Thakkar, Shyam

ABSTRACT Background and Aims Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly integrated into gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy, yet limited data exist on how patients and endoscopists perceive its use. This study aimed to evaluate users' values and preferences regarding AI in endoscopy to support effective implementation and inform guideline development. Methods As part of the World Endoscopy Organization (WEO) AI committee initiatives, two structured international surveys were conducted—one for patients and one for practicing endoscopists. Thirteen AI‐related statements were presented to patients via an established online platform, while 23 statements were shared with endoscopists through professional networks. Responses were captured using 5‐point Likert scales and analyzed with non‐parametric tests, including subgroup comparisons by age, gender, and endoscopic experience. Results A total of 1237 patients and 476 endoscopists participated. Most patients supported AI in image analysis (75.5%) but emphasized the need for endoscopist oversight (92.3%). Among endoscopists, 90.3% believed AI improves endoscopy quality, and 85.3% believed it benefits outcomes. Concerns were raised about liability (47%), operator dependency (34.8%), and procedure time (49%). Most respondents felt primary responsibility for AI‐related errors should rest with the endoscopist. Younger and male patients reported greater trust in AI. Conclusions Patients and endoscopists are generally supportive of AI in GI endoscopy, especially as an adjunct to human expertise. However, key concerns—including accountability, trust, and clinical integration—must be addressed to ensure responsible and effective adoption.

INTRODUCTION: The study aimed to develop consensus recommendations for the safe and appropriate use of liquid nitrogen spray cryotherapy in Barrett's esophagus and esophageal cancer. METHODS: Statements were initially formulated and grouped into categories of indications, training, preprocedure, intraprocedure, and postprocedure recommendations, frequency/timing of repeat procedures, and contraindications. Two investigators assessed the strength of the evidence for each statement using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. Nineteen experts were invited to participate in a modified Delphi process. For statements that received >80% agreement, minor iterative edits were performed until there was unanimous consensus. If a threshold of 80% agreement was not reached, the statement was modified based on feedback and included in the next Delphi round. Statements were rejected if no consensus was reached after 3 rounds. RESULTS: After 3 Delphi rounds, 41 of 42 statements were accepted either in their original version (n = 11) or after modification based on expert input (n = 30). DISCUSSION: Through a modified Delphi process, we developed expert and evidence-based consensus recommendations to guide safe and appropriate use of liquid nitrogen spray cryotherapy in Barrett's esophagus and esophageal cancer.

Abstract Background Studies evaluating the risk of post-polypectomy bleeding (PPB) after colorectal endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and end-stage renal disease (ESRD) are limited. Methods This retrospective cohort study utilized the U.S. Collaborative Network to assess the risk of PPB after colorectal EMR in patients with CKD compared to controls. Using one-to-one propensity score matching (PSM), the primary outcome measured was PPB within 30 days after colorectal EMR. The PPB risk was further stratified by CKD severity: non-advanced CKD and advanced CKD. Results After PSM, each cohort included 7,460 patients. Overall, CKD was associated with increased risk of PPB following colorectal EMR (5.5% vs. 4%, odds ratio [OR] 1.38, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.19–1.61, p < 0.001). The PPB risk was significantly higher in patients with advanced CKD (8.1% vs, 4.6%, OR 1.83, 95% CI 1.43–2.34, p < 0.001), while those with non-advanced CKD showed modest increase in risk of PPB (4.7% vs. 3.9%, OR 1.21, 95% CI 1.001–1.46, p = 0.049). Conclusion Patients with CKD had higher risk of PPB than patients without CKD, but absolute risk remained low. The PPB risk was notably increased in patients with advanced CKD. Optimizing patients with CKD, especially advanced CKD, before colorectal EMR and monitoring for post-procedure bleeding remains important.

INTRODUCTION: Data on the risk of post-polypectomy bleeding after endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) in patients with cirrhosis are limited. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used the US Collaborative Network to assess post-polypectomy bleeding risk after colorectal EMR in patients with cirrhosis compared with controls. Using one-to-one propensity score matching, the primary outcome measured was bleeding within 30 days post-EMR. The bleeding risk was further stratified by cirrhosis severity (compensated and decompensated). RESULTS: After propensity score matching, each cohort included 2,381 patients. Patients with cirrhosis had a higher risk of post-polypectomy bleeding (odds ratio [OR] 1.38, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05–1.82, P = 0.02). However, endoscopic reinterventions for hemostasis were similar between cirrhosis and control cohorts (OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.71–2.05, P = 0.50). The post-polypectomy bleeding risk was significantly higher in patients with decompensated cirrhosis (OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.12–2.42, P = 0.01), while those with compensated cirrhosis showed no increased risk of post-polypectomy bleeding (OR 1.15, 95% CI 0.85–1.54, P = 0.37). DISCUSSION: The post-polypectomy bleeding risk was higher in patients with decompensated cirrhosis, while the bleeding risk was not increased in those with compensated disease. Optimizing patients with cirrhosis, especially with decompensated disease, before colorectal EMR and monitoring for post-procedure bleeding remain important. A conservative, supportive approach to managing bleeding in patients with cirrhosis may be as effective as in those without cirrhosis.

Objective: We report the development and validation of a combined DNA/RNA next-generation sequencing (NGS) platform to improve the evaluation of pancreatic cysts. Background and Aims: Despite a multidisciplinary approach, pancreatic cyst classification, such as a cystic precursor neoplasm, and the detection of high-grade dysplasia and early adenocarcinoma (advanced neoplasia) can be challenging. NGS of preoperative pancreatic cyst fluid improves the clinical evaluation of pancreatic cysts, but the recent identification of novel genomic alterations necessitates the creation of a comprehensive panel and the development of a genomic classifier to integrate the complex molecular results. Methods: An updated and unique 74-gene DNA/RNA-targeted NGS panel (PancreaSeq Genomic Classifier) was created to evaluate 5 classes of genomic alterations to include gene mutations (e.g., KRAS, GNAS, etc.), gene fusions and gene expression. Further, CEA mRNA (CEACAM5) was integrated into the assay using RT-qPCR. Separate multi-institutional cohorts for training (n=108) and validation (n=77) were tested, and diagnostic performance was compared to clinical, imaging, cytopathologic, and guideline data. Results: Upon creation of a genomic classifier system, PancreaSeq GC yielded a 95% sensitivity and 100% specificity for a cystic precursor neoplasm, and the sensitivity and specificity for advanced neoplasia were 82% and 100%, respectively. Associated symptoms, cyst size, duct dilatation, a mural nodule, increasing cyst size, and malignant cytopathology had lower sensitivities (41–59%) and lower specificities (56–96%) for advanced neoplasia. This test also increased the sensitivity of current pancreatic cyst guidelines (IAP/Fukuoka and AGA) by >10% and maintained their inherent specificity. Conclusions: PancreaSeq GC was not only accurate in predicting pancreatic cyst type and advanced neoplasia but also improved the sensitivity of current pancreatic cyst guidelines.

Abstract Background Persistent organ failure (POF) is the strongest determinant of mortality in acute pancreatitis (AP). There is a paucity of data regarding the impact of different POF attributes on mortality and the role of different characteristics of systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) in the risk of developing POF. Objective We aimed to assess the association of POF dynamic features with mortality and SIRS characteristics with POF. Methods We studied 1544 AP subjects prospectively enrolled at 22 international centers (APPRENTICE consortium). First, we estimated the association of onset, duration, and maximal score of SIRS with POF. Then, we evaluated the risk of mortality based on POF onset, duration, number, type, and sequence of organs affected. Analyses were adjusted for potential confounders. Results 58% had SIRS, 11% developed POF, and 2.5% died. Early SIRS, persistent SIRS, and maximal SIRS score ≥ 3 were independently associated with higher risk of POF ( p < 0.05). Mortality risk in POF was higher with two (33%, odds ratio [OR] = 10.8, 3.3–34.9) and three (48%, OR = 20.2, 5.9–68.6) organs failing, in comparison to single POF (4%). In subjects with multiple POF, mortality was higher when the cardiovascular and respiratory systems failed first or concurrently as compared to when the renal system failed first or concurrently with other organ ( p < 0.05). In multivariate regression model, the number and sequence of organs affected in POF were associated with mortality ( p < 0.05). Onset and duration of POF had no impact mortality. Conclusion In AP patients with POF, the risk of mortality is influenced by the number, type, and sequence of organs affected. These results are useful for future revisions of AP severity classification systems.

AbstractBackground and AimThe primary aim was to validate the Pancreatitis Activity Scoring System (PASS) in a multicenter prospectively ascertained acute pancreatitis (AP) cohort. Second, we investigated the association of early PASS trajectories with disease severity and length of hospital stay (LOS).MethodsData were prospectively collected through the APPRENTICE consortium (2015–2018). AP severity was categorized based on revised Atlanta classification. Delta PASS (ΔPASS) was calculated by subtracting activity score from baseline value. PASS trajectories were compared between severity subsets. Subsequently, the cohort was subdivided into three LOS subgroups as short (S‐LOS): 2–3 days; intermediate (I‐LOS): 3–7 days; and long (L‐LOS): ≥7 days. The generalized estimating equations model was implemented to compare PASS trajectories.ResultsThere were 434 subjects analyzed including 322 (74%) mild, 86 (20%) moderately severe, and 26 (6%) severe AP. Severe AP subjects had the highest activity levels and the slowest rate of decline in activity (P = 0.039). Focusing on mild AP, L‐LOS subjects (34%) had 28 points per day slower decline; whereas, S‐LOS group (13%) showed 34 points per day sharper decrease compared with I‐LOS (53%; P < 0.001). We noticed an outlier subset with a median admission‐PASS of 466 compared with 140 in the rest. Morphine equivalent dose constituted 80% of the total PASS in the outliers (median morphine equivalent dose score = 392), compared with only 25% in normal‐range subjects (score = 33, P value < 0.001).ConclusionsThis study highlighted that PASS can quantify AP activity. Significant differences in PASS trajectories were found both in revised Atlanta classification severity and LOS groups, which can be harnessed in AP monitoring/management (ClincialTrials.gov number, NCT03075618).