitivity analysis showed that CADe+CADx-RD matched or exceeded CADe-RD QALYs only within a limited region of high diagnostic performance. At currently reported CADx performance levels, CADe+CADx-RD yielded lower QALYs and higher costs than CADe-RD. CADe+CADx-RD achieved non-inferiority in QALYs relative to CADe-RD only within a limited region of high diagnostic performance. Conclusions In our non-deterministic model, non-AI RD provided the optimal balance of clinical benefit, cost savings, and lowest environmental impact.

Abstract Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) techniques for large (≥20 mm) nonpedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs) have expanded with the introduction of ablation and cold EMR. This study assessed adverse events (AEs) for the newer EMR techniques, including cold EMR, compared with hot EMR. We conducted a secondary analysis of four prospective multicenter studies of consecutive patients with LNPCPs undergoing EMR from 2019 to 2024. The primary outcome was serious AEs (SAEs) with cold and hot EMR. Secondary outcomes included SAEs in the hot EMR subgroups (no ablation [hEMR], margin ablation [hEMR-m], margin and base ablation [hEMR-mb]). 1762 patients (mean age 65.8; 1890 LNPCPs) were included: 522 cold and 1368 hot EMRs (368 hEMR, 770 hEMR-m, 230 hEMR-mb). SAEs were higher with hot EMR (4.7%, 95%CI 3.6%–5.9%) vs. cold EMR (1.9%, 95%CI 0.9%–3.5%), also for the subgroups of hEMR (6.0%, 95%CI 3.8%–8.9%), hEMR-m (3.9%, 95%CI 2.6%–5.5%), and hEMR-mb (5.2%, 95%CI 2.7%–8.9%). Serious postendoscopic bleeding (PEB) was numerically higher with hot EMR (2.3%, 95%CI 1.6%–3.3%) vs. cold EMR (1.3%, 95%CI 0.5%–2.7%), also for the subgroups of hEMR (3.0%, 95%CI 1.5%–5.3%), hEMR-m (1.9%, 95%CI 1.1%–3.2%), and hEMR-mb (2.6%, 95%CI 1.0%–5.6%). Perforation, intraprocedural and post-procedural, was numerically higher with hot EMR (1.2%, 95%CI 0.7%–2.0%) vs. cold EMR (0.2%, 95%CI 0.0%–1.1%). hEMR-m and hEMR-mb with clipping had lower rates of serious and overall PEB than no clipping. Cold EMR demonstrated lower rates of SAEs, serious PEB, and perforation compared with hot EMR. Perforation and mortality occurred almost exclusively after hot EMR. Hot EMR with margin +/− base ablation did not increase SAEs compared with hot EMR without ablation.

Background Complications of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of large colorectal polyps remain a concern. Objective We aimed to compare safety and efficacy of cold EMR (without electrocautery) to hot EMR (with electrocautery) of large colorectal polyps. Design In this multicentre randomised trial, patients with any large (≥20 mm) non-pedunculated colon polyp were assigned to cold or hot EMR (primary intervention), and to submucosal injection with a viscous or non-viscous solution (secondary intervention) following a 2×2 design. The primary outcome was the rate of severe adverse events (SAEs). The secondary outcome was polyp recurrence. In this study, we report results of the primary intervention. Results 660 patients were randomised and analysed. An SAE was observed in 2.1% of patients in the cold EMR group and in 4.3% in the hot EMR group (p=0.10) (per protocol analysis 1.4 vs 5.0%, p=0.017) with fewer perforations following cold EMR (0%) compared with hot EMR (1.6%, p=0.028). Postprocedure bleeding did not differ (1.5% vs 2.2%, p=0.57). The effect of cold resection was independent of the type of submucosal injection solution, polyp size or antithrombotic medications. Recurrence was detected in 27.6% and 13.6% in the cold and hot EMR groups, respectively (p<0.001). Recurrence was not significantly different for 20–29 mm polyps (18.6% vs 13.4%, p=0.24) and for sessile serrated polyps (14.1% vs 8.5%, p=0.33). Conclusion Universal application of cold EMR did not significantly lower SAEs (unless cold EMR could be completed) and doubled the recurrence rate compared with hot EMR. Trial registration details ClinicalTrials.gov, number: NCT03865537 .

Abstract Background and study aims Use of fluoroscopy in gastrointestinal endoscopy is an essential aid in advanced endoscopic interventions. However, it also raises concerns about radiation exposure. This study aimed to develop consensus-based statements for safe and effective use of fluoroscopy in gastrointestinal endoscopy, prioritizing the safety and well-being of healthcare workers and patients. Methods A modified Delphi approach was employed to achieve consensus over three rounds of surveys. Proposed statements were generated in Round 1. In the second round, panelists rated potential statements on a 5-point scale, with consensus defined as ≥80% agreement. Statements were subsequently prioritized in Round 3, using a 1 (lowest priority) to 10 (highest priority) scale. Results Forty-six experts participated, consisting of 34 therapeutic endoscopists and 12 endoscopy nurses from six continents, with an overall 45.6% female representation (n = 21). Forty-three item statements were generated in the first round. Of these, 31 statements achieved consensus after the second round. These statements were categorized into General Considerations (n = 6), Education (n = 10), Pregnancy (n = 4), Family Planning (n = 2), Patient Safety (n = 4), and Staff Safety (n = 5). In the third round, accepted statements received mean priority scores ranging from 7.28 to 9.36, with 87.2% of statements rated as very high priority (mean score ≥ 9). Conclusions This study presents consensus-based statements for safe and effective use of fluoroscopy in gastrointestinal endoscopy, addressing the well-being of healthcare workers and patients. These consensus-based statements aim to mitigate risks associated with radiation exposure while maintaining benefits of fluoroscopy, ultimately promoting a culture of safety in healthcare settings.

ObjectivesThere have been significant advances in the management of large (≥20 mm) laterally spreading tumors (LSTs) or nonpedunculated colorectal polyps; however, there is a lack of clear consensus on the management of these lesions with significant geographic variability especially between Eastern and Western paradigms. We aimed to provide an international consensus to better guide management and attempt to homogenize practices.MethodsTwo experts in interventional endoscopy spearheaded an evidence‐based Delphi study on behalf of the World Endoscopy Organization Colorectal Cancer Screening Committee. A steering committee comprising six members devised 51 statements, and 43 experts from 18 countries on six continents participated in a three‐round voting process. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations tool was used to assess evidence quality and recommendation strength. Consensus was defined as ≥80% agreement (strongly agree or agree) on a 5‐point Likert scale.ResultsForty‐two statements reached consensus after three rounds of voting. Recommendations included: three statements on training and competency; 10 statements on preresection evaluation, including optical diagnosis, classification, and staging of LSTs; 14 statements on endoscopic resection indications and technique, including statements on en bloc and piecemeal resection decision‐making; seven statements on postresection evaluation; and eight statements on postresection care.ConclusionsAn international expert consensus based on the current available evidence has been developed to guide the evaluation, resection, and follow‐up of LSTs. This may provide guiding principles for the global management of these lesions and standardize current practices.