Citations

INTRODUCTION: The risk of progression to esophageal adenocarcinoma in Barrett's esophagus (BE) increases with advancing degrees of dysplasia. There is a critical need to improve the diagnosis of BE dysplasia, given substantial interobserver variability and overcalls of dysplasia during manual community pathologist reads. We aimed to externally validate a previously cross-validated BE dysplasia diagnosis deep learning model (BEDDLM) that predicts dysplasia grade on whole slide images (WSIs). METHODS: We digitized nondysplastic BE (NDBE), low-grade (LGD), and high-grade dysplasia (HGD) histology slides from 3 external academic centers. A consensus read by 2 expert study pathologists was used as the criterion standard. Slide stain characteristics were normalized using cycle-generative adversarial networks. WSIs were assessed by BEDDLM using an ensemble approach, combining a “You Only Look Once” model followed by a ResNet101 classifier model. RESULTS: We included 489 WSIs. Consensus histopathology revealed 232 NDBE, 117 LGD, and 140 HGD WSIs. The mean age (SD) was 66.9 (11.4) years; 413 (84.7%) were men. Using the BEDDLM ensemble model, sensitivity and specificity for NDBE were 73.3% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 67.09%–78.85%) and 93.4% (95% CI: 89.62%–96.10%); for LGD, 84.6% (95% CI: 76.78%–90.62%) and 80.6% (95% CI: 76.26%–84.54%); and for HGD, 80.7% (95% CI: 73.19%–86.89%) and 94.8% (95% CI: 91.97%–96.91%), respectively. The F1 score was 0.81, 0 0.69, and 0.83 for NDBE, LGD, and HGD, respectively. DISCUSSION: Our externally validated deep learning model demonstrates substantial accuracy for the diagnosis of BE dysplasia grade on WSIs.

The NCCN Guidelines for Colorectal Cancer (CRC) Screening describe various colorectal screening modalities as well as recommended screening schedules for patients at average or increased risk of developing sporadic CRC. They are intended to aid physicians with clinical decision-making regarding CRC screening for patients without defined genetic syndromes. These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on select recent updates to the NCCN Guidelines, including a section on primary and secondary CRC prevention, and provide context for the panel’s recommendations regarding the age at which to initiate screening in average-risk individuals and those with increased risk based on personal history of childhood, adolescent, and young adult cancer.

ObjectivesPrevious studies have indicated that point‐of‐care ultrasonography (POCUS) of the gastric antrum can predict the adequacy of fasting before surgery and anesthesia. The aim of this study was to evaluate the utility of gastric POCUS in patients undergoing upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy procedures.MethodsWe performed a single‐center cohort study in patients undergoing upper GI endoscopy. Consenting patient's gastric antrum was scanned before anesthetic care for endoscopy to determine the cross‐sectional area (CSA) and qualitatively determine safe and unsafe contents. Further, an estimate of residual gastric volume was determined using the formula and the nomogram methods. Subsequently, gastric secretions aspirated during endoscopy were quantified and further correlated with nomogram and formula‐based assessments. No patient required a change in the primary anesthetic plan except for using rapid sequence induction in those with unsafe contents on POCUS scans.ResultsQualitative ultrasound measurements consistently determined safe and unsafe gastric residual contents in 83 patients enrolled in the study. Unsafe contents were determined by qualitative scans in 4 out of 83 cases (5%) despite adequate fasting status. Quantitatively, only a moderate correlation was demonstrated between measured gastric volumes and nomogram (r = .40, 95% CI: 0.20, 0.57; P = .0002) or formula‐based (r = .38, 95% CI: 0.17, 0.55; P = .0004) determinations of residual gastric volumes.ConclusionIn daily clinical practice, qualitative POCUS determination of residual gastric content is a feasible and useful technique to identify patients at risk of aspiration before upper GI endoscopy procedures.

Abstract Background and study aims Information about the endoscopic characterization of small bowel gastrointestinal tumors (GISTs) is limited. The aim of this case study was to describe the endoscopic spectrum of small bowel GISTs and to present a practical classification. Patients and methods Observational, retrospective, consecutive case series of patients with small bowel GIST. Results A total of 10 small bowel GISTs were found in patients (6 male, 4 female, mean age 52 years, range 28 to 68).). All patients presented with obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (overt, n = 8, occult, n = 2). Most GISTs were present in the proximal or middle small bowel (n = 7). The endoscopic tumor characteristics could be categorized as follows: submucosal round (n = 4), submucosal sessile (n = 2), and invasive/penetrating) (n = 4). The mucosa overlying the tumor was normal (n = 4), grooved (n = 3) or frankly ulcerated (n = 3). Tumor size ranged from 8 mm to 50 mm. Biopsy was negative in all patients with normal mucosa but showed tumor in all patients with ulcerations. Regardless of biopsy results, all patients were sent for surgery. Nine resections were carried out. One patient refused surgery. There were no complications of endoscopy in this cohort. Conclusion Our series shows that GISTs have a wider spectrum of endoscopic characteristics than previously described. The round type with normal overlying mucosa was equally prevalent as the grooved or ulcerated variant. Endoscopists should be aware of this wide spectrum of presentation of small bowel GIST.

The NCCN Guidelines for Colorectal Cancer (CRC) Screening describe various colorectal screening modalities as well as recommended screening schedules for patients at average or increased risk of developing sporadic CRC. They are intended to aid physicians with clinical decision-making regarding CRC screening for patients without defined genetic syndromes. These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on select recent updates to the NCCN Guidelines, including a section on primary and secondary CRC prevention, and provide context for the panel’s recommendations regarding the age to initiate screening in average risk individuals and follow-up for low-risk adenomas.