Hooft, Jeanin E. van

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: A deeper understanding of the factors influencing survival in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is essential for optimizing treatment strategies. This study investigates the independent association of body composition parameters with overall survival in patients with PDAC. METHODS: This retrospective multisite cohort study included patients diagnosed with PDAC. Diagnostic computed tomography scans were retrieved, and body composition was evaluated using a validated deep learning-based segmentation algorithm that measured tissue volume and density in a 20 cm vertical abdominal section. RESULTS: A total of 1,666 patients with PDAC were included, 938 male (56.3%) and median age 69 years (interquartile range 61–76). In the subgroup of patients who underwent surgical resection (n = 509), myosteatosis (intramuscular infiltration of adipose tissue; hazard ratio [HR] 1.56, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.16–2.11, P = 0.004), sarcopenic obesity (HR 1.75, 95% CI 1.06–2.91, P = 0.03), and less subcutaneous adipose tissue (HR 1.09, 95% CI 1.03–1.16, P = 0.002) were associated with higher mortality. In patients receiving palliative systemic therapy (n = 439), lower skeletal muscle density (HR 1.43, 95% CI 1.03–1.99, P = 0.03) was associated with higher mortality. In patients who did not undergo tumor-targeted treatment (n = 718), less visceral adipose tissue (HR 1.04, 95% CI 1.01–1.08, P = 0.02) was associated with higher mortality. DISCUSSION: Body composition parameters, derived from computed tomography scans at the time of PDAC diagnosis, particularly low skeletal muscle density, sarcopenic obesity, and low adipose tissue, are independently associated with overall survival in patients with PDAC. Evaluating body composition at diagnosis could enhance clinical decision-making and enable more personalized treatment strategies.

ABSTRACTBackgroundPancreatic cysts are increasingly discovered on imaging studies performed for unrelated conditions. Currently, surveillance of these lesions poses a substantial burden on patients, and health care recourses. We hypothesized that individuals with small and stable cysts have a diminutive risk of progressing to high‐grade dysplasia (HGD) or pancreatic cancer (PC) that is similar to that in the general population.MethodsThis nested PACYFIC‐study is a collaboration among 44 centers in Europe and Northern‐America, and investigates the risk of HGD and PC for different cyst sizes and growth rates in participants without baseline worrisome features (WF) or high‐risk stigmata (HRS).ResultsOf the 2369 PACYFIC participants, 975 met the inclusion criteria, with a mean age of 67 years (SD 13) and 65% being female. Of these, 438 individuals (45%) had a baseline small cyst size (< 15 mm), and 885 (91%) individuals had a slow growth rate (< 2.5 mm/year). During a median follow‐up of 45 months (IQR 27), 20 individuals (2.1%) developed HGD, or PC. Individuals with small cysts had a 1.5‐fold lower risk of developing WF or HRS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.7 [0.5–1.0], p = 0.03) than those with larger cysts but a similar risk of developing HGD or PC (p > 0.05). Slow growth was protective against the development of WF or HRS (HR 0.4 [0.2–0.6], p < 0.001) and HGD or PC (HR 0.04 [95% CI 0.02–0.12], p < 0.001). Individuals with small, stable sized cysts without baseline WF or HRS did not have a higher risk of HGD or PC than the general population (standardized incidence ratio [SIR] 1.13 [95% CI 0.01–6.30]).ConclusionCyst size < 15 mm and growth rate < 2.5 mm/year appear to be “reassuring” features associated with a negligible risk of developing WF or HRS and HGD or PC. For cysts with these characteristics—and without baseline WF or HRS—less intensive surveillance (than currently recommended) or even cessation may be appropriate.

Objectives: New methods are needed to detect pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) earlier to improve outcomes. We previously reported that a panel of protein N-glycosylation traits (NGTs) discriminated PDAC from healthy controls with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.81–0.88. However, it remained unclear whether this panel accurately differentiates PDAC from other benign pancreatic disorders. Our study aims to evaluate the performance of the NGT panel in combination with CA19-9 in a diverse cohort, including PDAC cases, healthy controls, and controls with benign pancreatic disorders. Methods: Protein N-glycosylation profiles were determined in plasma samples using an in-house developed mass spectrometry assay. CA19-9 levels were measured using a routine immunoassay test. Results of total plasma NGTs and CA19-9 were evaluated separately as well as in combination. Logistic regression was performed to calculate odds ratios (ORs), AUC, sensitivity, and specificity to determine the performance of NGTs and CA19-9 in distinguishing PDAC from controls. Results: In total, 221 individuals were included: 45 (20.4%) with PDAC, and 176 (79.6%) controls (53 healthy and 123 with benign pancreatic disease). The AUC for differentiating PDAC from the total control cohort based on the combination of the NGT panel and CA19-9 was 0.94 (95% CI, 0.90–0.97), with a sensitivity of 0.89 (95% CI, 0.78–0.98) and specificity of 0.86 (95% CI, 0.81–0.91). Comparison of PDAC cases with healthy controls only resulted in an AUC of 0.96 (95% CI, 0.93–0.99), with a sensitivity of 0.84 (95% CI, 0.73–0.93) and specificity of 0.98 (95% CI, 0.94–1.00). Conclusions: Both plasma NGTs and CA19-9 distinguish PDAC from a diverse control cohort. The accuracy further improves when these readouts are combined, showing promise for future early detection methods.

ABSTRACTBackgroundIndividuals with a germline CDKN2A pathogenic variant (PV) have an increased lifetime risk of melanoma and pancreatic cancer. It is unknown whether the CDKN2A PV impacts quality of life (QoL). Therefore we aimed to assess QoL and psychological distress in families affected by the PV.MethodsThis cross‐sectional study included confirmed carriers and those with a 50% likelihood of carrying the PV (at‐risk carriers) under cancer surveillance who were invited to complete a one‐time questionnaire. Both confirmed and at‐risk carriers are offered skin surveillance, whereas only confirmed carriers aged 40 years or older can participate in pancreatic surveillance.ResultsIn total, 59/247 (24%) individuals under skin surveillance only (skin surveillance group) and 188/290 (65%) individuals under both skin and pancreatic cancer surveillance (pancreatic surveillance group) responded. In both surveillance groups, health‐related QoL and general distress levels were within the general population norms. However, more than 40% of all study participants reported melanoma‐related distress. Pancreatic cancer‐related distress was experienced by 45% of the pancreatic surveillance group. Determinants of cancer‐related distress were a first‐degree relative with melanoma or pancreatic cancer, increased cancer risk perception, and poor general health perception. Over 80% of the participants felt that the benefits of cancer surveillance outweigh the disadvantages.ConclusionIn conclusion, confirmed and at‐risk carriers of the CDKN2A PV under cancer surveillance experienced similar levels of QoL and general distress compared to the general population. However, cancer‐related worry was substantial in this population. These findings can help identify individuals who may benefit from psychological support.

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.

PURPOSE Guidelines recommend germline genetic testing (GT) for patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). This study aims to evaluate the utilization and outcomes of multigene panel GT in patients with PDAC. METHODS This retrospective, multisite study included patients with PDAC diagnosed between May 2018 and August 2020 at Mayo Clinic Arizona, Florida, and Minnesota. Discussion, uptake, and outcomes of GT were compared before (May 1, 2018-May 1, 2019) and after (August 1, 2019-August 1, 2020) the guideline update, accounting for a transition period. RESULTS The study identified 533 patients with PDAC, with 321 (60.2%) preguideline and 212 (39.8%) postguideline. Patient characteristics did not differ between the preguideline and postguideline periods. GT was discussed in 34.3% (110 of 321) of preguideline and 39.6% (84 of 212) of postguideline patients (odds ratio [OR], 1.26 [95% CI, 0.88 to 1.80]) and subsequently performed in 80.9% (89 of 110) of preguideline and 75.0% (63 of 84) of postguideline patients (OR, 1.10 [95% CI, 0.75 to 1.61]). Of 152 tested patients, 26 (17.1%) had a pathogenic variant (PV), of whom 17 (11.2%; 17 of 152) were PDAC-associated. Over the entire study period, GT was more likely in younger patients (65 v 70 years; P < .001), those seen by a medical oncologist (82.9% v 69.0%; P < .001), and those surviving more than 12 months from diagnosis (70.4% v 43.4%; P < .001). Demographics and personal/family cancer history were comparable between patients with and without a PDAC PV. CONCLUSION GT remains underutilized despite National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline recommendations. Given the poor prognosis of PDAC and potential implications of GT, efforts to increase utilization are needed to provide surveillance and support to both patients with PDAC and at-risk family members.