News

Early-onset gastrointestinal (GI) cancers are climbing among those younger than 50 years, in the US and globally. Although colorectal cancer accounts for approximately half of such cases, rates are also increasing for gastric, esophageal, pancreatic, and several rarer GI malignancies.

Because most in this age group are not included in screening protocols and may present with vague symptoms, diagnosis and treatment is frequently delayed. According to experts in the field, counteracting this trend requires establishing a lower threshold for evaluation, attention to modifiable risk factors, and embracing emerging noninvasive diagnostic tools.

 

Diagnostic Dilemmas

“Colorectal cancer in particular is often diagnosed later in life,” said Nicholas DeVito, MD, assistant professor at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, and a specialist in GI malignancies. “When the patient is too young for routine screening colonoscopy (< 45 years), they aren’t screened at all, they do not have alarming symptoms, or their symptoms are overlooked.” Other increasingly common GI cancers in young people (esophageal, gastric, pancreatic) lack routine screening guidelines due to limited evidence, he added.

Symptoms such as nausea, weight loss, upset stomach, and abdominal pain are often nonspecific and have many other potential causes, so GI cancers may not be high on the list of possible diagnoses in patients younger than 50 years, said DeVito.

“Insurance coverage, socioeconomic status, appointment availability, and awareness of symptoms and screening methods are all barriers to diagnosis as well, which affect the diagnostic timeline of many cancers,” he added.“While there are multiple factors that contribute to a cancer diagnosis, it seems that obesity, a Western diet, a sedentary lifestyle are all major contributors to the rise in early GI cancers,” DeVito told GI & Hepatology News. “There is no blame or judgement to go around as cancer can happen to anyone at any time, with none of these factors present,” he emphasized.

When counseling patients about GI cancer risk, DeVito recommends keeping advice simple and specific. In general, they should restrict red meat to once a week, emphasize fresh fruits and vegetables, cap alcohol to ≤ 1 serving per day, and limit ultraprocessed foods (e.g., packaged snacks, preprepared meals, and sugary beverages).

Exercise is another pillar. “Find an activity you enjoy and work toward 30 minutes of aerobic exercise three times a week,” he advised. He also encourages finding opportunities to incorporate physical activity in daily lives, such as using a standing desk at work, while keeping patients’ socioeconomic constraints in mind.

Evidence around GI cancer prevention interventions is still evolving. However, a randomized phase 3 trial presented at American Society of Clinical Oncology’s 2025 meeting found significant improvement in disease-free survival among adults with resected stage III or high-risk stage II colon cancer (median age, 61 years) who reported higher intake of anti-inflammatory foods and greater exercise than a comparator group.

“In general, clinicians should be aware of the risk factors, make referrals to physical therapy, weight-loss specialists, endocrinologists, and nutritionists when appropriate, and be consistent and clear with patients about recommendations and what’s achievable,” DeVito said. “Meeting patients where they are can help make incremental progress, as these interventions take time and patience, and we should be understanding of that.” 

Identifying at-risk younger adults goes beyond discussing family history and obesity to include diet, exercise, and daily lifestyle, he added.

“Symptoms of potential GI cancer need to be taken seriously in all patients, and there should be a lower threshold in 2025 to get a colonoscopy, endoscopy, or CT scan than in previous years given all that we know today. We then need to establish through clinical studies who needs screening tests and who doesn’t, and what interventions work best to reduce risk.” 

 

Vigilance in the Absence of Screening

“Most GI cancers, unfortunately, can grow a fair amount before symptoms arise, so many patients present with symptoms only when a tumor has grown enough to affect organ function,” said Miguel Burch, MD, chief of minimally invasive and GI surgery at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles.

Early screening improves outcomes in gastric cancer, Burch noted, and survival benefits are reflected in several East Asian countries that offer gastric cancer screening starting at age 40. In one study from Korea, a single upper endoscopy was associated with an approximate 40% reduction in gastric cancer mortality compared with no screening.

In the US, lack of funding for GI cancer screening remains a barrier to early identification, Burch emphasized. The impact is wide-ranging, contributing to increased morbidity and mortality in younger adults often in their most productive years, leading to lost wages and emotional strains upon patients and their families.Routine endoscopic or imaging screening is not typically performed in the US, and newer blood-based tests such as circulating tumor DNA are not yet sensitive enough to reliably detect very early-stage disease. Nonetheless, there is evidence that noninvasive biomarkers could soon help expand GI cancer screening.

In a study published in JAMA Surgery, Sui and colleagues tested a 10-microRNA signature assay (Destinex) for early detection of gastric cancer and reported robust identification rates above 95%.

“In recent years, the liquid biopsy has gained momentum with the hope of augmenting cancer detection from peripheral blood, even indicating potential as a screening test for healthy populations,” wrote Max R. Coffey, MD, and Vivian E. Strong, MD, both of the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, in an accompanying editorial.

“Early detection is absolutely critical; when gastric cancer is found early, outcomes are dramatically better,” Strong told GI & Hepatology News. Subtle symptoms — reflux, persistent GI discomfort, or unexplained weight loss — should never be ignored, she added.

Early detection should also focus on additional risk factors such as prior Helicobacter pylori infection, smoking, and family history.

“Anyone with a personal or family history of H pylori should have very careful follow-up, and if one household member tests positive, all should be checked,” Strong said. “Just as importantly, if one or more family members have had stomach cancer, that should be discussed with a healthcare provider, as it may warrant higher-level surveillance and genetic testing.” 

Individuals concerned about increased risk for GI cancer should proactively ask their doctors whether they might benefit from testing or surveillance, Strong added.

“Lifestyle changes, timely medical evaluation, and tailored surveillance all play a vital role in prevention.”

DeVito disclosed clinical trial funding from the Gateway foundation, Xilio, Phanes, Astellas, GSK, as well as consulting fees/advisory board participation for Guardant, Agenus, and Xilio. Strong disclosed speaking honoraria for Merck and Astra Zeneca.

The study by Sui and colleagues was supported by the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, as well as by a grant from the American Gastroenterological Association Robert & Sally Funderburg Research Award in Gastric Cancer, and the Stupid Strong Foundation.

Burch had no financial conflicts to disclose.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Early-onset gastrointestinal (GI) cancers are climbing among those younger than 50 years, in the US and globally. Although colorectal cancer accounts for approximately half of such cases, rates are also increasing for gastric, esophageal, pancreatic, and several rarer GI malignancies.

Because most in this age group are not included in screening protocols and may present with vague symptoms, diagnosis and treatment is frequently delayed. According to experts in the field, counteracting this trend requires establishing a lower threshold for evaluation, attention to modifiable risk factors, and embracing emerging noninvasive diagnostic tools.

 

Diagnostic Dilemmas

“Colorectal cancer in particular is often diagnosed later in life,” said Nicholas DeVito, MD, assistant professor at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, and a specialist in GI malignancies. “When the patient is too young for routine screening colonoscopy (< 45 years), they aren’t screened at all, they do not have alarming symptoms, or their symptoms are overlooked.” Other increasingly common GI cancers in young people (esophageal, gastric, pancreatic) lack routine screening guidelines due to limited evidence, he added.

Symptoms such as nausea, weight loss, upset stomach, and abdominal pain are often nonspecific and have many other potential causes, so GI cancers may not be high on the list of possible diagnoses in patients younger than 50 years, said DeVito.

“Insurance coverage, socioeconomic status, appointment availability, and awareness of symptoms and screening methods are all barriers to diagnosis as well, which affect the diagnostic timeline of many cancers,” he added.“While there are multiple factors that contribute to a cancer diagnosis, it seems that obesity, a Western diet, a sedentary lifestyle are all major contributors to the rise in early GI cancers,” DeVito told GI & Hepatology News. “There is no blame or judgement to go around as cancer can happen to anyone at any time, with none of these factors present,” he emphasized.

When counseling patients about GI cancer risk, DeVito recommends keeping advice simple and specific. In general, they should restrict red meat to once a week, emphasize fresh fruits and vegetables, cap alcohol to ≤ 1 serving per day, and limit ultraprocessed foods (e.g., packaged snacks, preprepared meals, and sugary beverages).

Exercise is another pillar. “Find an activity you enjoy and work toward 30 minutes of aerobic exercise three times a week,” he advised. He also encourages finding opportunities to incorporate physical activity in daily lives, such as using a standing desk at work, while keeping patients’ socioeconomic constraints in mind.

Evidence around GI cancer prevention interventions is still evolving. However, a randomized phase 3 trial presented at American Society of Clinical Oncology’s 2025 meeting found significant improvement in disease-free survival among adults with resected stage III or high-risk stage II colon cancer (median age, 61 years) who reported higher intake of anti-inflammatory foods and greater exercise than a comparator group.

“In general, clinicians should be aware of the risk factors, make referrals to physical therapy, weight-loss specialists, endocrinologists, and nutritionists when appropriate, and be consistent and clear with patients about recommendations and what’s achievable,” DeVito said. “Meeting patients where they are can help make incremental progress, as these interventions take time and patience, and we should be understanding of that.” 

Identifying at-risk younger adults goes beyond discussing family history and obesity to include diet, exercise, and daily lifestyle, he added.

“Symptoms of potential GI cancer need to be taken seriously in all patients, and there should be a lower threshold in 2025 to get a colonoscopy, endoscopy, or CT scan than in previous years given all that we know today. We then need to establish through clinical studies who needs screening tests and who doesn’t, and what interventions work best to reduce risk.” 

 

Vigilance in the Absence of Screening

“Most GI cancers, unfortunately, can grow a fair amount before symptoms arise, so many patients present with symptoms only when a tumor has grown enough to affect organ function,” said Miguel Burch, MD, chief of minimally invasive and GI surgery at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles.

Early screening improves outcomes in gastric cancer, Burch noted, and survival benefits are reflected in several East Asian countries that offer gastric cancer screening starting at age 40. In one study from Korea, a single upper endoscopy was associated with an approximate 40% reduction in gastric cancer mortality compared with no screening.

In the US, lack of funding for GI cancer screening remains a barrier to early identification, Burch emphasized. The impact is wide-ranging, contributing to increased morbidity and mortality in younger adults often in their most productive years, leading to lost wages and emotional strains upon patients and their families.Routine endoscopic or imaging screening is not typically performed in the US, and newer blood-based tests such as circulating tumor DNA are not yet sensitive enough to reliably detect very early-stage disease. Nonetheless, there is evidence that noninvasive biomarkers could soon help expand GI cancer screening.

In a study published in JAMA Surgery, Sui and colleagues tested a 10-microRNA signature assay (Destinex) for early detection of gastric cancer and reported robust identification rates above 95%.

“In recent years, the liquid biopsy has gained momentum with the hope of augmenting cancer detection from peripheral blood, even indicating potential as a screening test for healthy populations,” wrote Max R. Coffey, MD, and Vivian E. Strong, MD, both of the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, in an accompanying editorial.

“Early detection is absolutely critical; when gastric cancer is found early, outcomes are dramatically better,” Strong told GI & Hepatology News. Subtle symptoms — reflux, persistent GI discomfort, or unexplained weight loss — should never be ignored, she added.

Early detection should also focus on additional risk factors such as prior Helicobacter pylori infection, smoking, and family history.

“Anyone with a personal or family history of H pylori should have very careful follow-up, and if one household member tests positive, all should be checked,” Strong said. “Just as importantly, if one or more family members have had stomach cancer, that should be discussed with a healthcare provider, as it may warrant higher-level surveillance and genetic testing.” 

Individuals concerned about increased risk for GI cancer should proactively ask their doctors whether they might benefit from testing or surveillance, Strong added.

“Lifestyle changes, timely medical evaluation, and tailored surveillance all play a vital role in prevention.”

DeVito disclosed clinical trial funding from the Gateway foundation, Xilio, Phanes, Astellas, GSK, as well as consulting fees/advisory board participation for Guardant, Agenus, and Xilio. Strong disclosed speaking honoraria for Merck and Astra Zeneca.

The study by Sui and colleagues was supported by the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, as well as by a grant from the American Gastroenterological Association Robert & Sally Funderburg Research Award in Gastric Cancer, and the Stupid Strong Foundation.

Burch had no financial conflicts to disclose.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Early-onset gastrointestinal (GI) cancers are climbing among those younger than 50 years, in the US and globally. Although colorectal cancer accounts for approximately half of such cases, rates are also increasing for gastric, esophageal, pancreatic, and several rarer GI malignancies.

Because most in this age group are not included in screening protocols and may present with vague symptoms, diagnosis and treatment is frequently delayed. According to experts in the field, counteracting this trend requires establishing a lower threshold for evaluation, attention to modifiable risk factors, and embracing emerging noninvasive diagnostic tools.

 

Diagnostic Dilemmas

“Colorectal cancer in particular is often diagnosed later in life,” said Nicholas DeVito, MD, assistant professor at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, and a specialist in GI malignancies. “When the patient is too young for routine screening colonoscopy (< 45 years), they aren’t screened at all, they do not have alarming symptoms, or their symptoms are overlooked.” Other increasingly common GI cancers in young people (esophageal, gastric, pancreatic) lack routine screening guidelines due to limited evidence, he added.

Symptoms such as nausea, weight loss, upset stomach, and abdominal pain are often nonspecific and have many other potential causes, so GI cancers may not be high on the list of possible diagnoses in patients younger than 50 years, said DeVito.

“Insurance coverage, socioeconomic status, appointment availability, and awareness of symptoms and screening methods are all barriers to diagnosis as well, which affect the diagnostic timeline of many cancers,” he added.“While there are multiple factors that contribute to a cancer diagnosis, it seems that obesity, a Western diet, a sedentary lifestyle are all major contributors to the rise in early GI cancers,” DeVito told GI & Hepatology News. “There is no blame or judgement to go around as cancer can happen to anyone at any time, with none of these factors present,” he emphasized.

When counseling patients about GI cancer risk, DeVito recommends keeping advice simple and specific. In general, they should restrict red meat to once a week, emphasize fresh fruits and vegetables, cap alcohol to ≤ 1 serving per day, and limit ultraprocessed foods (e.g., packaged snacks, preprepared meals, and sugary beverages).

Exercise is another pillar. “Find an activity you enjoy and work toward 30 minutes of aerobic exercise three times a week,” he advised. He also encourages finding opportunities to incorporate physical activity in daily lives, such as using a standing desk at work, while keeping patients’ socioeconomic constraints in mind.

Evidence around GI cancer prevention interventions is still evolving. However, a randomized phase 3 trial presented at American Society of Clinical Oncology’s 2025 meeting found significant improvement in disease-free survival among adults with resected stage III or high-risk stage II colon cancer (median age, 61 years) who reported higher intake of anti-inflammatory foods and greater exercise than a comparator group.

“In general, clinicians should be aware of the risk factors, make referrals to physical therapy, weight-loss specialists, endocrinologists, and nutritionists when appropriate, and be consistent and clear with patients about recommendations and what’s achievable,” DeVito said. “Meeting patients where they are can help make incremental progress, as these interventions take time and patience, and we should be understanding of that.” 

Identifying at-risk younger adults goes beyond discussing family history and obesity to include diet, exercise, and daily lifestyle, he added.

“Symptoms of potential GI cancer need to be taken seriously in all patients, and there should be a lower threshold in 2025 to get a colonoscopy, endoscopy, or CT scan than in previous years given all that we know today. We then need to establish through clinical studies who needs screening tests and who doesn’t, and what interventions work best to reduce risk.” 

 

Vigilance in the Absence of Screening

“Most GI cancers, unfortunately, can grow a fair amount before symptoms arise, so many patients present with symptoms only when a tumor has grown enough to affect organ function,” said Miguel Burch, MD, chief of minimally invasive and GI surgery at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles.

Early screening improves outcomes in gastric cancer, Burch noted, and survival benefits are reflected in several East Asian countries that offer gastric cancer screening starting at age 40. In one study from Korea, a single upper endoscopy was associated with an approximate 40% reduction in gastric cancer mortality compared with no screening.

In the US, lack of funding for GI cancer screening remains a barrier to early identification, Burch emphasized. The impact is wide-ranging, contributing to increased morbidity and mortality in younger adults often in their most productive years, leading to lost wages and emotional strains upon patients and their families.Routine endoscopic or imaging screening is not typically performed in the US, and newer blood-based tests such as circulating tumor DNA are not yet sensitive enough to reliably detect very early-stage disease. Nonetheless, there is evidence that noninvasive biomarkers could soon help expand GI cancer screening.

In a study published in JAMA Surgery, Sui and colleagues tested a 10-microRNA signature assay (Destinex) for early detection of gastric cancer and reported robust identification rates above 95%.

“In recent years, the liquid biopsy has gained momentum with the hope of augmenting cancer detection from peripheral blood, even indicating potential as a screening test for healthy populations,” wrote Max R. Coffey, MD, and Vivian E. Strong, MD, both of the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, in an accompanying editorial.

“Early detection is absolutely critical; when gastric cancer is found early, outcomes are dramatically better,” Strong told GI & Hepatology News. Subtle symptoms — reflux, persistent GI discomfort, or unexplained weight loss — should never be ignored, she added.

Early detection should also focus on additional risk factors such as prior Helicobacter pylori infection, smoking, and family history.

“Anyone with a personal or family history of H pylori should have very careful follow-up, and if one household member tests positive, all should be checked,” Strong said. “Just as importantly, if one or more family members have had stomach cancer, that should be discussed with a healthcare provider, as it may warrant higher-level surveillance and genetic testing.” 

Individuals concerned about increased risk for GI cancer should proactively ask their doctors whether they might benefit from testing or surveillance, Strong added.

“Lifestyle changes, timely medical evaluation, and tailored surveillance all play a vital role in prevention.”

DeVito disclosed clinical trial funding from the Gateway foundation, Xilio, Phanes, Astellas, GSK, as well as consulting fees/advisory board participation for Guardant, Agenus, and Xilio. Strong disclosed speaking honoraria for Merck and Astra Zeneca.

The study by Sui and colleagues was supported by the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, as well as by a grant from the American Gastroenterological Association Robert & Sally Funderburg Research Award in Gastric Cancer, and the Stupid Strong Foundation.

Burch had no financial conflicts to disclose.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Routine use of artificial intelligence (AI) may lead to a loss of skills among clinicians who perform colonoscopies, thereby affecting patient outcomes, a large observational study suggested.

“The extent and consistency of the adenoma detection rate (ADR) drop after long-term AI use were not expected,” study authors Krzysztof Budzyń, MD, and Marcin Romańczyk, MD, of the Academy of Silesia, Katowice, Poland, told GI & Hepatology News. “We thought there might be a small effect, but the 6% absolute decrease — observed in several centers and among most endoscopists — points to a genuine change in behavior. This was especially notable because all participants were very experienced, with more than 2000 colonoscopies each.”

Another unexpected result, they said, “was that the decrease was stronger in centers with higher starting ADRs and in certain patient groups, such as women under 60. We had assumed experienced clinicians would be less affected, but our results show that even highly skilled practitioners can be influenced.”

The study was published online in The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology.

 

ADR Reduced After AI Use

To assess how endoscopists who used AI regularly performed colonoscopy when AI was not in use, researchers conducted a retrospective, observational study at four endoscopy centers in Poland taking part in the ACCEPT trial.

These centers introduced AI tools for polyp detection at the end of 2021, after which colonoscopies were randomly assigned to be done with or without AI assistance.

The researchers assessed colonoscopy quality by comparing two different phases: 3 months before and 3 months after AI implementation. All diagnostic colonoscopies were included, except for those involving intensive anticoagulant use, pregnancy, or a history of colorectal resection or inflammatory bowel disease.

The primary outcome was the change in the ADR of standard, non-AI-assisted colonoscopy before and after AI exposure.

Between September 2021 and March 2022, a total of 2177 colonoscopies were conducted, including 1443 without AI use and 734 with AI. The current analysis focused on the 795 patients who underwent non-AI-assisted colonoscopy before the introduction of AI and the 648 who underwent non-AI-assisted colonoscopy after.

Participants’ median age was 61 years, and 59% were women. The colonoscopies were performed by 19 experienced endoscopists who had conducted over 2000 colonoscopies each.

The ADR of standard colonoscopy decreased significantly from 28.4% (226 of 795) before the introduction of AI to 22.4% (145 of 648) after, corresponding to a 20% relative and 6% absolute reduction in the ADR.

The ADR for AI-assisted colonoscopies was 25.3% (186 of 734).

The number of adenomas per colonoscopy (APC) in patients with at least one adenoma detected did not change significantly between the groups before and after AI exposure, with a mean of 1.91 before vs 1.92 after. Similarly, the number of mean advanced APC was comparable between the two periods (0.062 vs 0.063).

The mean advanced APC detection on standard colonoscopy in patients with at least one adenoma detected was 0.22 before AI exposure and 0.28 after AI exposure.

Colorectal cancers were detected in 6 (0.8%) of 795 colonoscopies before AI exposure and in 8 (1.2%) of 648 after AI exposure.

In multivariable logistic regression analysis, exposure to AI (odds ratio [OR], 0.69), patient’s male sex (OR, 1.78), and patient age at least 60 years (OR, 3.60) were independent factors significantly associated with ADR.

In all centers, the ADR for standard, non-AI-assisted colonoscopy was reduced after AI exposure, although the magnitude of ADR reduction varied greatly between centers, according to the authors.

“Clinicians should be aware that while AI can boost detection rates, prolonged reliance may subtly affect their performance when the technology is not available,” Budzyń and Romańczyk said. “This does not mean AI should be avoided — rather, it highlights the need for conscious engagement with the task, even when AI is assisting. Monitoring one’s own detection rates in both AI-assisted and non-AI-assisted procedures can help identify changes early.”

“Endoscopists should view AI as a collaborative partner, not a replacement for their vigilance and judgment,” they concluded. “Integrating AI effectively means using it to complement, not substitute, core observational and diagnostic skills. In short, enjoy the benefits of AI, but keep your skills sharp — your patients depend on both.”

Omer Ahmed, MD, of University College London, London, England, gives a similar message in a related editorial. The study “compels us to carefully consider the effect of AI integration into routine endoscopic practice,” he wrote. “Although AI continues to offer great promise to enhance clinical outcomes, we must also safeguard against the quiet erosion of fundamental skills required for high-quality endoscopy.”

 

‘Certainly a Signal’

Commenting on the study for GI & Hepatology News, Rajiv Bhuta, MD, assistant professor of clinical gastroenterology and hepatology at Temple University and a gastroenterologist at Temple University Hospital, both in Philadelphia, said, “On the face of it, these findings would seem to correlate with all our lived experiences as humans. Any skill or task that we give to a machine will inherently ‘de-skill’ or weaken our ability to perform it.”

“The only way to miss a polyp is either due to lack of attention/recognition of a polyp in the field of view or a lack of fold exposure and cleansing,” said Bhuta, who was not involved in the study. “For AI to specifically de-skill polyp detection, it would mean the AI is conditioning physicians to pay less active attention during the procedure, similar to the way a driver may pay less attention in a car that has self-driving capabilities.”

That said, he noted that this is a small retrospective observational study with a short timeframe and an average of fewer than 100 colonoscopies per physician.

“My own ADR may vary by 8% or more by random chance in such a small dataset,” he said. “It’s hard to draw any real conclusions, but it is certainly a signal.”

The issue of de-skilling goes beyond gastroenterology and medicine, Bhuta noted. “We have invented millions of machines that have ‘de-skilled’ us in thousands of small ways, and mostly, we have benefited as a society. However, we’ve never had a machine that can de-skill our attention, our creativity, and our reason.”

“The question is not whether AI will de-skill us but when, where, and how do we set the boundaries of what we want a machine to do for us,” he said. “What is lost and what is gained by AI taking over these roles, and is that an acceptable trade-off?”

The study was funded by the European Commission and the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science. Budzyń, Romańczyk, and Bhuta declared having no competing interests. Ahmed declared receiving medical consultancy fees from Olympus, Odin Vision, Medtronic, and Norgine.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Routine use of artificial intelligence (AI) may lead to a loss of skills among clinicians who perform colonoscopies, thereby affecting patient outcomes, a large observational study suggested.

“The extent and consistency of the adenoma detection rate (ADR) drop after long-term AI use were not expected,” study authors Krzysztof Budzyń, MD, and Marcin Romańczyk, MD, of the Academy of Silesia, Katowice, Poland, told GI & Hepatology News. “We thought there might be a small effect, but the 6% absolute decrease — observed in several centers and among most endoscopists — points to a genuine change in behavior. This was especially notable because all participants were very experienced, with more than 2000 colonoscopies each.”

Another unexpected result, they said, “was that the decrease was stronger in centers with higher starting ADRs and in certain patient groups, such as women under 60. We had assumed experienced clinicians would be less affected, but our results show that even highly skilled practitioners can be influenced.”

The study was published online in The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology.

 

ADR Reduced After AI Use

To assess how endoscopists who used AI regularly performed colonoscopy when AI was not in use, researchers conducted a retrospective, observational study at four endoscopy centers in Poland taking part in the ACCEPT trial.

These centers introduced AI tools for polyp detection at the end of 2021, after which colonoscopies were randomly assigned to be done with or without AI assistance.

The researchers assessed colonoscopy quality by comparing two different phases: 3 months before and 3 months after AI implementation. All diagnostic colonoscopies were included, except for those involving intensive anticoagulant use, pregnancy, or a history of colorectal resection or inflammatory bowel disease.

The primary outcome was the change in the ADR of standard, non-AI-assisted colonoscopy before and after AI exposure.

Between September 2021 and March 2022, a total of 2177 colonoscopies were conducted, including 1443 without AI use and 734 with AI. The current analysis focused on the 795 patients who underwent non-AI-assisted colonoscopy before the introduction of AI and the 648 who underwent non-AI-assisted colonoscopy after.

Participants’ median age was 61 years, and 59% were women. The colonoscopies were performed by 19 experienced endoscopists who had conducted over 2000 colonoscopies each.

The ADR of standard colonoscopy decreased significantly from 28.4% (226 of 795) before the introduction of AI to 22.4% (145 of 648) after, corresponding to a 20% relative and 6% absolute reduction in the ADR.

The ADR for AI-assisted colonoscopies was 25.3% (186 of 734).

The number of adenomas per colonoscopy (APC) in patients with at least one adenoma detected did not change significantly between the groups before and after AI exposure, with a mean of 1.91 before vs 1.92 after. Similarly, the number of mean advanced APC was comparable between the two periods (0.062 vs 0.063).

The mean advanced APC detection on standard colonoscopy in patients with at least one adenoma detected was 0.22 before AI exposure and 0.28 after AI exposure.

Colorectal cancers were detected in 6 (0.8%) of 795 colonoscopies before AI exposure and in 8 (1.2%) of 648 after AI exposure.

In multivariable logistic regression analysis, exposure to AI (odds ratio [OR], 0.69), patient’s male sex (OR, 1.78), and patient age at least 60 years (OR, 3.60) were independent factors significantly associated with ADR.

In all centers, the ADR for standard, non-AI-assisted colonoscopy was reduced after AI exposure, although the magnitude of ADR reduction varied greatly between centers, according to the authors.

“Clinicians should be aware that while AI can boost detection rates, prolonged reliance may subtly affect their performance when the technology is not available,” Budzyń and Romańczyk said. “This does not mean AI should be avoided — rather, it highlights the need for conscious engagement with the task, even when AI is assisting. Monitoring one’s own detection rates in both AI-assisted and non-AI-assisted procedures can help identify changes early.”

“Endoscopists should view AI as a collaborative partner, not a replacement for their vigilance and judgment,” they concluded. “Integrating AI effectively means using it to complement, not substitute, core observational and diagnostic skills. In short, enjoy the benefits of AI, but keep your skills sharp — your patients depend on both.”

Omer Ahmed, MD, of University College London, London, England, gives a similar message in a related editorial. The study “compels us to carefully consider the effect of AI integration into routine endoscopic practice,” he wrote. “Although AI continues to offer great promise to enhance clinical outcomes, we must also safeguard against the quiet erosion of fundamental skills required for high-quality endoscopy.”

 

‘Certainly a Signal’

Commenting on the study for GI & Hepatology News, Rajiv Bhuta, MD, assistant professor of clinical gastroenterology and hepatology at Temple University and a gastroenterologist at Temple University Hospital, both in Philadelphia, said, “On the face of it, these findings would seem to correlate with all our lived experiences as humans. Any skill or task that we give to a machine will inherently ‘de-skill’ or weaken our ability to perform it.”

“The only way to miss a polyp is either due to lack of attention/recognition of a polyp in the field of view or a lack of fold exposure and cleansing,” said Bhuta, who was not involved in the study. “For AI to specifically de-skill polyp detection, it would mean the AI is conditioning physicians to pay less active attention during the procedure, similar to the way a driver may pay less attention in a car that has self-driving capabilities.”

That said, he noted that this is a small retrospective observational study with a short timeframe and an average of fewer than 100 colonoscopies per physician.

“My own ADR may vary by 8% or more by random chance in such a small dataset,” he said. “It’s hard to draw any real conclusions, but it is certainly a signal.”

The issue of de-skilling goes beyond gastroenterology and medicine, Bhuta noted. “We have invented millions of machines that have ‘de-skilled’ us in thousands of small ways, and mostly, we have benefited as a society. However, we’ve never had a machine that can de-skill our attention, our creativity, and our reason.”

“The question is not whether AI will de-skill us but when, where, and how do we set the boundaries of what we want a machine to do for us,” he said. “What is lost and what is gained by AI taking over these roles, and is that an acceptable trade-off?”

The study was funded by the European Commission and the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science. Budzyń, Romańczyk, and Bhuta declared having no competing interests. Ahmed declared receiving medical consultancy fees from Olympus, Odin Vision, Medtronic, and Norgine.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Routine use of artificial intelligence (AI) may lead to a loss of skills among clinicians who perform colonoscopies, thereby affecting patient outcomes, a large observational study suggested.

“The extent and consistency of the adenoma detection rate (ADR) drop after long-term AI use were not expected,” study authors Krzysztof Budzyń, MD, and Marcin Romańczyk, MD, of the Academy of Silesia, Katowice, Poland, told GI & Hepatology News. “We thought there might be a small effect, but the 6% absolute decrease — observed in several centers and among most endoscopists — points to a genuine change in behavior. This was especially notable because all participants were very experienced, with more than 2000 colonoscopies each.”

Another unexpected result, they said, “was that the decrease was stronger in centers with higher starting ADRs and in certain patient groups, such as women under 60. We had assumed experienced clinicians would be less affected, but our results show that even highly skilled practitioners can be influenced.”

The study was published online in The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology.

 

ADR Reduced After AI Use

To assess how endoscopists who used AI regularly performed colonoscopy when AI was not in use, researchers conducted a retrospective, observational study at four endoscopy centers in Poland taking part in the ACCEPT trial.

These centers introduced AI tools for polyp detection at the end of 2021, after which colonoscopies were randomly assigned to be done with or without AI assistance.

The researchers assessed colonoscopy quality by comparing two different phases: 3 months before and 3 months after AI implementation. All diagnostic colonoscopies were included, except for those involving intensive anticoagulant use, pregnancy, or a history of colorectal resection or inflammatory bowel disease.

The primary outcome was the change in the ADR of standard, non-AI-assisted colonoscopy before and after AI exposure.

Between September 2021 and March 2022, a total of 2177 colonoscopies were conducted, including 1443 without AI use and 734 with AI. The current analysis focused on the 795 patients who underwent non-AI-assisted colonoscopy before the introduction of AI and the 648 who underwent non-AI-assisted colonoscopy after.

Participants’ median age was 61 years, and 59% were women. The colonoscopies were performed by 19 experienced endoscopists who had conducted over 2000 colonoscopies each.

The ADR of standard colonoscopy decreased significantly from 28.4% (226 of 795) before the introduction of AI to 22.4% (145 of 648) after, corresponding to a 20% relative and 6% absolute reduction in the ADR.

The ADR for AI-assisted colonoscopies was 25.3% (186 of 734).

The number of adenomas per colonoscopy (APC) in patients with at least one adenoma detected did not change significantly between the groups before and after AI exposure, with a mean of 1.91 before vs 1.92 after. Similarly, the number of mean advanced APC was comparable between the two periods (0.062 vs 0.063).

The mean advanced APC detection on standard colonoscopy in patients with at least one adenoma detected was 0.22 before AI exposure and 0.28 after AI exposure.

Colorectal cancers were detected in 6 (0.8%) of 795 colonoscopies before AI exposure and in 8 (1.2%) of 648 after AI exposure.

In multivariable logistic regression analysis, exposure to AI (odds ratio [OR], 0.69), patient’s male sex (OR, 1.78), and patient age at least 60 years (OR, 3.60) were independent factors significantly associated with ADR.

In all centers, the ADR for standard, non-AI-assisted colonoscopy was reduced after AI exposure, although the magnitude of ADR reduction varied greatly between centers, according to the authors.

“Clinicians should be aware that while AI can boost detection rates, prolonged reliance may subtly affect their performance when the technology is not available,” Budzyń and Romańczyk said. “This does not mean AI should be avoided — rather, it highlights the need for conscious engagement with the task, even when AI is assisting. Monitoring one’s own detection rates in both AI-assisted and non-AI-assisted procedures can help identify changes early.”

“Endoscopists should view AI as a collaborative partner, not a replacement for their vigilance and judgment,” they concluded. “Integrating AI effectively means using it to complement, not substitute, core observational and diagnostic skills. In short, enjoy the benefits of AI, but keep your skills sharp — your patients depend on both.”

Omer Ahmed, MD, of University College London, London, England, gives a similar message in a related editorial. The study “compels us to carefully consider the effect of AI integration into routine endoscopic practice,” he wrote. “Although AI continues to offer great promise to enhance clinical outcomes, we must also safeguard against the quiet erosion of fundamental skills required for high-quality endoscopy.”

 

‘Certainly a Signal’

Commenting on the study for GI & Hepatology News, Rajiv Bhuta, MD, assistant professor of clinical gastroenterology and hepatology at Temple University and a gastroenterologist at Temple University Hospital, both in Philadelphia, said, “On the face of it, these findings would seem to correlate with all our lived experiences as humans. Any skill or task that we give to a machine will inherently ‘de-skill’ or weaken our ability to perform it.”

“The only way to miss a polyp is either due to lack of attention/recognition of a polyp in the field of view or a lack of fold exposure and cleansing,” said Bhuta, who was not involved in the study. “For AI to specifically de-skill polyp detection, it would mean the AI is conditioning physicians to pay less active attention during the procedure, similar to the way a driver may pay less attention in a car that has self-driving capabilities.”

That said, he noted that this is a small retrospective observational study with a short timeframe and an average of fewer than 100 colonoscopies per physician.

“My own ADR may vary by 8% or more by random chance in such a small dataset,” he said. “It’s hard to draw any real conclusions, but it is certainly a signal.”

The issue of de-skilling goes beyond gastroenterology and medicine, Bhuta noted. “We have invented millions of machines that have ‘de-skilled’ us in thousands of small ways, and mostly, we have benefited as a society. However, we’ve never had a machine that can de-skill our attention, our creativity, and our reason.”

“The question is not whether AI will de-skill us but when, where, and how do we set the boundaries of what we want a machine to do for us,” he said. “What is lost and what is gained by AI taking over these roles, and is that an acceptable trade-off?”

The study was funded by the European Commission and the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science. Budzyń, Romańczyk, and Bhuta declared having no competing interests. Ahmed declared receiving medical consultancy fees from Olympus, Odin Vision, Medtronic, and Norgine.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The incidence of skin cancer in England varied by ethnicity: White individuals had higher rates of melanoma, cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma, and basal cell carcinoma than Asian or Black individuals. In contrast, acral lentiginous melanoma was most common among Black individuals, whereas cutaneous T-cell lymphoma and Kaposi sarcoma were highest among those in the "Other" ethnic group.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analysed all cases of cutaneous melanoma (melanoma and acral lentiginous melanoma), basal cell carcinoma, cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma, cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, and Kaposi sarcoma using data from the NHS National Disease Registration Service cancer registry between 2013 and 2020.
• Data collection incorporated ethnicity information from multiple health care datasets, including Clinical Outcomes and Services Dataset, Patient Administration System, Radiotherapy Dataset, Diagnostic Imaging Dataset, and Hospital Episode Statistics.
• A population analysis categorised patients into 7 standardised ethnic groups (on the basis of Office for National Statistics classifications): White, Asian, Chinese, Black, mixed, other, and unknown groups, with ethnicity data being self-reported by patients.
• Outcomes included European age-standardised rates calculated using the 2013 European Standard Population and reported per 100,000 person-years (PYs).

TAKEAWAY:

• White Individuals had 13-fold higher rates of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (61.75 per 100,000 PYs), 26-fold and 27-fold higher rates of basal cell carcinoma (153.69 per 100,000 PYs), and 33-fold and 16-fold higher rates of cutaneous melanoma (27.29 per 100,000 PYs) than Asian and Black individuals, respectively.
• Black individuals had the highest incidence of acral lentiginous melanoma (0.85 per 100,000 PYs), and those in the other ethnic group had the highest incidence of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (1.74 per 100,000 PYs) and Kaposi sarcoma (1.57 per 100,000 PYs).
• The presentation of early-stage melanoma was low among Asian (53.5%), Black (62.4%), mixed (62.5%), and other (76.4%) ethnic groups compared to that among White ethnicities (79.8%).
• Acral lentiginous melanomas were less likely to get urgent suspected cancer pathway referrals than overall melanoma (40.1% vs 44.6%; P < .001) and more likely to be diagnosed late than overall melanoma (stage I/II at diagnosis; 72% vs 80%; P < .0001).

IN PRACTICE:

"The findings emphasise the need for better, targeted ethnicity data collection strategies to address incidence, outcomes and health care equity for not just skin cancer but all health conditions in underserved populations," the authors wrote. "While projects like the Global Burden of Disease have improved global health care reporting, continuous audit and improvement of collected data are essential to provide better care across people of all ethnicities."

SOURCE:

This study was led by Shehnaz Ahmed, British Association of Dermatologists, London, England. It was published online on September 10, 2025, in the British Journal of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Census data collection after every 10 years could have contributed to inaccurate population estimates and incidence rates. Small sample sizes in certain ethnic groups could have led to potential confounders, requiring a cautious interpretation of relative incidence. The NHS data included only self-reported ethnicity data with no available details of skin phototypes, skin tones, or racial ancestry. This study lacked granular ethnicity census data and stage data for basal cell carcinoma, cutaneous small cell carcinoma, and Kaposi sarcoma.

DISCLOSURES:

This research was supported through a partnership between the British Association of Dermatologists and NHS England's National Disease Registration Service. Two authors reported being employees of the British Association of Dermatologists.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The incidence of skin cancer in England varied by ethnicity: White individuals had higher rates of melanoma, cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma, and basal cell carcinoma than Asian or Black individuals. In contrast, acral lentiginous melanoma was most common among Black individuals, whereas cutaneous T-cell lymphoma and Kaposi sarcoma were highest among those in the "Other" ethnic group.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analysed all cases of cutaneous melanoma (melanoma and acral lentiginous melanoma), basal cell carcinoma, cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma, cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, and Kaposi sarcoma using data from the NHS National Disease Registration Service cancer registry between 2013 and 2020.
• Data collection incorporated ethnicity information from multiple health care datasets, including Clinical Outcomes and Services Dataset, Patient Administration System, Radiotherapy Dataset, Diagnostic Imaging Dataset, and Hospital Episode Statistics.
• A population analysis categorised patients into 7 standardised ethnic groups (on the basis of Office for National Statistics classifications): White, Asian, Chinese, Black, mixed, other, and unknown groups, with ethnicity data being self-reported by patients.
• Outcomes included European age-standardised rates calculated using the 2013 European Standard Population and reported per 100,000 person-years (PYs).

TAKEAWAY:

• White Individuals had 13-fold higher rates of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (61.75 per 100,000 PYs), 26-fold and 27-fold higher rates of basal cell carcinoma (153.69 per 100,000 PYs), and 33-fold and 16-fold higher rates of cutaneous melanoma (27.29 per 100,000 PYs) than Asian and Black individuals, respectively.
• Black individuals had the highest incidence of acral lentiginous melanoma (0.85 per 100,000 PYs), and those in the other ethnic group had the highest incidence of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (1.74 per 100,000 PYs) and Kaposi sarcoma (1.57 per 100,000 PYs).
• The presentation of early-stage melanoma was low among Asian (53.5%), Black (62.4%), mixed (62.5%), and other (76.4%) ethnic groups compared to that among White ethnicities (79.8%).
• Acral lentiginous melanomas were less likely to get urgent suspected cancer pathway referrals than overall melanoma (40.1% vs 44.6%; P < .001) and more likely to be diagnosed late than overall melanoma (stage I/II at diagnosis; 72% vs 80%; P < .0001).

IN PRACTICE:

"The findings emphasise the need for better, targeted ethnicity data collection strategies to address incidence, outcomes and health care equity for not just skin cancer but all health conditions in underserved populations," the authors wrote. "While projects like the Global Burden of Disease have improved global health care reporting, continuous audit and improvement of collected data are essential to provide better care across people of all ethnicities."

SOURCE:

This study was led by Shehnaz Ahmed, British Association of Dermatologists, London, England. It was published online on September 10, 2025, in the British Journal of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Census data collection after every 10 years could have contributed to inaccurate population estimates and incidence rates. Small sample sizes in certain ethnic groups could have led to potential confounders, requiring a cautious interpretation of relative incidence. The NHS data included only self-reported ethnicity data with no available details of skin phototypes, skin tones, or racial ancestry. This study lacked granular ethnicity census data and stage data for basal cell carcinoma, cutaneous small cell carcinoma, and Kaposi sarcoma.

DISCLOSURES:

This research was supported through a partnership between the British Association of Dermatologists and NHS England's National Disease Registration Service. Two authors reported being employees of the British Association of Dermatologists.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The incidence of skin cancer in England varied by ethnicity: White individuals had higher rates of melanoma, cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma, and basal cell carcinoma than Asian or Black individuals. In contrast, acral lentiginous melanoma was most common among Black individuals, whereas cutaneous T-cell lymphoma and Kaposi sarcoma were highest among those in the "Other" ethnic group.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analysed all cases of cutaneous melanoma (melanoma and acral lentiginous melanoma), basal cell carcinoma, cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma, cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, and Kaposi sarcoma using data from the NHS National Disease Registration Service cancer registry between 2013 and 2020.
• Data collection incorporated ethnicity information from multiple health care datasets, including Clinical Outcomes and Services Dataset, Patient Administration System, Radiotherapy Dataset, Diagnostic Imaging Dataset, and Hospital Episode Statistics.
• A population analysis categorised patients into 7 standardised ethnic groups (on the basis of Office for National Statistics classifications): White, Asian, Chinese, Black, mixed, other, and unknown groups, with ethnicity data being self-reported by patients.
• Outcomes included European age-standardised rates calculated using the 2013 European Standard Population and reported per 100,000 person-years (PYs).

TAKEAWAY:

• White Individuals had 13-fold higher rates of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (61.75 per 100,000 PYs), 26-fold and 27-fold higher rates of basal cell carcinoma (153.69 per 100,000 PYs), and 33-fold and 16-fold higher rates of cutaneous melanoma (27.29 per 100,000 PYs) than Asian and Black individuals, respectively.
• Black individuals had the highest incidence of acral lentiginous melanoma (0.85 per 100,000 PYs), and those in the other ethnic group had the highest incidence of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (1.74 per 100,000 PYs) and Kaposi sarcoma (1.57 per 100,000 PYs).
• The presentation of early-stage melanoma was low among Asian (53.5%), Black (62.4%), mixed (62.5%), and other (76.4%) ethnic groups compared to that among White ethnicities (79.8%).
• Acral lentiginous melanomas were less likely to get urgent suspected cancer pathway referrals than overall melanoma (40.1% vs 44.6%; P < .001) and more likely to be diagnosed late than overall melanoma (stage I/II at diagnosis; 72% vs 80%; P < .0001).

IN PRACTICE:

"The findings emphasise the need for better, targeted ethnicity data collection strategies to address incidence, outcomes and health care equity for not just skin cancer but all health conditions in underserved populations," the authors wrote. "While projects like the Global Burden of Disease have improved global health care reporting, continuous audit and improvement of collected data are essential to provide better care across people of all ethnicities."

SOURCE:

This study was led by Shehnaz Ahmed, British Association of Dermatologists, London, England. It was published online on September 10, 2025, in the British Journal of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Census data collection after every 10 years could have contributed to inaccurate population estimates and incidence rates. Small sample sizes in certain ethnic groups could have led to potential confounders, requiring a cautious interpretation of relative incidence. The NHS data included only self-reported ethnicity data with no available details of skin phototypes, skin tones, or racial ancestry. This study lacked granular ethnicity census data and stage data for basal cell carcinoma, cutaneous small cell carcinoma, and Kaposi sarcoma.

DISCLOSURES:

This research was supported through a partnership between the British Association of Dermatologists and NHS England's National Disease Registration Service. Two authors reported being employees of the British Association of Dermatologists.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Compared with inactive patterns, weekend warrior (moderate-to-vigorous physical activity [MVPA] condensed into 1-2 days per week) and regular physical activity patterns were found to be equally effective at reducing the risk for lung cancer. Neither pattern showed significant associations with the overall risk for cancer or specific risks for prostate, breast, and colorectal cancers.

METHODOLOGY:

• This analysis included 80,896 participants (mean age, 55.5 years; 56% women) with valid accelerometer data collected between June 2013 and December 2015.
• Participants were classified into three groups: 32,213 active weekend warriors (≥ 150 minutes of weekly MVPA with ≥ 50% achieved in 1-2 days), 22,162 active regular participants (≥ 150 minutes of MVPA but not meeting a weekend warrior pattern), and 26,521 inactive participants (< 150 minutes of MVPA).
• Researchers tracked associations between physical activity patterns and incident cases of all types of cancer plus specific cases of prostate, breast, colorectal, and lung cancer over a median follow-up duration of 6 years.

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with inactive patterns, active weekend warrior patterns showed a significant inverse association with the risk for lung cancer (hazard ratio [HR], 0.77; 95% CI, 0.61-0.98).
• Active regular activity patterns demonstrated similar protective effects against lung cancer as inactive patterns (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.56-0.96).
• Neither of the physical activity patterns showed any significant association with the overall risk for cancer or specific risks for prostate, breast, and colorectal cancers.

IN PRACTICE:

"Physical activity condensed into one to two days per week compared with a more balanced weekly distribution was associated with similar risk reductions of incident lung cancer, while neither pattern was associated with reduced overall, prostate, breast, and colorectal cancers," the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Rubén López-Bueno, Department of Physical Medicine and Nursing, University of Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain. It was published online on September 06, 2025, in Annals of Medicine.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Compared with inactive patterns, weekend warrior (moderate-to-vigorous physical activity [MVPA] condensed into 1-2 days per week) and regular physical activity patterns were found to be equally effective at reducing the risk for lung cancer. Neither pattern showed significant associations with the overall risk for cancer or specific risks for prostate, breast, and colorectal cancers.

METHODOLOGY:

• This analysis included 80,896 participants (mean age, 55.5 years; 56% women) with valid accelerometer data collected between June 2013 and December 2015.
• Participants were classified into three groups: 32,213 active weekend warriors (≥ 150 minutes of weekly MVPA with ≥ 50% achieved in 1-2 days), 22,162 active regular participants (≥ 150 minutes of MVPA but not meeting a weekend warrior pattern), and 26,521 inactive participants (< 150 minutes of MVPA).
• Researchers tracked associations between physical activity patterns and incident cases of all types of cancer plus specific cases of prostate, breast, colorectal, and lung cancer over a median follow-up duration of 6 years.

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with inactive patterns, active weekend warrior patterns showed a significant inverse association with the risk for lung cancer (hazard ratio [HR], 0.77; 95% CI, 0.61-0.98).
• Active regular activity patterns demonstrated similar protective effects against lung cancer as inactive patterns (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.56-0.96).
• Neither of the physical activity patterns showed any significant association with the overall risk for cancer or specific risks for prostate, breast, and colorectal cancers.

IN PRACTICE:

"Physical activity condensed into one to two days per week compared with a more balanced weekly distribution was associated with similar risk reductions of incident lung cancer, while neither pattern was associated with reduced overall, prostate, breast, and colorectal cancers," the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Rubén López-Bueno, Department of Physical Medicine and Nursing, University of Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain. It was published online on September 06, 2025, in Annals of Medicine.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Compared with inactive patterns, weekend warrior (moderate-to-vigorous physical activity [MVPA] condensed into 1-2 days per week) and regular physical activity patterns were found to be equally effective at reducing the risk for lung cancer. Neither pattern showed significant associations with the overall risk for cancer or specific risks for prostate, breast, and colorectal cancers.

METHODOLOGY:

• This analysis included 80,896 participants (mean age, 55.5 years; 56% women) with valid accelerometer data collected between June 2013 and December 2015.
• Participants were classified into three groups: 32,213 active weekend warriors (≥ 150 minutes of weekly MVPA with ≥ 50% achieved in 1-2 days), 22,162 active regular participants (≥ 150 minutes of MVPA but not meeting a weekend warrior pattern), and 26,521 inactive participants (< 150 minutes of MVPA).
• Researchers tracked associations between physical activity patterns and incident cases of all types of cancer plus specific cases of prostate, breast, colorectal, and lung cancer over a median follow-up duration of 6 years.

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with inactive patterns, active weekend warrior patterns showed a significant inverse association with the risk for lung cancer (hazard ratio [HR], 0.77; 95% CI, 0.61-0.98).
• Active regular activity patterns demonstrated similar protective effects against lung cancer as inactive patterns (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.56-0.96).
• Neither of the physical activity patterns showed any significant association with the overall risk for cancer or specific risks for prostate, breast, and colorectal cancers.

IN PRACTICE:

"Physical activity condensed into one to two days per week compared with a more balanced weekly distribution was associated with similar risk reductions of incident lung cancer, while neither pattern was associated with reduced overall, prostate, breast, and colorectal cancers," the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Rubén López-Bueno, Department of Physical Medicine and Nursing, University of Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain. It was published online on September 06, 2025, in Annals of Medicine.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The number of US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) hospitals receiving high scores in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) annual survey of quality measures is on the rise.

In 2023, VA hospitals became eligible to receive Overall Hospital Quality Star Ratings from the survey. In 2025, the survey covered 4609 hospitals (VA and non-VA). CMS analyzed 45 hospital quality measures across 5 different groups: mortality, safety of care, readmission, patient experience, and timely and effective care. The better the performance in these areas, the higher the star rating.

In the current ratings, 77% of surveyed VA hospitals earned 4- or 5-star ratings, a double digit increase over the previous 2 years (67% in 2023 and 58% in 2024). No VA hospitals received a 1-star rating, and > 90% of VA hospitals that received ratings maintained or improved on their 2024 mark. 

“These ratings highlight the excellent care VA hospitals provide,” VA Secretary Doug Collins said. “Our job is to continue raising the bar for customer service and convenience throughout the department, so VA works better for the Veterans, families, caregivers and survivors we are charged with serving.”

According to a report from the Advisory Board, fewer hospitals are receiving 5-star ratings than ever, possibly due to the COVID-19 pandemic. According to CMS, of all the hospitals that received a rating, 291 earned 5 stars, 90 fewer than in 2024. At the same time, the number of hospitals with 1-star ratings dropped slightly, from 277 in 2024 to 233 in 2025.

The VA publishes its own data on its medical centers. VA Core Hospital Measures have been available from the Joint Commission since 2005. Additional performance measures, including safety, effectiveness, efficiency, timeliness, patient centeredness, and equity, have been published by the VA since 2008. In 2010, the VA began reporting on Hospital Compare, which has information about the quality of care at > 4000 Medicare-certified hospitals, including > 130 VA medical centers and > 50 military hospitals.

The number of US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) hospitals receiving high scores in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) annual survey of quality measures is on the rise.

In 2023, VA hospitals became eligible to receive Overall Hospital Quality Star Ratings from the survey. In 2025, the survey covered 4609 hospitals (VA and non-VA). CMS analyzed 45 hospital quality measures across 5 different groups: mortality, safety of care, readmission, patient experience, and timely and effective care. The better the performance in these areas, the higher the star rating.

In the current ratings, 77% of surveyed VA hospitals earned 4- or 5-star ratings, a double digit increase over the previous 2 years (67% in 2023 and 58% in 2024). No VA hospitals received a 1-star rating, and > 90% of VA hospitals that received ratings maintained or improved on their 2024 mark. 

“These ratings highlight the excellent care VA hospitals provide,” VA Secretary Doug Collins said. “Our job is to continue raising the bar for customer service and convenience throughout the department, so VA works better for the Veterans, families, caregivers and survivors we are charged with serving.”

According to a report from the Advisory Board, fewer hospitals are receiving 5-star ratings than ever, possibly due to the COVID-19 pandemic. According to CMS, of all the hospitals that received a rating, 291 earned 5 stars, 90 fewer than in 2024. At the same time, the number of hospitals with 1-star ratings dropped slightly, from 277 in 2024 to 233 in 2025.

The VA publishes its own data on its medical centers. VA Core Hospital Measures have been available from the Joint Commission since 2005. Additional performance measures, including safety, effectiveness, efficiency, timeliness, patient centeredness, and equity, have been published by the VA since 2008. In 2010, the VA began reporting on Hospital Compare, which has information about the quality of care at > 4000 Medicare-certified hospitals, including > 130 VA medical centers and > 50 military hospitals.

The number of US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) hospitals receiving high scores in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) annual survey of quality measures is on the rise.

In 2023, VA hospitals became eligible to receive Overall Hospital Quality Star Ratings from the survey. In 2025, the survey covered 4609 hospitals (VA and non-VA). CMS analyzed 45 hospital quality measures across 5 different groups: mortality, safety of care, readmission, patient experience, and timely and effective care. The better the performance in these areas, the higher the star rating.

In the current ratings, 77% of surveyed VA hospitals earned 4- or 5-star ratings, a double digit increase over the previous 2 years (67% in 2023 and 58% in 2024). No VA hospitals received a 1-star rating, and > 90% of VA hospitals that received ratings maintained or improved on their 2024 mark. 

“These ratings highlight the excellent care VA hospitals provide,” VA Secretary Doug Collins said. “Our job is to continue raising the bar for customer service and convenience throughout the department, so VA works better for the Veterans, families, caregivers and survivors we are charged with serving.”

According to a report from the Advisory Board, fewer hospitals are receiving 5-star ratings than ever, possibly due to the COVID-19 pandemic. According to CMS, of all the hospitals that received a rating, 291 earned 5 stars, 90 fewer than in 2024. At the same time, the number of hospitals with 1-star ratings dropped slightly, from 277 in 2024 to 233 in 2025.

The VA publishes its own data on its medical centers. VA Core Hospital Measures have been available from the Joint Commission since 2005. Additional performance measures, including safety, effectiveness, efficiency, timeliness, patient centeredness, and equity, have been published by the VA since 2008. In 2010, the VA began reporting on Hospital Compare, which has information about the quality of care at > 4000 Medicare-certified hospitals, including > 130 VA medical centers and > 50 military hospitals.