Citations

INTRODUCTION: The performance of a high quality esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) is dependent on the mucosal cleanliness. Recently, the Polprep: Effective Assessment of Cleanliness in EGD (PEACE) scale was created to assess the degree of mucosal cleanliness during EGD. The aim of this study was to validate this scoring system in a cohort of international endoscopists. METHODS: In total, 39 EGD videos, with different degrees of mucosal cleanliness were retrieved from a previously conducted prospective trial. All experts rated the cleanliness of the mucosa on each video using the PEACE scale. To evaluate agreement of all scores (0–3), intraclass correlation coefficient 2.1 was used. The agreement on adequate (scores 2 and 3) and inadequate (scores 0 and 1) cleanliness was assessed using kappa values. RESULTS: Videos evaluating esophagus, stomach, and duodenum cleanliness were reviewed by 16 endoscopists. The PEACE scores demonstrated good agreement (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.82, 95% CI 0.75–0.89), especially for esophagus (0.84; 95% CI 0.71–0.95) and stomach (0.81; 95% CI 0.69–0.91), while agreement was moderate for the duodenum (0.69; 95% CI 0.51–0.87). The agreement was similar between Eastern (0.86; 95% CI 0.79–0.92) and Western experts (0.80; 95% CI 0.72–0.88). Similarly, agreement regarding adequate cleanliness was comparable between Eastern (0.70; 95% CI 0.55–0.85) and Western (0.74; 95% CI 0.64–0.84) endoscopists being overall 0.75 (95% CI 0.65–0.85). DISCUSSION: The PEACE scoring system is a simple and reliable scale to assess the cleanliness during EGD. The score is now validated among international experts with high concordance, justifying its use in clinical practice.

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.

Screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) is effective in reducing CRC related mortality. Current screening methods include endoscopy based and biomarker based approaches. This guideline is a joint official statement of the Asian Pacific Association of Gastroenterology (APAGE) and the Asian Pacific Society of Digestive Endoscopy (APSDE), developed in response to the increasing use of, and accumulating supportive evidence for the role of, non-invasive biomarkers for the diagnosis of CRC and its precursor lesions. A systematic review of 678 publications and a two stage Delphi consensus process involving 16 clinicians in various disciplines was undertaken to develop 32 evidence based and expert opinion based recommendations for the use of faecal immunochemical tests, faecal based tumour biomarkers or microbial biomarkers, and blood based tumour biomarkers for the detection of CRC and adenoma. Comprehensive up-to-date guidance is provided on indications, patient selection and strengths and limitations of each screening tool. Future research to inform clinical applications are discussed alongside objective measurement of research priorities. This joint APAGE–APSDE practice guideline is intended to provide an up-to-date guide to assist clinicians worldwide in utilising non-invasive biomarkers for CRC screening; it has particular salience for clinicians in the Asia-Pacific region.

The number of artificial intelligence (AI) tools for colonoscopy on the market is increasing with supporting clinical evidence. Nevertheless, their implementation is not going smoothly for a variety of reasons, including lack of data on clinical benefits and cost‐effectiveness, lack of trustworthy guidelines, uncertain indications, and cost for implementation. To address this issue and better guide practitioners, the World Endoscopy Organization (WEO) has provided its perspective about the status of AI in colonoscopy as the position statement. WEO Position Statement: Statement 1.1: Computer‐aided detection (CADe) for colorectal polyps is likely to improve colonoscopy effectiveness by reducing adenoma miss rates and thus increase adenoma detection; Statement 1.2: In the short term, use of CADe is likely to increase health‐care costs by detecting more adenomas; Statement 1.3: In the long term, the increased cost by CADe could be balanced by savings in costs related to cancer treatment (surgery, chemotherapy, palliative care) due to CADe‐related cancer prevention; Statement 1.4: Health‐care delivery systems and authorities should evaluate the cost‐effectiveness of CADe to support its use in clinical practice; Statement 2.1: Computer‐aided diagnosis (CADx) for diminutive polyps (≤5 mm), when it has sufficient accuracy, is expected to reduce health‐care costs by reducing polypectomies, pathological examinations, or both; Statement 2.2: Health‐care delivery systems and authorities should evaluate the cost‐effectiveness of CADx to support its use in clinical practice; Statement 3: We recommend that a broad range of high‐quality cost‐effectiveness research should be undertaken to understand whether AI implementation benefits populations and societies in different health‐care systems.

Abstract Background 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 are often not amenable to conventional resections techniques and a consensus approach for the endoscopic management of these lesions is presently lacking. This Delphi study aims to reach consensus amongst experts on the endoscopic management of these lesions. Methods A three-round modified Delphi process was conducted to reach consensus amongst worldwide IBD and/or endoscopy experts (n=18) from three continents. Experts were chosen based on the extensive clinical experience with IBD and/or EMR/ESD in patients with IBD, and the authorship on multiple peer-reviewed publications on CAN, the endoscopic resection of CAN and/or EMR/ESD. 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 high-risk CAN (HR-CAN). Consensus was reached on the examination of the colon with enhanced endoscopic imaging prior to resection, the endoscopic resectability of a HR-CAN lesion and endoscopic assessment and standard report of CAN lesions. In addition, experts agreed on type of resections of HR-CAN (< 20mm, >20 mm, with or without good lifting), endoscopic success (technical success and outcomes), histologic assessment and follow-up in HR-CAN. Conclusion This is the first step in developing international consensus-based recommendations for endoscopic management of (HR-)CAN. Although the quality of available evidence was considered low, consensus was reached on several aspects of the management of (HR-)CAN. The present work and proposed standardization might benefit future studies.

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound impact on provision of endoscopy services globally as staff and real estate were repurposed. As we begin to recover from the pandemic, a cohesive international approach is needed, and guidance on how to resume endoscopy services safely to avoid unintended harm from diagnostic delays. The aim of these guidelines is to provide consensus recommendations that clinicians can use to facilitate the swift and safe resumption of endoscopy services. An evidence-based literature review was carried out on the various strategies used globally to manage endoscopy during the COVID-19 pandemic and control infection. A modified Delphi process involving international endoscopy experts was used to agree on the consensus statements. A threshold of 80% agreement was used to establish consensus for each statement. 27 of 30 statements achieved consensus after two rounds of voting by 34 experts. The statements were categorised as pre-endoscopy, during endoscopy and postendoscopy addressing relevant areas of practice, such as screening, personal protective equipment, appropriate environments for endoscopy and infection control precautions, particularly in areas of high disease prevalence. Recommendations for testing of patients and for healthcare workers, appropriate locations of donning and doffing areas and social distancing measures before endoscopy are unique and not dealt with by any other guidelines. This international consensus using a modified Delphi method to produce a series of best practice recommendations to aid the safe resumption of endoscopy services globally in the era of COVID-19.